When I was reading over Flossy's "Group Play" thread an Idea formed in my mind. I am too busy with my [A Time of Steel & Staves] design to worry too much about starting another project. But, i figured I could Stick an iron in the fire and let it be getting hot while I am finishing up my current game.

Another type of group play.

Basic Idea.

In Flossy's outline. Players would build a group together rather than an individual character a piece which would then make up a group.

Well I Didn't even get through reading the thread my mind started on a different path -- it lead here.

a group of players play a single character. Each Player would get to control one aspect of the character.
Maybe they could even switch up from game to game. "Hey I was hoping to play King Bethard's Concience this game!"

how cool would it be to have a "character sheet" for each aspect of the character
I guess --- an ASPECT SHEET

As far as game play the skies the limits. Well No, no its not. there would be space games. So I guess imagination's limit is the limit.

I imagine a fairly large list of character aspects - and depending on the size of the group maybe everyone gets 1 or 2 of them.
maybe they would get a bonus (or lack of a negative) for picking 2 that are similar.
i.e. - if intelligence were an aspect Social Interaction another - they would be similar - being of the mind.
or if fitness were an aspect and determination were another maybe the bonuses/lack of penalties would apply.
I dont know if the bonus/penalties thing is the way to go
but anyway the thing is the whole list of aspects need not be used.
Maybe some won't apply to the setting or the character necessarily. with a larger list than needed this might make it easier for all players to get a piece of character that they like rather than getting "stuck" with something that they would prefer not to play.

One thing (of many) that I never liked about 3.0/3.5 D&D or just d20 games is the multiclassing - " I have 3 levels of every class"
It eliminates the need for a party. If you can pick the lock - who needs a rogue? cast fireball? .. no wizard necessary. 

of course with this system there would be room-a-plenty for "over-multi-classing".
a group could play Rand al'Thor if they wanted to. [sub](if you don't know who that is.. look up "overpowered" on dictionary.com and you'll get the idea)[/sub]

if you have a player who lives for combat - he/she can take all or some of the combat aspects of the character.
if you have a player who loves magic - boom - magic portion
if you have a player who loves roleplaying or arguing - let them take the social encounters.
trade skills?
sneaky skills?
people are complex
we aren't as black and white as a lot of the heroes of books.
we might do evil and good or be selfish or greedy and still feel obligated to help the little old lady across the intersection.
room for all in the system I am suggesting.

I really just thought of this 10 mins ago, but I would like to know what you guys think of it.
are there any games that play like that. a Group playing a single character?

anyone got any good ideas.
there is absolutely no groundwork in place here.
Just the tentative ideas I mentioned above.
If anyone wants to take this idea and run with it feel free.
just mention it so I don't start working on it too. :)

thanks guys. 

are there any games that play like that. a Group playing a single character?

Moreno wrote:
Did you ever played GM-Full (or GM-less, they are two way to indicate games without a single GM) game? Which ones?

Moreno wrote:
But each one use different techniques, and I don't remember any that use the kind of "partial ownership" that you use as example.

Are you interested in your specific example or about group-played characters in general?

Moreno wrote:
A lot. Really a lot. Both as standard play and as a listed play variant

I wonder if it would work?   

But why pick aspects that seem to represent skills or stats?      seems like that would play out as the group coming to some arbitrary decision on what course of action the character should take - and then one person particular gets to micromanage that part of play.

What about if you let each player take on the role of a particular ,motivation of the character, for lack of a better word.

i.e. 
Player X represents the characters thirst for power.
Player Y represents the characters bloodlust
Player Z represents the characters compassion
Player A represents the characters  sense of Duty
etc...

And then you introduce rules for group decision making where each player advocates for their own motivation, probably using some kind of currency and bidding system so that they have a chance of winning the decisions they feel are most important for own agenda. Once decisions have been made, it doesnt really matter who micomanages any resulting conflict resolution.

Hi!

Sorry about not replying before, I had forgotten about this thread...

A list of games where every player play a part of a character was already written by Paul Czege HERE.

