oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicious Oyster) (12/06/85)
In article <440@ucdavis.UUCP> ccs007@ucdavis.UUCP (Cionex) writes: > >1) It requires all of a player's attention to play ONE character to the best > of their ability... >2) ... > No matter what the intentions of the player, knowledge seems to 'seep' > from the brain of one character to the other, which can lead to nearly > inconquerable problems of who knew what when. >3) Favoritism always rears its ugly head. I have yet to see a player who is > running two (or, in truly sick cases, more) pcs consider them both equals. > Invariably, one character acts considerably more than the other, and the > neglected pc becomes a waste of time and energy. > I agree to much of the above, but still think having a single player run 2 characters is a good idea in situations where there are not a lot of players (i.e 3-4). I've played this way a lot, and DMed it a bit, and my experience shows that each player will have a main character, who they play to the best of their ability, and they'll have the secondary character, which is sorta like an NPC which the DM doesn't have to worry about playing. It makes play more balanced to be able to have, f'rinstance, more than one fighter or cleric, and it leaves the DM with more time and energy to spend on the interesting parts of the game, rather than directing yet another NPC. Some people have brought up the fact that with only one character, if that character dies early on in the gaming session, they just sit and twiddle their thumbs. This happened to me early in my gaming career, and nearly caused me to give it up ("If this is how exciting it is, I'd rather be watching 'Dallas'!"). With a subsequent DM, we each had a backup character to use in such occasions, and when the main character was doing something like researching a spell. Of course, the backup character had to be able to fit in with the happenings. If the party was down a dungeon or in the middle of a desert, the character couldn't just appear; he/she would have to meet them in a town, or possibly "on the road." This worked fairly well, probably because the DM kept things lively (pun), and the supporting cast didn't have to show up very often. - Joel ({allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!oyster)
gt3191b@gitpyr.UUCP (McAllister, Daniel G.) (12/07/85)
For an interesting example of exactly how well this works, try reading "DREAMPARK" by Larry Niven and Steven Bernes. The book deals with sort of a VERY Advanced D&D scheme, and perhaps it doesn't exactly deal with one person / two characters, as it would be impossible to do so in the book's context. It does, however address the issue of inserting characters in the middle of the game to keep it interesting and it's good reading to boot. I'd better stop here or else I risk being flamed for posting in frp rather than books.
scott@hou2g.UUCP (The Brennan Monster) (12/09/85)
>>1) It requires all of a player's attention to play ONE character to the best >> of their ability... I could use this argument to prove that no one can play the game at all. I mean, if the player is playing a character, who is playing the player? :-). I like to think I can think of a few things at once. >>2) ... >> No matter what the intentions of the player, knowledge seems to 'seep' >> from the brain of one character to the other, which can lead to nearly Does each of the PCs/people you DM get individual notes from you for virtually everything? If not, how can you keep one player from "knowing" what another's character experienced? Seems to be the same problem to me. >>3) Favoritism always rears its ugly head. I have yet to see a player who is >> running two (or, in truly sick cases, more) pcs consider them both equals. >> Invariably, one character acts considerably more than the other, and the >> neglected pc becomes a waste of time and energy. Unfortunately, often true. Not inevitable, however. One rule of thumb I try to use in my dungeons is that everyone should try to have one spell- casting PC and one fighter type. That way, chances are you have at least one character that's useful in each situation. > Some people have brought up the fact that with only one character, if that >character dies early on in the gaming session, they just sit and twiddle their >thumbs. This happened to me early in my gaming career, and nearly caused me >to give it up ("If this is how exciting it is, I'd rather be watching >'Dallas'!"). With a subsequent DM, we each had a backup character to use in >such occasions, and when the main character was doing something like >researching a spell. Of course, the backup character had to be able to fit >in with the happenings. If the party was down a dungeon or in the middle of >a desert, the character couldn't just appear; he/she would have to meet them >in a town, or possibly "on the road." This worked fairly well, probably >because the DM kept things lively (pun), and the supporting cast didn't >have to show up very often. My very first character (Dwarf Fighter--alas, poor Puck) died very early in my gaming "career". Instead of sitting around the rest of the evening, I was worked into the dungeon almost immediately--this can be easily and believably done by a competent DM. In the above case, the party came across a bottle filled with vapors. Upon releasing the vapors (by throwing it against a distant wall--they weren't COMPLETELY stupid), the party was surprised to see a figure condense out of the fog--Mordru, a first-level mage imprisoned by the fella whose dungeon we were ransacking. Ol' Mordy (yours truly) was more than happy to help the party, under the circumstances. Etc., etc. For this reason, it might be a good idea to keep a few extra characters rolled up, and then you can insert them "on the fly". With high-level characters?..it mightn't work as well, although you have to do SOMETHING when your only PC dies in an 11th level castle. Another idea is to let the PC-less character play an NPC, at least for the duration. Provided one is available. Consumable substances for cerebral activity, Scott J. Berry ihnp4!hou2g!scott
bem8435@ritcv.UUCP (William "Power Chord" Trainor) (12/10/85)
