2 (or more) PCs per Player

[rowport]

...Some players struggle with it and usually end up playing their favored characater as the main character and the other character more like a cohort. This likewise impacts roleplaying, with one character usually doing all the talking and other character usually not saying much....

I did play two characters in one of our campaigns for a while (a Dwarven Exoticist Fighter and a Wererat Monk), but did exactly what BlackMoria states above. While I initially tried to give equal 'stage-time' to both characters and make them both interesting, I quickly gravitated to the more interesting (to me) Wererat character, and essentially ignored the Dwarf for role-playing purposes. After several sessions that way, I asked the GM to abandon the second character (who then came back as a villain- LOL). Ironically, the Dwarf was *much* more effective in combat- he was just boring to roleplay. So, I guess sometimes character flavor does triumph!

 

[Tarangil]

I have tried it on a few occasions back in the 2E days. In most cases it didn't work out too well, but it really had more to do with the players... Good Roleplayers can work with 2 PC's and have fun with it and make things believeable (there's nothing like watching someone argue with himself). But I've had many players take advantage and treated both PC's like automotons that shared and knew exactly what the other was up to.

 

[DaveMage]

It's not what I prefer to do, but we've done it when we don't have enough players.

The problem is when a player says "I do (such and such)". As a DM, I have to ask the player which character he is referring to, which is a pain.

I have found that playing two PCs work much better in hack 'n slash type games rather than games that are more heavy on role-playing.

If/when I run the World's Largest Dungeon, my players would certainly start with two PCs each.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

In a campaign that I was running that recently ended, I had the players make up a second set of characters at a lower level to play in the same campaign where they already had a group of characters that were very high level... Since it is considerably easier to write adventures for lower level characters, I would sometimes run the lower level characters on side-quests and small diversions while I worked on the sticky bits of an adventure for their higher level characters. The lower level charaters worked on behalf of the higher level characters, so what they were doing was related to the stuff that the higher level characters were involved in, but it was stull that they didn't have time to get to or thought was beneath them... This worked out pretty well for both the players and for me...

Later
silver

 

[Templetroll]

When I started gaming in '79 the group I was with had standard of everyone playing two or more characters, depending on the lethality of the campaign. The deadliest campaign we had the group usually created at least three characters and once everyone did five characters to start out with. That increased the possibily that each player could have a surviving character at the end of an adventure since just leaving town you got encounters according to the 1e DMG 3rd dungeon level. It could get pretty hairy for 1st level characters.

Once characters got to around 5th level we all felt reasonably secure to use only one character for most adventures. Having a character already built up in play was a good thing in case something happened to the primary character.

 

[mfrench]

I've been a player in such a campaign on more than one occasion, and never really been that impressed with it. Players often have character A give all their loot to B, so one of the two is always ahead of the power curve. As a player, I have a hard time distinguishing between / visualising both of another player's characters, and making my two characters truly distinct.

 

[shilsen]

I've done that, running a ranger/rogue archer and a cleric in a RttToEE game. It was an interesting roleplaying exercise since both of them were LN in alignment but very different in character, to the point where when the other PCs had an argument (a common event in that group) my two PCs would often end up taking opposing sides. But overall it was just too much time and effort, plus one PC invariably got overshadowed by the other. I wouldn't do that again unless I absolutely had to.

 

[DonTadow]

Have you tried/allowed gaming with more than one character per Player (at the same time)? How did it work out? Good thing, or bad thing?

Note: I'm wanting advice based on actual experience, not opinions based on hopes or fears.

Quasqueton

Great question. A player of mine whom was dem'n his own game asked me what i thought of the issue. It seems he had two players whom wanted to do it. Because of his games size and the type of adventures he ran, he needed an extra character anyway. After two weeks he called me back and had only horror stories to tell as it seemed onl player made acharacter whom enever adventured and only existed to make cheap magic items for his other character.

I suggested that if he needed more characters in the game, and they really wanted to play twoo characters, have each character possess one body ala japaense animations. Put limits n othem changing into theother character and use dm fiat to create instances where its disadvantageous to be a particular character.

Since, the game has gone great from what i understand.

 

[Odhanan]

Have you tried/allowed gaming with more than one character per Player (at the same time)? How did it work out? Good thing, or bad thing?

Yes. It's definitely challenging as far as role-playing is concerned. As soon as you know the mechanics and the components of each character well enough, the rules (combats) aren't a problem, but giving a believable feel that two distinct characters are at the table may be hard to craft.

For experienced players who are able to switch between personas in matter of seconds, that's possible. Having been a DM for years definitely helps. Still, among these players/DMs, even less people will actually enjoy it.

That also depends on the way the two characters are different from each other and if there is one leading personality among the two. It's easier to roleplay two widely different characters, and easier still to play one main character and an henchman/servant or more discrete character.

It will be more rarely a good thing than a bad. But some rare people can do it brilliantly.

 

[Finley DaDum]

I have run multiple characters more than a few times in the past in both D&D (Rules Encyclopedia) and AD&D (both first and second edition) in 3rd I have run a main character and cohort but have not yet run 2 true PCs.

The Rules Encyclopedia game was just 2 players and 1 DM, me and the other player both ran 2 characters this worked out very well and the campaign ran a long time with all three of us having a great time throughout the campaign. We both had a character that was more dominant, but our other characters would come to the forefront in certain circumstances. For small groups I think it can be a very valuable tool to use multiple PCs and combats were always fast paced in that group since you never had to wait long for your turn.

In the AD&D game it started as 2 different campaigns set in the same world (Greyhawk) I had a character in both and when the DM decided to join the two, I kept both characters. In this case I was the only one with more than one character and we had a group of five players. I was helped by the fact that I had started both seperately and was able to mantain them both as full fledged PCs. I ran a thief and a druid and I recommend in general a spellcaster and non-spellcaster if you are going to run 2 characters.

I enjoy the versatility of having multiple characters but in 3rd edition I would more inclined in general to use the leadership feat, and attract a cohort.