What do we think of an idea where you would have the option of putting a character into a 'stasis' or period of unavailablity for a minimum ammount of time (say 6 months) and be able to play another character. Say to a max of 4 characters. So, you could have 4 different characters, each one that you could play for as long as you want, or put one away adn take another out (with a min of 6 months to switch back or out)

Not a bad idea, though we'd need safeguards against abuse. Like, just because your PC is in danger ICly, that's not the time to put it in stasis... Would players be interested in that, do you think?

I have often wondered why stasis equates immunity in people's minds. Just because a character is in stasis does not mean they are transported to a mystical land full of fluffy bunnies and safety. I would say even in stasis you could be found and attacked. It just represents lieing low, or even leaving town, which if you had the means and the need you just might do depending on the level of danger you were in.

Regarding Characters in Stasis and IC danger:

I wouldn't have a propblem with this really under the condition, that a character have to basically sign/accept via command a notice of some sort in which they acknowledge that they are aware that stasised PC is basically turned into an NPC for the purposes of IC repercusions and what not.  Anything that isn't resolved at the time of them going into stasis can and may reach the character in their absence and if it does, the Game Masters will NPC the character till it's resolved....but this would not mean a character can be RP'd by staff, nor that staff would be actively using the character.  So best have all your safeguards and things noted before making the switch if your worried about anything/anyone coming after ya.



Thoughts?

The Character

This seems a bit unrealistic. I like the idea of stasis, but it seems a bit silly to think any judge is actually going to harm a stasis'd character. I mean, we've always had the rule that you can be killed while offline, but how many times has that happened in ten years? Two, three times? Not to mention the fits of whining that would immediately ensue.

A better solution, I would think, is to allow players to have two or three alts. I know it goes against the one-player/one-PC rule we've always had, but if we're really having a fresh start, instead of the same ol' same ol', why not give it a try? Xandar can attest to this, that other games allow alts, and really, no problems have emerged (I speak of DL:AoM). I know, coming from Seattle, I was -very- skeptical at first, having visions of twinking and crossover and everything, but y'know? It works. Why not try it? Obviate the need for stasis or walkabouts.

From what I've seen, DL:AoM has a decent system, but I forsee two particular problems using it on Seattle. One, we have a fairly small PB at present, which could exacerbate the second problem, which is the PCs pretty much all run in the same circles, the Shadows and Shadow-supporters. Now, there are factions within them, but most people interact with everybody else at some point. Keeping the separation between alts needed for that scheme seems like it'd be difficult at present. At least to me...

I can your concern. I would spin it a different way, however. Since we have a small playerbase at present, with only one alt per PC, that greatly limits the amount and type of RP that can go on, since there is a very limited number of PCs on the grid... and I think we've all been in the position where you look who's on the grid, realize that you've RPed with all of those characters over and over, and just idle rather than rehash. Multiple alts per player means more, varied, and interesting RP. Just takes a little bit of trust, and a little bit of enforcement.

Um, like, no.

The confusion factor, and the potential for cheating give me headaches just to think about.

You shouldn't knock it until you've tried it. I had the -exact- same misgivings as you just expressed when I first went to a game that allowed it. But, at least in that one place, it really works.  Ask Xandar or Nick. You just have to trust the players, which is, in my experience, not something Seattle has ever been real big on.

But then again, you do what you've always done, and you'll get what you've always gotten. Give it a try.

The PH department came up with a plan for alts about a month or so ago. We had a package all worked out to present to Kynan and Melkir. Then things heated up on the SR4 front, and I tabled the discussion because I knew we wouldn't have time to work it out, nor would it be feasible to do it for SR3 at this point.

While I'm not wild about alts, I don't have the problem with them you seem to assume I do. You note in your own post that it needs a little enforcement. We don't have anybody to do the enforcing. Our RP staff is very small, and mostly inactive. No offense, Melkir. So the idea of multiple alts makes me nervous.

I'm not the old guard. Don't mistake me for that.

I don't mean to mistake you, but I think I probably did. Your 'um, like, no' sounded rather abrupt and defensive; I didn't know you had already thought about a plan to make it happen. I think it's a good idea.

Actually, it takes very little enforcing.  It takes a little bit of trust and that's it.  As long as everything's documented through @log or notes, you can always go back to resolve any issues. The only thing that it takes with regards to enforcing is a zero-tolerance policy. If you are caught cheating, then you lose the rights to any and all alts and have to start from square one.  Thus far, DL's not had any instances and only two or three even SEMI curious instances.

- X

*thinks some sort of Alt system should be in order*

I can see the problem with allowing an alt or two to run about independent of other characters, esp. with the smaller playerbase, leading to some batman-bruce wayne things. "Rheiv, your never around when Superman's here." etc. But I have a few ideas I'd like to field without leaving Rheiv or tossing him into a hail of gunfire. And it'd be nice to have something to do when /healing/, my god the /healing/.

So.. Yeah.

woooh! I can toss my oppinion on something again

well can alts cause trouble? I think yes they can, no question a player can cause some mess with a alt.
is it likely that it happens? No, I'm very sure it will not, why? there are a lot of reasons first of all most 'critical' situations are judged so one can't for example gang up with it's alt to beat up another player. Sure there can come some messy IC situations but a little comon sens can solve them. lets take Rheiv's superman example, I doubt someone would ask this question for the simple reason that the player (not the PC) would know why and so just assume he would not notice it or even perhaps that the other alt just sits idelish at the bar or whatnot who asks such a question actually messes something up and hey there are always strange happenings
I've seen a cuple mushes allowing alts and never seen a player abusing this, I've seen admins abusing NPC's but not a single time a player messing with an alt more I've seen players not taking a ICly logical action out of the feat to be blamed for messing with an alt. and that were mushes with an lower 'qualety' then seatle. Which is another point, I think we have due to BG and CG requirements and restrictions nearly only serious RP'ers and have quite a qualety level which should give a bit trust that people who really got through all the trouble to create a char here a)don't want to lose them (or even more then one) and b) would not even ponder to twink out as they play for the good of the mush as mush as for their own fun

You know, oddly enough when we wrote up an alt system and purposed even the concept to everyone it was flat out rejected ;-)