The One Character Limit?

[Hellis]

That last line is a extremely weak argument. Controlling different characters in different settings is an entirely differnt thing,. When you have several characters in one setting you immedietly have to worry about metagaming, circle jerking and the like. I play in the advanced section mostly, and I want character I feel are actual people, I wanna know what they feel and why they do the things they do. I enjoy the introspective and inner narrative alot more then the regular old "person B does this to person A". The latter wich you see a lot more when a player has two characters or more.

I realize of course, that alot of this comes down to preference, and that one cannot find a definite answer like you tried to pull with the /thread :P

[Brovo]

That last line is a extremely weak argument.

Versus the weak argument of "if X could happen, it will." Which is a logical fallacy.

Controlling different characters in different settings is an entirely differnt thing,.

It's the principle of the point, not the literal point. Five bucks says you also don't address anything else mentioned. Which is a strawman. Which is also a logical fallacy.

When you have several characters in one setting you immedietly have to worry about metagaming, circle jerking and the like.

Just like you do with a single character... So... Yeah. This argument doesn't even make sense.

I play in the advanced section mostly, and I want character I feel are actual people, I wanna know what they feel and why they do the things they do.

You mean basic narration that will inevitable be done anyway? What's stopping someone from doing this for multiple characters? GM's in advanced do this for multiple characters... All the time, it's a borderline requirement, what's stopping players? Some preconceived notions that aren't grounded in logic?

I enjoy the introspective and inner narrative alot more then the regular old "person B does this to person A". The latter wich you see a lot more when a player has two characters or more.

In role plays I'm in (both my own and others), regardless of the number of characters the majority of post content was narration. Not action. I basically remain in the advanced section pretty well exclusively.

Which reminds me...

Different*, immediately*, a lot*, which*.

I realize of course, that alot of this comes down to preference, and that one cannot find a definite answer like you tried to pull with the /thread :P

I pulled a definite answer because I already experimented with this struggle in an RP that's lasted three years as evidence that it works.

A lazy person with two characters will be lazy with one. An uncreative person with two characters will be uncreative with one.

It makes little to no difference whatsoever about how many characters you play. It's about how you play them and how much time and motivation you invest in them. Which is why I keep it to two or three as a safe maximum. Beyond that, and then you risk not having enough time to really flesh out your characters.

So. As I said above, reworded.

1's a solo, 2's a duo, 3's a party, 4's too much.

/thread.

Note: The only exception I can think of is a nation RP. In which case, well, yeah.

Also, you're right, it is a personal choice!... That should be up to the individual role player to make for themselves, like if they want to weave in romance options with their character(s). ;p

[Hellis]

I should have known better to make short post against you Brovo, lol. Also, try not to attack my spelling/Grammar mistakes. They are irrelavant to the discussion

For the record, I allow more then 1 if the player is someone I trust. I never once put it "on paper" that it's one per player either.

Let me rephrase my point and argument in a way that atleast to me, makes sense. When one player has to be content with one character originally, he would have to make it more introspective. We both established this. You meant that it made his posts less relevant to others, this to me would imply said player cannot handle even one character on the scale I want my games. A good player in this case, would see the challange take it and use it to his advantage. Limitations are a proven method to cause improved creativity and ingenuity. Of course, this can obviusly back fire, you can make something to limited.

Now for the risk of havng more players, that you say make no sense. It does, and for a very simple reason. Players have to read, digest and then write out a great deal of information. They have to formulate plots, subplots and actions that involve their characters. This of course becomes harder the more imput you have. And, the more characters you have, the more unique input you have. Thus it becomes easier to mix the different characters together or have one act on information that the first one had aquired. This in turn leads something called metagaming, that is acting outside your characters percieved knowledge. I still argue this is easier to do by mistake if you have more them 1 character in one setting. As for the circle jerk. Its far harder to create a circle with only one character. While if you have several, you can easily make it so that 2-3 of your characters are busy talking to one another. That one really explains itself I'd think.

Then there is the very biased, very indiviual GM experience:
I dont tell my players "ONLY ONE CHARACTER." Most my players have a shit ton of NPC. But NPC's are ones I as a GM can easily constrict without much fuzz. They can be used to further plot and conveniently go elsewhere. Player cannot, and should not be treated in such a manner.


So. To formulate it after my experience:
Newbie: 1 untill proven
Someone I have seen do well: 2
Someone I really trust: 3 (yet to have anyone of my player play 3 characters)

/thread.

Hope this is a bit more consistent. Dammit. I did not think I had to use my brain to much today.

[Jannah]

Who says one cannot have the same level of quality with 2-3 characters as they have with 1? That's a rather narrow view there, to presume that a person can only handle detail to one character and must sacrifice it in order to have more than one.

I just find that things tend to get confusing too after awhile if there's too many characters to keep track of. Also, I'm not a fan of reading massive walls of text, especially not in group RPs. Then again, I can be kind of lazy when it comes to RPing, which is why I usually stick to casual despite being capable of advanced.

[Kagamine]

That last line is a extremely weak argument. Controlling different characters in different settings is an entirely differnt thing,. When you have several characters in one setting you immedietly have to worry about metagaming, circle jerking and the like.

