thread: 2006-05-25 : System and character sole-ownership
On 2006-05-31, Charles wrote:
Vincent,
Yeah, the "really?" clause is what I'm calling the secondary gatekeeper role, or the right to call "bullshit." The "really?" rule is a broader form of it (and a softer form of it), but not a hugely broader form. It is also a less expansive relative of the procedure I described of actually providing a guessed motive, which the nominally owning player is given some motivation to incorporate into the character.
However, the "really?" rule doesn't violate the 1 player - 1 character rule, in that the nominal character owner is expected to come up with some form of explanation, but generally is not required to come up with some form of explanation, and the player asking "really?" is taking a major step (into the calling "bullshit" rule) if they reject the offered explaination (or even refusal to explain - "trust me" or "yes, really" is generally a minimally satisfactory response to "really?" in my experience). Also, the "really?" rule is entirely a gate keeper rule, not an active shared ownership rule. The step from being able to challenge or reject another player's declaration concerning the character they nominally own to being able to speak for that character is a fairly sizable one.
GM participation in active character ownership is certainly a form of shared ownership. It would be interesting to work out what the range of GM shared ownership options are (in traditional play), and how they relate to expectations of the GM - player relationship (in terms of adversity, collaboration, opposition, world creation, etc).
GM's certainly frequently have the authority to create backstory for PCs to some degree (most often in relation to creating aspects of the character's relationships to NPCs), and have some power to specify reactions (wihtin some range, and often with the player having some degree of right of refusal). I'm not sure what other forms of shared ownership they usually get.
