jj@alice.UUCP (01/07/86)
Well, Robert and Christine aside, I've run two major campaigns (by major I mean that the first is 8 years old and still running, but only when I get to Amherst from NJ or vice versa, and the second, in Rolemaster, is 2.4 and running along just fine...) and in both I've had multiple players per character, BUT with some sanity injected. Basically, the rules are: No more than 10 PC's in the game at once, except when at home, where there are about 20 or so hanging about. No fewer than 8 PC's except in cases where the party has split for some express purpose. Since there are 5-7 players, depending on night, this leads to the case where various people take either one or two, or in a few cases three <the group healer, a Lay Healer with a strength of 99, tends to hide in the back most of the time, but HAS entered combat... Doesn't hit very well, but when Earl hits, he HITS...> in order to keep the party at about the right size. Some of the players prefer to play two closely related characters (husband/wife and/or bros/sisters), others strictly one character at a time (although all have more than one available), and so on. I must note that two of the characters, a female Animist and a Male fighter, have had the gamut from love to all-out fights during games. Additionally, even the most tightly coupled of PC's have their ins and outs, like one would expect, regardless of whether or not they are owned by one player... <Other players do NOT play any individual's characters...> In general, I've not found a game viable with less than 4 players, or at least 6 characters (in AD&D) or 10 characters (in Rolemaster). In general, I don't find 5, 6, or 7 players a problem. I've done up to about 12, which DOES slow things down a bit, but doesn't make the game unplayable. Of course, I wouldn't start a campaign that large. I'm surprised at the totally unnecessary vicious nature of the articles about Multiple Characters Per Player. I don't see why we can't ALL accept that other people like to do it another way. This newsgroup as historically been free of insult and name-calling, except for a few times when various new netters (who styled themselves experts) thought to tell us how stupid we are. Such were ignored, and deservedly so. I think that this issue is due for a rest, and that the name-calling and taking of personal insult is due for a permanant expungement. "But he heard, way up in the air a piper piping away, and never was piping so sad, and never was piping so gay." -- TEDDY BEARS ARE SHY, SAVE A POWDERMILK BISCUIT FOR YOURS! "There are bridges, bridges in the sky, and bridges in the air..." (ihnp4;allegra;research)!alice!jj
ekblaw@uiucdcsp.CS.UIUC.EDU (01/08/86)
Which Robert, my friend? I am not knocking the multiple character per player ideal, provided (as you said) it does not go overboard. Usually, the way I handle it is as follows: 1. If less than five players are participating in a campaign, I allow those who wish it to have two characters (I limit it to two per player). My only contraint is that the characters are diverse, ie. a thief and a priest, a fighter and a thief, an elf and an orc, etc. This prevents cooperation between the two characters towards the benefit of the player as a whole. If I am GMing players I know well and trust, I lower the amount of diversity between the characters, as I know that the players are good enough to avoid problems of "information leakage" and "unconscious cooperation." 2. If five or six players are participating, I allow players with lower level characters to have a second one rolled up that comes along with the party as an NPC, whom I play if the character is needed. If the player's first character is killed, that player can then use the second character. This way, the second character knows all the infor- mation that the rest of the party does (as the character was with the group), yet is a seperate entity from the first character, who is now dead. I have been playing D&D for nearly ten years now (good Lord, has it been that long? I am getting old!), and the above method has worked the best for myself (as both a player and GM) of all the methods myself and my gaming buddies have tried. Robert A. Ekblaw
jj@alice.UUCP (01/10/86)
Whoops. In my article on multiple players, Robert, and antagonism, I was referring to Robert as in Rainbow. My apologies to Ekblaw. JJ -- TEDDY BEARS ARE SHY, SAVE A POWDERMILK BISCUIT FOR YOURS! "There are bridges, bridges in the sky, and bridges in the air..." (ihnp4;allegra;research)!alice!jj
ekblaw@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU (01/15/86)
Thank you. Apology accepted and noted. Robert A. Ekblaw "What is this world coming to? We can put a man on the moon, but we can't prevent backed-up cess pools! Phew, this world stinks!"
dobro@ulowell.UUCP (Chet Dobro) (01/21/86)
I have played and DM'ed for may years with both 1/play and >1/player groups.
It has been my experience that it is
1) dependent upon how the DM deals with each of the characters
and/or players as to how well thing get aong.
2) how completely the person submerges into the personality of their
character, and whether he/she can switch personalities well enough to
be equally (an hopefully deeply) submerged into both.
and 3) as stated, how large a group (of PC and players) is involved,
as well as how much the interaction is role-played.
I mention these because I, myself, can submerge myself into two *different*
(and not necessarily allied) characters with no loss of role-playing. I have
met a few others who can. But everyone cannot, and it is this latter group
that cause the contreversy be not representing both character as
individuals.
It has been assumed (too many times to referance) that two chasracter run by
the same person will get along. This is not necessarily the case! One pair
in particular that I saw a person run - a barbarian and a magic-user (AD&D)
As can be expected, these two did not see eye to eye (sorry :-)).
My point is, there are two many variables to make a general statement as to
whether multiple PC's/player work or not. Let's leave it up to the
individual groups.
It can be done, but if not done well (as is unfortuately often the case),
it detracts from playing rather than adding to it.
Hopefully no blood will be shed over this comment. Let's leave the fighting
to out characters.
Gryphon