In article <1767@uwmacc.UUCP> oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicious Oyster) writes: > Of course, the backup character had to be able to fit >in with the happenings. If the party was down a dungeon or in the middle of >a desert, the character couldn't just appear; he/she would have to meet them >in a town, or possibly "on the road." This worked fairly well, probably >because the DM kept things lively (pun), and the supporting cast didn't >have to show up very often. Recently, I ran under a (very good) DM, with a 1st level charecter, and was plagued by bad die rolls (as was many of the party). When I died in a dungeon, in order to get my "spare" charector into the game (I have died so many times that I have a few pre-rolleds), he had me wash up through a pool of water that was mysteriously connected to the river on which the boat I was in sank, etc., along with another "dead" player. He did this for everyone who died while we were still in that dungeon (a virtual eternity), so it got to the point where, after a fatalaty in combat, the rest of the party said "Let's go to the pool and see what we get this time!". I held the record for having 3 charectors on that ill fated boat. Bill "I've got to get luckier dice" Trainor "....The dwarf said he had spotted Cindy in the corner, so I took out my bow and +3 arrow of Brady slaying. I was held back by the fighter, who in turn started to demand of her information to where her mother was. Cindy began to cry, which angered the fighter, so he used her as a door ram. Just then, Alice came in and blew him away with a .38 special...." From the "Kill the Bradys" module at Rudicon '85
abgamble@water.UUCP (abgamble) (12/10/85)
> >>>1) It requires all of a player's attention to play ONE character to the best >>> of their ability... > > I could use this argument to prove that no one can play the game > at all. I mean, if the player is playing a character, who is playing > the player? :-). I like to think I can think of a few things at once. The point here isn't whether or not you can "think of a few things at once". The point is that it is extremely difficult to _Roleplay_ two distinct personalities at the same time. The average player has enough trouble _Roleplaying_ one character. Unless you want to forget roleplaying completely and just run around killing monsters & hoarding magic, the best way to play is one character per player. > >>>3) Favoritism always rears its ugly head. I have yet to see a player who is >>> running two (or, in truly sick cases, more) pcs consider them both equals. >>> Invariably, one character acts considerably more than the other, and the >>> neglected pc becomes a waste of time and energy. > > Unfortunately, often true. Not inevitable, however. One rule of thumb I > try to use in my dungeons is that everyone should try to have one spell- > casting PC and one fighter type. That way, chances are you have at least > one character that's useful in each situation. Again you miss the point. Refering to your PC's as "useful" indicates that you think of them more as pawns than as characters. What was meant here (I assume) is that one PC will be developed as a character while the other will be neglected. This has nothing to do with whether or not you have a character that's "useful" in each situation (whatever that means). > > For this reason, it might be a good idea to keep a few extra characters > rolled up, and then you can insert them "on the fly". With high-level > characters?..it mightn't work as well, although you have to do SOMETHING > when your only PC dies in an 11th level castle. Our group tried this once but soon abandonned the idea. The problem was that if a player's back-up character looked a bit interesting, the player was much more likely to take stupid chances with his primary character (not very good roleplaying). > > Another idea is to let the PC-less character play an NPC, at least for > the duration. Provided one is available. Now _this_ is a good idea. Of course the player can't have complete control of the NPC. ie the GM can step in and dictate the NPC's actions anytime he wants. > > Scott J. Berry > ihnp4!hou2g!scott -- - Bruce Gamble (abgamble@water.UUCP)
jagardner@watmath.UUCP (Jim Gardner) (12/11/85)
[...] One solution to the multiple character dilemma is to have a portfolio of several characters and then choose the one you will run on a particular adventure. We've done this in our Champions campaign with some success. All you have to do is give the GM advance warning of which character you will be running, so allowances can be made. This approach gives you variety (if that's what you want), but doesn't spread you too thin during the actual gaming session. It also makes for interesting combinations -- consider the situation when every player decides to trot out his martial artist character and suddenly the party is drastically out of balance. It's not the sort of thing you want to try every session, but it's good for giggles to see how the characters react to one another. Jim Gardner, University of Waterloo
quint@caip.RUTGERS.EDU (Amqueue) (12/11/85)
In article <1767@uwmacc.UUCP> oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicious Oyster) writes: >In article <440@ucdavis.UUCP> ccs007@ucdavis.UUCP (Cionex) writes: >> >>1) It requires all of a player's attention to play ONE character to the best >> of their ability... > >>2) ... >> No matter what the intentions of the player, knowledge seems to 'seep' >> from the brain of one character to the other, which can lead to nearly >> inconquerable problems of who knew what when. > >>3) Favoritism always rears its ugly head. I have yet to see a player who is >> running two (or, in truly sick cases, more) pcs consider them both equals. >> Invariably, one character acts considerably more than the other, and the >> neglected pc becomes a waste of time and energy. >> > I agree to much of the above, but still think having a single player run 2 >characters is a good idea in situations where there are not a lot of players >(i.e 3-4). I've played this way a lot, and DMed it a bit, and my experience > Some people have brought up the fact that with only one character, if that >character dies early on in the gaming session, they just sit and twiddle their >thumbs. This happened to me early in my gaming career, and nearly caused me >to give it up ("If this is how exciting it is, I'd rather be watching >'Dallas'!"). With a subsequent DM, we each had a backup character to use in >such occasions, and when the main character was doing something like >researching a spell. Of course, the backup character had to be able to fit >in with the