bob@plus5.UUCP (Bob Simpson) (12/11/85)
>From: Gary Huckabay <ccs007@ucdavis.UUCP> (Cionex) > ... 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. Not all people agree with you on this point. The choice of number and type of characters depends heavily on the type of campaign under consideration. In general, continuing episode, small group (4-6 players), closed world, games works best when played with one player character per person. Episodic or scenario based games are best played with multiple characters. This helps blunt the "well, my character died, I'll go watch TV" syndrome. If there is a large group of PCs, it is perfectly reasonable to have more then one character; one might be a pirate on the White Coast, and another might be a Tenleader in the Effulgent Horde 3 months travel away. (I use time rather then distance due to the vast differences in transport from campaign to campaign. 3 months travel might be anywhere from one to several thousand miles, ignoring those worlds where the characters go to town and buy passage through a gate or somesuch B-) Play tends to favor one area for a while, and then moves on to another when characters require a hiatus; spell research, special training, child rearing, governing an area, etc. Open worlds; *sigh* never mind B-) > In an ongoing campaign, knowledge is often more valuable than riches, > magic, and can open a lot of doors for the players if used properly. > 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. I solved this one early. Players were always pulling the "your character doesn't hear this" Bull!Shit! so I stared using the "your hear it, your character knows it" rule. People became much more careful about who heard what, and I kept the misinformation level at about 50%. Anything I said at any time could be construed as rumor, legend, or dusty old childhood memory. Nothing was guarenteed accurate. A lot of it turned out to be "true"; the players would say something I thought was interesting and I would work it into the game. It was great fun. > 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. What's wrong with favoritism? I assume that you are pointing out that every character in these situations don't get equal play in every session. This again is a matter of playing style. One of the games I play in has 2 (sometimes 3) PCs per player. Rather then trying to get everybody's "stuff" in every session, the referee usually focuses on three or four of the characters triumphs/defeats/motifs. Eventually, everybody gets a turn; Ralphson gets a visit from the minions of the otherworld sorcerer he annoyed, Alice gets to deal with her advanced age and being teleported (accidentially) to this part of the world, some event forces Simon the bard to deal with his current lust for violent combat, etc. Not bad, just different. > As for my hatred of AD&D expansion, particularly the additions of > Arduin rules, and the squeezing of the loyal players by TSR (Could be a > long post), look forward to a post after Xmas. I'm looking forward to this. You couldn't believe the shock and horror when I told someone at the local shop that I didn't plan on buying The Latest from TSR. -- Dr. Bob ORG Plus Five Computer Services St. Louis, MO 63105 UUCP ..!{ihnp4,cbosgd,seismo}!plus5!bob
jacob@chalmers.UUCP (Jacob Hallen) (12/17/85)
There are many different styles of play in Fantasy Roleplaying, from Munchkin Montyhaul to involved political scenarios. Most of the postings on this subject are in favour of letting players have multiple characters. I would like to defend the view of 'one player per character/ one character per player'. If you play multiple characters you are most often involved in fast, free-wheeling, lots-of-fun campaign. This is ok, but to me it's not the ultimate way of playing. With one character per player and a really good DM you don't play a character, you ARE that character. This turns the game from being mainly fun to being mainly exiting. The character is no longer 'my cleric', it's me. I have to save my skin, I have to survive, if I take a risk I won't do it with the calculation 'I can always roll up an other one', because I can't. If you have experienced being, instead of playing, a character you will never want it any other way. Jacob