2 (or more) PCs per Player

[Whisper72]

Under 1E and 2E we did this all the time. The players would all have 2 or 3 PC's in play. It worked fine, but it is certainly true that the roleplaying suffers a bit under it, in the sense that a player has to divide attention. Usually one of the player's PC's becomes the 'front man' who does most of the talking, and one of the others pipes in here and there. As to the metagaming knowledge, we usually avoided that by not splitting the party along the lines of the PC's of different players. Since we adhered to rule 1 of succesful adventuring: never, ever split the party, as much as possible, this rarely turned into a problem. It definately helped with the mortality issue. A dead PC was never a showstopper.

 

[wmasters]

It can work, and it can be a huge problem. It depends on the players and situation involved. Personally, I just don't see the need for a second character. I think 99% of the time, you're better off with an NPC. A second character can fill a 'gap', but I honestly don't think that having an unbalanced party is a problem.

 

[Tsillanabor]

Actually I thought of one situation where it did work. We played a d20 Future game where we were all crewmembers of a piratical raider. Each player had 2-3 characters, and would choose which to take on any particular mission.

 

[scourger]

I did it in my most recent D&D/d20 game. I though I had 2 regular players plus one occasional player. I wound up with 4 players most of the time, so the 8 PCs were pretty cumbersome. Combat took a long time, especially as starting level turned to low-level play. I would hate to see it at mid-to-high levels. If I wound up with just those 2 players again, I would reprise that game; otherwise it's on ice.

 

[Harmon]

Done it as a Player- most recently with a Cleric and a Ranger/Fighter/DeepWoodSniper. The two characters are really different- I use vocal tones so that my fellow players can tell the two apart.

Coyote6 has been playing two characters in my campaign for quite some time, the two characters are different enough though both are quiet- one because he’s kinda shy though a leader, while the other is the tough kind of quiet.

It’s all about Playing ability- role playing skill and talent, if your players can’t pull it off then they can’t, you should know which ones can and which ones can’t in your campaign.

 

[Valdur]

Done it quite often. Never had any problems although in roleplaying situations one character is always favored. I consider it a perfectly acceptable solution and use it anytime a party is short by more than one PC.

 

[Mad Mac]

Done it many many times. It's very workable, but I don't reccomend it except when necessary. I've definately found that PC's (myself included) tend to gravitate towards a single character over time, especially when handling dialogue and such. My growing up D&D experience was basically me and my younger brother taking turns DMing while playing multiple characters, so I'm pretty confident in my opinions on it.

Over time, I found that giving each player a "core" PC and henchmen worked best most of the time, especially when different henchmen could be swapped out between missions for added variety. Even so, I prefer to stick to single characters when possible. It just provides a better experience, imo.

 

[orsal]

I played multiple characters several times back in 1/e days, but I never thought it worked well, and never allowed it when I DMed. Two problems: (1) roleplaying tends to fall away -- usually when my players start discussing tactics, I want to be able to assume everything they say is in the voice of their respective characters. That's hard if it's not automatic which character's voice a player is assuming at any moment. (2) the de facto telepathic link between two characters -- no way to avoid that.

 

[Stormborn]

When i first started playing I and another person were new to the game and the group, after rolling up her characer and one introductory session she decided she didn't want to play. I wound up playing her rogue and my sorcerer. We developed a backstory of the two of them being friends but completly opposite in personality. Practically what happened was, other than some moments of light heareted group interaction (particularly the hazing of a new adventurer) that the sorcerer was the developed character personality wise, and the rogue was a secondary set of skills and attacks the group used when needed. But, since one of the other players tended to play his one PC that way anyway, it was OK. In fact, I would be willing to say that Freda the Halfling Rogue had far more personality than Bob the Human Ranger.

Currently I am running a game in d20 M for two people, both of whom only have one character, but when our preordered Ptolus arrives we are likely going to switch to playing that. I am contemplating how to handle it and have decided that each playing two PCs is probablly the best way to do it. I am thinking about imposing some kind of back story requirement to say why the PCs seems to know each other so well. But with these two they will love that, and I am not worried about the aforementioned problems of exclusivity in assitance or anything like that.

 

[Umbran]

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?

If you're short players, and need a bigger party for tactical reasons, it can be okay.

In terms of playing roles, emotions, and personalities, I find it to be a hefty detriment. In my experience doing this and watching others do it, one character gets main focus, and others drift into the background until such time as they become tactically relevant.