unforum

[krystyn]

I think if you wanted to make an ARG where a character realizes that they are, indeed, a character, you could certainly do that!

But as far as players e-mailing characters to tell them that they are just figments of someone's imagination? I'd hazard a guess that pretty much any ARG with character e-mails has had an intrepid player attempting to 'set things straight' in such a fashion.

It's pretty much up to the PMs to decide what to respond to, yeah?

So, there's no saying an ARG couldn't have that, but it's really up to the PM use that sort of story arc.

I recommend Stranger Than Fiction as a compelling movie version of this idea, btw!

[Star Spider]

Hmmm... that is not really what I mean. What I mean is having characters 'suspend their disbelief' and try to solve the puzzle of their own existence. Perhaps it could lead to another offshoot of the game for players. Having a 'rouge' character might be an interesting angle/side story/ or even woven back in with the rest of the story. It would also in my opinion offer an interesting opening back up into reality. Having those lines between what is fact and what is fiction blur even more by having a chararacter who lives equally in both.

For example: If the character was kidnapped from real life to be placed into this 'game' then there would be the process of figuring out who the character was in 'reality' - why they were chosen - who the 'creator' is and what can be done (either extracting them from the game or bringing the whole game down from the inside).

I suppose these are really only options if the character was exposed to the 'truth' of their fictional existence. I like to think about the ramification of each action within a game and how that would effect fictional characters and real players. I just think that if someone told me I was a charater in a game I would likely take pause and consider the possibility rather then just deny the fact outright...

[thebruce]

you realize however that what you're doing is redefining the rules of your own ARG, not ARGs in general... so really by telling a character that they are a character, the player isn't "breaking TINAG". Essentially that applies to when players to do something (telling a character they're fake, for example) that breaks the boundaries of the game, of the fictional realm that was set up - even if it half takes place in reality.
In this sense, "TINAG" is a fairly vague concept, as ultimately the line is drawn by the PM in how they react to players' actions.

Generally speaking, ARGs with characters treat the characters as real people, so telling them they're a character is breaking that rule, for that game. If the PM incorporates that into their game, then it's not technically causing the character to accept something beyond their comprehension or ability for acceptance.

[Rogi Ocnorb]

A decent collection of books, plays and movies that have incorporated meta-fiction appears in this review of the afore mentioned "Stranger than Fiction".

[Shutaro]

[Star Spider]

For sure. As long as the PM can create a character able to discover their own fictional reality then that automatically becomes a part of the game. In that way I believe that the genre itself is very flexable. I was really just commenting on the idea that was brought up that telling a character that they were fictional would dissolve the game - which I don't believe is true. I think being as ARG's have rules that bend and break all the time (or do not even really exist) that there should always be a way out of a potential problem - even if it means changing the so called 'rules of play'. This allows the players greater flexability if all the bases are covered and any and all questions have answers.

I was watching a show recently called Murder in Small Town X an ARG/RPG/Reality Show and was seriously surprised that the players did not do anything beyond what they were guided to do. I suppose it shouldn't have surprised me (as none of them were gamers) but I think games in which you can test the limits are most interesting. They seemed to create these guidelines for living and even playing without stepping outside the lines. They even seemed to have trouble grasping simple ideas like the idea that their actions caused reactions within the community of Player Characters. In real life our actions cause reactions but they seemed to ignore that basic rule when playing the game. (But then again it was TV - so they likely were limited in their play).

None-the-less if the game is trying to prove itself 'TINAG' it means that generally PM's don't lay down the rules before hand the reactions of the game itself are the only ways to feel out the difference between 'right' and 'wrong' within that particualr universe and as you said - that is up to the PM to decide

Back to the topic at hand I think the PM should be allowed to have their characters mention Unfiction if they think it is best in their game. In the end it is up to their descretion and if they can get away with it without hurting the players sense of Unreality - more power to them!

[Star Spider]

[thebruce]

[Star Spider]

[konamouse]

What about the characters in "The Purple Rose of Cairo" (just to throw a monkey wrench in the "don't tell them they are fictional characters in a movie" scenario.

As for Murder in Small Town X - this was ultimately a reality game/contest. And the participants knew it was a contest, so there were rules they had to play by. The actors/characters knew they were fictional but also had their roles to play.

You can say it even more for Joe Schmo - there was a group of actors portraying real people, and one real person who had NO idea it was all scripted/fake, he thought it was a real survivor type game (and the sequel which tried to do the same with a dating show but the first female Schmo figured it out and was actually brought into the fictional side to participate in the gag).

[Star Spider]

[Rogi Ocnorb]

"Reality" shows are seldom as "real" as they appear.

[thebruce]

yeah it depends how you define 'real'. Most of the time it's scripted situations, but I think the basic necessity of 'reality tv' is that the people aren't acting their responses, but responding to real and/or scripted situations... as soon as the real people start acting their responses, then I pass it off as non-reality tv.

anyway, sorry to go off teh tangent.

[Rolerbe]

Re: What is real? How do you define real?

[FLmutant]

Re: What is real? How do you define real?