Thursday, January 25, 2007

Game Drama

Last night's Aberrant game had some player-drama. We are still less than a half-dozen sessions in to the game. Some of us are coming together into a cohesive group. Others, less so.

One of the players believes that his character's concept is dependent upon him having a secret identity. Another character is a telepathic spy who revealed the first PC's identity to her government. (For the record, neither of these are my characters. My PC is being sloppy with his identity, and I fully expect it to come back to haunt him.)

The player of the first PC is upset. Why? (1) There wasn't any way for him to effectively remain a secret from her while participating in the game. (2) Knowing that and that the secret ID was important for character integrity, she revealed the ID to her government anyway.

Now, the second PC is a spy - and a loyal one. Should the player have kept quiet out of respect for the player, even though it would be out of character for her PC not to report such a secret?

3 comments:

Jeff Rients said...

Some people have this inherent inflexibility when it comes to character concept. If events in-play alter the PC to be outside the concept, the player's enjoyment of the game is shattered. I honestly don't know what to do about it. I think its a less acute version of what Ron Edwards calls 'turtling'.

szilard said...

I think that the big thing going on here is that PC2 was created in such a way as to make PC1 unplayable as its player wanted it to be played. If PC2 had made a mistake or there was a conflict between the PCs that led one to out the other, I think the player would have been significantly more ok with it. As it is, the campaign is still in its infancy and PC2 was built with the ability and inclination to out PC1.

Jeff Rients said...

Personally I'm not a fan of spies in the party or mental trickery, so I would have been annoyed myself.