happenings. If the party was down a dungeon or in the middle of >a desert, the character couldn't just appear; he/she would have to meet them >in a town, or possibly "on the road." This worked fairly well, probably >because the DM kept things lively (pun), and the supporting cast didn't >have to show up very often. > > - Joel ({allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!oyster) In our campaign, we have a large world with lots going on at a time. We also have about 10 people who sporadically play. So we have many characters, often in different dungeons. The dungeon we play in depends on who shows up. The number that show up determines how many characters we play. For example, 6 people in a low level dungeon might play 2 each, whereas in a higher level dungeon they would only play one. Of course, at higher levels there is also a greater probability that the character will have money, and that someone in the party will have a mount fast enough to get to a cleric in time to get the character raised. The other thing we do is if you are playing more than one character, you play an 'action' character and a spellcaster of some sort. My favorite combination is a Thief and a Cleric. We usually keep track of who knows what by writing down what dungeon the character was in on the sheet, along with any special knowledge. Also, taking souvenirs of a dungeon or wierd monsters helps keep things straight. The players are encouraged not to have their characters help or even necessarily know each other. My Thief and Cleric cant stand each other, and tolerate working together because it is profitable. These two do violate the 'knowing' each other clause, as they are mother and daughter, but over the years they have become different enough that I can even have them converse without too much problem... "Mommy mommy get me that!" "Get lost creep, you have more money than I do!" "But my god wants it all!" "That's your tough sh*t, let go of my cloak!" They started out as Elf and Half elf, now they are Dwarf and Drow, so it makes life interesting. for information, I have a total of 20 characters, plus 4 children growing up, 2 for fighter-thieves, 1 for thief, and one for illusionist. Our game is fun. /amqueue
scott@hou2g.UUCP (The Brennan Monster) (12/11/85)
>>>1) It requires all of a player's attention to play ONE character to the best >>> of their ability... >> I could use this argument to prove that no one can play the game >> at all. I mean, if the player is playing a character, who is playing >> the player? :-). I like to think I can think of a few things at once. > The point here isn't whether or not you can "think of a few things at > once". The point is that it is extremely difficult to _Roleplay_ two > distinct personalities at the same time. The average player has enough > trouble _Roleplaying_ one character. Unless you want to forget roleplaying > completely and just run around killing monsters & hoarding magic, the > best way to play is one character per player. I still think my point (thought somewhat facetious) is valid, and addresses the original statement. Do you completely forget about yourself during (a 3-4 hour session of) play? I.e. are there no "meta-discussions" during play? If not, you're running yourself and a character at the same time. Granted, running yourself is easy, but only because you've had that character for a long time. :-) >>>3) Favoritism always rears its ugly head. I have yet to see a player who is >>> running two (or, in truly sick cases, more) pcs consider them both equals. >>> Invariably, one character acts considerably more than the other, and the >>> neglected pc becomes a waste of time and energy. >> Unfortunately, often true. Not inevitable, however. One rule of thumb I >> try to use in my dungeons is that everyone should try to have one spell- >> casting PC and one fighter type. That way, chances are you have at least >> one character that's useful in each situation. > Again you miss the point. Refering to your PC's as "useful" indicates that > you think of them more as pawns than as characters. What was meant here (I > assume) is that one PC will be developed as a character while the other > will be neglected. This has nothing to do with whether or not you have a > character that's "useful" in each situation (whatever that means). I guess I didn't make myself clear here. If your characters have very different skills, it seems likely that neither one will "act considerably more than the other". If I have two mages, I'd likely favor one over the other. But with a fighter and a mage, it's easier to appreciate their differences, both in skills and personality. Of course, my feeling is that personality can be somewhat shaped by skills. I think that if you're in a situation where one PC has nothing to do to contribute to the action, they CAN tend to be ignored, and perhaps this is what Gary was referring to above. I've never had a problem with one character being ignored, or preferred--I like them each too much, regardless of what they are. >> For this reason, it might be a good idea to keep a few extra characters >> rolled up, and then you can insert them "on the fly". With high-level >> characters?..it mightn't work as well, although you have to do SOMETHING >> when your only PC dies in an 11th level castle. > Our group tried this once but soon abandonned the idea. The problem was that > if a player's back-up character looked a bit interesting, the player was > much more likely to take stupid chances with his primary character (not > very good roleplaying). I've not had this problem, although I can see how it can happen. But as you say, not very good roleplaying. >> Another idea is to let the PC-less character play an NPC, at least for >> the duration. Provided one is available. > Now _this_ is a good idea. Of course the player can't have complete > control of the NPC. ie the GM can step in and dictate the NPC's actions > anytime he wants. Naturally! :-) > - Bruce Gamble (abgamble@water.UUCP) Scott J. Berry ihnp4!hou2g!scott
robert@fear.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) (12/11/85)
With all the complaints about multiple characters, you'd get the
impression that the GM can play hordes of NPCs perfectly, but players
inevitably crash and burn when trying to play two characters. In
reality, good players can play multiple characters well, and poor
players can't even play one character well.
