Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site globetek.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!globetek!chris From: chris@globetek.UUCP (chris) Newsgroups: net.games.frp Subject: Re: RE2:multiple characters Message-ID: <212@globetek.UUCP> Date: Mon, 6-Jan-86 10:24:26 EST Article-I.D.: globetek.212 Posted: Mon Jan 6 10:24:26 1986 Date-Received: Mon, 6-Jan-86 14:16:54 EST References: <688@ihlts.UUCP> Reply-To: chris@andor.UUCP (chris) Distribution: net Organization: Globetek Ltd., Toronto Lines: 121 Summary: In article <688@ihlts.UUCP> rainbow@ihlts.UUCP (Robert) writes: >>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? > >>>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. > Talk about "clever omissions" here! He leaves out his comment to the effect that distrust between characters is common in the dungeons he's used to -- I can't remember the exact wording now. >>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. Nonsense. That's exactly what 'distrust' means. You don't know if you can rely on people. The second example was in response to your comment on players borrowing magic items, in which you implied this never happened between 1-character players but was indiscriminate between 2-char players. Where did I mention 'intense hatred'? >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. Please note that I said "IF all the characters distrust each other...", which is what you implied. >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. Your "real-life" examples are rather pointless. This is a game. And in your game examples, you once again make sweeping generalizations about the behaviour of players with 2 characters. > >Did you actually read what I had to say? Or did you pull things out at random? Of course I didn't read your posting. I never read postings. I turn them over to my AI project to respond to 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. If a serious ongoing campaign is not fun and entertainment, what's the point in playing in it? By the way, I resent your implication that it is not possible to role-play in a short campaign. Nor were we all originally discussing "so what if you die" playing. *You* are the one who keeps insisting that having more than one character *must* lead to this style of playing, and I disagree. >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. There is no reason to assume this will happen just because the player has more than one character. You seem to think there is some absolute standard of "roll" playing, although you keep assuring us you believe different folks have different playing styles. You also seem to think only you know what this absolute standard is. > >I notice you didn't comment on the other 90% of my article. Does >that mean you concur with those points? > >Robert > Well, no, not really. But your article annoyed me so much I wanted to make some sort of response to it. I just commented on the bits I disliked most. >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. Well, folks, how's THAT for a gratuitous insult? If you had said that to me in person before witnesses, Robert, I'd think seriously of a slander suit. Why are you so defensive and abrasive? You exaggerated the potential problems of running more than one character so to such extremes and so dogmatically I couldn't refrain from making some comments on your stuff. You certainly seemed to be describing a style of playing in which the characters were suspicious and uncooperative. Since you did not indicate you were referring to evil campaigns, I think my comments on this not sounding like fun at all were quite justified. I purposely chose extreme examples myself about players squabbling over magic items or being excessively cowardly (not but that one or two incredible cowards don't add a little interest to things on occasion) to point out how silly I thought the points you were trying to make were. --chris -- Christine Robertson {linus, ihnp4, decvax}!utzoo!globetek!chris Money may not buy happiness, but misery in luxury has its compensations...