Hello. I'm Grant.
I was wondering what you all think about running multiple characters? I don't want to run multiple full characters. I was thinking use the Beck's system and if I can make multiple characters in the same amount of Karma as everyone else has I shoulod be allowed to run them. Would that be correct? Thanks for any responses.
Grant
Full Version: Running multiple characters?
Beck's system?
I never allow players to play multiple characters.
The role of the player is to be the actor behind a given persona, bringing it to life within the game. When you have more than one your focus will be split. Bits of 'characterization' from one will spill into the next and they will invariably all show as being agents of the same larger personality. Each character is thus weaker for every additional character added.
I never allow players to play multiple characters.
The role of the player is to be the actor behind a given persona, bringing it to life within the game. When you have more than one your focus will be split. Bits of 'characterization' from one will spill into the next and they will invariably all show as being agents of the same larger personality. Each character is thus weaker for every additional character added.
Do whatever your GM will allow. If you can keep several characters' stats, abilities, and personalities separate and have fun doing it, then rock on! I personally feel it would lead to a rather flat game, but if you need more characters to play effectively then go ahead.
You did mean play simultaneously, right? If that is the case, then give them all battletac computers and small unit tactics to account for the fact that one person is directing all their actions without the necessary lapses in communication.
You did mean play simultaneously, right? If that is the case, then give them all battletac computers and small unit tactics to account for the fact that one person is directing all their actions without the necessary lapses in communication.
Part of roleplaying is dealing with situations that are not your specalty
if you have Mr Combat and Mr Talk, then you would just jump into whom ever is best at the moment and the other would become a cardboard cutout on a skateboard with a rope to pull him along.
if you have Mr Combat and Mr Talk, then you would just jump into whom ever is best at the moment and the other would become a cardboard cutout on a skateboard with a rope to pull him along.
| QUOTE (arcady) |
| Beck's system? I never allow players to play multiple characters. The role of the player is to be the actor behind a given persona, bringing it to life within the game. When you have more than one your focus will be split. Bits of 'characterization' from one will spill into the next and they will invariably all show as being agents of the same larger personality. Each character is thus weaker for every additional character added. |
Unfortunatly, the same can be said for the GM playing NPCs.
The real problem with one player having multiple characters is the tendency for a single player's character's to conspire together and make the game center around them.
Yeah, I'd say that multiple PCs results in a powerful hive-mind effect that is too powerful.
I have played in campaigns where we had two characters each and it worked just fine.
I've run multiple PCs for years, and then playing GM it's a given. However, I rarely if ever had multiple PCs ongoing at the same time or same run.
| QUOTE (hyzmarca) |
| Unfortunatly, the same can be said for the GM playing NPCs. |
A GM switches characters out constantly by moment, situation, and so on.
NPCs do have the same kind of depth. A GM is -not- trying to get into the head of or otherwise develop and NPC. Rather a GM is using that NPC as a tool through which to portray the story / setting and allow for PCs to develop. Focus is on PCs.
A GM really only has one character - the setting.
| QUOTE (arcady @ Aug 8 2005, 04:16 PM) |
| NPCs do have the same kind of depth. A GM is -not- trying to get into the head of or otherwise develop and NPC. Rather a GM is using that NPC as a tool through which to portray the story / setting and allow for PCs to develop. Focus is on PCs. |
I'm glad I wasn't drinking something just then or I'd have spit it up.
You're making a very gross generalization. I have NPCs and PCs whose own NPC contacts have been fleshed out to a horrible degree even to the point of a whole campaign revolving around an NPC contact compared to the growth, development, and depth of the PCs' actions in the game. The focus isn't solely on the PCs, but on the story. Without the rest of story the PCs live in an insular, self-centered vacuum in which their only concerns are what happens to them individually. It's got to be more about that. They are important, but if they don't care about what's going on in the world and don't empathize with the world and its assorted characters to the point where they sometimes take a backseat to someone else's growth, then they are just pathetic action figures boosting their XP.
