One Character/Player/Thread

[Lord Fell]

:rules:

In the thread for Ace Danger's party, I raised an objection that one player had brought both of their characters. The GM of that thread asked me to take my concerns to Campaign Discussion, or send a PM to the Mods, so here it is.

Although there is apparently no specific house rule dictating this, I think that there should be. I tend to believe that the only reason that there is not such a rule, is that it's too obvious to be necessary. In a few instances, I can see where characters belonging to the same player might overlap, but in that sort of situation, I think that there should be rigid Ref supervision. Example: My PL10 villain decides to destroy Claremont Academy... all well and good until someone points out that my PL6 is a student there. Ideally, I'd just say the character was off campus at the time, but for arguments sake, let's say that timeline dictates that both characters are present. I would say that this is my "PL10s" thread, so my PL6 should be treated like an NPC, although I would recommend what my character does. Compare: PL10 Villain sets an atomic bomb in the boiler room... same player's PL6 runs into boiler room, contemplates bomb, runs out shouting "nope! No atomic bombs in the boiler room!"

I strongly believe that if I were to create a PL10 hero "Ratman" and make a PL6 hero "Bobbin" -they are ambiguously heterosexual life partners, so they are always in the same threads, I'd be told no. In fact, I have seen players who have created characters that seemed designed to be minions for other players quashed. Specifically, Markk objected to Rex the Eliminator (Svenlol's character) on the grounds that he seemed to be designed to be a free, PL10 minion for Malice or Captain Knievel. Saku-nee also recruited one of her IRL friends to make a character that was blatantly a bodyguard for one of her abominations, when her character was archived-unapproved, that player abandoned his char.

I'm not saying that any player would use two characters this way to pull off a lot of questionable antics, skull-duggery or shenanigans... I strongly suspect players here would not. However, enacting and enforcing a one character/player/thread rule makes the question moot, which would be preferable to questioning whether someone is playing fair.

...besides, if both of your characters are in the same thread, who gets the Post Credit? Double dipping? :shame:

[Heritage]

I think I agree with you on this, Fell; it just seems like common sense to me, even though of course no formal ruling has ever been declared on the issue. I think in the case of the party it can be resolved IC, but yeah, I think it should be stated one character/one thread, within reason as you indicated.

[quotemyname]

I second that. It seems kind of unfair to 'double dip' as you say, not to mention the possibility of PL 6 characters turning into henchmen. And we have all seen the judges do not like that even when other characters have seemed made towards that purpose.

All in favor?

||||

[N/A]

Agreed. I'm surprised this even came up at all.

[Dr Archeville]

My reservation about making an outright ban is that it'd mean a player can't have his/her/its heroic and villainous characters in the same thread.

Dr. Archeville couldn't be in a fight with Belphegor.

High Note couldn't be in a fight with Matthias.

Mercy couldn't be in a fight with Quiver.

Mongrel Angel couldn't be in a fight with Exile.

Red Star couldn't be in a fight Malice.

[Avenger Assembled]

My reservation about making an outright ban is that it'd mean a player can't have his/her/its heroic and villainous characters in the same thread.

Dr. Archeville couldn't be in a fight with Belphegor.

High Note couldn't be in a fight with Matthias.

Mercy couldn't be in a fight with Quiver.

Mongrel Angel couldn't be in a fight with Exile.

Red Star couldn't be in a fight Malice.

But are any of those really that likely to come up? Like you, I'm not necessarily comfortable with an outright ban, but I do think double-dipping is a bad idea. It might work best to put "double-dipping" in category of stuff you run by a Ref before you try it, but otherwise don't do.

[quotemyname]

I wonder if there are any comic book characters from the same universe that have _NEVER_ fought each other? I suppose it is possible.

Why would those players WANT to have their characters fight? With the exception of gold members, those characters are PL6 vs. PL10. One of them is BOUND to win pretty much every single time. That and I am sure that there are players on the boards that like on character more than the other, they wouldn't want to see their favorite character lose to the other one.

