In a game I'm working on, I had this mechanic idea for a player rolling a Setback, a complication to the character in question. My original idea was that the player could choose whether or not to take the setback when rolled, and would receive a reward when doing so. Another player would decide what the setback is and play out how it happens to the character, in effect playing that character for a "turn."

Well, in playtest, the idea seems to have crossed a taboo boundary, where "you can play my character when you take the sheet from my cold, dead hand." Why is that? With all the strides toward shared authorship and storytelling, why do individual characters remain proprietary? Is it a holdover from agonistic "player vs. GM" experiences?

Is my playtest experience a fluke, or is the thought of playing another character repugnant across the board?

Well, in my group severe hatred for someone else playing your character is the norm. The hatred even extends to extra-dimensional duplicates of the character. Though, the interpretations of some players are more hated than others.

The reasons are normally something along the lines of 'because Joe Butt will screw up my character' or 'because Joe Butt will be untrue to the character' or 'Joe Butt doesn't understand the character at all'.

My feeling is that this is an issue of trust across taste boundaries. The player has a very specific image of the character in his head, and he doesn't trust that the other player sufficiently understands his taste preferences not to intentionally or accidentally mangle his vision. It'd be like twisting your profound philisophical statement into a cliche seen on a pepsi commercial (at least, the feeling anyway).

Those who are willing to put forth the effort to understand the other player's vision of his character, and make the other player's feelings the priority over personal assumptions and desires are often trusted with temporary proprietorship of someone else's character. Those who do not make every effort to cooperate get to be the target of a lot of bitching.

Well, that's how it seems to be in my group anyway. Understand that we've got a lot of Sim/Char and Sim/Sit priorities that color this.

One of the things I hate most in gaming is whe a GM tells me what my character feels or thinks. I think telling a player what his character actually does goes a step further. Most players are willing to surrender a small amount of control over their character to the GM, but giving tht power to another player would be baulked at by most of the players in my game.

However, if a game explains this upfront and the rules explicitly grant a player that power, I don't think it is as much of a problem.

In my game Kayfabe players surrender control of their character to another player every time they enter a match. It's all part of the narration process. No one that has played in a full game or a demo has complained about that. It could be because that's how wrestling actually works and Kayfabe is pretty much targeted at sim players. Any Kayfabe players care to comment?

,Matt G.

Matt and Jason,

I think it's important to note that trust wasn't the issue. (I'm in Matt's said group.) At least for me, I would have given control of my character over. What I had a problem with was playing some else's character, especially in a negative context. While ideas brimmed of how to screw over other characters, the people playing those characters are my friends, and forcing them into a negative situation just seemed deprotagonizing and antagonistic.

Clinton R. Nixon wrote: Matt and Jason,

I think it's important to note that trust wasn't the issue. (I'm in Matt's said group.) At least for me, I would have given control of my character over. What I had a problem with was playing some else's character, especially in a negative context. While ideas brimmed of how to screw over other characters, the people playing those characters are my friends, and forcing them into a negative situation just seemed deprotagonizing and antagonistic.

It's actually the "hosing the other character" part. The playing out the other character is a separate issue, I think.

The best example is from last time we played. Onboard our ship, we were being attacked by enemy craft and destroying them well. One crew member, Ipslanti, an amnesiac woman tried to help and rolled a Setback.

I thought of a cool idea for it - this was the very first time Ipslanti remembered seeing violence, and it freaked her out as she fell to the floor weeping. However, actually using that felt to me like saying, "Hey, James - I'm going to take your character and make her do something weak and stereotypically female." I just wasn't willing to do that to him.

I thought this was an issue for the owner of the character, not the temp-owner - whoops.

So, going with that...I can say with certainty that this sort of arrangement would be even more disliked in my group than what I orginally thought we were talking about. Seems set up to create strife directly between the players, bad news in my group (player based railroading, but only for deprotagonizing purposes). Why it would bother me would be that I would feel like I was fighting the other player's creative rights. I'd feel like a disruptive and naughty player.

It's a spiffy idea, but I think you'd need a group full of players who didn't have personal investements in their characters and didn't have any leanings toward Author/Pawn Stance (is this possible?). A group with decent levels of trust and cooperation could certainly do it, but would they enjoy it? I'd hafta see it in action. Maybe if you made it a rule to smile, preferable laugh and say 'Oo oo, I've got a cool idea', before proposing a Setback.

