1 character or multiple...the debate continues


Archived topics from the different rule forums.

Moderator: Admin

User avatar

GM

Posts: 7553

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 1:43 pm

Post Wed Nov 24, 2004 11:22 am

1 character or multiple...the debate continues

Ok so I am making this post about houses when I started to once again think about this multiple character thing.

I understand that people enjoy playing multiple characters, but it really destroys not only accountability but it skirts off some great RP in our political system.

Forexample....Thane says "you vote for me or I will kill you" Well, ok, you think to yourself my character runs away and I will play character 2 until thane leaves me alone.

This stops a HUGE dynamic of tyranny and people trying to unvote the thane and some really cool things that can happen because of that scenario. It is the resistance!

We have talked about the evil PC as well who can come in and kill people and then when the shit hits the fan they run away and play character 2. This ofcourse stops accountability. Though I admit it does make sense on a RP front, but if a character can run away ooc then shouldn’t another character be able to follow OOC?

Now on the flip side as RP'ers people like to get into rolls and play multiple rolls based on the situation, but I wonder if this is really accurate.

Anywho here is my compromise.....A person comes into an event as a character and they leave the event as that character. A person can only switch characters every other event....Sooooo I have Tearin who plays in April..I now must play him in July. After July I can choose to play Dueger, but once I make that switch I am stuck for 1 more event and then I can choose to play character 3 or go back to Tearin.

Thoughts? This way I think it adds alot of dynamics since you are FORCED to deal with issues in the game instead of running away. OH and I mean you have to play two events..no skipping an event and then switching. You ofcourse have the option of retiring your character opening yourself up to playing what ever you want. What happens when you retire is an entirely different discussion.

Chris
Chris
I be one of the gamemasters so e-mail me questions if you have them
User avatar

Town Member
Town Member

Posts: 668

Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 8:15 am

Location: Da Haven Wit Da Oter Elvziez

Post Wed Nov 24, 2004 12:02 pm

That doesn't quite work. Let's look at this example again:

Sooooo I have Tearin who plays in April..I now must play him in July. After July I ........

.....must play Tearin again because I played him in July, so I must.....

always play Tearin.

Ok, so Tearin got caught stealing, so he decides to flee the Haven and go somewhere else....but then he has to be in Haven for the next few months to run out of the Haven? So this means you could....

A) Hide out in the woods all event where noone can find you and be bored.

or

B) Just...not come to Final Haven that event cause it would be a waste of $20 and a weekend?
User avatar

Town Member
Town Member

Posts: 123

Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2004 12:00 pm

Location: Lansing, MI

Post Wed Nov 24, 2004 12:15 pm

Ug wrote:That doesn't quite work. Let's look at this example again:

Sooooo I have Tearin who plays in April..I now must play him in July. After July I ........

.....must play Tearin again because I played him in July, so I must.....

always play Tearin.

Oh, come on. If that isn't an abuse of a circular argument, I don't know what is. We all know what Chris meant.

You have to play one character for two consecutive events before you can switch to another.
User avatar

Town Member
Town Member

Posts: 668

Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 8:15 am

Location: Da Haven Wit Da Oter Elvziez

Post Wed Nov 24, 2004 12:27 pm

Faerykin wrote:Oh, come on. If that isn't an abuse of a circular argument, I don't know what is. We all know what Chris meant.

You have to play one character for two consecutive events before you can switch to another.


It isn't an abuse of a circular arguement. It would come back to the same arguement that would cause this to happen in the first place.

Taerin is played in Blah, then is played in his 2nd month and causes all kinds of trouble Saturday night, then skips town. He doesn't have to play the next event now.

What's the difference?
User avatar

Town Member
Town Member

Posts: 1426

Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 4:38 pm

Location: Around

Post Wed Nov 24, 2004 12:30 pm

I like that idea a lot Chris.

Add on that when the initial character is created like Bianca suggested they have to play that character for two consecutive events before they create a new character.

