Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site hou2g.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!hou2g!scott
From: scott@hou2g.UUCP (The Brennan Monster)
Newsgroups: net.games.frp
Subject: Re: Multiple characters
Message-ID: <731@hou2g.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 11-Dec-85 09:08:24 EST
Article-I.D.: hou2g.731
Posted: Wed Dec 11 09:08:24 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 12-Dec-85 05:46:41 EST
References: <113@water.UUCP>
Organization: The Sol Cometary Halo
Lines: 77



>>>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