Wow, I steered way off track again. Anyway, I don't know if your feelings are the same as mine Clinton (they sound the same), but it would make me uncomfortable as well. This is just conjecture, but I don't think the discomfort on the Setback-suggester end would be terribly common. You'd have to have an 'I must foster a gaming environment that promotes fun for all' kind of attitude. Which, in my experience, is not as common as I'd like. However, it probably is with the Forgites.

Wow, some interesting things coming out here for certain. First of all, I'd like to say I think its the 'intellectual property' thing, when a player creates a character, and invests a lot of time into it (whether or not he writes it down and has a physical bio for people to read, he STILL has an idea of what the char has been through, etc) and I feel its that creativity is seen as being part of a person's "personal space", their very own sovereign construct, like an abstract "child" - to me, this is partially ME unwillingness to 'release' a character to another player, though I'm creative enough that I can always pretend something didn't happen to keep my ego straight, heh.

Secondly, I signed up for Matt Gwinn's wrestling game group, Kayfabe, once and wrote a review of it (my name I go by is JP and I founded the Professional Wrestling Simulator Enthusiast - PWSE), and found it very original, approaching the concept from what I *thought* at the time smacked of narrativist "storyteller" influence - looks like I was dead on! =)

Matt Wilson wrote:

Clinton R. Nixon wrote: ...forcing them into a negative situation just seemed deprotagonizing and antagonistic.

Why is it okay for the GM to thrust characters into predicaments, but not for other players to do it? What it sounds like is you wouldn't even want to "choose the form of the destroyer," so to speak, let alone play the character. Is that true? Or is it only the playing it out part that rubs you wrong?

Frankly, I think the issue arises out of a GNS dysfunction. You’re encouraging players to hose someone else, and thereby creating Gamist competition between the players (who can hose over someone else’s character the worst?).

Hmm? I don’t know actually. Perhaps it’s merely a deprotagonising situation. Still, equally bad.

It’s one of those two though. Maybe a little of both, depending on the particulars of the narration.

I did have a wacky idea that I really don’t feel would solve the problem, but I’ll go ahead and say it nonetheless. If, on the other hand, the only problem with the mechanic is an expectation of character ownership, then why not really break down the norms? I mean, if you make it clear from the beginning that you will not retain ownership of your character from the beginning, then players will come into it with different expectations altogether.

Here’s my idea: When a player earns a Setback, have him come up with the negative effects. However, because we are playing with character ownership here, once the negative situation has been described by the player, he then trades characters with the target player. Alternatively, the target player comes up with the Setback for the other player’s character and then receives the character in a trade. Actually, I think the latter method solves the problem of deprotagonising/competition and makes players aware that character ownership is not absolute.

Like I said, I think this suggestion is a bit more crazy than you are looking for—and in actual play it would really be a whole different game than what you have now. So maybe it’s not such a good idea for you after all.

On the other hand, this thread has me thinking.

Matt Wilson wrote: In a game I'm working on, I had this mechanic idea for a player rolling a Setback, a complication to the character in question. My original idea was that the player could choose whether or not to take the setback when rolled, and would receive a reward when doing so. Another player would decide what the setback is and play out how it happens to the character, in effect playing that character for a "turn."

Matt Wilson wrote: In a game I'm working on, I had this mechanic idea for a player rolling a Setback, a complication to the character in question. My original idea was that the player could choose whether or not to take the setback when rolled, and would receive a reward when doing so. Another player would decide what the setback is and play out how it happens to the character, in effect playing that character for a "turn."

Well, in playtest, the idea seems to have crossed a taboo boundary, where "you can play my character when you take the sheet from my cold, dead hand." Why is that? With all the strides toward shared authorship and storytelling, why do individual characters remain proprietary? Is it a holdover from agonistic "player vs. GM" experiences?

Is my playtest experience a fluke, or is the thought of playing another character repugnant across the board?

I think this is going to vary a lot among groups.

If you recall, Unsung has a couple of similar mechanics. First, someone can give a Gift which morally challenges another player's characer. Second, when someone Lapses, the character's action is determined by group vote -- with the player of the character not allowed to vote.

