Fisheses.

From: Alex Ferguson <abf_at_cs.ucc.ie>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 12:45:39 +0100 (BST)


Steve Lieb says responds to a micro-snippet of an earlier message of mine, about whether it's reasonable for character creation to "project" onto other characters or parts of the game world:

> Do I have a world in which the story largely revolves about the players
> [or not?]
> IMG, it MUST be the second, evolving to the first as a reward for survival.
> But in no case are characters ever really in *complete* control of what's
> going on, and only very rarely do important NPC's even CARE about the PC's
> until late in the campaign.

There's a difference between a degree of _player_ input, which was quite specifically what I was talking about, and the sort of character control over the game world you're discussing here. If I ask a player to tell me about his second cousin once removed, and give him carte blanche to make it all up as he goes along, and she turns out to be the clan redsmith who's having an affair with the Storm Voice's son, I may be conspiring to a small degree in co-creation, but I'm hardly making his _character_ any more world-slaying, or even significant in the game world (as opposed to the RPG-in-my-kitchen world). (Clan Lawspeaker to character: "Don't I know you from somewhere?")

> Are they big fish or little fish - it's essential to know, and possibly the
> source of much of the discussion here about whether HW will or will not
> fulfill people's hopes/expectations.

That wasn't what I was talking about, though. I didn't say anything about the size of the fish -- rather, about whether the fishes' players get to help design the pond (or at least a lily-pad and float-toy or two).

Slainte,
Alex.


Powered by hypermail