And I disagree 100% that, "A GM is -not- trying to get into the head of or otherwise develop and NPC". I think that's complete crap. If the NPC isn't convincing, the setting and the overall story we're accomplishing aren't going to be that effective. I have a PC, andhe naturally has a couple of contacts. Before I began to GM, I ended up developing a more comprehensive character in the NPC than the PC, and the NPC has become a fixture and a central player in runs and a whole campaign. But I guess that wasn't "[getting] into the head of or otherwise [developing]" the NPC because I have created a psych profile, a comprehensive background, and a series of motivations, beliefs, and ideals for the NPC, and to a lesser extent I do that with every NPC who's important enough to be played.
"A GM is -not- trying to get into the head of or otherwise develop and NPC"
What crap.
After insulting me, you show you're failure to understand me by in part of your post agreeing with me in your attempt to disagree when you note focus on story.
That's the GM's job - focusing on the story. Not on individual NPCs.
However NPCs do not hold the same weight as PCs. A GM focuses on the story, and the setting, and NPCs are toold to convey that. The PCs however, are the protagonists - the central characters in the drama. The story -must- revolve around what they do.
The amount of attention placed on any one NPC should ideally be at least equal to the amount of attention placed on every NPC combined. Provided you have good players who are active players and you don't just sit there and grandstand your own characters in the guise of pretending to GM, PCs will hold greater weight.
That is the nature of a protagonist.
NPCs are -not- main characters. They might be major characters, but never main characters. They will develop in terms of how they are important to the story and to the PCs, but not on their own individual merits for the sake of their own stories unless a GM is doing something wrong.
The role of the GM is to convey the setting and stage the story so that the PCs can then 'tell' that story through their actions - not observe it through watching the actions of GM-PCs.
That's the GM's job - focusing on the story. Not on individual NPCs.
However NPCs do not hold the same weight as PCs. A GM focuses on the story, and the setting, and NPCs are toold to convey that. The PCs however, are the protagonists - the central characters in the drama. The story -must- revolve around what they do.
The amount of attention placed on any one NPC should ideally be at least equal to the amount of attention placed on every NPC combined. Provided you have good players who are active players and you don't just sit there and grandstand your own characters in the guise of pretending to GM, PCs will hold greater weight.
That is the nature of a protagonist.
NPCs are -not- main characters. They might be major characters, but never main characters. They will develop in terms of how they are important to the story and to the PCs, but not on their own individual merits for the sake of their own stories unless a GM is doing something wrong.
The role of the GM is to convey the setting and stage the story so that the PCs can then 'tell' that story through their actions - not observe it through watching the actions of GM-PCs.
meh. s'why i like SL. the distinction between PC and NPC gets severely blurred. it makes the game more believable to me, because my characters aren't the center of every story.
While a GM has to develop some of the NPCs to a greater degree, this does not hold true for all NPCs. The old lady at the counter of the Stuffer Shack, for example, isn't anything but an automaton unless the story dictates otherwise. Corpsec goons don't need an extensive backstory, either.
Even critical NPC's shouldn't be developed to the same degree as the PC's. The PC's take center stage in just about every adventure, and so have more game time to develop. Central NPC's should only take the spotlight occasionally-- otherwise, you run the risk of turning them into GMPC's, which is universally a bad idea.
Even critical NPC's shouldn't be developed to the same degree as the PC's. The PC's take center stage in just about every adventure, and so have more game time to develop. Central NPC's should only take the spotlight occasionally-- otherwise, you run the risk of turning them into GMPC's, which is universally a bad idea.
| QUOTE (arcady @ Aug 8 2005, 08:00 PM) |
| However NPCs do not hold the same weight as PCs. A GM focuses on the story, and the setting, and NPCs are toold to convey that. The PCs however, are the protagonists - the central characters in the drama. The story -must- revolve around what they do. |
That's the exact opposite of what I said. For them, they often revolve around the story.
They are story pieces, not protagonists. Sometimes the story revolves around them, and sometimes the story runs them over.
