?

Log in

No account? Create an account
March 2017   01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

The Cycle of Theory

Posted by mashugenah on 2008.07.24 at 21:24

Comments:


Matt Cowens
mattcowens at 2008-07-24 21:33 (UTC) (Link)
I found my experiences of playing Prime Time Adventures really interesting in making me reconsider character motivation. Having my character's decisions and actions taken out of my hands at moments of conflict forced me to work out why the character I had in my head would do the things that my losing conflicts forced him to do.

It was nice in two ways:

- increased the gap between my decision making process and the character's (the character was less me dressed up in metaphorical costume)
- forced me to reevaluate the character during play, coming up with new layers or depths to explain the pattern of behaviours.

It led to more complex characters, but not ones I had any less fun playing.

Having to contribute to other players' characters' actions and decisions (in big ways like weighing in on one side of a conflict and little ways like framing scenes for the characters to push them into situations I wanted to see played out) was a very inclusive experience. It forced me to be involved and engaged with every character's story (even when characters were split up, in conflict with each other etc).
Sidestepping Life
jarratt_gray at 2008-07-24 22:26 (UTC) (Link)
Though I think immersive play can lead to the best roleplaying you need to be aware that other people are playing too and don't let the character take control in a way that isn't inclusive. If one can create a situation where players can immerse into their characters for scenes and step back out between it could be helpful.
mashugenah
mashugenah at 2008-07-25 09:33 (UTC) (Link)
Having my character's decisions and actions taken out of my hands at moments of conflict forced me to work out why the character I had in my head would do the things that my losing conflicts forced him to do.

This seems incredible to me. That you should basically have to post-facto rationalize your character behaving out-of-character... and think of this as a good way of exploring that character. Can you expand on your explanation? Because to me this sounds like basically an excercise of internalized "spin", rather than an genuine exploration of character.

It led to more complex characters, but not ones I had any less fun playing.

But would I be correct in inferring that these characters were much less "immersive"?
Matt Cowens
mattcowens at 2008-07-25 18:09 (UTC) (Link)
Because the other players in the game were aware of all my character's previous actions, we were setting up two outcomes that were plausible, one of which my character would have desired, and another one (often the opposite). Often this was expoilting an existing character weakness or motivation (issue in PTA). An example:

My character is on a burning roof, and there's a little kid in peril there. The conflict is whether my (previously cowardly) character attempts to save the little kid, or simply saves his own skin. I would like my character to do something brave for a change, but the GM decides it would be interesting to see my character's cowardice have a disastrous outcome (to feed future story/character). Both decisions are 'in character', but one is my preferred option.

Both decisions equally lead to consequences and further character choices and immersive roleplaying opportunities.

Interestingly from recall in PTA the other players sided with the GM (wanting to see the characters suffer or explore the option that was less noble) as often as supporting characters doing the 'right thing'. The other players being able to contribute to plot direction made it very inclusive.

If the GM set up a particularly tangential or OOC outcome to a conflict that would be for suck. It didn't happen that way any times I can recall - and the game had intense moments of immersion.
mashugenah
mashugenah at 2008-07-25 22:42 (UTC) (Link)
ah, I see. Thanks, it makes sense now. :)
Previous Entry  Next Entry