Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihlts.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!ihlts!rainbow
From: rainbow@ihlts.UUCP (Robert)
Newsgroups: net.games.frp
Subject: RE:multiple characters(PART 2)
Message-ID: <687@ihlts.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 27-Dec-85 19:06:55 EST
Article-I.D.: ihlts.687
Posted: Fri Dec 27 19:06:55 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Dec-85 04:39:27 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 123


> drutx!druri!sps

>I have played under DMs who ruled
>	"One player, One character"
>and DMs who ruled
>	"One player, two or three characters"
>Both situations work under different circumstances.

>The one player/one character rule works when:
>	1)  The campaign is a single, special session.

No, this is the one case where I would allow more than one character.
Here we have a situation where its not necessary to develope each 
characters personality. There is no reason to develope a past or future
for that matter. So who cares how many PC's you are controlling?
The purpose of the single session is to enjoy that particularly unique
and interesting scenerio. I tend to avoid those. I like role playing
for the opportunity to develope a character. This occurs only in ongoing 
campaigns. The latter cannot be done effectively with two characters.

>	2)  There are sufficient players to establish a
>	    well rounded party.

Usually with two characters each, the party is overkill in size. In any case,
it is the DM's short coming if the party is not sufficient to handle the
scenerios which are set up. If the DM insists on tough scenerios for a depleted
party, well then the DM is responsible for supplying NPCs. I tend to 
dislike NPC's also, but thats another story/issue. Anyway, why is it
necessary to have a well rounded party? It is quite challenging to make due
with what you have. And more realistic. Lack of sufficient players is no 
justification for more PC's.

>For general, long term campaigns(1 to 3+ years),
>multiple characters per player seem to be a must.

Its a definite no-no. At least from an enjoyment standpoint(see PART1 posting)

>There are several advantages to this scheme:
>    1)	It allows a smaller number of players.
>	This reduces the coordination problems of the single
>	game sessions (polling during melee) and
>	the coordination/commitment of the extended campaign.

I don't follow why its an advantage to have fewer players? It seems
to be an irrelevant issue. Polling takes place regardless. It is not
a function of party size(unless the DM has endless patience and does not
cut it off after a certain amount of time). Coordination and commitment
aren't functions of party size either. Be more specific otherwise
I don't know what I'm refuting.

>    2)	It also increases the odds that the party will be
>	more rounded in race and character types.

True. But why is that an issue? I don't follow once again.

>    3)	A player is not restricted to one particular character
>	type for several years, but may develop other playing
>	skills and personalities.

What is wrong with playing one character in a particular campaign? Once
again I don't follow. Thats what role playing is all about. There is
nothing stopping you from playing another character in another world if
you want to broaden yourself. Or even retire your present character and
start a new one. Or alternate when one is predisposed. Or take a more
active role in playing the NPC's. Why do you need to play two characters
at once? I do not see any supporting evidence for your opening statement.

>    4)	When one character dies, the player is not sitting on 
>	his/her hands until either a high cleric or a new
>	character arrives on the scene.

Since everyone participates in all decisions anyway even when they aren't 
suppose to regardless of whether they are alive or have the knowledge or
even are present, this is also irrelevant. What a party is is generally
a collected brain trust. Just because your character is dead doesn't
mean you are no longer part of that collected brain trust. You just don't
have a right arm. But normally you are not twiddling your thumbs. You
are still providing input and suggestions to every situation. If this
seems wrong to you, well then just let the player run an NPC for the duration.
Then the player is "officially" part of the brain trust again. I don't
bother with the distinction though. No one has seemed to object yet.

>There are also several disadvantages:
>    1)	The aforementioned "information sharing" between characters
>    	of the same player.

Irrelevant. Information sharing is rampant even among characters of
different players. To do anything else wound bog things down too much.
This sharing of info is usually overlooked unless it is blatantly taken
advantage of. I tend to treat it lightly.

>    2)	It requires EXPERIENCED players!
>	Players must be experienced in both role-playing
>	and in the game system being used.

True I guess. Its hard enough for an inexperienced player just to keep
track of what their character can do. However, just because one has
experience in what each character can do, it doesn't justify sacrificing
time in developing your personality. Experience in this area doesn't
mean you no longer have to spend as much time on it. It requires constant
attention to role play properly. Experience just means you can do it better
with regard to not slipping up and working your traits into the campaign.

>    3)	The player can NOT always keep both characters in
>	the "top of their mind" during play.

"can not always" implies that a player usually can. Wrong. You should
say "can almost never". This implies that a player usually can't. The latter
is the realistic case.

>I have been playing in a campaign for the past 3 years with 2 characters .....
>I feel that this system has enhanced the enjoyment of the game
>for both myself and the other 2 player of the game.

Good. All that counts is that everyone you are playing with agrees with
your philosphy and enjoys the campaign format beign used. My enjoyment
is greater with only one character. Matter-in-fact, I actually dislike
playing two at once. I do not find it enjoyable. So my preference is
one character and one only. Thats just my opinion. I'm not trying to
change your mind. Just present my views.

Robert