So, okay, in playtest this was somewhat problematic for at least one player, but most of the other players liked it.

Aside from the fact I have different players, some differences in the mechanics might be worth highlighting here, "control valves" for deprotaganism issues:

1. In the Gift mechanic, the player can veto the Gift. You never HAVE to have you character morally challenged at the suggestion of another player.

2. In the Lapse mechanic, rather than just picking one player to "hose" the character, the whole group (including the GM and the player in question -- only the player doesn't get a vote) discusses it "in committee", allowing for brainstorming, and choosing the most appropriate behavior. I think that this has two useful effects. First, it spreads out the burden of responsibility, so it isn't like "Bob messed with me", and it includes the GM, who traditionally is more often allowed (tho, often grudingly) to mess with the PCs. Second, the fact the player gets to put in his two cents -- even if it might be disregarded -- was useful in reducing feelings of deprotagonism.

Also, I tried to emphasize with my players that a Lapse was a cool thing -- it's wasn't deprotagonizing because it puts the character in an interesting situation, and probably one the player wouldn't have thought of on his or her own. Explaining to everyone why the mechanic exists and why it could be cool sometimes goes a long way toward reduicing skepicism -- it did with Russ.

On the other hand, even given all that, at least one player (Russ) was highly uncomfortable with it and said he wouldn't play regularly in a game that included such loss of character control, though he was cool with it for the playtest.

To return to your own troubles, I'll note that even Russ didn't have a problem with the Gift mechanic, I suspect because of the veto -- which he exersized at least once. You might want to consider either allowing the player to veto the other player's ideas for getting the character in trouble, or perhaps the player of the character should get to choose what other player decides what the setback is and plays out how it happens to the character.

In fact, I really like the sound of that: Clinton, would you have felt less uncomfortable is the other player had asked you to play the character in that situation?

As for Tony's point, I'll note that since everyone could end up playing another player's character, everyone still gets to play. And watching someone else work, creatively, is part of "play" for me.

First, the issue of token loss is, I think, a straw man. Neither the person claiming there was a problem said this was a problem, nor did one of the players. This is missing the isseu altogether, IMO. When you're character is not in a scene, you are not participating. How often does that happen in RPGs? All the time in the one's I play. And nobody complains as long as they get to play "enough'. Taking a character away for one act, or even for a short scene is no big deal. Most players can live with that just fine. Heck, what is character death in most games?

And GMs do, regularly, as part of play take control of a character away from another player. In CoC, if you miss an insanity check, the GM will dicctate the player's actions, for instance. Mind control is another example. And that doesn't even cover the sort of case where the GM forces an action by, say, surrounding the character with cops, and requiring surrender. Or hitting them with lightning bolts or a disease. Whatever. Now, in most of these cases, it's true that there's some external impetus that causes these changes in the character.

But I'm not sure how that's all that different from what's being discussed as a rule, here. Do "setbacks" occur on rolls where the character is trying do accomplish something external? For example, could the setback in Ipsilanti's case have been that she was shot by someone on the enemy ship? Does a setback have to indicate a character action?

And why does it have to deprotagonize? That's certainly not the goal of the mechanic at all (or if it is, then the mechanic ought to be chucked in total). I mean, if you as the player of the character had the rights to narrate the setback, couldn't you do it in such a way as to protagonize the character? So if you can do it, why can't I do the same for your character? The rule ought to be that you have to hose the character but do so in a protagonizing manner. Failure does not equal deprotagonization.

In fact, Clinton's example seemed pretty highly protagonizing to me. Brings the character's problems to the fore, and gives them something to overcome.

So, it seems to me that there's something else going on here.

I mean from my perspective, this would never be a problem in Universalis. It happens all the time in that game that in the middle of a scene that people rip away control of one character from another, and then narrate all sorts of bad things happening to the character in question. And everyone is cool with it.

What's the difference? Well, in Universalis there's no PCs. Sure, you can create a character, and you can control a character, but you understand that your control is only provisional. That anyone can control any character at any time.

In the game in question, there is an investment in the character by the player. That character belongs to that player in an almost tangible fashion. When a GM takes control, that control is in terms of forces that are seen to be his purview. In CoC, the player simply does not have control over his character's fear, the rules and the GM do. Which simulates life enough that it's easlily accepted by the players.

