Group player ownership of all PC's

[Callan S.]

This is from 'Players never have a "free choice"' http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=10707&start=15&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=

No character is the sole ownership of any one player.  

I would agree with this part anyway. Its one of the principle reasons I've railed against deep immersion as inherently selfish play.

It is the sole vehicle of play for the player,  

This part I wouldn't agree with, but I think perhaps you don't mean exactly what is written here. In my view, since no character is the sole ownership of any one player (but rather all players at the table have a vested interest in all characters---or should), then all characters serve as a vehicle to transport all players.

I'd never actually thought deep immersion play could be selfish and the suggestion of it is really interesting to me. The related idea of all characters being one vehicle (am I right in thinking of it as one vehicle, not several smaller ones?) to transport all players is fascinating and a new idea to me as well.

I wish I could formulate some questions, but I can't seem to. I need a bit more information. I'd like to hear some more railing by Ralph or anyone on this, or some links to previous stuff.

[Rob Carriere]

I'd like to hear some more railing by Ralph or anyone on this, or some links to previous stuff.

Motion seconded.

SR
--

[FredGarber]

OK.  Generic Ranting about this from somebody.  

In a group with a players vs. GM , which is a standard design element in most published RPGs, the GM is expected to determine the total Effectiveness of the characters, and scale Encounters accordingly for satisfying RP.

So I, as a player, have a vested interest in keeping the characters of my fellow players Effective.  If one character drifts away, he weakens the group, and therefore endangers my character.  If my character engages in activities which actively harm/inconvenience my fellow characters, then I have decreased our total Effectiveness, and should be curbed by the group for my antisocial behavior.

Lots of "Fellowship," and "Brotherhood of Arms" and all that.

If all I, as a player, care about is my own character, and I don't take into effect that my actions will have upon the Party (or the Fellowship between members of my party) then I have broken our Social Contract.

Now, this element of Fellowship in the Social Contract is often assumed by the design of many games (such as D20), and there are acres of text dedicated to how a group becomes disfunctional when one player monopolizes the GM, or is a problem player in some other way for the group, and the inderlying assumption is that the group matters in some way.

Note the Standard Geek Social Mythology: If I enjoy doing something, and others enjoy doing it too, then we must be friends.  Since Gamers, as a class of people, were/are ostracised as teenagers, then we must not ostracise anyone who self-identifies as a gamer, lest we be as Evil As The Jocks.  There exists a Brotherhood of Arms amongst fighting men that overcomes all social distinctions and mores, or so says the Church of John Carter of Mars.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, despite my flippant and perjorative phrasing.  There is cameraderie amongst military units, there is something to be said for group acceptance, and social skills are necessary, but individuality makes for a full life. Whew.

[BPetroff93]

Well, I'll throw my 2 cents in.  This idea isn't really that new.  I was first exposed to it in Ars Magica and I think some of the older guys can probably point out games in the 70's-early 80's that used this concept.  If you think about it, there was really nothing in RPG's that said you had to use complete actor stance immersion until, like, the early 90's.  Then it became, "The right way to role-play." I like to blame White Wolf for most of this, but that isn't totally fair, even if deserving.  

Looking for group protagonization of characters you can really go two different ways: troupe style or co-authoring.  In troupe style everybody in the RPG group shares a pool of characters from which they draw.  You could have mechanics for who gets what character when, or just wing it.  Ars Magica supports a certain type of troop play, as does Universalis to my understanding, although I've yet to play it.  

In co-authoring play is "standard" but players are encouraged to work together to protagonize all characters.  This is actually natural.  We do it instinctivly ALL the time; give suggestions to your friends, ask for advice and work together.  After all, the main goal is the STORY and it's the group's job to make it rock, the characters are the tools to get there.

I think this is closely related to the "Big Lie Before Breakfast," which is a style of play that is natural of Computer games but is not for table top RPG's.

[Ron Edwards]

Big high five to Brendan; I don't have much to add beyond his points.

Best,
Ron

[BPetroff93]

Hey Fred, Welcome to the Forge.  I don't think that's exactly what we are talking about.  My understanding is that we are not talking about a concern with your character's effectivness relative to the rest of the party, or the effectiveness of the party as a whole, we are talking about ownership.  Who, in essance, OWNS a character and their actions.

