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 (really roleplaying)
Message-ID: <142@water.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 19-Dec-85 14:10:17 EST
Article-I.D.: water.142
Posted: Thu Dec 19 14:10:17 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 20-Dec-85 03:33:19 EST
References: <1767@uwmacc.UUCP> <728@hou2g.UUCP> <113@water.UUCP> <832@h-sc1.UUCP> <410@wuphys.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 31

> In article <832@h-sc1.UUCP> riggsby@h-sc1.UUCP (andrew riggsby) writes:
>>>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.
> 
> Couldn't agree more.  One of the characters I have enjoyed playing most is a
> ranger with a good strength and above-average hitpoints.  Because of this, the
> guy has just never learned to fear anything.  (Well, almost anything).  His
> idea of strategy is to run up to a monster and kill it.

Wait a minute. I didn't mean that taking stupid chances was always bad
roleplaying. Taking dumb chances for the reason given above (which has
nothing to do with the character's personality) _is_ bad roleplaying.
It is bad roleplaying because the player is allowing the fact
that he has a good back-up character to influence how he plays his
primary character. What form that influnce takes is not what's important.
> 
> 						Mark F. Flynn
> 						Department of Physics
> 						Washington University
> 						St. Louis, MO  63130
> 						ihnp4!wuphys!mff
> 
-- 

                          - Bruce Gamble 
                            ihnp4!watmath!water!abgamble