Multiple characters per player?

[aNenuphar]

The discussion in the 'character retirement' thread made my former DM (and current party leader) raise the question of multiple characters per player issue again.

In the past, we've had very small groups (three or four players at most), so dealing with many encounters required players to bring more than one character to the table (floor, what-not).

In fact, in our current campaign, everyone has two characters (plus several NPCs that are being run by their respective employers).

Does anyone have a feeling about whether this is going to cause long-term problems?

 

[Kilmore]

Playing multiple characters can be a load of fun, or it can be the road to hell. However, I would imagine that most of the players will find one particular PC to be their favorite, and the excess PC's would eventually atrophy. It does work better with smaller groups, though. Bigger groups may not appreciate one player getting two slices of XP pie.

And I'm not even going to get into the potential for abuse such as a person's two characters suddenly developing a telepathic link without the DM's approval while setting up ambushes or two arcane magic users freely sharing spells and everything else even though they've just met on a street corner.

I've seen players playing a romantic couple before. I've never seen it get TOO scary, but I'm dreading the day.

 

[Terra_Ferax_Mark]

It depends on the group.

When my group played Ars Magica, the premise was to have a grog (a fighter), a magus (wizard) and a companion (other PC) per player. You only played one at a time but switched between characters (sometimes rather quickly). It made things more enjoyable, as players could vent frustration as grogs, explore situations as wizards and interact in other ways as the companions. We found this quite enjoyable.

 

[Sanackranib]

2 characters

it's not optimal but in a small party you do what you have to. IMO it takes away some of the roll playing between party members but it makes it more likely that a group of only a couple of players will survive a battle.

 

[Desdichado]

I've only done it in games where I expected the casualty count to be abnormally high, so I could keep all the players in the game. I had four (or was it five?) players with two characters each. At the end of the night, only one character had survived!

But otherwise, no. I prefer smaller groups, actually.

 

[Samnell]

I'm playing two PCs in a game right now and I hate it. It doesn't help that the other player (there are just the two of us) doesn't do much besides roll the dice when called upon.

 

[green slime]

A great deal depends on how well co-ordinated the players are with their notes, and how comfortable they are with the rules.

I'd not recommend it for players who have difficulty working out their Attack Bonus when running a single PC, for instance, or players who take too long to decide what to do, even when running only one character.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I've effectively implemented a system which is similar to the old darksun character tree (only without all the pain it brings). Each person can make up as many characters as they want, and for every bit of cash or experience they get, they get an equal amount to split between the extra characters how they want.

The extra characters can be swapped into an adventure when feasable (ie - not in the bottom of a dungeon, or out at sea for instance).

This means that my players have a backup character, and can also change characters if they get bored with the present one.

I think running multiple characters in a game can be quite problematic with the wrong sort of players, but if you've already got the wrong sort of players, almost anything can be problematic...

 

[nopantsyet]

Multiple characters to use singly during separate adventures I would be fine with if it fit the campaign. However since my campaigns have tended to be more world-romping than local booze-and-schmoozing, it wouldn't fit so much.

However my current campaign is going to split later on and have two separate story arcs involving two parties. Once the characters have completed the first main part, they will be high level and aspiring to epic at which point the second part of the story will begin and they will be interrelated, etc.

But playing multiple players at the table I am firmly against. Mainly because it turns into the toolbox approach to roleplaying. I try to avoid it any way possible.

 

[Azure Trance]

I've effectively implemented a system which is similar to the old darksun character tree (only without all the pain it brings). Each person can make up as many characters as they want, and for every bit of cash or experience they get, they get an equal amount to split between the extra characters how they want.

The extra characters can be swapped into an adventure when feasable (ie - not in the bottom of a dungeon, or out at sea for instance).

This means that my players have a backup character, and can also change characters if they get bored with the present one.

I think running multiple characters in a game can be quite problematic with the wrong sort of players, but if you've already got the wrong sort of players, almost anything can be problematic...

Curiously, how did you fit them in story wise?