One can always be concerned about the fate of other characters because of social contract.  After all you are playing with your friends and you want them to be having a good time.  At least I hope you do :) But this goes a little beyond that.  

In gamist play one may be concerned with the loss of a fellow character because it will decrease overall party effectivness, so group ownership could be seen as a way of increasing tactical ability.  However, competition between members of the group would be dimminished, so this may or may not be the prefered method of play for this creative agenda.  

In simulation oriented play, the immersion may be dimminished by group ownership, as each player wishes to imagine himself in the shared imaginatory space.  However, the group as a whole is responsible for maintaning the shared imaginative space so everyone must be mindful of that in their actions.

Narritivist play is supported by shared ownership.  Since the goal is addressing premise, each character is a tool used to create that goal.  Since premise is group defined the whole group must take some degree of responisbility for all characters.

[Callan S.]

Interesting. What if you consider the GM as merely another player who has been granted (by the other players) more GM like power than the rest of them. This would mean he is part of this group ownership of PC's as he is a player too?

Likewise, as a fellow player, the world he runs like a PC, would that be part of the group ownership amongst all?

Certainly this resounds with some theory I've seen around here, but from perhaps a different approach angle.

EDIT: Also, the original idea suggest group ownership of PC's. Which means you could have 3 PC's and 4 players (or more) and technically as they are group owned, there is no problem with this (though at a pratical level you wouldn't because we agree one PC can only do so much at a time, so to avoid queing you may as well make more PC's)

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

What if you consider the GM as merely another player who has been granted (by the other players) more GM like power than the rest of them. This would mean he is part of this group ownership of PC's as he is a player too?

Likewise, as a fellow player, the world he runs like a PC, would that be part of the group ownership amongst all?

Yes and yes. Both of these topics have been discussed in great detail here at the Forge. You can see my version of the conclusions in the discussion of "GMing tasks" in the essay called Narrativism: Story Now.

I do recommend taking some time to consider what you really mean by the word "ownership." It can mean many, many things, and I bet we'll all get into a tangle if we continue this discussion without working strictly from whatever definition you have in mind. So if you would, let us know what you mean by it and we'll stick with that for this thread.

Best,
Ron

[Callan S.]

Ullo,

Well I started the post asking questions, so consider my use of the word 'ownership' in a hypothetical way and quite open to anyone else to say 'well, if you mean ownership in X way, then...'.

Basically I'm asking questions and aware that even elements of my questions may need to be answered/filled in before the question can be itself.

But at the time I wrote it I meant ownership to be something like everyone in the group owning this or that SIS object to some degree or share. Of course it might be agreed someone owns more, less or equal, but everyones got a share. I mean, I'd already thought that basically players own some share of all SIS objects, even if they don't intend to and only think the GM does for X, Y and Z. But the idea of players owning each others PC's is not only suprising and new to me, it also links solidly (I think) to everybody owning a bit of everything.

I'm happy for an idea of what ownership would exactly mean in this case, to be suggested (or a better word suggested if need be). After all, I used the word in more of an effort to get info out of others :)

[Valamir]

Great thread.

I actually think Fred's comment above on effectiveness does tie in well to the concept.  It represents to me a certain gamist approach to the question, and I think is another way in which gamist and narrativist techniques are often very similiar.  If you replace "effectiveness" with "driver of thematic interest" I think the similiarities become clear.


For my part, I view the term "ownership" as being seperate and distinct from "control"  (not that surprising, given that the Forge's definition of indie game publishing is pretty much focused on drawing attention to the fact that these two words are not synonomous).

Ownership in this context for me means "entitled to enjoy the benefits of your character as much as you are entitled to enjoy the benefits of your character, and vice versa".

It doesn't require any sort of pervy mechanics or Universalis style character sharing, or even an Ars Magica style troop approach.  I hold the concept to be a fundamental one in all roleplaying activities even the most traditional.  And it doesn't necessarily conflict with ideas of "being in character", etc.  Its not related to shared control in any way.

What it means for me is recognizing that all players (including the GM) are engaged in an activity of exploring a shared imaginary space.  To do this requires that all players recognize that their connection to the other players and their portrayal of their own characters have an impact on that shared imaginary space.  Most importantly that since the shared imaginary space is, by definition, shared, that their portrayal of their character impacts the enjoyment of all of the other players at the table.