If a roleplayer is perfectly capable of playing multiple characters in multiple settings, then what difference does it make if all those settings are in one roleplay? This post makes the assumption that if a roleplayer has multiple characters, then those characters are always together in a massive mob. This simply is not the case. The majority of multi-character RP'ers that I see have a tendency to keep their characters spread out, in different settings and situations and interacting with different characters. You know, actually making use of one of the major advantages to having multiple characters, which is the ability to be in more than one place at once and experience the plot from a number of different angles.

Now for the risk of havng more players, that you say make no sense. It does, and for a very simple reason. Players have to read, digest and then write out a great deal of information. They have to formulate plots, subplots and actions that involve their characters. This of course becomes harder the more imput you have. And, the more characters you have, the more unique input you have. Thus it becomes easier to mix the different characters together or have one act on information that the first one had aquired. This in turn leads something called metagaming, that is acting outside your characters percieved knowledge. I still argue this is easier to do by mistake if you have more them 1 character in one setting. As for the circle jerk. Its far harder to create a circle with only one character. While if you have several, you can easily make it so that 2-3 of your characters are busy talking to one another. That one really explains itself I'd think.

This also bothers me. Perhaps you find it confusing to play more than one character at once. Well, that's just you. Why assume no one else can do it? The human brain is not so limited into that effort would have to be divided in such a way, or that playing multiple characters would automatically cause a person to confuse those characters. By that logic, RPers could mix up characters in different roleplays, but that's something I never see. Even in a single RP, I have never seen people confuse their own characters. People know their characters. Of course, I suppose it is perfectly possible that some people find it difficult, and that's fine if people choose to only play one character because of that. However, like Brovo, I find it narrow-minded to assume that all roleplayers have those same troubles.

I've seen someone juggle 16 characters and keep them all strait as well as not letting her posts drop in quality. Of course I'm sure that sounds like an extreme example, and it sort of is, however it just goes to show that some people are skilled enough to handle that many, and many more roleplayers are capable of handling a measly, say, 3 or 4 if some people are even good enough to handle 16 in one RP.

I just find that things tend to get confusing too after awhile if there's too many characters to keep track of. Also, I'm not a fan of reading massive walls of text, especially not in group RPs. Then again, I can be kind of lazy when it comes to RPing, which is why I usually stick to casual despite being capable of advanced.

There's also the argument that not all of a person's characters will be featured in one post. In TJA, the RP where a single person has 16 characters (and the RP as a whole has 110 characters), quite often we're not always posting for all our characters, as admittedly that can be quite a hassle for people with a large number of them. Instead, we have characters we're actively RPing as and "free characters"- characters that are currently not in an interaction and can be brought into one at any time by someone looking for someone to RP with. When someone needs to get a character doing something for just wants to RP they'll just ask "who has some free characters?", and everyone will post who's free, they'll take their pick and boom you've got an interaction.

But yeah, most of the multi-character players usually have at least one or two free characters at a time. And even then, in a single post they might only be replying for one or two characters, whereas they're still waiting for a response for the rest. (Sounds complicated but it's really not.)

Point is though, just because someone has X number of characters, that doesn't mean each post will contain something about all X characters. Most don't, when you get into RP's with lots of people playing lots of characters.

[Foster]

If a roleplayer is perfectly capable of playing multiple characters in multiple settings, then what difference does it make if all those settings are in one roleplay? This post makes the assumption that if a roleplayer has multiple characters, then those characters are always together in a massive mob. This simply is not the case. The majority of multi-character RP'ers that I see have a tendency to keep their characters spread out, in different settings and situations and interacting with different characters. You know, actually making use of one of the major advantages to having multiple characters, which is the ability to be in more than one place at once and experience the plot from a number of different angles.

I think they mean having your own characters interacting with each other [themselves] in their own little corner. Especially if they do it for too long.

[HeySeuss]

Use your best judgment, that's what it really boils down to.

[Gunther]

There was no option I felt comfortable choosing. Obviously No is the wrong answer. Yes, is the correct answer but it depends on the capabilities of the RPer and the thread moderator. Every situation is different. I know I can handle two, maybe even three main characters. Hell, I'm working on a book that has at least twenty characters to track. Some of them could be considered NPCs. The primary characters number about three or four.

[Phaelin]

I picked the loyal player option, but I'm pretty lax on that rule. You make a few good posts as one character? Go ahead and start a new CS! If you're struggling to handle even the one, I would ask that you focus more on that character or replace them if they are boring you.

I don't want anyone getting burnt out because they wrote up a dull character, but I can't have a dozen dull characters crowding out my game.

[Kagamine]

I think they mean having your own characters interacting with each other [themselves] in their own little corner. Especially if they do it for too long.

I did say "this post assumes" that people with multiple characters have a tendency to do just that. But my experience says, no, that's not what tends to happen. It can happen, sure, and I'm not saying it never does, but in my experience I have almost never seen it. I roleplay with many people who are big fans of owning multiple characters, and I have a tendency to do that myself, and what I've seen is that, more often than not, people use their multiple characters to spread out around the roleplay and interact with more people at once as opposed to each other.

In other news, necromancy.