Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site water.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watnot!water!abgamble
From: abgamble@water.UUCP (abgamble)
Newsgroups: net.games.frp
Subject: Re: Multiple characters
Message-ID: <113@water.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 10-Dec-85 10:36:47 EST
Article-I.D.: water.113
Posted: Tue Dec 10 10:36:47 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 11-Dec-85 03:09:13 EST
References: <1767@uwmacc.UUCP> <728@hou2g.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 58

> 
>>>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)