“Create a second character”
What’s the intent behind this advance? Should the player create a second character and be able to play both at the same time, or have a different character that they can swap to depending on the session?
Either way, to be honest those sound like play style decisions that should be made by the table, rather than by mechanics. I’m curious why it’s there, and what it’s expected to add.
It’s probably a throwback to the original Apocalypse World, which had ‘Create a second character to play, so now you’re playing two’ as an advanced improvement. I don’t think the explanatory text for that answers your query though.
I don’t personally mind it, since it gets players thinking about trying multiple characters, since it’s not something players usually do. YMMV though.
The original Apocalypse world says why not? As a GM, you do it. Don’t act like it’s so hard.
Honestly… the only thing I can say for my feelings on the issue is that I don’t personally like it but only because that’s how we’ve done it for years and I KNOW that’s the worst reason to give about anything.
.
As others have said, it might be included because of Apocalypse World, which Masks is built from. In AW I’m pretty sure that the intent was to play two characters simultaneously, though they didn’t have to be in the same location or even know each other.
Brian Poe To go at it from another, non-ageist angle, I feel like if you go from playing one character to playing two characters at once, one of two things is likely to happen: either the GM continues to give the player the same amount of spotlight time, which means each of their characters gets less time to shine because that time and energy is getting split between the two. Or, the GM continues to give each character the same spotlight time, which means players with two characters get twice as much spotlight time and story input as characters with one.
I don’t like either of these outcomes–but I can at least understand the appeal of the first, if you don’t mind splitting your attentions like that. Characters-per-player is an important enough dial that I don’t want mechanics taking it out of the table-decision space, though. And if I’m cool with setting it at a number other than one, that just seems like something to offer to the entire table rather than putting it behind a… paywall, I guess?
If it bugs you that much, why not just tell your players, “I don’t like this Advancement, so I would appreciate it if no one took it.”
That’s likely what I’ll do if it stays in, Chris. I’m just wondering if anyone can sell me on the benefits of it so I don’t do that, or if maybe we can get it replaced with something else if those benefits just aren’t there.
FWIW, I can actually the benefit of it in AW; inter-PC conflict can drive a lot of the story there, so more pieces on the board can be a good thing. I’m just not sure how or whether it’s a good thing for Masks.
I noticed in this game that characters can sort of “Graduate” as they solidify who they strand ease out of teen/young adulthood into the next stage. Could the intent of the “play another character” be a means to “transition”? Phase a new character in as the older one gradually moved on?
The original AW is right: your GM does it all the time, why shy away now?
A lot of PbtA games keep that option, and there is a reason for it: I tried it several times and it’s a blast!
Break your habits and give it a try ^^
Based on what you’ve said so far James Etheridge. I don’t think you want to be sold on it.
Hi James,
I’ve played a bunch of AW and its descendants the last several years. All I can tell you is that I’ve never seen it become a problem. Most players IME think in play time. That is they don’t care which character is being played as long as they are playing. Which character is pretty much up to the fictional situation.
I think it is important to note that the mechanics aren’t making any sort of decision for you at all. It’s an advanced improvement _option_. No one is obligated to take it, ever. Several, perhaps most, of the times I’ve seen it happen, it has been as a segue to a secondary character because the first is going to be retired soon in any case. There’s an overlap for a while, but it soon ends. It’s kind of a more natural transition. I can’t really see why Masks would be different.
Chris Stone-Bush Well, that’s a rather broad assertion! True, being sold on multiple characters as an advance isn’t a deep and burning passion of mine, but pointing out the downsides of something doesn’t mean that I don’t want to hear the upsides (which, prior to my posting that, hadn’t actually been brought up!).
I actually do like the transitional character idea, whether it’s an in character “training my replacement” thing or an out of character “let’s make this roster change a little less jarring” thing. The former in particular I could see for characters like The Doomed who have a built in expiration date. Or for The Legacy or Protege, training someone new as was done with them.
Now that we’re talking about this… I’ve been thinking. It would be awesome if a player or two had the option for that advancement and you told the players you would like them to take it.
They make a new character between games and you can switch between the two sets of characters. These new characters could be a LOT of interesting things… either an earlier time. (The group that tried to do what you’re doing and failed.) Or even on a different side. Characters who are working for the “evil” corp becuase maybe they have an ulterior motive the PC’s can’t know about. You can use this “second group” to highlight backstage understanding of what’s going on in the game. Eventually all players having a character in the first game and a group in the second.
What happens if they meet!?
These are all kinda long term plans… but if you pushed the players and told them you would like eventually all players to take the “another character” option and they know that’s what they’re going for. This could be an amazing game. Hrm…
I know what I want to do!
I’m thinking about Young Justice: Invasion. You’re a group five people playing Masks, and the world gets a whole lot bigger. Instead of scrapping the “chronicle” and starting over, you just keep going with new characters who do new things. The girl playing Nightwing also plays Static. And the person playing Aqualad also gets to Wonder Girl.
It gives you the ability to have all the Playbooks in the game so you can mix’n’match for missions.
Yeah, it seems like the difference between Justice League and JLU. Captain Gimmick may not be fun for a whole campaign, but once every few sessions he’s showing up!
It is a sticky question.
I’ve played a bunch of AW and Monsterhearts and I’ve never had a player choose that. My players just didn’t care to do that. But if you have a player who does I think you just have to cross that bridge when you get there. There is always a reason for a player to choose any specific advancement, so you could just ask the player why they want that one, and what they hope to get out of it.
These games are always a conversation, and sometimes as the GM it’s easy to forget that (at least I find that). I think if you have the conversation, it will become clear.
All that said, you will want to watch spotlighting. It’s important to make sure everyone is contributing, and also having fun. But if you are honest with everyone at the table, and discuss it, you will work something out that is fair 🙂
I imagine it exists to make transition from one character to another easier and also to stretch out the time that a first character stays in the game. Since the general suggestion includes playing both, switching off or a combination of the two. It also allows a character a break from an old character without taking a break from the game and still leaving the option of going back to the old character for a while.
It also simulates to development of new characters and the phasing out of older characters that sometimes occurs in stories.
In my MotW game upcoming (once SR finishes, my brother is planning to introduce a second character sometime in the middle of the campaign. He decided he didn’t want to start with her for a couple of reasons)
I was really skeptical about “Create a second character” in apocalypse world, but in the campaign I ran last summer I had two characters choose it and it worked SO good! It allowed the story to have a more ensemble feel, where you could have different sets of characters in different places, but nobody had to sit out because their character wasn’t on screen.