There are other games where a character can be played by a player during a scene (or a specific decision or act) and by another in another scene, for example.

For ""standard play and listed play variant" I meant something like this: in the game "Annalise" every player play a different character (standard play), but there are some variant way to play listed at the end of the book, and in one of them everybody play the same character (listed play variant). 

stefoid wrote:
What about if you let each player take on the role of a particular ,motivation of the character, for lack of a better word.

I guess the first thing to think about is, what is the aim of each player?  Are they rooting for the general benefit of the character as a whole, or is their aim to maximise the control that their psychic faction has over the character, regardless of the consequences, or a combination thereof.

When does competition for control of the characters actions occur?

for example, two options:

a)  competition for control -> general course of action dictated by winning player ->  leading to in-game conflicts -> some other mechanism of in-game conflict resolution
  or
b)  consensus course of action decided by player(s) -> leading to in-game conflicts ->  competition for control ->  conflict resolution action dictated by winning player

  or

c)  competition for control -> general course of action dictated by winning player ->  leading to in-game conflicts -> competition for control ->  conflict resolution action dictated by winning player

I favour c)  although the competition for control of courses of action mechanism need not be identical to the competition for control of conflict resolution actions.  On the other hand, you could look at dissension over the general course of action that the character takes as a form of conflict resolution (conflict with herself), and simply apply the same resolution mechanic to both.  The trouble there I guess is that the consequences of the conflict resolution may not be immediate, so how to they feedback into the curency system?

The feedback would be interesting.  i.e.  Bloodlust wins and the character kills the man who wronged him, but is then thrown in jail.  Logically that should feedback to weaken the future hold that bloodlust has on the character "err, maybe I shouldnt have killed him". 

Here is a first thought on currency and resources.

Every player takes on the role of a Motivation.  The character may have many small-m motivations besides the ones that the players take on, but by definition, the played Motivations are the most powerful.

The definition of a Motivation is something that drives the characters decisions (strategy) and reactions (conflict res).  Motivations are not temporal - like being hungry, that can be easily satisfied by in-game events

Players choose whatever Motivations they like, but there is always one Motivation that is present, and that is Self-Preservation, which is always played by the "GM", for lack of another term.  The Self-preservation Motivation wants what is best for the character, in a mother-knows-best, forward-looking kind of way, whereas all the other Motivations are obsessive, live-in-the-moment types.

You have a currency you can spend that we can just call 'Points'. 

Each Motivation starts with the same number of Points.  Points serve two purposes - they represent both the 'health' and the 'power' of the Motivation. 

When a Motivation's Points reach zero, that Motivation has been excised from the character. (health aspect)

You spend Points to win the right to narrate decisions and reactions.  (power aspect). 

The aim of the player is to become the dominant Motivation of the character, represented by acquiring at least double the amount of Points of any other Motivation, including Self-Preservation.  (power aspect)

...TBD...
somehow you can bid your Points to influence decisions and reactions to win rights to narrate scenes and conflict resolution respectively.

the right to narrate a scene is reqrd in itself, because you get to steer the story in a direction, presumably, which is favourable to your own Motivation. 

regardless of who narrated a scene, when there is conflict resolution, you gain points for using attempting to resolve the conflict using your Motivation.

etc..

stefoid wrote:
Every player takes on the role of a Motivation.  The character may have many small-m motivations besides the ones that the players take on, but by definition, the played Motivations are the most powerful.

there is always one Motivation that is present, and that is Self-Preservation, which is always played by the "GM", for lack of another term

somehow you can bid your Points to influence decisions and reactions to win rights to narrate scenes and conflict resolution respectively.

Try a few, see how you go.

Ghost Light is missing from Paul's list. Ron wrote a review of it, which is highly interesting can be read right here on-site. It should give you some ideas!

Whoops, disregard that post. I got Ghost Light mixed up with some other game with "Ghost" in the title, and I can't remember what it was now.

sounds complicated to me

there was a tv show like this.... ;)