In other words, the PCs are not the story. The PCs are part of the story.
| QUOTE |
| NPCs are -not- main characters. They might be major characters, but never main characters. They will develop in terms of how they are important to the story and to the PCs, but not on their own individual merits for the sake of their own stories unless a GM is doing something wrong. |
There is no point in making a major NPC if they don't exist outside of their experiences with the PCs. They are independent, living, breathing, thinking characters. They are NOT there to serve as a PC's playthings.
Like I said, the world is more than just a group of heroes earning XP and being the center of the universe.
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| While a GM has to develop some of the NPCs to a greater degree, this does not hold true for all NPCs. The old lady at the counter of the Stuffer Shack, for example, isn't anything but an automaton unless the story dictates otherwise. Corpsec goons don't need an extensive backstory, either. |
That's what automation is used for.
If the PC is going to interact with a live clerk, then it helps for the clerk to have something to talk about though, or in some cases for the clerk to ignore the PC because they're yelling at their baby's daddy on the phone.
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| Even critical NPC's shouldn't be developed to the same degree as the PC's. The PC's take center stage in just about every adventure, and so have more game time to develop. Central NPC's should only take the spotlight occasionally-- otherwise, you run the risk of turning them into GMPC's, which is universally a bad idea. |
I guess I'm a bad GM then.
if i didn't know better, i would think that debating about GMing style is a road that goes nowhere.
The story doesn't always revolve around the PCs, the PCs generally revolve around the story. Events aren't always under their control. NPCs (even contacts) have their own agendas. NPCs (even contacts) should also, as such, have their own personalities, backgrounds, etc.
If you're a GM (or player) that prefers to always have the group of PCs be in the spotlight with the 2060+ world reacting to them (instead of them reacting to the world), more power to ya, and have fun. But that play style's a lot more like Ryan Mercury than it is Dirk Montgomery, I'd say.
If you're a GM (or player) that prefers to always have the group of PCs be in the spotlight with the 2060+ world reacting to them (instead of them reacting to the world), more power to ya, and have fun. But that play style's a lot more like Ryan Mercury than it is Dirk Montgomery, I'd say.
| QUOTE (lollerskates @ Aug 8 2005, 11:45 PM) |
| if i didn't know better, i would think that debating about GMing style is a road that goes nowhere. |
It is, and this isn't.
This was a clarification, much like the one I made through a series of Private Messages with someone who was genuinely interested in my GM style.
| QUOTE (Critias) |
| The story doesn't always revolve around the PCs, the PCs generally revolve around the story. Events aren't always under their control. NPCs (even contacts) have their own agendas. NPCs (even contacts) should also, as such, have their own personalities, backgrounds, etc. If you're a GM (or player) that prefers to always have the group of PCs be in the spotlight with the 2060+ world reacting to them (instead of them reacting to the world), more power to ya, and have fun. But that play style's a lot more like Ryan Mercury than it is Dirk Montgomery, I'd say. |
Agreed.
I bet we'd probably make an interesting gaming group.
The players may not be the center of every plot, but the game revolves around them. If they are only peripherally involved in the big plot to upset the upcoming municipal elections, fine - but the game should involve that peripheral involvement, and the other things that the players are doing, and they can catch the rest of it on the news and say "Hey, that's the guy they had us frame, when they hired us to put troll porn into his laptop!"
There's absolutely nothing wrong with the PCs being bit players - it's just that they should rarely be mere spectators.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with the PCs being bit players - it's just that they should rarely be mere spectators.
You don't think I play every NPC, do you?
I GM a bunch of people who also GM, and run multiple PC shadowrunners and NPC non-runners (mostly non-runners). This isn't my will imposed on my players who resent me every time I do it. It's a massive storytelling exercise.
The distinction rests in the fact that NPCs are allowed a certain amount of fiat that PCs are not (specifically with regard to numerical values).
I GM a bunch of people who also GM, and run multiple PC shadowrunners and NPC non-runners (mostly non-runners). This isn't my will imposed on my players who resent me every time I do it. It's a massive storytelling exercise.
The distinction rests in the fact that NPCs are allowed a certain amount of fiat that PCs are not (specifically with regard to numerical values).
The story always revolves around the PCs even when the plot does not.
SHadowrun PCs generally suffer from David Banner Syndrome.
