Playing With Collectively "Owned" Characters

[Kaodi]

The glacial pace of PbP had me thinking about an idea (probably not original) that I thought it would perhaps be better to discuss here rather than just in the PbP Forums: what if players did not "own" their characters per se, and anyone could play any character? In a PbP environment that could probably be augmented with "at any time" though in a tabletop environment perhaps you would try something like characters being assigned at the beginning of each session.

Depending on the physical setting it would probably have different purposes. In a PbP environment it would be a way to keep the game moving at a fast pace instead instead of being held up by everyone time someone does not post for days or weeks. In a tabletop environment it might make for an interesting roleplaying challenge as well as an experiment in how people value the other characters in the party.

Mostly I am just wondering whether character ownership is a too highly ingrained part of the game to be messed with.

 

[Nagol]

To keep a PbP game moving, I'd suggest a compromise: if a PC hasn't received a post in X days, a post will be made for it either by the DM or group consensus. That way the PC is ostensibly controlled by one person, but their absence doesn't confound the group. This mimics how I handle a player missing a session in tabletop play.

You can try to mess with PC ownership, but people like to have their own things they feel I control of.

Here's an anecdote that's not quite the same, but telling I think. Once, decades ago, I tried a "Mission: Impossible" (the TV series, not the movies) style of game. Each player built a few characters, one PC was given the task of building a team from the character mix and the players would play the scenario from what was drawn. It failed, mostly because the players had obvious favourites that they wanted to play and peer pressure caused the PC roster to stop getting mixed a few missions in.

 

[The Black Ferret]

For myself, and most of the people I have gamed with, player-ownership is too ingrained. Playing my character for a session when I can't make it is one thing, but I like to get invested in my character's growth and development, so I would not even think of joining a game with collective control.

 

[John Out West]

I've done some of this before, or at least something like it. What I like to do is, occasionally, have the players Role-Play their enemies. They get to hunt down their own PCs and even fight them, and best of all they get to help develop the enemy's personalities and features. Generally, the players feel a lot more free while playing their enemies, since they know that they don't have to live with any of their consequences.

I think that's going to be the main difference; Consequences. If a PC is your own, you make the best decisions possible for the long run, because you have to live with the consequences for your actions. If its a one-time PC, there will be no consequences so you're able to do anything, but this generallys seems to result in "Silly" behavior from the players in my experience, and they seem to have trouble role-playing. If its a one-time enemy PC, you are encouraged to make mistakes and incur negative consequences. They also tend to be good at role-playing, since they know that if they begin the "Silly" behavior they will lose control of their enemy, and the longer they are in control the more mistakes they can make.

I've never made a shared rotating PC, but I imagine what would happen is that players would mess with one another, taking short-term gains and having the next player incur the consequences. This is good for certain characters, as it can represent characters being overcome with lust or pride, and it encourages players to act on those urges. I think if most PC's loved their wife, they would never cheat on them, but if its a rotating character they would be more willing to take the short-term gain over the long-term risk.

So, it can be good, but it depends on what kind of behavior you're looking to get out of your players.

 

[Umbran]

The glacial pace of PbP had me thinking about an idea (probably not original) that I thought it would perhaps be better to discuss here rather than just in the PbP Forums: what if players did not "own" their characters per se, and anyone could play any character? In a PbP environment that could probably be augmented with "at any time"...

I suspect that the game would then become dominated by the folks who sit at their computers for long periods each day,with spare time ready and able to post, and those who don't have the availability will be marginalized as players. The marginalized players will not feel much more connection to the game, and will drop away.

 

[Immortal Sun]

I agree with [MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION] that characters who haven't gotten a post in X sessions becomes "public property". I think your initial idea might work if the players all bought into it to begin with, but I'd have some set guidelines for every character that the players have to agree to play by, that way you don't end up with characters with constantly flipping personalities.