When I play multiple characters, I usually have a strong one and a
weak one, due to the characters' personalities and abilities. I
usually play the strong seriously, and the weak one comically (i.e.,
lots of quirks and odd hobbies, and perhaps a weakness for practical
jokes).
If you have trouble with separating your characters, have them
dislike each other. It helps a lot, though the other players may get
irritated when you spend fifteen minutes talking to yourself as your
characters argue with each other.
--
Robert Plamondon
UUCP: {turtlevax, resonex, cae780}!weitek!robert
FidoNet: 10/624 robert plamondonriggsby@h-sc1.UUCP (andrew riggsby) (12/12/85)
>if a player's back-up character looked a bit interesting, the player was >much more likely to take stupid chances with his primary character (not >very good roleplaying). > This is a very common idea but I think is wrong. Success does not necessarily equal good role-playing. Not all interesting people are interested in or even capable of becoming rich and powerful, or even staying alive for a very long period of time. Obviously, if a character is killed the first time he goes out,he will not be very interesting, but there is nothing wrong with playing one who sometimes, or even often, takes "stupid chances." The same applies to, for example, cowardly characters. Let me say that I am not trying to take a stand on the multi/single character issue, but the comment above reminded me of a point which I have been worrying about and have been wanting to post about for a long time. > - Bruce Gamble (abgamble@water.UUCP) Andrew Riggsby riggsby%h-sc4@harvard.harvard.edu
sps@druri.UUCP (ShaplandSP) (12/13/85)
I have played under DMs who ruled
"One player, One character"
and DMs who ruled
"One player, two or three characters"
Both situations work under different circumstances.
The one player/one character rule works when:
1) The campaign is a single, special session.
2) There are sufficient players to establish a
well rounded party.
For general, long term campaigns(1 to 3+ years),
multiple characters per player seem to be a must.
There are several advantages to this scheme:
1) It allows a smaller number of players.
This reduces the coordination problems of the single
game sessions (polling during melee) and
the coordination/commitment of the extended campaign.
2) It also increases the odds that the party will be
more rounded in race and character types.
3) A player is not restricted to one particular character
type for several years, but may develop other playing
skills and personallities.
4) When one character dies, the player is not sitting on
his/her hands until either a high cleric or a new
character arrives on the scene.
There are also several disadvantages:
1) The aforementioned "information sharing" between characters
of the same player.
2) It requires EXPERIENCED players!
Players must be experienced in both role-playing
and in the game system being used.
3) The player can NOT always keep both characters in
the "top of their mind" during play.
I have been playing in a campaign for the past 3 years with 2
characters, a Half-Elven Magic_User/Cleric and a Human Ranger.
Both have died, been seperated from the main body of the party,
developed their own personallities, withheld information from
each other, coordinated their actions through verbal communication
with other members of the party, acted on their own initiative,
and on occasion been turned over to the DM to play as an NPC when
needed.
I feel that this system has enhanced the enjoyment of the game
for both myself and the other 2 player of the game.
(There were 3 players, but one departed, leaving one of her
characters with the party.)
S.P. Shapland aka Marcian Quintella and Alozor VinDust
druri!spsross@ulowell.UUCP (Ross) (12/14/85)
I find multiple characters a necessity as I grow bored playing one
character. In fact, if I am playing in a moderately high level
group, I usually play three characters. Two high level say 9 - 11
characters one a cleric and one a fighter type, and a low level
apprentice, max third level of one of these two characters. I have
found this to be a great way for me to logically train low level
characters. Note that low level characters get a very very small
percentage of E.P. I also play all characters with separate
personalities. I have on occasion had them attack each other
verbally and physically.
This method of play did not arise because I wanted it to. I
play in a group that runs very regularly, but often one or two
members of the usually 6 to 8 member group will not be around. This
meant that I or one of the other players had to control these
characters. I found I liked playing multiple characters and have
been doing it since.
The largest problem I have encountered in playing multiple
characters is that mulitple personalities exist and must be played
accordingly. This became especially "unfun" when on of the
characters I was playing was blasted by a mind flayer and as a
mild form of insanity randomly assumed the personality of another
member of the party every hour. Party members included pack
lizards, and other pets.