The plots of the Incredible Hulk never revolved around Banner. He was always caught up in other people's problems. However, the Incredable Hulk was his story. When he left town the camera followed him. It was his devolpment and his feelings that mattered.
The NPCs are important because they make the world that the PCs play in.
Generic NPC syndrome is a terrible thing. We've all experienced it at one time, usually on computer and console RPGs. All of the guards have the same uniform, the same face, the same weapon, the same voice, and they all say the exact same thing. In every town you meet the exact same people who just happen to go by different names.
A player who controls two PCs can let his personality bleed through or slip up and mix the two characters up. However, a GM who controls dozens of NPCs is just as susceptible to this, if not more so.
The grizzled old war veteran should not have the same personality as the :nuyen:30,000 per hour joygirl.
The real problem with generic NPCs arises when the players put them on certerstage. It is okay for old lady at the Stuffer Shack to be a mindless drone, untill I overreact when a Star officer comes in for coffee and I take her hostage. Then how will she react? How will she react when I take her with me insted of lettering her go or killing her? What will she say when I apologize for taking her hostage and try to make some smalltalk? Or will she just clobber me with her 36 unarmed combat dice the second I make a move against her?
SHadowrun PCs generally suffer from David Banner Syndrome.
The plots of the Incredible Hulk never revolved around Banner. He was always caught up in other people's problems. However, the Incredable Hulk was his story. When he left town the camera followed him. It was his devolpment and his feelings that mattered.
The NPCs are important because they make the world that the PCs play in.
Generic NPC syndrome is a terrible thing. We've all experienced it at one time, usually on computer and console RPGs. All of the guards have the same uniform, the same face, the same weapon, the same voice, and they all say the exact same thing. In every town you meet the exact same people who just happen to go by different names.
A player who controls two PCs can let his personality bleed through or slip up and mix the two characters up. However, a GM who controls dozens of NPCs is just as susceptible to this, if not more so.
The grizzled old war veteran should not have the same personality as the :nuyen:30,000 per hour joygirl.
The real problem with generic NPCs arises when the players put them on certerstage. It is okay for old lady at the Stuffer Shack to be a mindless drone, untill I overreact when a Star officer comes in for coffee and I take her hostage. Then how will she react? How will she react when I take her with me insted of lettering her go or killing her? What will she say when I apologize for taking her hostage and try to make some smalltalk? Or will she just clobber me with her 36 unarmed combat dice the second I make a move against her?
| QUOTE (hyzmarca @ Aug 9 2005, 03:30 AM) |
| A player who controls two PCs can let his personality bleed through or slip up and mix the two characters up. However, a GM who controls dozens of NPCs is just as susceptible to this, if not more so. |
Well, any player can do a lot of things. I take a certain amount of comfort in the fact that the people I game with are mature enough, take enough reasonable care, and have done this long enough that it's never been a problem.
| QUOTE |
| The real problem with generic NPCs arises when the players put them on certerstage. It is okay for old lady at the Stuffer Shack to be a mindless drone, untill I overreact when a Star officer comes in for coffee and I take her hostage. Then how will she react? How will she react when I take her with me insted of lettering her go or killing her? What will she say when I apologize for taking her hostage and try to make some smalltalk? Or will she just clobber me with her 36 unarmed combat dice the second I make a move against her? |
Which is the driving philosophy behind creation of any NPC. I don't need a clerk in 95% of Stuffer Shacks because automation, wonderful thing it is, is ubiquitous in my games for a lot of mindless consumerism. In my case, I don't introduce an individual unlesss there is a reason for them to exist, even if their reason to exist is to treat the PCs like shit for no good reason, or because sometimes a little old lady is a little old lady, or sometimes she's a paramilitary-trained commando in disguise. Sometimes, not often, but sometimes, she's both.
| QUOTE |
| If you're a GM (or player) that prefers to always have the group of PCs be in the spotlight with the 2060+ world reacting to them (instead of them reacting to the world), more power to ya, and have fun. But that play style's a lot more like Ryan Mercury than it is Dirk Montgomery, I'd say. |
Actually, the Ryan Mercury style of play comes from the GMPC runs-- where the players get to sit back and see how the GM's favorite character saves their butts this week. The only one who enjoys that sort of run is the GM.
