First time poster. Hi, everyone.
So, I have been reading a great deal about Conflict Resolution, IIEE and related concepts of late, and also I have been thinking about Dogs in the vineyard, and specifically how in charcater generation, Growth is portrayed - the player plays the charcater as he was before he grew (or failed to grow) and the conflict plays out where, if he wins, he fails to grow as a person (which is, of course, still an interesting outcome).
This got me to thinking - could an RPG be made entirely out of one persons growth or failure to do so, with the players, instead of portraying individual beings, each playing elements of one guys character?
I envisaged literal conflicts being played out between one player who is the Libido, say, and another being Shame - with the winner getting to dictate what the conflicted character actually does.
Then I immediately rubbished the idea as sillym, thinking that limiting players to the portrayal of merely an "element" of personality as being too limited to make for enjoyable game play.
However, the idea still niggled at me, so I wanted to stick it up somewhere for others to gawk at. So, here I am.
Heya,
Quote from: Thomas Lawrence on September 05, 2006, 08:14:35 AM
First time poster. Hi, everyone.
So, I have been reading a great deal about Conflict Resolution, IIEE and related concepts of late, and also I have been thinking about Dogs in the vineyard, and specifically how in charcater generation, Growth is portrayed - the player plays the charcater as he was before he grew (or failed to grow) and the conflict plays out where, if he wins, he fails to grow as a person (which is, of course, still an interesting outcome).
This got me to thinking - could an RPG be made entirely out of one persons growth or failure to do so, with the players, instead of portraying individual beings, each playing elements of one guys character?
I envisaged literal conflicts being played out between one player who is the Libido, say, and another being Shame - with the winner getting to dictate what the conflicted character actually does.
Then I immediately rubbished the idea as sillym, thinking that limiting players to the portrayal of merely an "element" of personality as being too limited to make for enjoyable game play.
However, the idea still niggled at me, so I wanted to stick it up somewhere for others to gawk at. So, here I am.
Yes! Definately! Check out This Post (http://www.lumpley.com/comment.php?entry=158) by Vincent Baker. It got a little contentious at times, but it has some stuff that directly addresses your idea. Also, check out the game Polaris by Ben Lehman if you can. That might help you get some ideas also.
Peace,
-Troy
Wow, that really is an astonsihingly good theread. Thanks! Much food for thought.
Hi Thomas,
I think it's a fine idea (and I have a couple of notes on something similar knocking around, myself). You may be interested in checking out Guy Shalev's Cranium Rats (http://craniumrats.pbwiki.com/), wherein you play metaphysical concepts as they express themselves in one characters life.
Hope that helps!