Ross
UUCP: ...!decvax!wang!ulowell!ross
CSNET||ARPA: "ross@ulowell"@csnet-relaymff@wuphys.UUCP (Swamp Thing) (12/19/85)
In article <832@h-sc1.UUCP> riggsby@h-sc1.UUCP (andrew riggsby) writes: >>if a player's back-up character looked a bit interesting, the player was >>much more likely to take stupid chances with his primary character (not >>very good roleplaying). >> >This is a very common idea but I think is wrong. Success does not necessarily >equal good role-playing. Couldn't agree more. One of the characters I have enjoyed playing most is a ranger with a good strength and above-average hitpoints. Because of this, the guy has just never learned to fear anything. (Well, almost anything). His idea of strategy is to run up to a monster and kill it. A typical example: M.U.: Yes, I can sense a big red dragon beyond that door. Ranger: Right! Let's go!! (Opens door) Rest of Party: WAIT! Dragon: Snort The ranger and one other surviving member then walk in and kill the dragon. Of course, if the dragon had gotten one more breath off, we'd all have been dragon chow. It's a definite personality quirk, certainly not the most intelligent thing to do, but is still good role playing (in my opinion at least). Mark F. Flynn Department of Physics Washington University St. Louis, MO 63130 ihnp4!wuphys!mff ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "There is no dark side of the moon, really. Matter of fact, it's all dark." P. Floyd
abgamble@water.UUCP (abgamble) (12/19/85)
> In article <832@h-sc1.UUCP> riggsby@h-sc1.UUCP (andrew riggsby) writes: >>>if a player's back-up character looked a bit interesting, the player was >>>much more likely to take stupid chances with his primary character (not >>>very good roleplaying). >>> >>This is a very common idea but I think is wrong. Success does not necessarily >>equal good role-playing. > > Couldn't agree more. One of the characters I have enjoyed playing most is a > ranger with a good strength and above-average hitpoints. Because of this, the > guy has just never learned to fear anything. (Well, almost anything). His > idea of strategy is to run up to a monster and kill it. Wait a minute. I didn't mean that taking stupid chances was always bad roleplaying. Taking dumb chances for the reason given above (which has nothing to do with the character's personality) _is_ bad roleplaying. It is bad roleplaying because the player is allowing the fact that he has a good back-up character to influence how he plays his primary character. What form that influnce takes is not what's important. > > Mark F. Flynn > Department of Physics > Washington University > St. Louis, MO 63130 > ihnp4!wuphys!mff > -- - Bruce Gamble ihnp4!watmath!water!abgamble
rainbow@ihlts.UUCP (Robert) (12/28/85)
> riccb!rjnoe >> deneb!ccs007 >> But first, allow me to confront a question upon which I thought all people >> were in agreement - The concept that AD&D works best when played with one, >> and only one, player character per person. > Most good role players are good because (in part) they have that flexibility > of mind which allows them to see things differently. I suppose everyone has their own opinion. Personally, I think it seriously detracts from the enjoyment of the game if players are allowed to roll play more than one character. I do not like doing it. And I wouldn't allow others to do it. I am rather firm in this belief from what I have seen and experienced. Its sort of like dating two women at the same time. It isn't fair to either one of them and it effects your involvement/commitment. But then again if you just want to fool around and not be serious, I suppose its okay. In both cases. But thats not me. >> It requires all of a player's attention to play ONE character to the best >> of their ability. . . . >That statement is so broad it seems preposterous. People do differ in >their ability to concentrate on items. I am sure some people can play two characters better than others. But regardless of how well they can do it, it won't be done as well as if they had one character. I can not see anyone convincingly argue to the contrary. I can do two things at the same time better than most. Ask anyone who knows me to verify. But looking back at the times Ive played two characters, I can no longer clearly differentiate what happened to which character or even their individual personality traits. As for the times Ive played one character, I can remember every detail of their life story. I don't think I need to say which of those characters leave the fondest memories. Clearly the single characters have given me the greater enjoyment. >> No matter what the intentions of the player, knowledge seems to 'seep' >> from the brain of one character to the other . . . Irrelevant point. Knowledge seems to seep to all the PC's even if they are run by different people. This illegal data flow is usually lightly enforced. It makes little difference if the same player runs both PC's since the information would quite likely be known to all anyway. What I tend to dislike is that when one character gets into trouble, the other character is used to help out the first even if its totally against the nature of the second. Also, there is complete trust between the two of them. Magic items are "borrowed" back and forth, etc. This close comradery is never seen between PC's run by different players. Then there is always suspicion and doubt and distrust. The latter case is the more realistic case. >> Favoritism always rears its ugly head. I have yet to see a player who is >> running two PCs consider them both equals. >Would you like to meet such a player? You might find it an enlightening experience. Yes I would like to meet that player. I would have chosen a much stronger word than enlightenment though. Revelation perhaps. I would rate such a meeting equivalent to seeing God face to face during my earthly lifetime. Odds are not very good that either will occur. I would definitely be in awe. I can always predict which of two characters will take a risky action if one is needed. I can always predict which of two characters will get the better magic items. etc. I call this favoritism. If everyone has one character, its a big discussion over who will take the risky action. With two, someone just goes and does it. The former is much more realistic. With one character each, its a big dicussion over who will get the magic item. With two, the number of claimants is cut in half. The latter is totally unrealistic. I don't enjoy this kind of artificial role playing when each has two PC's. If you do, thats okay. Robert
rainbow@ihlts.UUCP (Robert) (12/28/85)