NPCs have a certain place in the storyline; but the spotlight of the game has to be on the PC's. The players should get to affect their world, to some degree or another-- they don't have to save the world every week, but they should be able to make some small changes in their own area. Otherwise, it isn't a game-- it's the GM telling the players what happened to them.
| QUOTE |
| Which is the driving philosophy behind creation of any NPC. I don't need a clerk in 95% of Stuffer Shacks because automation, wonderful thing it is, is ubiquitous in my games for a lot of mindless consumerism. In my case, I don't introduce an individual unlesss there is a reason for them to exist, even if their reason to exist is to treat the PCs like shit for no good reason, or because sometimes a little old lady is a little old lady, or sometimes she's a paramilitary-trained commando in disguise. Sometimes, not often, but sometimes, she's both. |
So... do you write up a 20-page backstory for every single corpsec goon that has a primary role as cannon fodder?
| QUOTE (SL James) |
| This was a clarification, much like the one I made through a series of Private Messages with someone who was genuinely interested in my GM style. |
ah, a clarification is what you're doing. gotcha.
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| Actually, the Ryan Mercury style of play comes from the GMPC runs-- where the players get to sit back and see how the GM's favorite character saves their butts this week. The only one who enjoys that sort of run is the GM. |
I dunno, I've enjoyed a GM who did that. I appreciated the inherent humor of it.
SL James, what you describe as your GMing style is very similar to mine/our group's (multiple GMs). Call it "environmental" (someone suggested that label in the ten commandments of storytelling thread), where things and even major things continue to happen in the world without the PCs having done them.
Besides me, we have yet to have anyone submit a 20-page background for a character (apart from me, my group isn't all that writing-oriented): but every single one of the major NPCs is fleshed out at least as much as the least-fleshed out of the PCs; and especially including the social structure within which they exist. Among other things, actively using friends-of-friends in an environmental campaign means that few PCs are more than 3-4 degrees of separation from almost anyone.
We've had one campaign collapse when the (then neophyte) GM didn't know how to play powerful NPCs except in the "Ryan Mercury" style.
Same song, different verse
Besides me, we have yet to have anyone submit a 20-page background for a character (apart from me, my group isn't all that writing-oriented): but every single one of the major NPCs is fleshed out at least as much as the least-fleshed out of the PCs; and especially including the social structure within which they exist. Among other things, actively using friends-of-friends in an environmental campaign means that few PCs are more than 3-4 degrees of separation from almost anyone.
We've had one campaign collapse when the (then neophyte) GM didn't know how to play powerful NPCs except in the "Ryan Mercury" style.
Same song, different verse
| QUOTE (grantsmilitary) |
| Hello. I'm Grant. I was wondering what you all think about running multiple characters? |
As others said, if the GM oks it and you can do it well. There were some good suggestions and caveats, too.
| QUOTE |
| I don't want to run multiple full characters. I was thinking use the Beck's system and if I can make multiple characters in the same amount of Karma as everyone else has I shoulod be allowed to run them. Would that be correct? Thanks for any responses. Grant |
That's a new way of manipulating that generation system, and one that exploits that systems weakness. I wonder if you will be expexcting each character to receive a full, individual karma award, or will you as the player get the award and need to divvy it up between your PCs? If I were to ok something like what you want to do, I think I would demand you use the Priority system or BPs to build your characters, not the one that is easiest to exploit for your purpose.
Then again, it depends on the character concept (and not if you were just using it as a gimick.) I just had an idea of creating a family of siblings without parents. Their attributes and skills probably would not be very developed. Something like that, I might be more inclined to give you a break. But then, how are they able to run the shadows and who would hire some kids?
The VonTrapp Family Runners...has a certain ring to it...
When space is at a premium...
When money is tight...
When deception and distraction are more important than the body count...
