More than one PC per player: Good or Bad?

[Natural 20]

My group has come to the conclusion that it is OK for each player to run up to two PC's.

We have 4 players plus one DM. We rotate DM's each adventure between the 3 players who like to DM. Whoever is DM'ing also runs a DMPC so that that character can blend in with the party on the next adventure. The DMPC takes on a backup role, but does participate.

The party has at times run with 2 PC's for the remaining players (except for me - I always choose to run only one PC; that's just the way I roll).

The DM argument for the larger party is "...the party is weak and unbalanced and you need more PC's to survive my encounters." The players who run more than one regularly like it I guess because they favor the combat aspect. Also being able to run more than one helps in the event of player absence when someone else takes over a PC for a missing player.

I dislike departing from the 1 PC per player guideline for two reasons - [1] I like to focus on, and develop only one PC at a time, [2] I dislike the disparity in actions per round - I only get 3 while everyone else gets opportunity for at least 6. My time is limited for D&D, and I commute a long distance. I have to maximize my play time, and feel I am being punished for asking for conformance to this fundamental guideline.

We have discussed this at length, but I have been able to win the argument on merit.

Thoughts?

 

[DaveMage]

I find it very hard to role-play when controlling more than 1 character. If the game is heavily combat-based, and minimal storyline, then the RP side of it doesn't matter as much, and 2 PCs per player is fine. But otherwise it gets annoying when the DM constantly has to ask "which character is talking?" or "which character is searching?".

When we last had the issue in my 3.5 game, we each played a gestalt character to allow for fewer players, while still having all the necessary classes for a "balanced" party.

 

[Rechan]

I find it very hard to role-play when controlling more than 1 character. If the game is heavily combat-based, and minimal storyline, then the RP side of it doesn't matter as much, and 2 PCs per player is fine.

I came here to say this.

Another benefit of two characters is that you can coordinate strategy and synergy much more efficiently, if you're that type of person.

On the other hand, if you're a slow person (mechanically speaking), keeping track of twice the work load would be even worse.

Then I've met those people who would really enjoy playing two characters. Or, you can find someone who prefers to Play one, and just drag the other around as their perverbial beat stick.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I like it and I don't like it.

We occasionally have one player running two characters these days, since some of our regulars are no longer regulars.

It started in 3E, when many players picked up the Leadership feat to get a cohort.

In 4E, we usually have someone to fill the fourth role/slot (if we only have 3 players and one DM).

I like it because it gives me the opportunity to test out more characters and be more active at the game table. That is fun.

But I don't like it because I can't focus as much on a specific character. We are not that "deep" into the acting/story-telling part of RPGs and more on the "beating challenges" stuff, but this reduces my opportunity to characterize or play out "my" character more, since I have two characters that I have to characterize and play out, and I don't get the extra actions for that that I get in combat.

Overall, I think it's something you have to be aware of the drawbacks and advantages.
I won't miss the opportunity to get the honor/duty of playing the extra character in the group.

I think the ideal approach would probably be if everyone had the same number of characters he could run, that would feel "fairer" overall. You get the same number of combat actions, and the same time as everyone else to play out your characters quirks.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I voted against multiple PCs per player.

When I ran a game for only 2 players in 3e, we found that it was too difficult to balance against two players. But, instead of each player running 2 PCs they each ran a PC and an NPC. Out of combat actions were always up to the DM, and the players controlled the NPCs in combat with DM discretion (that almost never came up). This let the players concentrate on their own PCs while keeping the 4 man party going. It worked very well.

 

[blargney the second]

I started a thread on this very subject not two weeks ago.

As a DM I like it when there are more PCs. I find it's much harder to balance encounters when there are too few characters in the party. In small groups I think it's necessary to have at least one player double up on PCs, and the rest of the time I don't find it detracts from the game. Net positive.

As a player I enjoy playing more than one PC, and I like it fine when other players do it.


All that said, I do have a few conditions that I prefer to be met if someone is doubling up:

1) Make one, if not both, characters mechanically simple. Given the choice between a battlerager and a greatweapon fighter, choose the greatweapon because there's less involved at the table.

2) If you have a hard time roleplaying more than one character, make one of them a non-RP character. Reskinning is highly useful for this. If your main PC is a dwarf cleric, the second one could be a magically animated crossbow (wizard) or a protective earth elemental (fighter). They don't participate in non-combat scenarios, but they help when the fur starts flying.

