Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 8999026" data-attributes="member: 29398">The moment more than one person is able to add major elements to the setting such as entire new nations or cultures or anyhting else big enough that it should have been at least known of right from day 1, contradictions are inevitable.Except we do know about them, at least to the point of knowing of their existence: they're shown on the map.IME characters that are interesting enough (which is a direct synonym for entertaining enough - if it's not entertaining, it's not interesting) to hold attention like that often tend to flame out real fast.&nbsp; It's a fine line, making a character be entertaining enough to keep the other players engaged but yet not being too gonzo with it.&nbsp; As for caring about them - again, that's in the eye of my character.&nbsp; As player, I just want to be entertained, and to entertain in return.Yes, I too prefer if others play entertaining characters, and I do my best to reciprocate in kind.In a certain type of group I can see how this would work.&nbsp; But in the anything-goes sort of game I prefer, there's likely to be a lot more in-character conflict; meaning some of the characters will sometimes be enemies to each other. [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] talked briefly upthread (at least I think it was in this thread - there's so many!) about a game he is/was in, where while his PC holds another PC in contempt in-character, he-as-player is really invested in that other PC.&nbsp; For me, if my character holds that other PC in contempt then I-as-player probably won't think much of it either; completely unrelated to what I-as-me might think of that other character's player.I've seen great people play horrible characters, and I've seen horrible people play great characters.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 8999026, member: 29398"] The moment more than one person is able to add major elements to the setting such as entire new nations or cultures or anyhting else big enough that it should have been at least known of right from day 1, contradictions are inevitable. Except we do know about them, at least to the point of knowing of their existence: they're shown on the map. IME characters that are interesting enough (which is a direct synonym for entertaining enough - if it's not entertaining, it's not interesting) to hold attention like that often tend to flame out real fast. It's a fine line, making a character be entertaining enough to keep the other players engaged but yet not being too gonzo with it. As for caring about them - again, that's in the eye of my character. As player, I just want to be entertained, and to entertain in return. Yes, I too prefer if others play entertaining characters, and I do my best to reciprocate in kind. In a certain type of group I can see how this would work. But in the anything-goes sort of game I prefer, there's likely to be a lot more in-character conflict; meaning some of the characters will sometimes be enemies to each other. [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] talked briefly upthread (at least I think it was in this thread - there's so many!) about a game he is/was in, where while his PC holds another PC in contempt in-character, he-as-player is really invested in that other PC. For me, if my character holds that other PC in contempt then I-as-player probably won't think much of it either; completely unrelated to what I-as-me might think of that other character's player. I've seen great people play horrible characters, and I've seen horrible people play great characters. [/QUOTE]

Verification