But in this game, the area that's been given to the player to adjudicate seems to be transfered to the other player at some point. And that's where the line seems to get crossed to me. Apparenly, Clinton feels guilty about narrating that the character is gunshy because normally that would fall under the purview of the other player.

So, what I'd suggest is one of two things. One thing you could do is to get the players used to the idea right away that they are not the only ones that control "thier" characters. For example, after chargen, you could do an entire scene where each character is played by the player sitting to the left of the "owning" player. To break the ice in this manner. Some means by which all the participants are broken of the illusion of complete ownership. Or, better stated, some means by which the players are informed that the characters are shared property. OTOH, that may still not sit well with some players (especially traditional players).

Another idea would be to simply limit the ability of the player to hose the player during a setback to external influences only. That way, the player is simply taking the normal role of the GM for purposes of narrating the damage done to the other character. Which shouldn't bother anyone.

Also, I might suggest that the tone of the game might have something to do with it. Because InSpectres has exactly this mechanic. In Confessionals, players are encouraged to hose each other's characters by tagging them with charactersistics. In the last game I ran, the characteristics were stuff like "stingy" and "Has a thing for x". Given the slapstick atmosphere, players love this sort of thing.

Does this create a PvP environment? Only in a sportsmanlike way, IMO. Players realize that they aren't supposed to trammel the other characters protagonism. That said, having flaws is a big part of protagonism in InSpectres. If the game in question is about infallible heroes, for example, then tagging with flaws would be less suitable (though it's really hard for me to imagine).

Put it this way, I'd have gleefully hosed the other characters using this mechanic. I see no real problem with it personally.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: First, the issue of token loss is, I think, a straw man. Neither the person claiming there was a problem said this was a problem, nor did one of the players. This is missing the isseu altogether, IMO. When you're character is not in a scene, you are not participating. How often does that happen in RPGs? All the time in the one's I play. And nobody complains as long as they get to play "enough'. Taking a character away for one act, or even for a short scene is no big deal. Most players can live with that just fine. Heck, what is character death in most games?

Mike Holmes wrote: And GMs do, regularly, as part of play take control of a character away from another player. In CoC, if you miss an insanity check, the GM will dicctate the player's actions, for instance. Mind control is another example. And that doesn't even cover the sort of case where the GM forces an action by, say, surrounding the character with cops, and requiring surrender. Or hitting them with lightning bolts or a disease. Whatever. Now, in most of these cases, it's true that there's some external impetus that causes these changes in the character.

Mike Holmes wrote: I mean from my perspective, this would never be a problem in Universalis. It happens all the time in that game that in the middle of a scene that people rip away control of one character from another, and then narrate all sorts of bad things happening to the character in question. And everyone is cool with it.

Mike Holmes wrote: But in this game, the area that's been given to the player to adjudicate seems to be transfered to the other player at some point. And that's where the line seems to get crossed to me. Apparenly, Clinton feels guilty about narrating that the character is gunshy because normally that would fall under the purview of the other player.

So, what I'd suggest is one of two things. One thing you could do is to get the players used to the idea right away that they are not the only ones that control "thier" characters. For example, after chargen, you could do an entire scene where each character is played by the player sitting to the left of the "owning" player. To break the ice in this manner. Some means by which all the participants are broken of the illusion of complete ownership. Or, better stated, some means by which the players are informed that the characters are shared property. OTOH, that may still not sit well with some players (especially traditional players).

Another idea would be to simply limit the ability of the player to hose the player during a setback to external influences only. That way, the player is simply taking the normal role of the GM for purposes of narrating the damage done to the other character. Which shouldn't bother anyone.

Well, the person to ask is Clinton. Would that have made a difference, do you think, Clinton?

What you could do is have players take "flaws" (assuming they don't already), and the hosing players have to stick to the flaws. The idea being that the player selecting the flaws understands that he's allowing the other players to define the character's weakness in these specific realms.

Mike

Actually, adding a little social contract to the system worked perfectly. We played again last night with the rule: "Anyone can come up with a Setback, but it has to be approved by the character's player." So, I was fine with doing things like having a small ape-like creature leap on a character as if the character was its mother, putting that character into a hard situation; or having another character suddenly realize the alien that he was fighting was a woman, straining his morals, because in each instance, it was a proposal to the controlling player, not a statement.