2 (or more) PCs per Player

[Elf Witch]

Yes I have played in games like this and in every game except one it really sucked. First of all role playing the second character went out the window. Most of the time the second character just rolled dice in combat or when the DM asked for spot or listen they had no personality and the players tended not favor one character and that character did all the talking.

Second it really bogged down combat. You are always seem to have one or two players who take forever to get through their combat round now add in another character and it came to a grinding halt or at least it felt like that.

Third you had players forgetting which character had information and just played it as both PCs having it.

Fourth it was funny how both PCs always agreed with each other. :\

This was in games with both extra PCs and cohorts. The only time I ever saw it work out was in a game with a player having a rogue cohort. They did a great job you could even tell who was speaking. The player had been our former DM for three years so I think that his DM skills at playing multiple NPCs helped with this.

 

[JoeGKushner]

I have done it as a player.

I played three characters.

One was a CN fantra. He went through White Plume Mountain and wielded a certain CN two-handed sword.

one was a CE necromancer made using the Complete Spellcaster from Bard's Gate. Demon summoing was never so cool.

One was a LG cleric who worshipped St. Cuthbert and went through the adventure in Dragon #100 and had the Mace of St. Cuthbert.

All three had distinct personalities, abilities, and reaons for travelling with the other members of the group. Not all three were always in play but at times they were.

As a GM, I've also allowed players to run more than one character. It works best in smaller parties and only when the player is making characters of different types. No two fighters, no two arcane spellcasters.

 

[KenSeg]

We have done this in our group for almost 20 years now with little problem. Our group usually consists of the DM and 3 players so it helps with having enough PCs to game. Like many others, we usually run two totally different classes and make each toon a distinct persona. It helps that two of us have had extensive acting experience in school. I never play the characters as related and several times they have not particularly liked the other one, being too different from themselves in alignment, etc. They never give items to each other any more than they would another member of the party. Why would they?

For instance, in our current new game, I am playing a knight-class human male of gentry birth, LG and young (16). He is somewhat stern and a touch full of himself. The other character is a sorc, male from an island similar to Jamacia. He is chaotic as can be and has a bad characteristic of delusions. They both are a hoot to play!

-KenSeg
gaming since 1978

 

[Rothe]

Always done it for the last 28 years as a player and in the games I've run and the one I'm running now. Typically 2 for each player, last game 3 for each player but they helped me by running the NPCs. I had a horde of goblins and hobgoblins with reinforcements coming in at various times to handle.

The initial reasons are often not enough players (we never had more than 3 on any regular basis) and a good chance of character death, the later being very important. I've only played a single character a few times and when that character dies, no matter how much I like the game or group, it becomes incredibly boring just to sit around. It's good to have that second character to continue with. I also love playing two characters as it can allow me to role play different character types and aspects of my personality.

As a player it is more book keeping work, and beyond 2 for me, and from what I've seen, it becomes a bit hard except for the best players. Yet last game my players did very well with 3 each with my ocassionally reminding them of various abilities the NPCs had.

The fear is that one character will be used as a sop or always sacrifice for the other. For example always giving all the magic items to one character. Luckily I and my players have never played this way and have given each character equal attention. That's good since you never know who may die.

 

[buzz]

One idea I've always wanted to try was to have every player play one PC + 1 cohort - but no one would play their own cohort, they'd have to play someone else's flunkie.

That's a really cool idea, KC.

Playing multiple PCs was pretty common in my 1e days, simply because there were usually only 3-4 of us playing at a given time.

Nowadays, I usually only opt to play more than one if there's a need. Sometimes this is enjoyable, sometimes it's a pain.

The enjoyable instance is my Monday game. I play two PCs (a barb and a cleric) becasue, due to player attrition, we needed a cleric. So, I rolled one up and she joined the party. I actively chose to play two PCs, and I like both of them.

The not-so-enjoyable instance is my Saturday game (and not just becasue rowport is in it ). This is because we, technically, have nine people total. Of those nine people, probably five can be counted on to show up regularly. Of the remaining four, one guy almost never shows up, while the other three usually show up. Result: there is almost always some guy's PC one of the regulars has to run that night. Add to this that the chronic absentees are the ones who tend to never update their sheets (or provide the DM with a backup copy), and you end up playing a PC that's maybe a level behind where he should be and missing equipment and spells.

So... it can work, but sometimes it's a pain. My preference is a 1:1 PC-to-player ratio.

 

[Aaron L]

We ran a few games years ago here we each had 2 or 3 PCs. I didnt like it.