We all thus have a vested interest in every other character at the table because our enjoyment is dependent on everyone.  


Where I find Deep Immersion techniques to be selfish is that they nearly universally place the enjoyment of the deeply immersed player ahead of the enjoyment of the other players at the table.  That to me, is the very definition of a selfish behavior.

In order to engage the interest of the other players at the table, one has to be aware of the interest of the other players at the table.  One has to pay attention to their tells and reactions; one has to account for their goals as players at the table (that doesn't mean one has to always subordinate your goals to theirs, but it does mean you should be aware of them and work to encorporate elements that enhance everyones enjoyment).

To do this effectively, requires a degree of meta awareness.
1)  One has to be paying attention to what's actually going on in the real world amongst real human beings sitting around a table
2)  One has to acknowledge that the enjoyment of all of those people at the table is the primary goal of play.  That "playing in character" is a technique leading to the end of enjoyed play, not and end in itself.
3) and One must be willing to make adjustments to your own portrayal to elevate and enhance the enjoyment of the other players.  That means being willing to sacrifice and compromise even your sacred character for the good of everyone.

Being unwilling to sacrifice or compromise the sacred character is why I call this play selfish.  Surely ones fellow human beings are inherently more valuable than an imaginary person.

Deep Immersion as a style, has trouble with this, because the very goal of deep immersion (to be completely submerged in character) interferes with meta awareness.  The goal of basing every single action that one has  their character perform be completely and exclusively based on ones sole judgement of "what the character would do", leaves little to no room to make adjustments for the betterment of the group; and completely ignores the judgement of the other players as to "what the character would do".  

The whole idea of "I know best how to portray my character, and I don't need to take into account any one elses thoughts on that subject but my own" I find to be an extremely selfish attitude to bring to the table, I liken it to Daffy Duck jumping up and down on his ill gotten loot manically screaming "mine, mine, mine, its all mine".  

I don't find it unusual for people to enjoy a deeply immersive experience.  I'm merely criticising those who place that enjoyment higher than the enjoyment of the other players.

[BPetroff93]

Thanks Ralph! That explained what I was attempting to say, in my second post, much more clearly.  I was also having a bit of a hard time with the application of this concept to sim priorities.  Your post helped.

[FredGarber]

Bingo to all! Yeah, substitute in "ability to address Premise" or "ability to lose myself in the Dream" as "Effectiveness,"  and it works for other CAs, I guess.  Maybe just lowercase "e"ffective would have been better.

2) One has to acknowledge that the enjoyment of all of those people at the table is the primary goal of play. That "playing in character" is a technique leading to the end of enjoyed play, not and end in itself.
3) and One must be willing to make adjustments to your own portrayal to elevate and enhance the enjoyment of the other players. That means being willing to sacrifice and compromise even your sacred character for the good of everyone.

My gaming circle has recently returned to TableTop play after a long stretch of WW LARPing, and both encouraging this and doing this is like forcing our big toes to move after a four year coma.   We've been backstabbers and liars for so long that it's hard to break those habits.

Much of the WW LARP culture I've seen favors Deep Immersion to the point where considering how your character's actions will affect other players is considered "bad roleplay," and in some instances as cheating.  
It's incredibly selfish, and it feeds upon the Impossible Thing Before Breakfast.  

In any case, my discussion skills now tend to assume that the other party is looking at a concept like this and going "what do you mean, I have to let Larry play my character for a while?  He's going to make me do something I don't want to do!  He's going to ruin my character!"  Which is exactly the point, and why that might be a good thing is still a little foreign to my fellow players.

I've been Lurking for about 6 months, and only just started to post once I felt I had enough of a handle to not sound like a fool.  Speaking in "Gamist" is a bad habit, and I'll get over it.

[SrGrvsaLot]

I don't think it's fair to categorize one style of play as selfish without providing some context. What are the rest of the players' expectations about how the game will go and how the group will interact?

For example, when I play a strategy game (like Risk or Civilization), I tend to have more fun when I win then when I lose. On the other hand, in a strictly metagame sense, I would not enjoy it if another player specifically altered his strategy to help me come back from behind. The understanding is of an adversarial relationship between the players. If one of them broke from that understanding, he would essentially be changing the nature of the game, and therefore destroying it. Yes, the individual player's behavior is "selfish," but it also unselfishly promotes the game's larger framework.

