How similar must plural MC or hand off IC characters be?

I read this

It is permissible to have several players act as one Main Character.
For this to work, each of the players must represent the same worldview,
the same view of the story’s inequity.

and was wondering, how different can the characters permissibly be? Would they, in the case of MC, share all of the same Symptoms, Issues, Problem Solving Style, etc. or is it enough that they both have the same Problem, Solution, and Resolve? If they have to have all the same non-Objective Storyform characteristics, would their difference come in being assigned to different Objective characteristics? If you have multiple Influence Characters, can one impact the MC unknowingly, while the other argues to MC’s face?

I’m still not sure how all these points fit together during Storyencoding even after reading about it, but that might be another topic.

They would all share the story points found in the MC throughline, though you may not explore all of the story points for each of them but break them up to explore different parts of the throughline individually.

Shared MC’s is a difficult task to pull off unless they are collectively seen as a group and not a bunch of individuals. Doing them as individuals is challenging.

The point of the throughlines is to show the audience how it might approach the inequity at the core of the story from fundamentally different perspectives – different contexts. Anything that works toward that end MAY be effective if the audience is able to coalesce the parts into the organic ‘whole’ by unweaving and decoding the storytelling AFTER it has experienced the entirety of the work. Some audiences will go through the effort of unscrambling complex storytelling. Other audiences may not be interested in going through the effort; they may prefer more direct (read simple) storyweaving and storyencoding.

The story points fit together like grammar. When you put together nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs, the rules of grammar create meaning for the reader/audience whether or not you intended it. The storyform pulls together a complex set of story grammar (story points) and if you illustrate those story points accurately, the audience understands the underlying meaning built into the storyform – even if you do not explicitly state that meaning.

But like grammar, there are proper ways to combine grammatical elements just as there are proper ways to combine story points. Combining them outside the normal usage MAY lead to miscommunication and misunderstanding. If that is your intent, then great. If it isn’t, then using the grammar as expected produces a greater likelihood of accurate communication to your audience.

So the short answer to this is that you need to explore each of the story points at some point in the story, keeping the story points within their appropriate throughlines. IDEALLY, each of the story points should be explored in EACH of the four signposts (or each of the three journeys if that’s your preference) within their appropriate throughlines. That gives the broadest and deepest exploration of your storyform.

Sometimes you don’t have enough space or time to explore that much so you illustrate the parts that are most important to you and let the audience fill in the blanks as best as they can.

2 Likes