In this thread, the "switch" is mentioned. How would go about implementing it in a game?

Well, the way I did it in BFG was that every time your PC died you became the new GM. That was for a group game, though.:)

Paganini wrote: every time your PC died you became the new GM.

He spawned in a new PC. :)

This was a first-person shooter style RPG. :)

I can't believe that guys earliest play experience involved him and his friend intuitively creating such a brilliant management mechanic, IMO!

I've actually been thinking about it recently. I think one of the problems is determining just who is the protagonist...were all used to our individual imaginations where any avatar we use is not just A protagonist, but THE protagonist.

When it comes to a group of people, the desire not to loose that can lead to interplayer conflict like a bunch of dogs determining who is alpha male...well, maybe less extreme than that, but enough to wreck SIS, IMO.

So somewhat in the vein of the 'switch' idea, I though round robin protagonism might be a good idea. Basically everyone gets a turn at being protagonist for awhile, then its passed on to someone else (no fixed order, its just to make sure everyone gets an equal number of goes). So while one person is protagonist, the rest of the players are almost like a group of GM's. That's the rough idea, anyway.

I guess that if the switch is called by any player but the GM, the GM would take over the character of the player who called for the switch.

If the GM calls for the switch he might arbitrarily choose one of the PCs, perhaps limiting his choice to one of the PCs actually participating in the current scene.

Hmmm ... this certainly looks like fun.

Andreas

I was thinking more in the GM'less mode that the original switch post suggested. Or to make Ron happy, there is a GM, but the person with the most GM authority keeps switching with the switch. In my example, everyone except the one dude who is THE protagonist, has the larger share of GM power. Just my angle, but I wanted to clarify.

Hey guys.

My experience was just two people, so Switching wasn't too complicated. I'm not even really sure if this would work at all with more players.

I'm also not sure if this sort of thing would work within a pre-existing system.

The way I would handle it: n people get together and develop n-1 characters. A basic storyline is sketched, etc. One person is the "GM" at any given time. The GM describes the scenes, takes on the role of all NPCs, etc. At any time, the GM may call Switch, and all character sheets shift one step to the right (everyone should sit, roughly, in a circle).

Therefore, no player "has" a character that is "theirs."

All players should agree to portray each character in a manner consistent with the way they were portrayed previously (before Switching), and whoever is GM ought to maintain some consistency with what had been established before the Switch. Of course, players can freely add facts about any character while they are playing them.

It would be interesting to see how different players interpret all the various characters, and plot seeds/threads hinted at by the others. Naturally, whoever is GM first will hint at many things, dropping all sorts of clues and creating many NPCs. What will the next GM do with all of these? etc....

Switching should occur fairly frequently. Say, every 20 minutes.

It also reminds me of a old game the teacher used to have us play in class, years ago. They'd go through each person in class, each person adding a bit more to the story. They ended up being stupid stories, but in a funny or fun way.

This is off topic, but I just wanted to mention it because it seems an interesting youth doorway to roleplay, potentially. A very good induction play method...even a good established player gaming method, if blended with the switch idea. Anyway, that's enough off topic from me! :)

Sometimes during Multiverser games we'll have several referees running at once. This is usually initiated as one of the players in the main game takes on the referee as a player in a concurrent side game, and then other player characters get passed to him. Because characters are completely independent and frequently in different worlds, it's typical for such a pass to be made when a player leaves one world and enters another, but not unheard for the pass to be made within a world, particularly if a referee has complications and can't make it to a game.

Historically, I'm aware that E. R. Jones very early played in a conglomerate role playing game in which there was one vast world split between three referees, each with his own concept of the rules and the setting, and when characters crossed the boundaries they changed referee jurisdictions. I think this influenced this aspect of our play significantly, although it's not more than mentioned in the rules.

Yes, this does mean that in addition to running several players in different worlds, Multiverser referees are sometimes playing their own characters in yet another world run by another referee during the same game session. It can get a bit wild.

--M. J. Young