The Party Hydra, Bearing Witness, and Let Me Tell You About My Character : comments.
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
|
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
| 14 |
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Nope. Sorcerer play, for example, is N-1 different stories about N-1 different protagonists, where N is the number of players (there is one GM, hence the N-1), all totally the focus of their own stories. In terms of the players, out of game, you're going to watch different players being the focus of different scenes, with other player's characters often not even present at all. They are all going to be interested in each other's scene, hopefully, because:
1) Watching protagonists in action is interesting.
2) The stories are all overlapping and occupying the same space and relating the same people, like maybe a group of short stories in the same setting.
It's hard for me to imagine a game where this sort of protagonisting is happening more than a certain percentage of the time, at least without it losing impact, and without the game losing a lot of the other things that make RPGs and the stories they create interesting and fun, namely, interaction between PCs.
I find it pretty fun.
How do you determine when a game has something to do with this discussion -- how do you judge when protagonisting is the 'point of play'?
This is a sticky wicket, especially in terms of play. I say "When having everyone contribute to a good story arc comes before anything else." If that comes before that vibe you get about "being" a character, or winning the game, or making people laugh, or making other people like you by helping out their characters, then I would say it counts. In Forge terms, this is a very rough description of Narrativist play. (I also think that this applies to Gamism, but I haven't proved that yet, and it isn't what we seem to be talking about).
In terms of game texts, it is often much easier. Sorcerer cannot be about character immersion -- you, as a player, must design conflict for your own character. You, as a player, know everything about other PC's storylines, even if you have never met. PrimeTime Adventures cannot be about character immersion -- the game is like writing a TV show. As examples.
Is this a little clearer now?
yrs--
--Ben
(no subject)
I suppose it may just be a point of personal preference that I would be unhappy not to see the various storylines finally intersect. I am typically annoyed by books that spend too long going back and forth between different characters' stories that are truly separate. Using different characters perspectives/stories to tell non-overlapping but complementary parts of a greater story (Song of Ice and Fire, mostly) is fine; but that might be harder to do in a game than in a novel, and does that reduce protagonistry?
My reading and gaming experience has led me to expect, when I am introduced to characters and arcs that start out separate, that they will eventually come together within the course of the greater storyline. I suppose that in a 'shared world' book of short stories, that doesn't happen; but I can't think of an example where in that case the individual story arcs do not complete before switching to another.
The answer may just be 'RPGs are different, so none of that matters.' I consider it here to try to identify why this model of continually-distinct protagonist storylines seems odd and vaguely dissatisfying to me -- it all feels like lead-in to something requiring human interaction between characters that all matter.
(no subject)
But yeah. Tying things together into a satisfying arc is key to the whole deal.
Also, I wanted to clarify that not all parties turn into hydras. To take some examples from shared games we've seen -- Flicker had a party, but it wasn't a hydra. Earthdawn is a party which is a hydra.
yrs--
--Ben
(no subject)