What's my counterpoint for this observation about advantages/disadvantages?

[trooper6]

Originally Posted by Bruno

When we did it, it was in a group where most if not all of the players were GM-ly types, but all w/out big campaign ambitions. Whoever felt like it would run an adventure, ranging from one to three sessions generally, at whatever level they felt like.

We each kept a catalogue of PCs to pull out, as to be ready for whatever random requirement came up. You could bring in a new PC for yourself if you liked, but we were shuffling around so often that if you did it for each change of GM you'd go bonkers. Or bankrupt from printer toner costs. It was a very casual game, and the party was generally a bit of circus (A gnoll, a minotaur, a robot catgirl, and a guy who's half dragon from the waist down walk into the bar...)

It was less that the PCs were interchangeable archetypes (they were all pretty well rounded characters with a lot of depth and personality gribblies) as the game world was an interchangeable archetype.

That sounds like a set up that encouraged switching up PCs around (as does Adventurers league games). I don't tend to play casually as my default preference. When I'm playing very casually and sort term? Then I don't really care. Whatever. I'd play a one-off with a lot of parameters I'd never have in a longer-term campaign. But it is important for me to know as a GM or as a Player if this is going to be a super casual game. Because if it is, I need to know not to get invested and not to take it seriously. No one wants that serious player/GM in a group of beer and pretzel zaniness. Just as I don't want the one casual person in an otherwise serious game detracting from the mood...I don't want to be the one serious person in an otherwise casual game detracting from the mood.

[Bruno]

As ever, things defy strict categories. This was a long running state of affairs (5+ years?) and was sort of casual, sort of ensemble cast, sort of... had lots of surrealness and the weird[1], but that doesn't make something a throw-away?

Forced to put a neat label on it, I'd say "casual". But it was a weekly commitment, we had very good attendance, we payed close attention, and we didn't crack many jokes (our characters sometimes cracked a lot of jokes, but that was appropriate for the characters).

[1] Pretty traditional Fantasy Land setting, but with antarctic space nazis wielding automatic weapons, and out-of-context characters like the robot catgirl. It was really crying out to be GURPS.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Anthony

The entire concept of character portability is a bit alien to me. I've never been in a game where characters weren't made specifically for the game, at most inspired by previous characters.

I've heard about such games from way back in the day.


The closest I've come was in my first D&D group where we had one constant DM and the players chose which PC we were playing in any given adventure/campaign. One guy played the same character all the way through until it retired then he'd make a new one, the rest of us mostly switched back and forth between our characters as we wanted.

The closest I've come to the for running was a Black Ops game in 3e with two other GMs and 3-5 other Players and we each had at least 3 characters that we'd pick from each mission. That game didn't last long due to the other GMs having college start/end and the group breaking up.

[trooper6]

Originally Posted by Bruno

As ever, things defy strict categories. This was a long running state of affairs (5+ years?) and was sort of casual, sort of ensemble cast, sort of... had lots of surrealness and the weird[1], but that doesn't make something a throw-away?

Oh, people can certainly do casual long-term. I suspect most people do! I imagine that most people prefer casual games. It is just my personal preference to only do casual short term. I don't really like casual play, but I'm find doing it for a short campaign as long as I know ahead of time so I can calibrate my expectations. Same things with murder-hobo games. If it is going to be murder hobo, I need to know ahead of time so I can calibrate my expectations, and I'd rather not do it for a long campaign. I'll do for a short time, though.

Basically, I'll do most anything for a short campaign. Longer campaigns that involve more personal investment, I will do a narrower range of game types and with a narrower range of players/GMs. But, I think I'm very much an outlier. I imagine most people prefer your style of play.

[Mark Skarr]

Originally Posted by Anthony

The entire concept of character portability is a bit alien to me. I've never been in a game where characters weren't made specifically for the game, at most inspired by previous characters.

In my games, and, MonkeyFist's/Hand of Bobb's (he's transitioning over to his Hand of Bobb persona everywhere, so, I'll start doing that as well), we see them as all taking place in the same multiverse. Travelling to different universes you may very well meet the same people, just tuned to the new world. Some of the characters are actually the same person as they may travel or span multiple dimensions.

In my Infinite Weirdos game, the party has run into four versions of the same person (Anastasia). I ran her as a character in our MegaDenver game and our Super San Diego game. She's, additionally shown up in our IST and Wild Cards games. Also, in the IW game, they wound up billing another world's version of one of the PCs for a truck rental.

The MegaDenver Ana was different from the Super San Diego Ana. Their powers were similar (not identical, but that's part of Ana's story) and their personalities were very similar, but, they had none of the same experiences. They both had similar views on some subjects, but, there were huge differences in the worlds, so their views on other subjects were wildly different (metahuman registration was commonplace and fairly implemented in MegaDenver, while in SSD it was more Marvelesque--so, they had strongly differing ideas about those subjects).

I've only ever met a few characters who were so woven with the fabric of their setting that the core components couldn't be moved to another game and the general feel of the character couldn't be played.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Anthony

The entire concept of character portability is a bit alien to me. I've never been in a game where characters weren't made specifically for the game, at most inspired by previous characters.

I have reused two characters, but in both cases not the stats, just the name, background and personality.

[simply Nathan]

I tend to gravitate towards reusing a few names (my own first and middle names, names that sound similar to those or start with the same letter, naming characters after animals I like, naming characters after weapons, and naming the character a foreign-language synonym of his archetype like a warrior named Boris), have a few preferred character races, and a few favorite professional archetypes (ranger, holy knight, and bard). I've used them in almost every combination, some more than once.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by simply Nathan

I tend to gravitate towards reusing a few names (my own first and middle names, names that sound similar to those or start with the same letter, naming characters after animals I like, naming characters after weapons, and naming the character a foreign-language synonym of his archetype like a warrior named Boris), have a few preferred character races, and a few favorite professional archetypes (ranger, holy knight, and bard). I've used them in almost every combination, some more than once.

I run a lot more campaigns than I play in, but I always try to come up with an original name. For example:

Jakes the Cat
Maria Weiss
Jason Nguyen (Tursiops)
Fornication Jones ("Me da named me "Fly-fornication," him being a Puritan, but the "Fly" dropped off while I was in the Army")
Bertran
Edward Gray Wolf
Maria Rosa Vargas Sandoval (La Gata Encantada)
Nick (for Nicole) Landry
Linnaeus Jorgensen
Riko Ryan (Xenon Warrior Princess)
Judith van Rijn

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

I have reused two characters, but in both cases not the stats, just the name, background and personality.

I reuse characters (names, race, and personality) repeatedly.

It's easier on me to use a voice I already know. Also fun to to have another take on a character as stats and job change just enough to give them a new angle to work from.