 

[Lanefan]

Always done it for the last 28 years as a player and in the games I've run and the one I'm running now. [\QUOTE]

Yep; it's standard operating procedure here too.

The initial reasons are often not enough players (we never had more than 3 on any regular basis) and a good chance of character death, the later being very important. I've only played a single character a few times and when that character dies, no matter how much I like the game or group, it becomes incredibly boring just to sit around. It's good to have that second character to continue with. I also love playing two characters as it can allow me to role play different character types and aspects of my personality.

Absolutely agreed here! And as others have said, the best 2-PC combination is to have one front-liner (Fighter, Ranger, Cavalier) and one back-liner (Wizard, healer, Thief). Make sure they have distinctly different personalities - giving a different voice or accent to each one helps a lot but you have to stick with it - and go for it!

The fear is that one character will be used as a sop or always sacrifice for the other. For example always giving all the magic items to one character. Luckily I and my players have never played this way and have given each character equal attention.

This has never really been a problem for us. About the worst I've seen is the same player's PC's loaning each other cash or items, but even this has a side benefit: the one player is responsible for *all* the bookkeeping for that transaction. Obviously, this implies that I trust my players...

Lanefan

 

[Mycanid]

ehhh ... I have done it but don't like it. I prefer getting into the whole rp'ing experience and splitting myself up between characters interferes with that. What can I say? I'm not that talented an actor I guess....

 

[DonTadow]

ehhh ... I have done it but don't like it. I prefer getting into the whole rp'ing experience and splitting myself up between characters interferes with that. What can I say? I'm not that talented an actor I guess....

My main thing is that its not extremely difficult to do, it just makes the game less about role playing and more about playing a board game. I'd rather take the characters that are there into something and have the dm adjust the adventure accordingly.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

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.

Back in the days of 1E we did it all the time. Seldom did anyone NOT have more than one PC. We always felt the more the merrier and wanted the larger roster for taking on bigger, badder stuff. It was nearly a requirement as PC's finally advanced into mid/title levels. They would end up having to spend a great deal more downtime establishing and running temples, strongholds, guilds, and small countries and thus having more than one PC (sometimes 3 and though rare even more than that!) meant that a player was able to always manage to get at least ONE PC into every ongoing adventure without having to burn TONS of in-game calendar time in order to assemble a quorum. I've always thought it was how the game worked best.

The downside was that when we were still less than fully mature roleplayers we all found it difficult to different degrees to keep characters seperate in both personalities as well as money and equipment. We even developed the epithet "T-shirt character" for a PC that was sometimes created much as a mule PC would in MMORPG's - a character to simply provide support for the PC you REALLY cared about. In nearly any adventure you had one PC that you favored over the other if you were running two at the same time. You would always have a tendency to forget your lesser character and nearly everything the PLAYER said would be coming from the persona of the FAVORED PC rather than the lesser one.

Additionally, when you created a second/third PC because your first PC was occupied with "downtime" stuff you ran the risk of suddenly becoming highly enamored of the NEW PC over the older PC, and suddenly a character that was careening headlong into becoming a world-shaking power broker would shrivel up as you redirected your main interests into other areas and other PC's.

By the 2E era we recognized this behavior in ourselves sufficiently that we either chose not to create/run more than one PC at a time or could better keep up with the juggling needed to give multiple PC's equal attention. We still often failed but at least we kept the problems to a minimum by being aware of ithe pitfalls.

The 2E era also meant greatly reduced numbers of players for us. The nights of having 10 or more players at the table were gone and we were lucky to get 5 to show up with any regularity. Though this logically SHOULD have meant seeing more players with multiple PC's I think we just adjusted the adventures to also do more with less, so to speak.

3E with its 4 PC standard worked perfectly for our now highly shrunken roster of players, though I would often run an NPC/DM-PC to fill roles and give me a constant conduit to feed hints to the actual PC's. The roles of course were always just that of meat shield or more often the Rogue. Nobody ever took the Rogue but everyone hated not having someone to simply check for traps and open locks. From the dawn of 3E I've only had ONE player running two PC's at once - at that was only long enough to replace his current PC with that of a player who left the game whose PC had such great stats that he couldn't stand to see them go to waste after only 2 sessions of play. His first PC had died and I turned him into a plot device for the overall campaign. The second PC I appropriated as an NPC when he took up the third with the great stats. He was later allowed to play the NPC as a PC again in the closing days of the campaign.

Overall, I'd say that if you have mature roleplayers, or are just a bit more watchful for OOC behavior, the benefits can outweigh any drawbacks.