After some discussion about a collaborative solo-rpg game, I want to get a firm number of people who would participate and start getting email address. Respond to this thread, send me a PM, or email me at bmarkslash7 gmail com.
If only a couple of people are interested, I would propose a sequential game, where one person has an adventure and then passes the system to the next person in line.
If many people are interested, I would propose a simultaneous game, where people check out (and yes, return) resources to use in an adventure.
I won't have a conniption if somehow we stumble into PbP territory, but limiting player interaction to just sharing setting and rules is more interesting to me.
ReplyDeleteInconsistencies could be handled in a couple of ways:
1. Whoever has "checked out" a piece of the setting is the final authority over it, thus final word on what is true about it. Anything they veto, can be treated as if it was a legend (and by implication the events in a game could be considered part of a legend, yarn or rumor that some bard is telling at the inn).
2. Continuing with the source control metaphor, the inconsistencies that are ruled out by the owner become another branch; essentially alternate history.
#1 by itself would keep all of us on the same page and I personally don't mind having my game declared a "yarn" that is half legend half truth. That has some charm to it. It'd also be interesting to see what the owner declares was the actual truth regarding their sphere while keeping the subsequent events as intact as possible.
Assuming the player is OK with making changes. If not, then it might be best not to touch anything someone else owns.
#2 is interesting but we might end up playing in separate versions...which might still be Ok if we decide to "merge" certain elements back into our versions. It wouldn't be much different than stealing bits from campaign worlds , though, and it would lack the tension,interactivity and potential for humor* that #1 can bring.
Anyway, just thinking out loud.
*on the potential for humor: I found myself tickled by the thought of potentially having multiple versions of events circulating as rumors in the world due to post session adjustments.
You could have, for example, an epic original story potentially become a more down to earth oneyet the epic version would live on as truth in the minds of the population which could result in farcical situations depending on how you play it.
This sounds fun to me, but I don't know about you guys.
.double post.
ReplyDelete"I found myself tickled by the thought of potentially having multiple versions of events circulating as rumors in the world due to post session adjustments."
ReplyDeleteAlex Yari I support that.