Likewise, if I go into a game understanding that Deep Immersion roleplaying is the entire point, then I expect a certain kind of behavior from the other players. I expect them to do exactly what their characters would do. Breaking with that convention for the purpose of helping me out as a player isn't doing me any favors. In fact, it is subverting the shared framework that I entered the game to experience. Sure, I might get more time in the spotlight, but the thrill of being the center of attention is fleeting compared to the broader (and admitedly more frustrating) pleasure of creating a realistic story.

People roleplay for a variety of reasons, and I think it's important to keep that context in mind when discussing the relationship between character actions and group enjoyment.

[John Kim]

Well, this is re-hashing material which I have said before.  Maybe I should make a "standard rant" or essay about this.  

Being unwilling to sacrifice or compromise the sacred character is why I call this play selfish.  Surely ones fellow human beings are inherently more valuable than an imaginary person.  

This is an invalid argument, because any defined style or goal other than just group enjoyment is inherently selfish.  So by the same logic, I can say that Narrativism is inherently selfish, because Narrativists will keep doggedly trying to address moral Premise with their play, even if that interferes with the enjoyment of other players.  Surely one's fellow human beings are more important than moral Premise?  Therefore, functional play is defined by willingness to sacrifice Premise.  

This is true, but irrelevant.  Any style is inherently selfish because it might not be preferred.  But if players are in alignment, they can enjoy the same style.  For example, it is possible for the players to share an enjoyment of addressing Premise.  By the same token, it is possible for players to share an enjoyment of uncompromised character.  

In order to engage the interest of the other players at the table, one has to be aware of the interest of the other players at the table.  One has to pay attention to their tells and reactions; one has to account for their goals as players at the table (that doesn't mean one has to always subordinate your goals to theirs, but it does mean you should be aware of them and work to encorporate elements that enhance everyones enjoyment).  

I disagree with this assumption.  You are saying that what is most interesting has to be telling people what you think they want to hear.  i.e. That being interesting to others inherently means compromise of your self-expression.  I don't find that is true for me.  I am often interested by other people's self-expression -- by people telling me what they really feel, not what they think I want to hear.  Good fiction often is meaning flowing straight from the heart, rather than mindful manipulation.  

Now, I can also appreciate a good directed performance of someone consciously and intentionally trying to predict what I want.  Either approach can potentially be interesting, I feel.  Most often, a balance of the two is good.  

Now, if you define "deep immersion" as being only the most extreme state of total unawareness, where a player will really punch someone if his character punches someone -- then yes, obviously deep immersion is bad.  But that's reductio ad absurdum.  When people speak about immersion in actual play, they don't refer to that extreme.  By this logic I can criticize the extreme of non-immersive play because it totally lacks any emotional identification.  

Now, if we're talking about actual states, it is a little trickier to distinguish.  In actual immersive play, I am aware that there are other players in the room.  However, you're right that sometimes I will choose actions for my character based on what I feel rather than what I think you (as a fellow player want).  However, this goes back to the point about self-expression.  The true-to-character action which I will enjoy best is not necessarily different than what other players enjoy.  

I don't find it unusual for people to enjoy a deeply immersive experience.  I'm merely criticising those who place that enjoyment higher than the enjoyment of the other players.  

This seems typical of players who simply haven't learned to adjust to different styles of play.  i.e. Someone sits in on a competitive poker game, but he's used to friendly play where you can occaisionally take back and people try to go easy on someone who's behind.  He is shocked and says that everyone is selfish -- this is dysfunctional, anti-social play which doesn't account for other people's wishes.  But that isn't really the case, I would argue.  

To show that it's really selfish, you have to show that immersive play is disliked by other immersive players.  In my experience, I don't think this is true.  I know that when I play in what I consider an immersive manner, I typically enjoy the play of other immersive players and am annoyed by non-immersive players.

[Valamir]

Well, this is re-hashing material which I have said before.  Maybe I should make a "standard rant" or essay about this.  

Your arguement was unconvincing before, it is unconvincing now.  

