I've decided that I must have more sticky PCs in my games. No. I did not figure this out in A Grand Affair, though I'm sure that it will be important.
I figured it out at ACN.
Prowl hit me over the head with it—but it stuck—and I thank her very much. Y'see, in Amber games particularly, having a few sticky PCs is really important.
In Amber games, there is a whole lot of PC arrogance and independance required of the genre—but it doesn't preclude having the same PC be sticky. A game full of PCs with no stick generates no dynamic.
Sticky: how much does the PC really touch and affect other PCs? Just by being themselves?
If you find one or two PCs who are sticky—you can thread an entire session or game off them.
Example from Bloody Grievance:
Sierjna was sticky. Basque was sticky. They were NPCs this time around, but also lived as sticky PCs in earlier games. They really looked at other PCs, interacted strongly, and tried to affect them with some change. Morgenstern was sticky both times and played by different people.
This time around, Prowl was very sticky. She poked at other characters. She played with them. She went to share information. She asked opinions of folks, or just, "What are you doing?" Prowl has curiousity that will get her killed—but it makes for a very sticky PC.
It promotes the ebb and flow between story elements. It facilitates drama. More of the PCs were sticky this time than in the previous two games. Next time around—I expect even more of the PCs to be sticky. They are primed and ready.
Argent Rose saw a game this year where almost every PC decided to be sticky.
In A Grand Affair, Benedict is not sticky. I like the character—but he is about as unsticky as they come. His backstory is one of keeping arm's length from other Characters. I will have to work to make Benedict helpful to others as a story foil.
Passel should turn out to be very sticky. She is curious despite her experience, funny despite her serious nature, and entertaining despite her edgey attitudes. She likes people and isn't restricted from having some fun. She may not do well at the Grand Affair, but she really ought to be sticky.
One way or the other.
I understand entirely, but I think we've got ways of making Benedict squawk.
Erm. [hee hee]
Posted September 24, 2003 1:28 AMI started to write a long comment here, but I think I just need to write a blog entry instead. Good stuff.
Posted September 24, 2003 8:25 AMSticky characters are a GM's dream.
Suddenly occurs to me that playing a sticky character is a lot of fun, too. I think if I knew how to make my characters consistently sticky, I would. Ponder.
Posted September 24, 2003 5:28 PMThat is the question. I must ask myself, as does Ginger on her blog, how many ways are there for a Character to remain sticky and have good RPing options?
Dream indeed...
Posted September 24, 2003 9:09 PMOoooh, you ran Sierjna in TBG?? You *must* tell me what happened! Any more fun dragon stuff?
Posted September 25, 2003 3:13 PMHeh. I love playing sticky PCs. Portia, my favorite character ever, is a sticky PC. Al (the GM) loves her almost as much as I do.
Of course, he loves getting her riled up and letting her loose. So do I, come to think of it.
And I imagine Benedict will be pretty sticky after a night with a certain Sultana, oh yes, I do. :)
Posted October 3, 2003 12:22 AMArref, did you talk to Julia?
Talk to Julia...
Or Yazzy will hiss at you until you do.
sssst.
In PBeM I am noting that there are 'me' players and there are 'you' players. 'Me'players turn the focus of their text on their character's feelings and observations. 'You' players work to describe as best they can how their character's actions and personality are seen by the other characters...
'You' characters tend to be much easier to interact with, because you don't have to separate out the 'inside of the other person's head' stuff to identify what your character is actually able to perceive in the given text.
Posted November 11, 2003 9:15 PMThat's interesting.
I was just having an exchange with Blake/Jerod in HoC about this.
He's a "you" player--only giving stuff that hints at what Jerod might be thinking or really doing.
But he sends 'hints' about perceptions: labeled as such, so that you could make better guesses. Some "me" content.
Of course, HoC has a 'water/intuition' attribute built right in.
I like to do both. And cross the line too much perhaps. Passel has inner conversations with herself--which no one can tell--but they are 'out there' for all readers to see.
Then I do facial stuff with CeeCee and hide all her inner workings.
Mmmm. Thinking about this.
Not sure whether I favor one way or the other.
I like a good majority to be 'you' stuff. Inner dialogue shouldn't swamp down the game.
If there are ten lines of 'me' and only one of 'you' - or none, which I have also encountered recently - it gets wearisome to wade through...
Conversely, some characters are built around this sort of thing. So I am not saying it doesn't work. Care must be taken in the execution.
(Delirium of the Endless is almost entirely 'me' - it's just that, like the Dragon Arden, her 'me' encompasses everything...)
Deb's Dara is another whose 'internal' adds rather than detracts. But maybe because her internal tends to provide a sort of mirror for the opposite character to see themselves in, and is not a narssistic narrative to nowhere...
Posted November 12, 2003 7:45 PM