-blarg

 

[fba827]

i have mixed feelings on this depending on the "goal" and "basis for fun" for the group.

what is your group's playstyle and preference?

Are you all in to the game from a strategy/encounter/tactical-play-is-more-fun perspective?

Or do you all prefer role-play aspects?

(Obviously, it is not an either-or situation, there are variations between those two ends, nor are those two ends mutually exclusive... just trying to explain my point here)

Personally, I've found that when playing with the focus on tactical/strategy/combat then it doesn't matter if you're playing more than one PC at a time, you don't "lose" anything.
But if you're playing with a preference for role-play/plot/story you do lose out because (most players, not all, but most) tend to end up prefering one PC over the other, making the second a mere shell.

---------------
If everyone is strongly voicing a preference for two PCs but you'd rather not, perhaps each PC gets a henchman (not nearly as strong as a PC but not as weak as a minion) and give them in game reasons - the paladin has a squire, the rogue has an apprentice, what not. And stat them out as NPCs (each has one at-will, one encounter, plus any racial stuff, and two skills of thier class to be trained in, and full hp for their class/level).
They should also take away their own share of xp, but just have them go up in level when the player's PC goes up in level.

 

[kenmarable]

Yes under limited circumstances.

In my regular groups of 4-6 players, we wouldn't even consider it. It's already at a nice balance, and doubling the number of PCs would just drag things out, and like others have said, it's much easier to get into the role-playing when you only have 1 PC. Also, we have DMPC's because we often take turns DMing. Naturally, it's much easier to get into character when I'm not DMing, both because there's less to focus on, but also I always worry about role-playing in character as a DM can easily slide into having conversations with myself while everyone just watches.

However, right after my 2nd kid was born, my wife and I had to temporarily drop out of our group at the time due to the erratic schedule that a newborn brings. We still wanted to game, so we started up our own campaign. Since it was only the two of us (and I have far more interesting PC ideas than groups to play in), we had multiple PCs each. We've run a couple campaigns like that even though we've been back in regular groups, and it's still a lot of fun.

However, with more than 2 or 3 people, I think 1 PC each works best. Not that there's anything wrong with multiple PCs for certain styles of games (and I think would make for a really fun special session where the PCs have to command several others each or something). But for our campaigns, 1 PC each with 4-6 players really does hit a nice sweet spot.

 

[Fanaelialae]

We've done this on occasion in my group and I think it's fine under the right circumstances.

First, make absolutely certain that anyone playing a second character is capable of multi-tasking. In my experience, if you have someone who can barely decide on a plan of action when he has one character, it will be exponentially worse if he has two. No one wants to wait 10 minutes for John to complete both his turns.

Second, make sure that everyone is fine with the idea. The aforementioned player, after trying it, decided he didn't like having a second character but was perfectly fine if the other players had them. If he hadn't been, I wouldn't have allowed secondary characters (as we call them) anytime that player was present for game.

Lastly, I think it depends on the size of the group (and how many characters the DM can handle at a time without too much stress). It's very convenient to have players run two characters if the group is small (one to three players). Much more than that and I probably wouldn't need or allow it (five players with a total of ten characters would probably be more than I could easily keep track of).

The method I usually prefer is to consider the secondaries NPCs run by the players. Essentially, I'll collaborate with them in creating the character (or sometimes introduce an NPC during play and see if any of the players is interested), but maintaining and running the character is up to that player. Roleplaying the secondary is shared between the player and DM (I can see how this might cause friction in some groups, but it's never been a problem for us). The DM has final say regarding how the NPC behaves, but I give the players a lot of leeway. It frees the players to focus on their primary characters, while allowing them to explore their secondary's personality if they are interested.

 

[El Mahdi]

I voted Yes, but only under certain circumstances. As a rule, I don't allow this in my games.

If the group is low on numbers (for whatever reasons - it's happened to all of us at one time or another), 3 or less, I'll have the players run a second character in order to fill out the combat roles of the party. However, I understand that "roleplaying" two characters can be difficult, so I don't expect my players to "get into character" for both characters. I realize that only one will be the "star of the show". The other will just be there for combat (for the most part) and I'll tailor the story and plot only around the "main" characters.

If I have enough players (4 or more) then I don't allow extra characters. Never ... Ever ... Period!