[Dresden Files] It‘s not Zilch play, but what is it?
Warrior Monk:
With that many players on the table, perhaps she felt more like playing a sort of chaotic NPC instead of being another member of the party. I haven't read much of the Dresden files novels but, how large are the teams formed by main characters in the fiction? How many times do they get to be al together in more than one or two scenes of the book? Seems to me she wanted to recreate a bit more of the feeling of the novels in the game, so she added herself as this strange character that keeps appearing in the fiction on and off, without doing anything important and then it appears again at the end to give the story a final twist, just to surprise the readers.
The way she made it makes for a pretty good story, but I agree with you she kind of ruined the game for the rest of the players. Perhaps if the players were told in advance she's there to act as another NPC, that would help a lot in order to keep the social pact intact.
Roger:
Based on what you've said, it sounds to me more-or-less like the player-side version of railroading. I might guess that she, as a fan of Dresden, has already written a number of fanfics starring her character. It's non-collaborative roleplaying.
There's a thing with some amateur writers in which they avoid putting their characters into any sort of real danger; I think it's a related phenomenon.
The underlying issue, in my opinion, is a problematically deep emotional investment in the character. It's sort of interesting that the character's Trouble is "fear", as that is, indeed, the trouble here.
Cheers,
Roger
Roger:
Whoops; forgot to answer the question of the subject of the thread. This is Mary Sue play.
wholeridge:
I think you (meaning her critics generally) are being way too hard on the werecat girl. Yes, she sounds annoying, but both the real world and stories are full of annoying people.
You are, in effect, claiming that she broke the Social Contract by her style of play, but did the Social Contract at a "bog-standard 'villain of the week' scenario and with seven players at the table and a four hour slot" really make it clear that only "Fabulist/Collaborative Storytelling" and not "Immersionist/Virtual Experience (to use John Kim's terms) type of play was permitted?
Worse, you imply that she is a bad person merely because she chooses a different style of gaming than you choose.
The young lady chose to play an apparently neurotic, insecure character who had little to offer the group -- is that forbidden? Did she have some duty to change her character concept in order to make you happy? She also seems to have focused on immersion in her own character -- is that not a valid style of play? Declining to pick up on your openings is not railroading.
Unless you really did have an explicit Social Contract that allowed only "Fabulist" play, you're only complaint was that her tastes are different than yours. That's no reason to trash her. How is what you are doing to werecat girl different from Simulationists telling Narrativists that the Narrativists are doing it wrong?
stefoid:
I dont see what sim/nar has to do with it. The GM and six other people were engaging in a particular story and each other, and she wasnt. So why bother turning up? She could imagine what its like to be a cat stuck up a tree on her own time.
Frank is OK with it, just wants to know what makes her tick. Sounds like daydreaming with an audience.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page