((As promised... features))
Alright so we've gone over Motivation, Jumping the Shark (I should do Rails soon), The Great Divide... and now Features.
Today, thanks to interviewing goodness, I was denied the company of our Great Peril. Needless to say, it did not still my thoughts. As promised, I wanted to delve into how each of us sees the 'feature' role.
I learned to mush where there were no features save the Regent (ruler- Game owner) and the Prince (Lead GM). I was informed that I had even worked myself into a similar 'staying' position because of the RP concept we developed. It was a concept (and building) where we endeavored to teach our complex theme to new players and present a learning curve, without issue of accidently insulting a noble. Or they'd not made it through the 10,000+ plus pages on our Wiki. Well, we weren't that bad, but we were really close. Every player had a page, and then there were logs, and then there was history... and so on and so on. Eventually, my 'role' on the game was seen as almost that of a feature because I would sign on to help our newbies, and develop stories. Now I wasn't the only one taking the plunge to become more involved... many of our players did.
What is a feature in your mind?
Are they: Strictly NPC? Strictly PC?
An intermingling of the two?
What makes a feature?
Why are the important?
What is the perfect balance?
On what sort of game does the concept work or even break down?
Now my personal take on a feature is that they're NPC's that are played by talented RP'ers. People who have a firm grasp of theme and the onus that they will build stories and get others involved. Benedict (sorry, big guy) is probably one of the best iterations I have seen of what it means to be a feature. He's out there, snagging people for scene and reminding every player that Amber is still, and will probably be for a while, AT WAR! It's awesome.
No, this style of play doesn't appeal to everyone, but it is more than Relationship and political RP.
Do I think a game can survive without features... absolutely. The story changes focus but it is possible and seen many times. Features, like relationships in my book, should be the spice of a story. On C., we had 2, as I mentioned. Both were such untouchable characters that the likelihood of meeting one was one in a hundred (we were still a small grid). Not to say that they didn't come out, but they were our Deux ex Machina. They were the hammer that went BOOM!!
Now, we did leap into the foray of going "Features, Yay!" after one of our GM's tried a game that had them. Unfortunately, we got to see the reverse side. What happens when you have a poor/bad feature. Someone who actually drives away people and newbies (and was one of the defining reasons why even I left), before anything could be done.
Not to say that you shouldn't have an emotional investment, but I wonder at times if a feature character should not have a GM's mentality. Think to the many hats a GM must wear when telling a story. He's the narrator, the scene designer, and ultimately.. the bad guys. He must have a certain perspective that offers fun -and- challenging without forcing the PC's to feel overwhelmed or that the story is on Rails (this will be our topic for another day).
Now for those about to ask: I do feel that Amber needs Features. They are important to the story, but are they the only story or a vehicle to help us tell even more awesome stories?
Now this is just my 2 cents, and I would love to understand others perspective to this as well. Some games may thrive under either situation. But what does it mean to you?