rainbow@ihlts.UUCP (Robert) (01/04/86)
>Christine utzoo!globetek!chris It really is amzing how someone can take an article and and totally corrupt it with clever ommissions. Also, when one person tries to present their views, why try to tear them down? Can't they just intelligently present their views in turn? I guess not as seen below. >>... 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. Whatever happened to my comments regarding that there were two styles of play, each with their own advocates? Each style is okay as long as the participants have what they want. Are you trying to say that you know whats best for people you've never even met? Does anyone really care whether you would allow me to be your DM? I doubt it. Instead, why not try and tell us why you prefer playing multiple characters. Thats what we'd like to know. I don't claim to be all wise. If you have some interesting thoughts on the subject, I'm eager to listen. Why keep all your knowledge and experience to yourself? I put a lot of effort into explaining my feelings on the subject matter in question. I hope others got some worthwhile insight. >>there is complete trust between two characters played by one person >>This close comradery is never seen between PC's run by different players. >>The latter 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. Once again you are making rash assumptions on people you don't even know. No where was anything ever said that even approaches the extremes you indicated. There is a big difference when one says that not everyone is close buddy buddy and when one says everyone has intense hatred for each other. How many people do you know that go around murdering everyone in real life thats not their best of friends? Not many. Your above examples are riduculous. For your information, if my companions would "run out on me," I would not play with that group again. I make every effort to help out other characters in any way I can. I frown on any other kind of behaviour. All this has nothing to do with the original point. I suppose you leave your apartment door unlocked? Or leave your keys in the car? I hope not. There are some standard precautions one usually takes. Would you borrow $10000(or how about without interest or collateral or guarentees) to a good friend so that they can buy a luxury item? 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. Now if the player has two PCs, somehow an easy deal is usually worked out. >> ...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. >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... Did you actually read what I had to say? Or did you pull things out at random? I also differentiated between an evening of fun and a serious ongoing campaign. For an evening of entertainment, sure, anything goes. Probably the more characters you have the more fun you'll have. So what if you die. Makes no difference. As long as it was entertaining. Unfortunately this is not roll playing which is what we are discussing. The issue under the microscope is can true roll playing be done with two characters as well as one in an ongoing campaign. And if you are true roll playing, then you will certainly think twice before commiting yourself to a possible suicidal action or even volunteeering one of your associates. Normally one thinks just a little about trying not to die. And if you just shrug your shoulders and roll up a new character when the old one dies, well then you just aren't roll playing. And your examples are once again ludicrous. I wouldn't have the nerve as an MU to argue for a sword or armor. If someone else did I'd laugh in their face. But consider a neutral item like a ring of fire resistance. Normally each character will present their case and some sort of quick decision is reached by the party. The point I make is that if one player has two PCs, that player will only make a case for one of them. I notice you didn't comment on the other 90% of my article. Does that mean you concur with those points? Robert PS. Quadruply glad I don't know you. Judging from the garbage you threw at me, I can just imagine the kind of backstabbing you do to your friends.
chris@globetek.UUCP (chris) (01/06/86)
In article <688@ihlts.UUCP> rainbow@ihlts.UUCP (Robert) writes: >>Christine utzoo!globetek!chris > >It really is amzing how someone can take an article and >and totally corrupt it with clever ommissions. Also, when one >person tries to present their views, why try to tear them down? >Can't they just intelligently present their views in turn? > >>>there is complete trust between two characters played by one person >>>This close comradery is never seen between PC's run by different players. >>>The latter is the more realistic case. > Talk about "clever omissions" here! He leaves out his comment to the effect that distrust between characters is common in the dungeons he's used to -- I can't remember the exact wording now. >>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. > >Once again you are making rash assumptions on people you don't even know. >No where was anything ever said that even approaches the extremes you >indicated. There is a big difference when one says that not everyone >is close buddy buddy and when one says everyone has intense hatred for >each other. How many people do you know that go around murdering >everyone in real life thats not their best of friends? Not many. >Your above examples are riduculous. Nonsense. That's exactly what 'distrust' means. You don't know if you can rely on people. The second example was in response to your comment on players borrowing magic items, in which you implied this never happened between 1-character players but was indiscriminate between 2-char players. Where did I mention 'intense hatred'? >For your information, if my companions would "run out on me," >I would not play with that group again. I make every effort to help >out other characters in any way I can. I frown on any other kind of >behaviour. Please note that I said "IF all the characters distrust each other...", which is what you implied. >All this has nothing to do with the original point. I suppose >you leave your apartment door unlocked? Or leave your keys in the car? >I hope not. There are some standard precautions one usually takes. >Would you borrow $10000(or how about without interest or collateral or >guarentees) to a good friend so that they can buy a luxury item? >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. Now if the player has two PCs, somehow an easy deal >is usually worked out. Your "real-life" examples are rather pointless. This is a game. And in your game examples, you once again make sweeping generalizations about the behaviour of players with 2 characters. > >Did you actually read what I had to say? Or did you pull things out at random? Of course I didn't read your posting. I never read postings. I turn them over to my AI project to respond to at random. :-( >I also differentiated between an evening of fun and a serious ongoing campaign. >For