Non-sequiter #1: About staying in character and playing nice with others. Anselm is a challenging character to play. That was my intention when I made him Nuit. I figured playing a four hundred year old dead guy would force me out of my real life persona and into my fictional persona. Giving him his own voice, which is (mostly) not my voice. Giving him is own quirks, which are (mostly) not my quirks. Giving him his own world view which is (mostly) not my world view. The problem is the “mostly”. I have not been entirely successful in keeping myself out of him. In many ways, Anselm is my alter-ego. Maybe that's why he's my favorite rather than Daske Baggywrinkle. Speaking of Daske Baggywrinkle: Daske is not like Anselm at all. He is a simple-minded, straight-forward kind of guy. Apt to act first and thing later, if at all. What you see is pretty much what you get. His voice is (definitely) not my voice. His quirks are (definitely) not my quirks. His world view is (definitely) not my world view. This is probably what makes Daske so much fun to play. The challenge with both Anselm and Daske is to always play them true to their character. In other words, to keep them IC. More often than not, I don't actually know how either of them will act in a situation they haven't been in before. So I have to start writing and let them show me. And that brings me to the point of this post. One of the “rules” of posting is that each post should move the story along, leaving it in a different place than it was before. It's also considerate to give your writing partners plot opportunities or hooks to play off. I call this “playing nice with others.” But what happens when the story is going in one direction and Anselm, for example, has no interest in going that direction? For example, in the quest “The White Obelisk” Anselm and company are investigating the mysterious white obelisk (duh). Anselm finds himself drawn into it auristically and is fascinated by it. He then asks himself, Why are there two obelisks? This leads him into a flashback of an internal philosophical dialog about monism versus dualism. I spent the better part of an hour writing it and was terribly pleased with myself until Echelon PM'd me with “Way to NOT move the story forward!” and “Does Anselm plan to tell Leigo what he has learned?”. He was right, of course. I had totally ignored my writing partners, had left the story exactly where it was before my post, and hadn't even provided any hooks that anyone else could play off. I confess my guilt! The problem I'm having with it is that I'm pretty sure this is exactly the kind of introspective path Anselm would have gone down in this situation. He doesn't much care about the other people in the boat, or about the scientific purpose of the investigation. He's just curious. The obelisk represents another puzzle to be solved or mystery to be unravelled. So no, he isn't going to tell Leigo what he has learned. Why would he? This illustrates, I think, the inherent conflict between “staying in character” and “playing nice with others.” I think it is one of the more challenging and interesting things about collaborative story-telling. Incidentally, I edited the post by adding a sentence in which Anselm says, “We can head back now.” Which at leasts provides something someone else can respond to. |