> drutx!druri!sps >I have played under DMs who ruled > "One player, One character" >and DMs who ruled > "One player, two or three characters" >Both situations work under different circumstances. >The one player/one character rule works when: > 1) The campaign is a single, special session. No, this is the one case where I would allow more than one character. Here we have a situation where its not necessary to develope each characters personality. There is no reason to develope a past or future for that matter. So who cares how many PC's you are controlling? The purpose of the single session is to enjoy that particularly unique and interesting scenerio. I tend to avoid those. I like role playing for the opportunity to develope a character. This occurs only in ongoing campaigns. The latter cannot be done effectively with two characters. > 2) There are sufficient players to establish a > well rounded party. Usually with two characters each, the party is overkill in size. In any case, it is the DM's short coming if the party is not sufficient to handle the scenerios which are set up. If the DM insists on tough scenerios for a depleted party, well then the DM is responsible for supplying NPCs. I tend to dislike NPC's also, but thats another story/issue. Anyway, why is it necessary to have a well rounded party? It is quite challenging to make due with what you have. And more realistic. Lack of sufficient players is no justification for more PC's. >For general, long term campaigns(1 to 3+ years), >multiple characters per player seem to be a must. Its a definite no-no. At least from an enjoyment standpoint(see PART1 posting) >There are several advantages to this scheme: > 1) It allows a smaller number of players. > This reduces the coordination problems of the single > game sessions (polling during melee) and > the coordination/commitment of the extended campaign. I don't follow why its an advantage to have fewer players? It seems to be an irrelevant issue. Polling takes place regardless. It is not a function of party size(unless the DM has endless patience and does not cut it off after a certain amount of time). Coordination and commitment aren't functions of party size either. Be more specific otherwise I don't know what I'm refuting. > 2) It also increases the odds that the party will be > more rounded in race and character types. True. But why is that an issue? I don't follow once again. > 3) A player is not restricted to one particular character > type for several years, but may develop other playing > skills and personalities. What is wrong with playing one character in a particular campaign? Once again I don't follow. Thats what role playing is all about. There is nothing stopping you from playing another character in another world if you want to broaden yourself. Or even retire your present character and start a new one. Or alternate when one is predisposed. Or take a more active role in playing the NPC's. Why do you need to play two characters at once? I do not see any supporting evidence for your opening statement. > 4) When one character dies, the player is not sitting on > his/her hands until either a high cleric or a new > character arrives on the scene. Since everyone participates in all decisions anyway even when they aren't suppose to regardless of whether they are alive or have the knowledge or even are present, this is also irrelevant. What a party is is generally a collected brain trust. Just because your character is dead doesn't mean you are no longer part of that collected brain trust. You just don't have a right arm. But normally you are not twiddling your thumbs. You are still providing input and suggestions to every situation. If this seems wrong to you, well then just let the player run an NPC for the duration. Then the player is "officially" part of the brain trust again. I don't bother with the distinction though. No one has seemed to object yet. >There are also several disadvantages: > 1) The aforementioned "information sharing" between characters > of the same player. Irrelevant. Information sharing is rampant even among characters of different players. To do anything else wound bog things down too much. This sharing of info is usually overlooked unless it is blatantly taken advantage of. I tend to treat it lightly. > 2) It requires EXPERIENCED players! > Players must be experienced in both role-playing > and in the game system being used. True I guess. Its hard enough for an inexperienced player just to keep track of what their character can do. However, just because one has experience in what each character can do, it doesn't justify sacrificing time in developing your personality. Experience in this area doesn't mean you no longer have to spend as much time on it. It requires constant attention to role play properly. Experience just means you can do it better with regard to not slipping up and working your traits into the campaign. > 3) The player can NOT always keep both characters in > the "top of their mind" during play. "can not always" implies that a player usually can. Wrong. You should say "can almost never". This implies that a player usually can't. The latter is the realistic case. >I have been playing in a campaign for the past 3 years with 2 characters ..... >I feel that this system has enhanced the enjoyment of the game >for both myself and the other 2 player of the game. Good. All that counts is that everyone you are playing with agrees with your philosphy and enjoys the campaign format beign used. My enjoyment is greater with only one character. Matter-in-fact, I actually dislike playing two at once. I do not find it enjoyable. So my preference is one character and one only. Thats just my opinion. I'm not trying to change your mind. Just present my views. Robert
chris@globetek.UUCP (chris) (12/31/85)
In article <686@ihlts.UUCP> rainbow@ihlts.UUCP (Robert) writes: > >... Personally, I think it seriously >detracts from the enjoyment of the game if players are allowed to roll play >more than one character. I do not like doing it. And I wouldn't allow others >to do it. Sure glad you're not my DM, then. >What I tend to dislike is that ... there is complete trust between the >two [characters played by 1 person]. Magic >items are "borrowed" back and forth, etc. This close comradery is never seen >between PC's run by different players. Then there is always suspicion and >doubt and distrust. The latter case is the more realistic case. Doubly glad I don't play in your group. If all the characters distrust each other, it can't be very nice trotting into a dungeon wondering if your companions are going to run out and leave you in the lurch, or refuse to lend an item that could save all your lives. > ...If everyone has one character, its >a big discussion over who will take the risky action. With two, someone just >goes and does it. The former is much more realistic. With one character each, >its a big dicussion over who will get the magic item. With two, the number >of claimants is cut in half. The latter is totally unrealistic. I don't >enjoy this kind of artificial role playing when each has two PC's. > >Robert Whatever happened to the idea of getting a bunch of friends together to play interesting characters and have fun? "You guys can all attack that monster, I'm not going to, my character might get hurt." "I know you're a level 5 fighter, but *I* want the Girdle of Giant Strength for my level 1 magic user, and I'll argue all night if I don't get it." What happened to courage and generosity? Triply glad I don't play in your group... -- Christine Robertson {linus, ihnp4, decvax}!utzoo!globetek!chris Money may not buy happiness, but misery in luxury has its compensations...