an evening of entertainment, sure, anything goes. >Probably the more characters you have the more fun you'll have. >So what if you die. Makes no difference. As long as it was entertaining. >Unfortunately this is not roll playing which is what we are discussing. If a serious ongoing campaign is not fun and entertainment, what's the point in playing in it? By the way, I resent your implication that it is not possible to role-play in a short campaign. Nor were we all originally discussing "so what if you die" playing. *You* are the one who keeps insisting that having more than one character *must* lead to this style of playing, and I disagree. >The issue under the microscope is can true roll playing be done with two >characters as well as one in an ongoing campaign. And if you are true >roll playing, then you will certainly think twice before commiting yourself >to a possible suicidal action or even volunteeering one of your associates. >Normally one thinks just a little about trying not to die. And if you >just shrug your shoulders and roll up a new character when the old one dies, >well then you just aren't roll playing. There is no reason to assume this will happen just because the player has more than one character. You seem to think there is some absolute standard of "roll" playing, although you keep assuring us you believe different folks have different playing styles. You also seem to think only you know what this absolute standard is. > >I notice you didn't comment on the other 90% of my article. Does >that mean you concur with those points? > >Robert > Well, no, not really. But your article annoyed me so much I wanted to make some sort of response to it. I just commented on the bits I disliked most. >PS. Quadruply glad I don't know you. Judging from the garbage you threw >at me, I can just imagine the kind of backstabbing you do to your friends. Well, folks, how's THAT for a gratuitous insult? If you had said that to me in person before witnesses, Robert, I'd think seriously of a slander suit. Why are you so defensive and abrasive? You exaggerated the potential problems of running more than one character so to such extremes and so dogmatically I couldn't refrain from making some comments on your stuff. You certainly seemed to be describing a style of playing in which the characters were suspicious and uncooperative. Since you did not indicate you were referring to evil campaigns, I think my comments on this not sounding like fun at all were quite justified. I purposely chose extreme examples myself about players squabbling over magic items or being excessively cowardly (not but that one or two incredible cowards don't add a little interest to things on occasion) to point out how silly I thought the points you were trying to make were. --chris -- Christine Robertson {linus, ihnp4, decvax}!utzoo!globetek!chris Money may not buy happiness, but misery in luxury has its compensations...
ekblaw@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU (01/06/86)
This discussion is fastly becoming a brutal argument, with BOTH sides in the wrong (hear that, Robert?). Christine makes some valid points, but she takes Robert's opinions as a personal attack upon her effectiveness as a gamer. Now, while Robert's original posting did have several one-sided opinions that he stated as if they were facts (a mistake, Mr. Rainbow, you should correct in the future, or you will quickly find that you have many more enemies than friends), there is no indication that it is intented as a personal attack upon ANYONE, just a summary of one person's opinions. Mr. Rainbow's (I shall cease to refer to him by his first name. It taints mine) response is even worse than Christine's, however. He takes Christine's well-minded opinions and not only uses them as a personal attack against him, tries to use this attack as a measure of her intelligence and personality. He then avoids the points of discussion altogether and erupts into a character assassination upon Christine, without Christine able to respond and answer his criticisms. That kind of action, Mr. Rainbow, is completely uncalled for. If you behave like that as a PC (or worse, a DM), I have to agree with Christine; I don't want to meet you ever! You are obviously the most pig-headed and worst example of humanity I have ever met! If Christine is able to avoid responding to your notes with any respect more than utter distain, I compliment her on her tolerance, because I have lost mine with this joker. Robert A. Ekblaw
oleg@birtch.UUCP (Oleg Kiselev) (01/08/86)
In article <688@ihlts.UUCP> rainbow@ihlts.UUCP (Robert) writes: >>Christine utzoo!globetek!chris >It really is amzing how someone can take an article and >and totally corrupt it with clever ommissions. Also, when one >person tries to present their views, why try to tear them down? >Can't they just intelligently present their views in turn? Sure, and quite true! On the other hand you, Robert, DID manage to mis-represent your position. And YOU, Christine, have never played a game with all characters Chaotic Neutral and different shades of Evil - it's fun! As for multi-character games : MOST people have problems handling ONE caharcter! TWO are the absolute maximum PCs I allow per player because even with two characters most players ROLE-PLAY only ONE character and let the other character have little more personality than your run-of-the-mill NPCs! And the game is just that - ROLE-PLAYING ( no matter WHAT system!). SO, here is my $0.02 worth : multiple characters are OK when the adventure DEMANDS a larger number of PCs than the number of players and no adequate NPC support can be generated. I PREFER GM-ing for 3-4 players and no more than 10 PC ( that works out to a bit over 2 PCs per player). More than that - and the large combat and city encounters turn to a Game Masters NIGHTMARE. I also try to let PLAYERS take controll of hired NPC cannon-fodder : less work for me and I always can stopthe players when they try send NPCs to a sure death ("Go ahead! There is NOTHING in that cave! Ignore that SMOKE, you KNOW there is no such thing as DRAGONS!" ;-) for multi-character PROPONENTS : ever think WHY most NPCs have little personality and GMs tend to loath large encounters? for multi-character OPPONENTS : ever tried to take over a goblin village with one 2nd level mage and 2 1st level fighters?! -- Disclamer: I don't work here anymore - so they are not responsible for me. +-------------------------------+ Don't bother, I'll find the door! | STAY ALERT! TRUST NO ONE! | Oleg Kiselev. | KEEP YOUR LASER HANDY! |...!{trwrb|scgvaxd}!felix!birtch!oleg --------------------------------+...!{ihnp4|randvax}!ucla-cs!uclapic!oac6!oleg
mccolm@ucla-cs.UUCP (01/09/86)
<Line-eaters? We don't need no stinkin' line-eaters!>
Ok, you people, so you've proved your respective points. Some of you think
it is impossible to role-play with more than one character per player. Others
disagree, which is to say they claim to have done it. Myself, I fall in the
second group.