Overall, nice solution for such a complex issue.
Dead pirate betrayed by Corbyn...ah well least I made him do his own dirty work when he killed me.
User avatar

Deceased

Posts: 1189

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 10:48 am

Location: Haven

Post Wed Nov 24, 2004 12:46 pm

Yes, having to play a given character for two events in a row does not necessarily enforce accountability in the way you're thinking. The character may wait until near the end of the second event to commit a crime. However, the accountability will still be there the NEXT time that character is played.

So just limiting players to one character per event ought to suffice. A given character will then have the entire event to face previous reprecussions. NPCing should be at GM discression.

Pentag kills a PC and gets run out of town. After losing his pursuers, Brad approaches NPC camp and askes to NPC. The GMs say 'Not yet, the other PCs might still find Pentag. Much, much later, Brad again returns to NPC camp saying 'I've been hiding in the woods for half a day now, and no one's found me. Can I NPC now?' This time the GMs allow Brad to take Pentag out of game.

Similarly, if Brad were to NPC from the start of the event, then wish to play Pentag when other players are starting to go to bed, the GMs should ask him to wait until noon to bring his character in.


Players should be held accountable for getting thier characters run out of town. Likewise, they should be held accountable for being forced to wait hidden for hours for the right opportunity to strike. GMs should enforce this accountability.

This game is supposed to be fun, but it's difficult to roleplay (and much less fun, IMHO), if not all your actions have repricussions - both the good and the bad.
Learn the past. Observe the present. Guide the future.
User avatar

Town Member
Town Member

Posts: 1116

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 10:33 am

Location: Smoky Haze

Post Wed Nov 24, 2004 1:12 pm

Brad is right, if you play 2 consecutive events and do your dirt at the end of one then by what is outlined you'd be able to play your other char the next month. What I suggest is that if you do something IG that causes other players to look for you and you want to play another character then you can that same event (so you don't end up hiding out in the woods the entire event) BUT your character attains quasi-npc status and anyone actively searching for them will deal with the npc's as to whether or not they get caught and what exactly happens at that time.

EX: Atrum decides to go on a killing spree and hotfoots it out of town and noone catches him on his way out. I then go to NPC camp OOG and tell them the situation with a description of what Atrum is doing and where he is heading and how he is getting there. Erik the player NPC's or plays another character. Arthos exclaims "I knew he was a treacherous wretch" and goes to NPC camp to tell them that he is actively searching for Atrum and describes what he does to search. As long as someone is actively searching for Atrum IG or IBE the NPC's decide whether or not Atrum is found and can play the character(possibly with player input like run or stand and fight if caught). If noone finds Atrum in 3 events then he has gotten away.
Death=Adder

One of these days...I'm going to cut you into little pieces...

~Pink Floyd~
User avatar

GM

Posts: 7553

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 1:43 pm

Post Wed Nov 24, 2004 1:21 pm

RE

Well brad you bring up the evil point.

Evil guy does something and flees Haven away from where the PC's can cause retribution. Basically stopping his own demise.

Now from the evil person's stand point it makes sence, but there is a problem from the other players.

Basically the other players should be able to track your PC. I mean heck Tearin runs into the woods and flees haven shouldnt say pentag get a chance to inact revenge on me steeling from him? This ofcourse opens a WHOLE bag of worms because if I allow people to track people OOC then I have to allow it across the board and that causes alot of problems.

Now from the evil PC's point of view. Lets say an evil PC becomes head of a guild. She is a tyrant and tells people if they dont vote for her she will kill them. Their solution is to flee haven causing her to loose her guild and some of her power. I would like to force those players to deal witht he evil PC and risk their PC's. We have a PvP game with a PvP dynamic, but for it to work there needs to be total accountability on each side with each side forced to risk the characters they love.

