December 26th, 2007


Artificially Limiting Your Characters

Has anyone ever played a character (or at least made a character concept) with the specific intention of very rarely using the character's obvious advantages in-game? The best reason I can think to do this is playing a "mysterious" character and holding back your abilities to facilitate that air.

My primary example is Star Wars D20; I conceptualized an undercover jedi who would not willingly use his powers in front of his crew-mates (the other PCs). Of course, SWD20 seemed like the perfect system for this because jedi are so much more powerful than all other PC classes (combined, perhaps?), so I would have been actually balancing the system where balance was lacking. Of course the GM scrapped the game before it started because he couldn't think of any reasonable way to have a group which mixed jedi and non-jedi. C'est la vie.

How about you guys? What systems have you had luck doing this with? Have you been able to pull it off without murdering your character's usefulness to the story in every scene? Has it been more rewarding to group balance to do this in a system that is less emphatic about rules-balance or vice versa?
  • Current Music
    Cowboy Junkies-sweet jane
If God Wills it

Running parallel games

 I know I can't have been the only one to consider this, so I'd like to know what the rest of you have done and whether you think it's worthwhile to run.

While playing D&D, one of my cohorts and I were summoning creatures to help us and I realized that it could really suck being that summoned creature. You could be a Lantern Archon busy doing something good and then all of a sudden you're in combat. Then I thought, how cool it might be to actually play summonable creatures as PC's in one campaign and then play the summoners in another. Any thoughts?