sometimes in games, people make different charactors. it can be tricky to identify who those players are, when they make different charactors in the same game, for different threads...
unless of course, your charactors, or play style evokes jealousy from other certain players, where when they come into contact with your other player, that they will automaticly reject any idea or proposal, concieved by your charactor. haha... anybody run into those types of players and know what i'm talking about???
This message was last edited by the user at 22:44, Sun 28 Aug 2016.

Sounds like you have something specific in mind and you should ask the DM or moderator how to handle it.

well, it's been adressed. it's not serious, it's amusing really. i guess more than anything i wanted to hear other people's accounts of people like that they have run into. sort of a gripe session for a few laughs, without pointing fingers, specificly....

i bet there's been some real "pieces of work" on here! anyone wanna share?

After many years on the site in many, many games, I cannot recall any personal conflict with another player. Generally, I have rarely had the feeling that others were playing more than one character in a game. Or that they are jealous of anyone else's play style or using in-character interactions to settle scores.

There is an unstable and just plain ol' "does not play well with others' ID on RPOL, as a player in any game it spells doom.
This message was last edited by the user at 04:20, Fri 02 Sept 2016.

I don't feel comfortable posting very much here. The only real problems I have had were players who did not listen to the gm, or flat out claimed they were stealing others work. I could list another, but that was more the gm's fault then the players.

Don't metagame m'kay?

that's a risk.... definitely. having somebody steal your ideas, cos they're too hide-bound to think of their own stuff.

In the sand box of life, some children just don't play well with other Ray.  :)

even 30-40 some children, it seems. xD

    I have found it intresting to play multiple characters in a game- in one  5th edition D&D game I ended up with a "Noble-knight", Squire, and two.. wives.  They were all played using the same character name, but I had all the data recorded to quickly switch pictures and bios.  So it wasn't as if it was a secret.
    Another time I played a shapechanging superhero, so got my picture and bio change system down.  I got mimions npc so ended up using the same system to create a profile of date for each npc in the minion character sheet.
    In some ways it reminds me of the old days when us three brothers played AD&D 1sted., together.  We relied heavily on henchmen to build a party.

The thing is if you do that you have to remember that each person you are playing is a different person.

This, very much. I play multiple characters in games sometimes. As a DM you have to as well. But who one person may like, another may hate, and a third doesn't even know. One may be someone ripped apart by their past, another happy-go-lucky. Etc. It's no different to playing characters in different games.

In my experience, some characters are just more popular than others (even when played by the same person). xD I can recall a game where I wrote for a bunch of characters. I had a few characters that were very popular and one that was not as well liked in comparison. Unfortunately for me, the one that was not as popular happened to be a character I really enjoyed playing. While I enjoyed the popularity of my other characters in that game, having the other get less positive attention could get pretty frustrating at times.

^ That's just one instance of course, but it came to mind. In more recent times, I've bother less about the popularity of my characters and just try to enjoy the differences among them. I like playing a range of types, and try to value each for the creative opportunities they offer me from a writing perspective.

There are always going to be some characters that players 'latch' on to and others that don't go over as strongly. I think it's a bit like TV, books and films, some characters get a certain fan following while other characters might be preferred by another group. I think it only becomes a big problem in RPs when players are taking things too seriously, and are not separating between characters and their players. If players choose to hold a grudge against a certain players and treat their characters poorly because of it, then it's honestly the grudge holder's issue.

I think I've been filtered from most potential jealousy from any other players by the GM pointing out that I usually come up with solid, coherent, logical plans.  I've never worried terribly about my characters being popular, because a lot of times I end up making some unpopular choices for the good of the game or the good of the party.

My biggest frustration is some players who've joined a few games I'm in (I don't know, or care, if they're the same players in different games), who create a character who is ill-suited to the setting...and then they try to change the game to make their character the norm.  I won't cite specific examples, partly because I don't want to run the risk of making anyone feel like I may be pointing a finger at them (even though I have no idea who the player behind the character is), and partly because I get really agitated when I start focusing on specifics of characters that just don't work in the game because the player won't accept the fact that he started with a badly-flawed concept (if he'd stop trying to make the game fit his character, and work on making his character fit the game, it could be a really awesome character...)

In reply to facemaker329 (msg # 14):

Yeah, and sadly that latter issue is a GM problem most of the time. Certain characters should never be admitted into the game for the simple reason "they are unsuitable in concept to the setting". GMs are often in a hurry to get a player base filled up and ignore the character to setting compatibility. Once in awhile the RTJ can be deceiving, and it's not the GM's fault when the player starts setting breaking. But other times the player turns out to have zero grasp of the setting from the start. The RTJ process should be used a filter against poor player/character mesh-ups. Changing a game to suit your character is lazy, and I'm surprised how often it pops up.

It's a problem that's sometimes hard to deal with as a GM.  I've had numerous players apply for my game with a concept, only to change it once I have accepted them.  Which means I now have to backpedal and try to either convince them to change back, or change my expectations for their character.  That's especially hard in a game like D&D where characters fill certain niche roles.  If, suddenly, your healer is a controller, you may have a serious problem.