showard@udenva.UUCP (showard) (01/02/86)
In article <687@ihlts.UUCP> rainbow@ihlts.UUCP (Robert) writes: > >I don't follow why its an advantage to have fewer players? It seems >to be an irrelevant issue. Polling takes place regardless. It is not >a function of party size. If you've ever DMed a group of 10 players (I did once) or even played in such a group, you will appreciate the advantages of a smaller number of players. I'm talking about complete chaos. Everything takes twice as long to do, players who are not involved in the current activity get bored, and so forth. I think it is much easier for everyone to communicate and participate in the game with a smaller number of players. Also, in a campaign with upwards of 5 or 6 players, it is much harder to get everyone together on a regular basis and nearly impos- sible to organize a "spur of the moment" game session. Most DMs I know would much rather have four players with two characters each than eight players with one character each. Personally, I'd rather have four players with one character each than either of those two options, but that's beside the point. --Blore
sps@druri.UUCP (ShaplandSP) (01/06/86)
I have tried to DM a group of 10+ players. #$_UGH_%! I even tried to run a campaign with this group. The only things which "saved the day" was that I had a co-DM. This allowed us to occassionally split the group, help each other during melee, and offered greater variety of NPC personalities. I greatly prefer small groups (3-5 players) with multiple characters(2-3 each). I should note that our games do NOT involve NPCs (other than those introduced and played by the DM) and hirelings. We keep the party size about 8 and TRY to avoid passing too much information material wealth, etc. between characters of the same player. It requires "role playing" skill to keep things straight! In summary, too few characters and the party often dies. too many players and the game often dies. The best long term games I have played involve a compromise between these two extremes. SP Shapland druri!sps 11655 Logan St. Northglenn, CO 80233
slb@drutx.UUCP (Sue Brezden) (01/08/86)
>If so, you are a better person than I. I would not have my PC lend >10000 gold to another PC to buy a +4 sword because their +2 sword >isn't as good. I would. Well, several of my characters would (the intelligent, non-greedy ones). As a matter of fact, last night one did. It was for magic, not a weapon--but the loan amounted to more than 10000 gold. It depends on the situation. Obviously such a purchase helps the whole party. And if the other PC is a reasonable risk, why not? >Now if the player has two PCs, somehow an easy deal is usually worked out. Moralda (who made the loan above) would never lend money to Ray, my other character in that dungeon. She knows how stupid and chaotic he is. He isn't a reasonable risk. And she is smart enough to know that. Such a thing depends on the PCs, NOT the players. (or should) -- Sue Brezden ihnp4!drutx!slb ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To search for perfection is all very well, But to look for heaven is to live here in hell. --Sting ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
patrick@mcc-db2.UUCP (Patrick McGehearty) (01/08/86)
It is obvious from all the discussion that the issue of whether to have multiple characters has more than one point of view. In my most recent campaign (mid-level 6-9), I was concerned that if each person had only one character, and that character died in an irrecoverable way (ie eaten by a Remoraz or failed raise roll) that individual would be at a long term disadvantage to the rest of the group if he/she were forced to start over with a low level character. Having observed that this sort of disadvantage has caused people to lose interest in a campaign caused me to look for a solution. However, I felt that characters in the mid-levels need lots of attention to be run well (especially spell casters). Therefore, I did not want to have two or more characters per person. So I created several party NPCs. These characters are one or more levels below the party average, but still useful. During normal adventuring, they are run by people who are not part of the current critical action. I only intervene if they are placed in obvious extreme risk or seem to be getting shorted during treasure division. In this way, if some person's prime character is wiped out, they can immediately assume a new character. Of course, losing a couple of levels is still painful and an incentive not to be too rash. So far (100+ playing hours) they have not lost a party member. (Several close calls) Since they do not seem to need the full set of auxilaries that were provided, I am gradually finding excuses to semi-retire them. Then they are known to the group as reliable adventurers, but not always along to get a share of loot and take up playing time. Anybody else tried any novel solutions to the multiple character per person problem?