Hire the VonTrapp Family Runners. These cute kids can get past guards, provide excellent distractions, and are great at annoying stuffy suit types. This is THE accesory for any team trying to hack their existence out of the paws of mega corps (and face it, aren't we all). For details, contact Elsie at Elvis Presley Middle School in Tacoma.
When space is at a premium...
When money is tight...
When deception and distraction are more important than the body count...
Hire the VonTrapp Family Runners. These cute kids can get past guards, provide excellent distractions, and are great at annoying stuffy suit types. This is THE accesory for any team trying to hack their existence out of the paws of mega corps (and face it, aren't we all). For details, contact Elsie at Elvis Presley Middle School in Tacoma.
| QUOTE (Cain @ Aug 9 2005, 12:00 PM) |
| So... do you write up a 20-page backstory for every single corpsec goon that has a primary role as cannon fodder? |
Well, I for one don't create NPCs as "cannon fodder", or ever even use the words "cannon fodder", so I wouldn't know.
I've played two characters at the same time in SR and it wasn't too bad. If you have a small gaming group and you're GM gives each *character* a certain amount of spotlight it doesn't feel like they're cardboard cut outs of each other.
I wouldn't even dream of it in our current campaign, our group's huge as it is, nor would I allow them to play multiple characters unless it was switching from one to another depending on the job. Certainly not at the same time.
I also GM and PC I should note, sharing the GMing with another player.
I wouldn't even dream of it in our current campaign, our group's huge as it is, nor would I allow them to play multiple characters unless it was switching from one to another depending on the job. Certainly not at the same time.
I also GM and PC I should note, sharing the GMing with another player.
Ok, putting the drama aside, it depends alot on you! You as a gamer, you as a person, you and your capabilities. Lets look at a RL situation. At 9:05 in the morning you have to go fire an employee. You walk out into the store, and have to smile, say hello, and help every customer who you come across, all the while hiding the fact you feel like a heel. You then go up to customer service and answer the phone, change the receipt paper, smile and say hello to customer's while directing your newby cashier.
If you can do the above well I think you could handle two characters.
If you have greater abilities at multi tasking, such as a 911 dispatcher who is typing sending out radio calls, answering the phone, and answering coworkers questions all in a 2 minute time span, then I'd say you could capably play 3 to 4. More than 4 and you are pretty much just playing NPC's.
I would not object to a player having an alt to fill in a hole in the group who was like an npc. Sorta like, we need a decker, give me one out of the book I'll play him. Not a big deal.
Bottom line: What your GM says combined with what you enjoy.
Edit: I hate it when I forget to finish a sentence.
If you can do the above well I think you could handle two characters.
If you have greater abilities at multi tasking, such as a 911 dispatcher who is typing sending out radio calls, answering the phone, and answering coworkers questions all in a 2 minute time span, then I'd say you could capably play 3 to 4. More than 4 and you are pretty much just playing NPC's.
I would not object to a player having an alt to fill in a hole in the group who was like an npc. Sorta like, we need a decker, give me one out of the book I'll play him. Not a big deal.
Bottom line: What your GM says combined with what you enjoy.
Edit: I hate it when I forget to finish a sentence.
| QUOTE (Wiz In Red Posted: Aug 11 2005 @ 07:46 PM) |
| I never understood why there wasn't more of the labor stable setups...say each player has three characters with different skills and such...all the characters are aware of each other (hopefully amicable), then you have a larger labor pool to choose from so you can customize the team (or have two larger teams if it's needed and your group of players and GM can handle it) as needed for each mission. We've done something similar to this in the past and it worked out well. It keeps things fresh, and you've got a better chance at having the skills you need to accomplish a job. It was a lot of fun. |
Moving this over from the perfect run thread. Sounds cool.
Sounds like "cheating". Basically, by removing any necessity for your PC and/or team to cross-skill into different areas, you've converted the entire game into a Round-Peg-Round-Hole-Solve-It. That's not playing multiple people, that's interchangeable skillsets.
We aren't hive insects. Why are we trying to out-specialise them?
@ Wiz In Red
(that one got shared off-line)
We aren't hive insects. Why are we trying to out-specialise them?
@ Wiz In Red
(that one got shared off-line)
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.