It's even worse when players suddenly announce aspects of their characters that they deem vital to their roleplaying experience, which they never mentioned to the Gm beforehand.  Things like "My character will always fight to the death if cornered, because of her abusive experience as a child."  That, in itself, is mostly fine, but it isn't fine for the GM to discover this fact only after their story has forced said character into a corner.  Now someone has to either change their vision of the character, retcon several weeks of gameplay, or kill the character.  None of these are ideal.

In reply to lesavagedamsel (msg # 15):

The GM in one of my games has confessed (I'm one of the longest-term players in the game, so he and I talk a lot) that experiences with two or three players like that have really made him change his whole approach to handling characters.  When the game started, he'd accept pretty much whatever...wasn't a problem, the first several players to join the game all had pretty solid character concepts that fit the setting very well.

And then the oddballs started coming out of the woodwork...not everyone who applied had some weird character notion...but there were plenty.  And they didn't last long.

Now, he's at the point where in any given week, he may get four RTJs...and he vetoes three of them as soon as he sees the initial concept, for being too incompatible.  And we still end up with some weird stuff (the last couple of people to join the game joined as single characters...who turned around and created a whole army of NPCs that answered to their character, so with one RTJ they essentially got multiple characters...one has about five NPCs that he runs...the other has a whole shipload of them...)

Sometimes, as GM, you don't realize that the RTJ concept you just got is going to be a problem, because you've never had one of those before and it looks good on paper...

Heh, I think my response to the corner fighter would be an ominous 'are you sure..?'
It might make the game a whole lot grittier for the other players after that one has died - especially if it was the healer.

PCs with an army are a problem. I won't make that mistake again. I once had one player who came up with a Captain and another came up with a Sergeant. Made sense to have them in the same unit, right? Gave them a rationale for being together.
Doesn't work when the Captain starts throwing orders around and using the other PC as his own personal redshirt...

Controlling types are a particular problem - particularly those who don't listen to the GM's hints, and don't even take any notice of bold, red, OOC directives.

My games are usually not 'levelled'. Anyone can meet up with foes who are far more powerful than them and they have to know when to fight and when to run. Makes it more real IMO.

Unless there is a character whose arrogance is matched only by that of his player...

I gave the group a few subtle hints that the bad guy was a big cheese and that they should be careful, but this PC decides he's going to take on the bad guy and bring down his illicit business empire in a single night. And he drags the other PCs into the mess he's made.

I then spend a couple of weeks trying to engineer a reasonably plausible means by which the group can escape from the bad guy's lair with their lives intact and not get wasted over the coming months by a series of 'contracts'. I punctuate this with a few GM directives reiterating the fact that some foes are beyond the group's current ability to tackle AND THIS GUY IS ONE OF THEM!!! but, as soon as I managed to get them free, the darn fool decided to have another poke at the bad guy! I couldn't believe it.

If it'd been him alone, I'd have let nature take its course, but he was involving the other characters and I couldn't easily kill him without killing them all.

He didn't remain in the game long.

Yeah, dragging the game along with the bad decision is the problem.  In the instance of the fight to the death player, ending it with a player death would just cost. m weeks of planning and lose me a player, it didn't really help the game.  There was no real way to solve that one without it ending badly for me and the player.  Frustration all around.  That's why it is very preferable for important things like that to be discussed before the game starts.  If they aren't, the player needs to understand that they may need to be flexible in their vision of the character, at the very least in this one instance.

This reminds me of a player in a game on another site, and listening to his poor GM trying to avoid a TPK.  The player had the GM approve, one by one, a combo of items, skills and spells, without the GM realizing how he planned to make them work together.  Somehow (I forget even what I did know of that) it allowed the character to shrink and carry all the other characters, and either forced or convinced the others to go along, that his character was strong enough to carry them past trouble.  So he's carrying them into the big situation, which the whole party had a decent chance with, but no way one character did, no matter how unbalanced a combo he'd managed to sneak past the GM, and the others couldn't use their resources from their hidden, shrunken state.

I saw that player in other games too, he was a great rules lawyer, had a great imagination for the way things could work in combos others, even experienced GMs, hadn't thought of, but too arrogant to the good of either himself or those swept up into his plans.

I usually try to send a private message to the player about the imminent possibility that their character (s) could die. I try to do it quietly so that they have the option of being able to change course without a loss of face, though I had one player do a public announcement of "The GM wants me to stay or he will kill my character."
Had to then squish that hard. Told them that no, it was their character, but that going off by themselves when they didn't even know where they were, was going to get then killed.

Will chime in....  I often play multiple characters in games and I do not share with all who I play.  I find when I did do that my characters were treated differently when those had the knowledge.

When I do not share with all the players my characters I find each one treated as an individual.  I will admit that I am sure I do certain things that make it easy for others to know it is the same writer but as another said each character is their own and I treat them as such.  In doing this I find I have had a better experience overall when I play.

I enjoy to complexity of playing more than one per game and hope that all my characters in some way help make the overall game a better experience.

yeah, i've had problems with a player beefing with me. they were cool until they figured out who i was , then started in being a douche to that charactor as well. hahaha which is what led me to start this thread in the first place. xD