Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site h-sc1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!ariel!mtunh!akguc!akgua!gatech!seismo!harvard!h-sc1!riggsby
From: riggsby@h-sc1.UUCP (andrew riggsby)
Newsgroups: net.games.frp
Subject: Re: Multiple characters (really roleplaying)
Message-ID: <832@h-sc1.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 11-Dec-85 23:26:27 EST
Article-I.D.: h-sc1.832
Posted: Wed Dec 11 23:26:27 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 14-Dec-85 23:41:18 EST
References: <1767@uwmacc.UUCP> <728@hou2g.UUCP> <113@water.UUCP>
Reply-To: riggsby@h-sc1.UUCP (andrew riggsby)
Organization: Harvard Univ. Science Center
Lines: 18

>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