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: RE2:multiple characters Message-ID: <688@ihlts.UUCP> Date: Sat, 4-Jan-86 04:36:34 EST Article-I.D.: ihlts.688 Posted: Sat Jan 4 04:36:34 1986 Date-Received: Sun, 5-Jan-86 01:20:50 EST Distribution: net Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 99 >Christine utzoo!globetek!chris It really is amzing how someone can take an article and and totally corrupt it with clever ommissions. Also, when one person tries to present their views, why try to tear them down? Can't they just intelligently present their views in turn? I guess not as seen below. >>... Personally, I think it seriously detracts from the enjoyment of the >>game if players are allowed to roll play more than one character. I do >>not like doing it. And I wouldn't allow others to do it. >Sure glad you're not my DM, then. Whatever happened to my comments regarding that there were two styles of play, each with their own advocates? Each style is okay as long as the participants have what they want. Are you trying to say that you know whats best for people you've never even met? Does anyone really care whether you would allow me to be your DM? I doubt it. Instead, why not try and tell us why you prefer playing multiple characters. Thats what we'd like to know. I don't claim to be all wise. If you have some interesting thoughts on the subject, I'm eager to listen. Why keep all your knowledge and experience to yourself? I put a lot of effort into explaining my feelings on the subject matter in question. I hope others got some worthwhile insight. >>there is complete trust between two characters played by one person >>This close comradery is never seen between PC's run by different players. >>The latter is the more realistic case. >Doubly glad I don't play in your group. If all the characters distrust each >other, it can't be very nice trotting into a dungeon wondering if your >companions are going to run out and leave you in the lurch, or refuse to >lend an item that could save all your lives. Once again you are making rash assumptions on people you don't even know. No where was anything ever said that even approaches the extremes you indicated. There is a big difference when one says that not everyone is close buddy buddy and when one says everyone has intense hatred for each other. How many people do you know that go around murdering everyone in real life thats not their best of friends? Not many. Your above examples are riduculous. For your information, if my companions would "run out on me," I would not play with that group again. I make every effort to help out other characters in any way I can. I frown on any other kind of behaviour. All this has nothing to do with the original point. I suppose you leave your apartment door unlocked? Or leave your keys in the car? I hope not. There are some standard precautions one usually takes. Would you borrow $10000(or how about without interest or collateral or guarentees) to a good friend so that they can buy a luxury item? If so, you are a better person than I. I would not have my PC lend 10000 gold to another PC to buy a +4 sword because their +2 sword isn't as good. Now if the player has two PCs, somehow an easy deal is usually worked out. >> ...If everyone has one character, its >>a big discussion over who will take the risky action. With two, someone just >>goes and does it. The former is much more realistic. With one character each, >>its a big dicussion over who will get the magic item. With two, the number >>of claimants is cut in half. The latter is totally unrealistic. I don't >>enjoy this kind of artificial role playing when each has two PC's. >Whatever happened to the idea of getting a bunch of friends together to play >interesting characters and have fun? "You guys can all attack that monster, >I'm not going to, my character might get hurt." "I know you're a level 5 >fighter, but *I* want the Girdle of Giant Strength for my level 1 magic >user, and I'll argue all night if I don't get it." What happened to >courage and generosity? Triply glad I don't play in your group... Did you actually read what I had to say? Or did you pull things out at random? I also differentiated between an evening of fun and a serious ongoing campaign. For an evening of entertainment, sure, anything goes. Probably the more characters you have the more fun you'll have. So what if you die. Makes no difference. As long as it was entertaining. Unfortunately this is not roll playing which is what we are discussing. The issue under the microscope is can true roll playing be done with two characters as well as one in an ongoing campaign. And if you are true roll playing, then you will certainly think twice before commiting yourself to a possible suicidal action or even volunteeering one of your associates. Normally one thinks just a little about trying not to die. And if you just shrug your shoulders and roll up a new character when the old one dies, well then you just aren't roll playing. And your examples are once again ludicrous. I wouldn't have the nerve as an MU to argue for a sword or armor. If someone else did I'd laugh in their face. But consider a neutral item like a ring of fire resistance. Normally each character will present their case and some sort of quick decision is reached by the party. The point I make is that if one player has two PCs, that player will only make a case for one of them. I notice you didn't comment on the other 90% of my article. Does that mean you concur with those points? Robert PS. Quadruply glad I don't know you. Judging from the garbage you threw at me, I can just imagine the kind of backstabbing you do to your friends.