The "One PC Limit"

[Reiloth]

A simple discussion.

Do you think it would benefit to allow people with X amount of karma to have more than one PC at a time?

Rules for the 'Second PC' would be as following:
*They would be on a Staff approved basis.
*They would fill roles such as: enemy combat roles (raider, gith), free/slave gladiator roles (buffed as to avoid the grind and pop them into arena games),  flavor roles that fill a niche (escaped slaves, dissenting Commoner rabble, plot PC that would otherwise be an NPC).
*Wouldn't be a full time PC, the understanding that they are for a purpose and little else.
*Couldn't be in conflict with the Player's primary PC (An escaped slave vs a Borsail 'slaver').

My personal feelings are that people attach themselves too much to the one PC in these instances, so why not let people play more than one, especially with Tuluk closed and the 'cross contamination' there sort of a non-issue?

Thoughts and opinions abound. Ready, go.

[Akaramu]

From what I understand, staff already allows you to temporarily store your current character to play one of these limited flavor roles for as long as they're needed. I'm not sure that parallel PCs (as in, playable at the same time without storage) would help player to player interaction. It can already be hard to get ahold of PCs you need to speak to for any reason - if they played a different character on top of their primary one, this would be even more difficult. Especially if the flavor role turned out to be more fun to play.

[Feco]

I would really, really love to say yes, but I gotta say no.

I think even a gith role could complicate things.  What if you kill, or need to kill, but dont, someone your other PC knows
  Or learn that some PC is a magicker?

Gladiator roles would be cool, but I dunno if they're worth the extra staff effort.

[Patuk]

No.

[Reiloth]

From what I understand, staff already allows you to temporarily store your current character to play one of these limited flavor roles for as long as they're needed. I'm not sure that parallel PCs (as in, playable at the same time without storage) would help player to player interaction. It can already be hard to get ahold of PCs you need to speak to for any reason - if they played a different character on top of their primary one, this would be even more difficult. Especially if the flavor role turned out to be more fun to play.

To me it seems like more effort to store a PC, get the 2nd PC in game, bump up the stats, let them play around for a few weeks, then unstore the 1st PC.

In my mind -- Say with Gladiators -- They would only log in to play them for Arena games. But as it is a secondary character, the 'to the death' matches wouldn't be so bothersome or scary. It's the purpose of the PC.

After the game, they log in and resume business as usual with their primary PC.

To me it's like an actor being in multiple performances.

[Akaramu]

Yeah, but... how would you solve the availability issue? What if lord templar Hardnose has so much fun playing a slave that they only log onto their templar for 30 minutes a day? It would suck for everyone else.

Even if this was limited to players who aren't in sponsored roles... even mundane Joes are often needed for other people's plots. Like the assassin with a contract on Joe Grebber, who is never around anymore bcause he plays his gladiator 7 hours a day.

I'm not going to mention the trust issues because plenty of others brought them up already.

[Lizzie]

Absolutely not, unequivocably not. There already exists players who will do whatever they can to "git gud" - why give them more rope with which to hang themselves? Stop giving the exceptions excuses to justify their exceptionableness. "Staff said I could play my independent half-elven merchant - it's not my fault that House Salarr didn't notice the ears and hired him juuuuuuust when my warrior was about to put in an order for a set of tembo hide armor."

I'm not even speaking on the offchance 99% of players wouldn't do this, and only 1% would, so why punish the majority for the mistakes of the minority. I'm talking about making the staff have to babysit the whole thing just because that 1% exists.

Staff has better things to do. Like bring me my flyin shap and return sorcerers to the game.

[The Warshaper]

I understand the idea and with the conflict threads up understand where the OP is coming from.

I would have to agree that such roles would support conflict other players could enjoy but feel that a special rolecall would suffice for any short term plots. Also, if the mood is that such characters would be a boon to the game then lets start seeing raiders done well IG that would fortify the thoughts that such roles could spark up meaningful roleplay. They would be challenging to do to say in the least but if it's worth the effort then lets try and see how it goes?

[Malken]

Nah.

[tortall]

This was a while ago, but it used to be that players could have their regular pc and a gladiator that they'd only log in to during the games. I never saw am issue with that.

[Lizzie]

This was a while ago, but it used to be that players could have their regular pc and a gladiator that they'd only log in to during the games. I never saw am issue with that.

That's already possible. Sponsored "temporary" roles are already a thing. What's being suggested is something else and - in my personal opinion based on my experience with games that allow it, it's also something nefarious (though probably not intended that way by the OP).

[Dunetrade55]

I don't really trust staff or fellow players OOCly, ICly I give them all the benefit of the doubt, and nobody cares about the results. I say, no. I say players with karma have enough privaleges as it is, and I trust neither them, nor staff, to police it effectively. Besides, how can you even have two PCs if you're properly immersed in one of them?

Have you ever tried playing poker or chess against yourself? Try it sometime.

