It isn't really the name of a game - it's the name of my overlay game, kinda like Tynes' Powerkill.

So how many times have you ever considered the sheer insanity of delving into super-dank caverns, mainly for the purpose of killing fearsome foes and looting them? There are surely easier ways to make money. How about the audacity of attacking a hundred+ foot, several ton reptile that breathes fire?

Yeah, you the player may want to, but what's your risk? You just loose a character, your poor character is risking his / her life just for you to get vicarious jollys.

What if your character knew as much about you as you know about them?

What if you have to convince your fighter to dungeon crawl when all he wants to do is open a bar and marry his sweetheart?

What if you have to role-play all of this in front of the rest of your gaming group and you, obviously, have to be both sides?

Welcome to Schizo-Hacka-Frenia.

SHF can pretty much be played with any role-playing game, though the examples here given are all based off a Fantasy world.

So, take a character, new/old, doesn't matter and write down three goals and aspirations for your character, e.g. what you want them to accomplish or become.

Now imagine yourself as the character, to you, the world is real and you know a guy in another world is manipulating your life. If you, say, have one-eye because of a duel - even though you remember losing the duel, you know it actually happened cause the prick that made you wanted extra points to build you. Your daughter, who died in your arms, died to give you a "deep hatred" for the guy that killed her. While you know the villain that did it, you also know your creator is implicated as well. Here in the plot thickens - while you know you're being manipulated, you also know that your player is regularly manipulated by a celestially powerful being known as the "Dungeon Master". You can't ever talk to the Dungeon Master, only your player, so whatever your player tells you, you can never be entirely certain whether they are lying to you or not. However, you are aware that many NPCs seem to have a direct line to the DM and you can interogate them if you get a chance.

In character, write down the three things that you really want, which can include how you want your life to turn out, what job you want, etc. Not what your manipulating bastard of a player wants, but what you want.

The DM should have copies of both sheets. During the course of play, whenever a major decision involving travel, politics or combat comes up, all characters in the group will speak to their players about how they feel about present circumstances. How they want to be elsewhere, etc. etc. Each player must convince his or her character to proceed using cajoleing, manipulation and out-right bribery. However, any given argument only works once, though variations are possible, e.g. a priest wishes to build a church. Various inducements to different activities which garner cash will work, but they have to be different. Simply "you need cash for the church" will only work once. The next time that argument is used, the priest will say something like: "So I'll take up a collection."

Play Example:

Character 1: It's dark in there, you know I can't see in the dark.
Player 1: That's why you bought torches at the last town.
Character 1: You said I bought the torches for camp, not for crawling around in a friggen dungeon.
Character 2: Yeah, you didn't say anything about a dungeon.
Player 2: Well what did you guys expect to be doing out there, roasting marshmellows?
Character 1: What in the Hells is a "marshmellow"?
Player 1: Look, never mind, there's supposed to be a big cache of jewels down there and Sigurd, you know you need at least 15,000 in gold to open your tavern.
Player 2: And Malachai, you know you need Diamond dust for that new spell you've been working on.
Character 2: You mean the one that'll keep us from getting killed the next time you bastards leave us out to dry? Hmmm. He may be right, Sigurd.
Character 1: Fine. O.k. Fine. But we're only delving for a couple hours, tops, if we don't find anything, we're out of there.
Player 1: Sounds fair.
Player 2: Ditto.

Obviously, Player 1 and Character 1 are played by the same individual, as are Player 2 and Character 2. If the GM feels that the arguments the Player's are making are not cogent enough to convince the characters, he may allow them to refuse to act, or to flee despite the wishes of the player. He may talk to them through NPCs explaining various ways their player, as opposed to him, have screwed them.

Character's that do a good job arguing get a 10% experience bonus which will, hopefully from their point of view, put them closer to retirement.

That's it. :)

Hey Tom,

The "over the edge" portion of Over the Edge set up some interesting ideas for the characters to realize they're fictional, then to discover a copy of the rulebook, and finally to hunt down the players and ask them why th'fuck they had to be created only to suffer and die.

I'm fairly sure that the pop-culture grand-daddy of this storyline is the Illuminati trilogy, although some folks are probably more familiar with it from Animal Man and Cerebus.

So here's my question: barring the obvious issues that (1) a character exists specifically to please his or her creator and (2) that a creator often thinks of a character as an independent being even though he or she patently is not .... what's the point? Considering these issues one time is fun; dwelling on them, or arguably, inflicting them on an audience yet again, may not be as fun.

I suggest focusing a bit - what would characters "want" independently of their creators, and how would that be set up in system terms? Could they literally disobey if the numbers fell out right? (I love this - a failed saving roll vs. Breath Weapon represents the character standing stock still and flipping off the player just before he's immolated.) And what if the player actually decides to accord more with the goals of the character - do they then turn into allies, so to speak, with special metagame power against the GM?

Best,
Ron

Ron - You take this stuff way too seriously, Prof. :)

Actually, it's more of a 'Ferris Bueller - 4th Wall Breaking' kind of a thing. And I'm highly entertained by a the image of a group of role-players sitting around strenuously arguing with themselves, hence, the game's name. (Yes, I know it's more like Multiple Personality disorder but Schizo-Hacka-Frenia has a nice ring to it.)

So, I agree with point (2) but SHF disrupts point (1). SHF postulates that "characters" do have an independent existence and "pleasing" their creator is not, of necessity, a priority for them.

"Could they literally disobey if the numbers fell out right? (I love this - a failed saving roll vs. Breath Weapon represents the character standing stock still and flipping off the player just before he's immolated.)"

And what if the player actually decides to accord more with the goals of the character - do they then turn into allies, so to speak, with special metagame power against the GM?