thread: 2006-05-25 : System and character sole-ownership
On 2006-05-29, TonyLB wrote:
"What would it mean if?"
That's my usual question when I think about suddenly taking a character in a -radically- new direction on short notice. For instance "What would it mean if Vanessa sided with the demon-lizards and tried to kill you all now?"
If people say (or I predict they would say) "Uh ... that wouldn't mean anything, that's just stupid," then there's no value. But often, my fellow players say "That would mean ... uh ... OH MY GOD! It's so obvious! She's been playing us the whole time!" and then we can go with it.
Which is to say that while there are many models-of-a-person which are clearly invalid, at the same time there are many radically different models that are all acceptable. Broken cars are broken, but that doesn't mean you can't refit a VW Bug to do stock-car racing.
BUT ... if you want the Bug so that you can go out and get groceries, and your husband turns it into a stock car with no trunk space and a five point harness ... that has not violated the integrity of the car, but it has nonetheless reduced its value to you. It's no longer as good a tool for the things that you wanted it for. And Evil-Vanessa is still a character with a great deal of integrity, but if you wanted to use her as a hero then she's no longer as good a tool for the things you wanted her for.
I have never (well, not for decades, anyway) seen somebody break a character, either deliberately or accidentally, such that nobody could believe in it any more. I have often seen people change a character, both deliberately and accidentally, such that other players could no longer use that character as a tool to pursue their own goals.
Sidenote: I have seen those short-changed players complain, in a small but telling minority of such cases, that the character is "no longer believable," but I think that is mostly a rhetorical shot that they fire because they don't know how to put words to the actual outrage that they have.
This makes TLB go "... and by the way ..."
This underlines the illusion of character ownership ... in a game where you have no power to use someone else's character as a tool, you'll have no plans for what you want to use them to do. So nobody can disappoint you by changing the character: it didn't start as a tool for you, it doesn't end as a tool for you, no harm no foul.
This makes LBK go "I've seen it, though not often."
Specifically, I've seen a couple of players do it not that long ago in D&D while pursuing a "better build". That doesn't really invalidate what you're saying, but just to say, it does happen.
This makes LP go "I've seen it."
Mind, this was generally when dealing with someone who had serious health issues, and had genuinely forgot what had been established before.