Oh and would this help clarify the circular argument. "If your character has been to at least two consecutive events then you may choose to play a different character." or "x=# of events played as character x...if x is greater than or equal to 2 then player may choose to play character y...if character chooses to play character y then sub y in for x in equation above"

Chris
Chris
I be one of the gamemasters so e-mail me questions if you have them
User avatar

GM

Posts: 7553

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 1:43 pm

Post Wed Nov 24, 2004 1:27 pm

RE

Eric you and Brad are only looking at this from the standpoint of the EVIl PC and well that was not what I was thinking about when I made this post.

I am very concerned about an evil PC who gains political power and threatens to kill a bunch of people if they are not voted for. Solution is they vote the person out and during the grace period all play alts.

IMO that is majorly cheezy.

It is cheezy that an evil PC can commit a crime and then run away as it is cheezy a good PC can screw over an evil one and run away.

Players need to be forced to play their character while still allow them to play alts. If you do something near the end of one event you should be forced to play that character the next event or the only solution is I as a GM play any and all alts if you are not around meaning I might get them killed or vote for people you dont want me to vote for.

Chris
Chris
I be one of the gamemasters so e-mail me questions if you have them
User avatar

Town Member
Town Member

Posts: 668

Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 8:15 am

Location: Da Haven Wit Da Oter Elvziez

Post Wed Nov 24, 2004 1:50 pm

I am entirely in disagreement with you.

I see no reason why a good character shouldn't be able to leave town if a tyrant has taken over.

What I am gathering from your arguement is that you wish to force people to roleplay their characters in a certain way.
User avatar

Town Member
Town Member

Posts: 1116

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 10:33 am

Location: Smoky Haze

Post Wed Nov 24, 2004 1:58 pm

No Chris, I was thinking of that and my example is one of an "evil" PC. Switch it around and it still works. Good guys vote and leave town, guild head says "You all will die" scenario ensues and evil dictator ends up with heads on pikes of "good" PC's.

The biggest problem I see is there is no way to "find" a person IG unles you find them IG. So if you get away from the PC's after you right away you get away scott free. It sounds like you're trying to find a way to "track" people without allowing that skill.
Death=Adder

One of these days...I'm going to cut you into little pieces...

~Pink Floyd~
User avatar

GM

Posts: 7553

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 1:43 pm

Post Wed Nov 24, 2004 2:11 pm

RE

Ok Eric you are correct in that we can run things that way.

So we have to ways to run a situation.

1) We force players to play their character 2 consecutive events. This can be explained in game in that "where do you survive"? I mean it takes time to just get up and leave town..where do you go? I mean this isnt CARPS..there are only so many places a person can go unless you have wilderness survival and even then you still have to come into town now and again.

2) We tell players that if they have an active alt they are not playing they fall into NPC domain and will be trackable allowing players to hunt down and kill, if they wish, anyone who isnt even playing. That could mean if you are not even at an event we as GM's might end up playing your character and honestly do you want Todd playing you? HEHE

Chris
Chris
I be one of the gamemasters so e-mail me questions if you have them
User avatar

Town Member
Town Member

Posts: 668

Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 8:15 am

Location: Da Haven Wit Da Oter Elvziez

Post Wed Nov 24, 2004 2:12 pm

If one of my characters was played by NPCs and died I would probably not return to the LARP it occurred at.
User avatar

GM

Posts: 7553

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 1:43 pm

Post Wed Nov 24, 2004 2:16 pm

RE

I wouldnt blame you Brad...but do you see the delema?

A character should not be able to do any action to another player and simply dissapear.

Do you have a solution?

Chris
Chris
I be one of the gamemasters so e-mail me questions if you have them
User avatar

Town Member
Town Member

Posts: 668

Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 8:15 am

Location: Da Haven Wit Da Oter Elvziez

Post Wed Nov 24, 2004 2:18 pm

No, I don't really see the issue, however I see Eric's solution as a working solution.

The GM's would need to figure out what to do in the situation in which the player is not there to play their character though. Playing their PC for them would not be an acceptable solution.
Next

Return to Rule Forum Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

Designed by ST Software for PTF.