But lay off the insults, huh? This has gone far enough. Leave room for at
least a little calm and rational discussion before we start believing we
wandered into net.flame by mistake.
p.s.-To those who believe you can't role-play with >1 character, don't do it.
But don't deprecate others for trying. We're not munchkins.
--fini--
Eric McColm
UCLA (oo' - kluh) Funny Farm for the Criminally Harmless
UUCP: ...!{ihnp4,trwspp,cepu,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!mccolm
ARPA: mccolm@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU
Quotes on the Nature of Existence:
"To be, or not to be..." -Hamlet (Wm. Shakespeare)
"I think, therefore I am." -R. Descartes
"<Gleep!>" -Gleep (Robt. Asprin)chris@globetek.UUCP (chris) (01/10/86)
I'd like to thank the people who have made supportive comments about my
side of this silly argument with rainbow, and to assure you all that I
have NO intention of continuing a 'discussion' which has descended to
a kindergarten name-calling event.
BTW, I hardly ever run 2 full characters of my own, though I frequently
run other characters belonging to our other players when they (the player)
are being DM. I can't think of any particular reason why I couldn't
run 2 full characters, though, or why most other folks couldn't, or why
the hell it would even matter if one was the "main" character and the
other was a "secondary" character...
--
Christine Robertson {linus, ihnp4, decvax}!utzoo!globetek!chris
Money may not buy happiness, but misery in luxury has its compensations...berry@tolerant.UUCP (David Berry) (01/14/86)
Seems to me like it's about time to move this discussion to net.religion... :-)
--
David W. Berry
{ucbvax,pyramid,idsvax,bene,oliveb}!tolerant!berry
I'm only here for the beer.holt@convexs.UUCP (01/15/86)
1. Let's all remember that this group has remained relatively clear of
this kind of clutter (name calling, personal abuse) in the past, and
as such has been an enjoyable notes group.
2. Elfstone stuff. Please move it to net.games.frp.pbm or whatever group
exists for pbm stuff. Reasons have been well stated by others in this
group.
Name calling and personal abuse aside, there are merits in both styles of
play being talked about. Jim Gardner wrote an interesting entry questioning
whether people like to campaigns tailor suited to the characters by
the GM, or whether they like to campaigns of a more general nature - my
response:
PERSONAL OPINION: (not a put-down of others)
I must say that I like a combination of both. I like "role playing", that
is, building an identity for my character and relating to other characters
in the game (npc or pc) in the role of that character. But, I don't like
having the universe that is the game, revolve around the character group. It
doesn't make sense to me. There should be much going on in the world that
is not related to the character group. This should be thought out by the
GM, and from time to time, the character group should become aware of some
part of it. This allows the character group some free will in determining
their future. Maybe the character group will decide to investigate some
extraneous campaign event, maybe not. If the GM always has the future laid
out for us, then things are somewhat dull. I also like the challenge of
situations where if my character really messes up, then he dies. If I know
that things will always be a cakewalk, where's the fun? However, encouraging
characters to develope personality, and players to role play those
personalities is very important. Those aspects of a situation which allow
a PC to become personally involved should not be skipped because it's
"not exciting", or "we're wasting time, let's go kill monsters".
On the subject of multiple characters per player: I think people have a
difficult time ROLE PLAYING more than one character. That does not mean
that some people can't do it. It just means that people get confused about
which persona is attached to which character, and what the relationship
between the two characters is. However, multiple characters are nice in
situations when the role-playing aspects aren't as important as the tactical
aspects: battle, exploring, etc. In these situations, it's nice to treat
additional characters as "henchmen". They aren't PCs. This way the above
problems don't creap in. If there is a chance for a "henchman" to steal
something from the party, and he/she is inclined to such activity, then
the GM can have them do it without a player's knowledge (or some other
similar action).
Dave Holt
Convex Computer Corp.
{allegra,ihnp4,uiucdcs,ctvax}!convex!convexs!holt