More than one PC per player: Good or Bad?

[Wombat]

This, I find, varies a lot both group by group and system by system.

Ars Magica, for example, assumes that everyone is running at least two and possibly as many as 4 or even 5 characters; D&D usually assumes one each, but with the notion that there are four characters in the group; World of Darkness is definitely geared towards one each, while something like HarnMaster would allow for multiples.

That being said, some groups generally like/dislike multiple characters on principle. As such, there must be some mental agreements made within groups as to what is appropriate.

My feeling is that as long as you can develop different characters, and hopefully not having them automatically always agreeing or disagreeing with each other (it is very annoying either way), then I have no real problem with multiple characters per person.

 

[Beginning of the End]

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 have found it almost universally true that roleplaying disappears (or, at the very least, becomes extremely minimized) when players start taking on more than one character simultaneously. Even in groups where high quality roleplaying is typical, I've found that adding that second character usually divorces players from their roles and turns the game into something more akin to resource management.

There are exceptions, however. In a recent campaign one of the players adopted a second character when another player had to drop out. The player made it work. But it was really only possible because the two characters (a brash barbarian and a bookish wizard) were (a) radically different in personality; (b) had natural "circles of participation" which only rarely overlapped (the wizard was rarely very active in combat; the barbarian was rarely involved in the non-combat activities of the wizard); and (c) had unique voices, which made it easy to tell which character was speaking.

It also helped that the wizard had already been established as having a very reticent personality, so in many ways the barbarian became the player's "primary personality" at the table while the wizard would occasionally poke his head up and make a contribution (much as he had before).

But, really, this is notable because it's the exception that proves the rule.

But otherwise it gets annoying when the DM constantly has to ask "which character is talking?" or "which character is searching?".

OTOH, I've rarely found this a problem. If players with more than one PC aren't routinely announcing their actions as "Lina does X" and "Rayla does Y", then they should be told to do so.

Ars Magica, for example, assumes that everyone is running at least two and possibly as many as 4 or even 5 characters;

But not at the same time.

Generally I agree with those who say that the better way to handle a shortfall in party strength is through secondary characters: Hirelings, magical companions, and the like.

 

[blargney the second]

Just like when DMing, having a voice cue does help differentiate characters. In Wik's game I play an eladrin warlord as well as a minotaur fighter. Tongs, the eladrin, speaks with my normal voice and speech patterns. hammer speak in lower case bold and refer to hammer in third person. It seems to make it fairly obvious whose voice is coming out of my mouth.
-blarg

 

[Lanefan]

Just like when DMing, having a voice cue does help differentiate characters. In Wik's game I play an eladrin warlord as well as a minotaur fighter. Tongs, the eladrin, speaks with my normal voice and speech patterns. hammer speak in lower case bold and refer to hammer in third person. It seems to make it fairly obvious whose voice is coming out of my mouth.

Agreed; having obviously different voices and-or speech patterns for one's characters is almost essential.

My problems come when I've had a few beer, and forget to change voices when I change who's speaking...

Lan-"talking out of both sides of my character sheet"-efan

 

[megamania]

PROS
The last group we had playing mainly melee type of characters. So yes I had allowed up to 2 characters per player IF they understood the game and rules. We had the fighters try mages and Arcane Archers. The new player stayed with a Warlock only.


My son (age 10) is trying to allow multi-characters and will not for him because he doesn't have a strong enough understanding of the game.


So it depends first on the understanding of the game and second on classes of characters.

FAULTS
Also, by using two characters role playing goes down. One thing I had to watch for carefully was the use of materials. Players wouldn't share equipment with other players but would between his own two PCs. Called him on it and then the others aided in the monitoring of it.

 

[howandwhy99]

Hmmm, awkward would be a better description.

I agree with this guy.

Edited the rest out.

 

[Drowbane]

I voted Yes. I probably should've voted "Yes, under limited...whatever".

As a DM I will allow one PC and one (or rarely more) cohort(s). Usually only one or two players opt for Leadership.

Back in 2e, everybody in the group had multiple PCs... usually only one PC per person made it into a session though. The campaign was very convoluted... but it was a blast.

More recently, I had my niece roll up a gestalt party for play in Shackled City. She has done fairly well, but has trouble deciding actions in combat and usually only RPs one of her characters (I kinda NPC as the others during Dialogue, with her right to veto anything I say if it sounds wrong to her).

She (my niece) started running Red Hand of Doom for me just last week (six session in to it, Spring Break, heh) with a similiar setup. I'm playing "Team Druid". 3 Druids w/animal companions and summons and a fourth simple warlock (my other niece's PC, but she has only played in one session so far).

 

[S'mon]

Yes, if you only have 1-3 players and are running a game like 1st level BX D&D where PC attrition is high.

Otherwise no.

 

[Natural 20]

Hi - OP'er here; thanks for the input. Lost track of this thread because, even though I was "subscribed" I never got any notifications that people were posting.

Above, Beginning of the End commented that more than 1 PC per player brought RP to a virtual standstill; this is what I have found as well. I am leaning toward pressing the group toward 1 for 1. If unsuccessful it may be time for me to move on. Fun is too reduced with just combat and no RP... Michael

 

[Orius]

No vote, it depends on the type of game being run.

Some people have said that pre-3e games were easier to run with multiple characters. Actually, if I'm not mistaken, multiple PCs were actually a norm in the early days, and I understand it was fairly common in Gary's games and other games where the early rules developed. The 2e DMG OTOH actually discouraged multiple simultaneous PCs to maintain independance among a player's PCs and because it was felt that multiple PCs hurt RPing.