[Armaddict]

While I don't think anyone would actually fully manipulate it or anything, I think it's kind of a bad idea to put players into a position where conflicts of interest are that likely.

Gladiators weren't allowed to interact with the outside world much aside from the games.  They had no bearing on anything.  Their sole purpose was to provide a show and be sponsored by outside sources.  There was no way for them to really be in a position where their actions could ruin or promote the other pc.  That goes away when you have them actively engaging in interwoven plots.

Again, I don't think anyone would do it on purpose.  But that spot is one that flirts with embedded motivations to a degree I don't think is really that healthy.

[Lutagar]

oh god no please take this mindset back to mushes where it belongs armageddon is literally the only actual RPI on the internet right now don't do this

[Reiloth]

oh god no please take this mindset back to mushes where it belongs armageddon is literally the only actual RPI on the internet right now don't do this

[Raptor_Dan]

I'd rather we kept this kind of thing limited to staff role calls for special chars. Otherwise, there's not enough trust and accountability for me, and perhaps others, to feel comfortable allowing it.

[SuchDragonWow]

No.  Let's not create more instances of karma envy, or a conflict of interest.

[Barsook]

No.

[Miradus]

Props to OP for broaching what was destined to be an unfavorable proposal.

While I'd certainly enjoy playing multiple characters (like usually is done on other muds), I play the game I'm given. I personally don't think this would be much of a positive for Arm.

[650Booger]

No.

In a permadeath RPI the temptation for abuse would be too great for a few, and that would ruin it for all.

mule/storage characters, pocket healers, etc.

Also, PCs my character needs to talk to would only be available half as much.

[boog]

No. For the conflict of interest listed above. I've played multicharacter allowed RPI MUDs and they suck for that very reason: breach of OOC infecting IC.

[Miradus]

Everyone is saying no and so my natural inclination is to play devil's advocate.

When we say 'open to abuse', what exactly would the abuse be that isn't being abused now? If 1.Miradus dies somewhere do you think 2.Miradus is going to run over there and loot the corpse? There's nothing really preventing that now if you die in a relatively out-of-the-way place. And there's certainly nothing keeping you from hitting up your buddy on AIM and saying, "Hey, I died 3 rooms west of the rock shaped like a dong in the Salt Flats. Go loot me, k?"

Or if I want to kill Joe Bob who is in Salarr I make another character and join Salarr to track their movements? That's probably going on now already with 20 years worth of OOC connections.

I can't really think of any abuse this would allow that isn't likely already. And more so, with the abuse now being spread across multiple players via OOC means, it's harder to catch. At least two characters on the same account would be easier to catch.

But aside from abuse, there's the roleplay element. Would having two characters diminish my roleplay? I play THREE muds. Right now when I get bored with one of my characters and need a little break, I go play a character on a different mud. Am I incapable of switching characters like that? I don't think so. So right now I already have the ability to play different characters, but I have to go to other muds to do so, which removes me from Armageddon while I'm doing so. You already have one less person to interact with.

Okay, so if I wanted to implement a system of this, here's how I'd do it:

Allow players to use a special app to store a current character with the ability to unstore later, allowing them to play someone else for awhile if they get bored with their current role. I would require a RL month between storing and unstoring. Characters in storage would continue to age.

If you've got longevity down, there's no reason you'd need more than 3-4 characters in a RL year meaning the special app process would let you switch back and forth between a couple of roles over the course of the year.

[bardlyone]

I wouldn't mind this if it was 1. not tied to karma - someone else already pointed out that people with karma have enough advantages, not fun for new players. 2. if it was very specific role niches that dovetailed with overarching story plots. Maybe make it a role of the month or new role per RL season, whatever. Then tie the role into plots. Like the gith tablelands plot? If it'd used that system, any player could have 'sometimes' played a gith. Make it the same with raider groups, invading beasts, etc. Something which will not interact in any meaningful way with any current 'real' characters, and instead helps drive home the danger of the wilderness. Keep gladiators open as a role you can jump into at all times that there is a Borsail noble role open who does arena games, and keep those just as restricted as the periodic gladiator alts were. The problem of lack of availability is real. The problem of bleedover is real. I think that both can be circumvented or overcome if the other character is a basically nonsocial conflict avatar tied to stories that are not everyday pc stories.

[nauta]

Another option would be to open up a class of people who were more-than-players and less-than-staff (sort of like Builders and Helpers) who would be allowed such an extra (flavor) character.    You'd apply for the position.  There'd be a limited number available.  You'd be expected to provide flavor and if you stopped you'd have to give up the spot, etc.

Such flavor characters could also be limited to crap stats.

Examples: I drunk gossip at the bar; a breed-hater at the bar; a crazy old man in the rinth; a crazy guy in the woods; a retired Kuraci sergeant who tells funny stories; etc.

[Dunetrade55]

When you put that spin on it, Bardlyone, and Nauta, it does seem more appealing.