thread: 2006-05-25 : System and character sole-ownership
On 2006-05-30, Vincent wrote:
Roger: I agree.
Sarah: I agree.
Charles: It is worth noting that it has seemed to be much easier to come up with examples of games that radically restructured control over characters, such that character ownership becomes a non-issue, or traditional ownership styles (1 player per character has final say on all internal intent and back story questions), than it is to come up with games that retain something like traditional ownership, but add in an element of mixed ownership over certain aspects of the character (as Vincent has talked about finding interesting). That these imagined games largely don't exist raises the issue of why, and of how will they differ from either of the two dominant methods of handling character coherency authority.
I don't see it that way. I see overwhelmingly mixed ownership, across the hobby.
Check it: the most serious tool I know for character co-ownership is "really?" In every game I've ever played - probably really every single game - if you say "my character feels [x]" and I say "really?" then a) I expect you to think about it and possibly reconsider, and b) I'm totally within my rights to have done so.
So, I say "really?" and you're like, "yeah, on account of blah blah," and I'm like, "huh, okay." You've totally answered to me for your character's internal state. If you really owned it, you wouldn't have to put up with my meddling.
Furthermore, in terms of textual support, far more common than the 1-player-1-character arrangement you describe is the arrangement where the GM and I share responsibilty for my character's integrity between us.
This makes CS go "re-read, if you please"
Vincent,
If you re-read the passage that you quoted in its context, and look at how it relates to the question of why Sarah and Levi's conversation was relevant, I think that you will see that you're response is in no way a counter-argument to what I wrote.
Not that it matters, I'm happy enough to just spring off of what you wrote, but when I realized that your response was framed as a rebuttal it just puzzled me to no end.
This makes VB go "very fair."
I even have further backpedaling to do.
This makes CS go "thanks!"
No back pedalling necessary, and I can see how my short-handing of "traditional ownership styles" could have been mis-read.