robert@fear.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) (01/10/86)
In article <369@mcc-db2.UUCP>, patrick@mcc-db2.UUCP (Patrick McGehearty) writes: > In my most recent campaign (mid-level 6-9), I was concerned that > if each person had only one character, and that character died > in an irrecoverable way (ie eaten by a Remoraz or failed raise roll) > that individual would be at a long term disadvantage to the > rest of the group if he/she were forced to start over with > a low level character. Having observed that this sort of > disadvantage has caused people to lose interest in a campaign > caused me to look for a solution. You don't HAVE to start characters at first level. Start replacement characters at around the same level as the others. Then the problem you mentioned goes away entirely. In my campaign, I usually started novice players the same way: I had them play a dumb fighter at or above the level of the other characters. First-time players find the role easy to play, and usually go out in a blaze of glory as they try to take out a dragon single-handedly on their first adventure. The average campaign would hand the novice player a first-level character into a high-level campaign where he can do NOTHING without being killed -- and is thus left holding the mule or cringing in a corner. NOT a very good way to interest people in your campaign. -- Robert Plamondon UUCP: {turtlevax, resonex, cae780}!weitek!robert FidoNet: 143/12 robert plamondon
mark@mrstve.UUCP (Mark Smith) (01/13/86)
In article <369@mcc-db2.UUCP>, patrick@mcc-db2.UUCP (Patrick McGehearty) writes: > It is obvious from all the discussion that the issue of whether > to have multiple characters has more than one point of view. > > Anybody else tried any novel solutions to the multiple character > per person problem? Here is something I tried in my 1985 campaign which worked really well: I allowed each player to run 1 PC and 1 NPC. The NPC was a "backup" in case of an untimely death. I had strict rules and guidelines set and if even one of these rules were broken, the NPC was removed from the game. Some of these rules were: o No transacting, loans, etc between PC's and NPC's. o NPC's could not be considered friends, relatives, etc to the PC. o The NPC could not be named beneficiary of a PC's will. (Not applicable to some campaigns. Personally, I feel each PC should draft a will designating where his or her belongins will go in case of death. This aviods a lot of arguments when a character does die and his companions turn into crazed mothers after cabbage patch kids.) o Let NPC's advance and gain wealth at the same rate as PC's. o Enforce these rules. Especially the share and share alike syndrome. I only had to revoke one NPC all year. After that, my players got the message. Well, thats my contribution to the heated debate. Personally, I don't like to let players run more than one PC, but I don't like p.o.'d players running a 1st or 2nd level when the party averages arouund 6 or 7. No hate mail please. This is just one persons opinion. MINE!! -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- May the Quest for the ElfSword be your ultimate goal in life... Mark Smith GM "The Software Wizard" ihnp4!pur-ee!pur-phy!mrstve!mark =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
cdrigney@uokvax.UUCP (01/14/86)
Written 10:49 am Jan 13, 1986 by mark@mrstve.UUCP: >In article <369@mcc-db2.UUCP>, patrick@mcc-db2.UUCP (Patrick McGehearty) writes: >> >> Anybody else tried any novel solutions to the multiple character >> per person problem? Well, we once ran with multiple players per character. A friend and I jointly played an Illusionist with a split personality... > Personally, I feel each PC should draft a will > designating where his or her belongins will go in > case of death. This aviods a lot of arguments when > a character does die and his companions turn into > crazed mothers after cabbage patch kids.) Good lord, man! You mean they don't bury his belongings with him? Whatever is his Ka going to do in the afterlife?!! All foolishness aside, as a writer in A&E 125 said, "Why does the adventure have to stop at death?" If your players are roleplayers, and they know their friend *needs* his stuff to do well in the afterlife (and maybe some more stuff as well), would they give it to him? It might also give them an entirely new perspective on tomb robbers, which is more or less what many PCs are. Anyone care to discuss this idea? --Carl Rigney USENET: {ihnp4,allegra!cbosgd}!okstate!uokvax!cdrigney > May the Quest for the Elf sorta be > your ultimate goal in life...
cc100jr@gitpyr.UUCP (Joel M. Rives) (01/17/86)
> >All foolishness aside, as a writer in A&E 125 said, "Why does the >adventure have to stop at death?" If your players are roleplayers, >and they know their friend *needs* his stuff to do well in the >afterlife (and maybe some more stuff as well), would they give it >to him? It might also give them an entirely new perspective on >tomb robbers, which is more or less what many PCs are. > >Anyone care to discuss this idea? > > --Carl Rigney >USENET: {ihnp4,allegra!cbosgd}!okstate!uokvax!cdrigney Yes. In a AD&D campaign which Iran for several years, one of the main characters in the world was a female paladin, follower of Odin The Allfather. In a typically heroic attempt to save a friend from falling into a large gapping chasm when an earthquake suddenly split the ground before them, the paladin fell over the edge - along with the hapless wizard who promptly Dimension Doored out of there. The result of the fall and subsequent massive burial was permanently fatal. Seeing as this warrior maiden had been particularly outstanding in her devotion to Odin, The Allfather granted her the oppor- tunity of becoming one of the Air Maidens under his direction. Needless to say, the paladin accepted. It so happened that her interest in her mortal friends was of such high devotion that Odin saw fit send her forth to aide her fellow adventurers every once in a while. Thus the character was - for all practical purposes - dead. Yet, role-playing opportunities were not. Maryah of the Whispering Grove ~-_-~-_-~-_-~-_-~-_-~-_-+++-_-~-_-~-_-~-_-~-_-~-_-~ # # # All Praise be to Silvanus # # Protector of the Forests # # Lord of all Woodland Beings # # # ~-_-~-_-~-_-~-_-~-_-~-_-+++-_-~-_-~-_-~-_-~-_-~-_-~