Refresh Points

[GruffAndTumble]

Just wanted to add to the GMPC portion of the conversation, some GMs can handle it very well, usally in cases where the group just lacks a certain skill group.  I have seen this most in shadowrun where very often you don't have someone playing the "hacker role" because it can be a pain, so i have had GMs that would create a PC character to essentially fill in the hole in the team so it does not hold up play...

On a side note... Shadowrun using DFRPG? Hm, going to have to think about that.

Shadowrun and similar role based games are easier to handle GMPCs in than others, because it is all but impossible for a non-cheating GMPC to outshine the PCs in their areas of expertise. However, for a guy new to tabletop gaming, its probably best if we stay off of such topics in this thread.

I would be down for discussing Shadowrun adaptations in another thread though XD

[Autumn2005]

So GMs pretty much run everything?  So you need at least two other players besides the GM to make the game?

[GruffAndTumble]

In my experience, three people is the basic minimum, unless you can find two people with a really strong dynamic. I generally consider GMing for three to six people to be my "comfort zone."

[Autumn2005]

What do you mean a really strong dynamic?  The GM pretty much does most of the plot line, like an author, and the players (characters) have to figure it out?

[Drachasor]

What do you mean a really strong dynamic?  The GM pretty much does most of the plot line, like an author, and the players (characters) have to figure it out?

He means you want to players that are at a Kirk/Spock level of interaction rather than say a Anakin/Padme level.  If there's not good (non-romantic) chemistry between the two players, ten the game can get really boring.

Personally I find 6 players to be a bit taxing.  3-5 works pretty well.

[Autumn2005]

I just want to say thanks for letting me pick your brains for all this stuff I HAVE NO CLUE about!   

And as I ask more questions...

When choosing skills for a character, can you choose certain skills to be at Poor (-1) or Terrible (-2) to gain more skill points elsewhere?

[Tbora]

When choosing skills for a character, can you choose certain skills to be at Poor (-1) or Terrible (-2) to gain more skill points elsewhere?

Fraid not

[Autumn2005]

Dang, I was hoping.  I thought it'd be funny to have a character that can absolutely NOT drive.  I relate.  I've totaled 3 cars in the last 2 years.

[Morgan]

Dang, I was hoping.  I thought it'd be funny to have a character that can absolutely NOT drive.  I relate.  I've totaled 3 cars in the last 2 years.

Yeah the lowest skill level a character can have is mediocre +0, but at the same time this means that anyone can try to use any skill at no penalty. If you want a character to be a terrible driver the best way to do that is to start them with no Driving skill, and then give them an Aspect like "Moving Violation" and then compel the hell out of it.

[Autumn2005]

That's an idea... would rack up fate points too.  Of course, while I was able to walk away from all those totals unharmed, no garuantee my character would.  Okay, what about an inhuman character like a WCV, you have to take on Inhuman Strength, but could you take Supernatural strength instead?

[Nyarlathotep5150]

    I would say yes. The WCV's get stronger as they get older. however, unless it was a Submerged(Refresh 10) level game, or the player had a REALLY convincing explanation, I would urge them to just take more points in the might skill instead (The powers don't seem like much at first, but they really do give a hefty boost to the character. A little goes a long way in the game).

    Also, Inhuman Strength is a part of the initial cost of the WCV template. So if you allow them to "Upgrade", they'd be switching out inhuman, with Supernatural strength, and only paying 2 additional Refresh points.

[Autumn2005]

Can a player have more than one character, or is that recommended against?

[Chlorofiend]

Can a player have more than one character, or is that recommended against?

It can and has been done, but there are risks. It is possible for players of multiple characters to abuse the privilege by playing characters as if they have the knowledge of other characters, or by sharing goodies among the characters too freely. If a GM thinks she can control these behaviors, it's perfectly possible to have more than one character per player.

[Nyarlathotep5150]

   I agree with the above, and have seen it happen a few times.

   Another problem that generally arises in 1 player running multiple characters (and one that comes up more often in my experience) is that the player might end up only roleplaying one of the characters (speaking through this one character, having a fully developed personality and background for him, and interacting with the group only with him), while the other character just becomes a list of extra stats and powers that the group can pull out whenever they need them.
   Its best if the players each make up one fully developed and thought out character, and worry about playing him/her well. Its really hard to run 2 completely different characters at the same time, without falling into the "Main Character"/"Backup Character" problem.
   I'd say, unless you think your players are capable of portraying 2 separate human beings believably, at the same time, don't let them play multiple PC's.
   If the PC group ends up not having certain skills/powers that might be useful in the story, thats a perfectly good opportunity to force them to jump through hoops to convince an NPC that has those gifts to help them. 

[Drachasor]

Aye. multiple characters is a major problem.  It is extremely difficult to effectively roleplay interactions between two characters you control.  Supremely difficult to role-play significant disagreements.  Overall it just isn't a good idea.