Being unwilling to sacrifice or compromise the sacred character is why I call this play selfish.  Surely ones fellow human beings are inherently more valuable than an imaginary person.  

This is an invalid argument, because any defined style or goal other than just group enjoyment is inherently selfish.  So by the same logic, I can say that Narrativism is inherently selfish, because Narrativists will keep doggedly trying to address moral Premise with their play, even if that interferes with the enjoyment of other players.  Surely one's fellow human beings are more important than moral Premise?  Therefore, functional play is defined by willingness to sacrifice Premise.  

First you have a false analogy.  You are comparing techniques to Creative Agendas.

Second you are falsely attributing attributes that don't exist.  I've never seen a definition of Narrativism that involves trampling on the enjoyment of other players in pursuit of a premise; where as there are many many exhortations to ignore all other factors in pursuit of deep immersion.

Your entire statement here is utterly absurd.

This is true, but irrelevant.  Any style is inherently selfish because it might not be preferred.  But if players are in alignment, they can enjoy the same style.  For example, it is possible for the players to share an enjoyment of addressing Premise.  By the same token, it is possible for players to share an enjoyment of uncompromised character.

Another fallacy.  Here you are attacking something that I never denied.  In fact, you can easily find in past discussions on this topic where I absolutely stated that the only possible occassion for deep immersion to lead to functional play is when all players are equally committed to it.

However, that doesn't alter the fact that the behavior is selfish.  It is simply an agreement to all be selfish together.  I'll do what I like and get my enjoyment my way, you do what you like and get your enjoyment yourway, and since we're agreed on that, play can continue.  Its still selfish play, however.

I disagree with this assumption.  You are saying that what is most interesting has to be telling people what you think they want to hear.  i.e. That being interesting to others inherently means compromise of your self-expression.  I don't find that is true for me.  I am often interested by other people's self-expression -- by people telling me what they really feel, not what they think I want to hear.  Good fiction often is meaning flowing straight from the heart, rather than mindful manipulation.  

Again another fallacy.  First you are putting words in my mouth, a completely fictitious invention of "what I am saying" so that you can then tear it apart.

Sorry, I'm not even going to bite on this one.  Since I never once said anything remotely similar to what you are claiming, there is no need for me to defend against you.

Now, if you define "deep immersion" as being only the most extreme state of total unawareness, where a player will really punch someone if his character punches someone -- then yes, obviously deep immersion is bad.  But that's reductio ad absurdum.  When people speak about immersion in actual play, they don't refer to that extreme.  By this logic I can criticize the extreme of non-immersive play because it totally lacks any emotional identification.  

There is no need to play "if you define" games, John.  I have been exceptionally plain about how I am defining my terms.  Redefining in some absurd manner in order to point out how absurd it is, is yet another tactic I'm not going to rise to.

This seems typical of players who simply haven't learned to adjust to different styles of play.  

Another bait I will not rise to.  I will allow my record of the number different games and styles that I have played, enjoyed, and adapted to speak for itself.

To show that it's really selfish, you have to show that immersive play is disliked by other immersive players.  

Completely false.  I have to do no such thing.

To show that it is selfish I have only to show that the behavior is "concerned with one's own welfare or advantage in desregard of others", which of course is the definition of selfish.  Whether other equally selfish individuals like or dislike it is irrelevant.

In my experience, I don't think this is true.  I know that when I play in what I consider an immersive manner, I typically enjoy the play of other immersive players and am annoyed by non-immersive players.

Once again please pay attention to the topic.  Am I criticising "immersion"? no.  Am I condemning or suggesting discarding the idea of "playing in character"?  no.  I've made that clear multiple times including in this very thread.

Whether you enjoy "immersion" is thus entirely irrelevant, since the topic at hand is not any and all forms of immersive play, but that specific form of deeply immersive play that I have been very careful to define.


I'm sorry if the use of the word "selfish" bothers you.  As I see it you have two choices

1) decide that my description of play behavior doesn't even apply to you so you therefor don't need to worry about being so labeled, or
2) if the shoe fits, wear it.

That's up to you.  I am decidedly uninterested in who's feelings may be hurt by being associated with the idea that their play style is selfish.  Deep Immersionists have said far worse things about power gaming munchkins over the years, so I see no particular need to pull any punches in that regard.