Sure the two could fight, maybe one should just be REF controlled.

Maybe we COULD allow players to post as both of their characters in the same threads, only to stipulate that they must choose which character gets the pp credit for that thread...

Just some ideas. Thoughts?

[Lord Fell]

In my original post, I acknowledged that it might come up. A master villain that wants to crush the heroes of tomorrow so that his grand-kids have an easier time taking over the world shouldn't be banned from attacking Claremont Academy just because that player's PL6 is a student there.

I recommended that the player pick one character as "active" and request a GM to run his other char as an NPC. That might be a bit over-board. The player probably could control both his characters actions, just with a Ref to observe that the player is running his characters true to their 'official' description. I'm assuming that if a player wanted to send a character to Claremont that was actually an evil 20something, masquerading as a 15 year old, planning to assassinate Duncan Summers that would be noted right on their character sheet... a player couldn't suddenly announce that was the characters 'true purpose' while their other character was attacking the school.

[N/A]

I suppose running two PCs in one thread doesn't take much more detachment or integrity than running your own PC in a thread you're effectively GMing. Which has been shown to be a successful formula here.

[quotemyname]

Just as long as people "play nice" it should be okay. We should at least have a policy about 'double dipping' if not a rule.

[N/A]

At the very least, the GM or player-in-charge of any given thread should be given the veto option.

[quotemyname]

Also agreed.

[angrydurf]

Well I think since we allow solo threads and people to GM the threads that a character is in it seems that the double dipping is really the issue. I would say the best option for that is that you post separately for each character and understand that in threads that are capped you will likely be asked to only play one character if more players want in.

[quotemyname]

I worry that things might boil down to a conversation between the two characters that could feasibly go on obnoxiously long and/or fast and leave all the other players in the dust, actually.

[Dr Archeville]

*scraps plans for the Archeville/Belphegor chess match*

[quotemyname]

Don't feel bad... It's never any fun when you play yourself anyway. ;)

[N/A]

*scraps plans for the Archeville/Belphegor chess match*

Why? Most of us agree that it's doable, as long as all involved parties consent.

[Dr Archeville]

Why? Most of us agree that it's doable, as long as all involved parties consent.

I was joking -- neither of them play chess.

Yet.

[Lord Fell]

So... shall we say that One Character/Player/Thread should be considered a soft rule, meaning that players cannot (generally) play two characters in the same thread.

If a player has a good reason to play both of their characters at once, they must get permission from the other players in the thread they are in, and notify a ref.

Good?

[quotemyname]

Yea I like that.

[Sacerdos]

I'm late to the conversation here, but my two cents:

We're fairly adult hereabouts, and all of our posts and rolls happen in public. So, I don't mind "double-dipping" so long as we're all clear that it falls into those things that garner a little more scrutiny than usual.

[Warmonger]

I don't see what harm this could cause. I mean really what is the worse that could happen if two chars are in one thread?

[Sacerdos]

I don't see what harm this could cause. I mean really what is the worse that could happen if two chars are in one thread?

A person uses their two characters to inappropriately cooperate and/or work around the rules, resulting in a big stink that lasts a week or so. Folks involved find the process unfun and are therefore less than gruntled for a while.

[quotemyname]

And nobody want's people to be un-gruntled. Thats when 'words' start flying!

[Lord Fell]

Indeed.

My problem with Nyrath bringing both characters to the Danger Party isn't that I suspect Nyrath is up to no good. Honestly, if I had two characters, I'd be torn about which one to bring. I just believe it's a scenario that's rife for abuse, which is why it should (as a default) be illegal. Where a player has good reason, approval of the parties it affects, and a Ref is made aware of the situation, that would be different.

In my original post, I pointed out that the refs screen character applications to ensure that one character isn't designed to be an adjunct to another character (whether it is that players, or someone else'). The precedent seems to be that players are intended to play one character, and do their own thing... not serve another character. So, I definitely feel that dual character use should either be restricted (as above) and if that's "too much hassle" then just banned.