Letting players run 2 PCs each

[Harmon]

Recently our group lost a Player, the GM wanted to continue the campaigns that he had started oh, so many years ago so I suggested that I play a second character.

My primary character is a rough, pessimistic, depressed, war screwed up ranger/fighter/deep wood sniper, the other a happy, optimistic, friendly, considerate, caring, cleric of Berronar Truesilver that has little understanding of the world of adventuring. One speaks low and seems very pissed off most of the time and the other care free and concerned.

The other Players remarked that they knew instantly which one was speaking when I talk, and the GM seems very happy with allowing this to occure.

Our other campaign I will be picking up a second character that will be fighter/ranger. I am kind of concerned that the two characters are a little a like and there is no vocal changes or differences in manner, so the RPing should be a bit more difficult w/o the fun aspect to it.

It takes a certain kind of gamer to pull off the playing of two characters. I know of only one other Player that I would allow to do it, though he uses more subtle verbal changes between characters and it is difficult to keep the difference clear sometimes.

 

[Baramay]

I think it is fine to play two characters. I have read that many games rotate DMs, how many NPCs does the DM have to play' either short term or as group members? I think having two characters frees the DM to up to use his creativeness elsewhere.

 

[niolo]

We have a group that has fluctuated in size. When we started the current campaign we needed to fill the ranks of PCs. Each player had 2 PCs. Now that our player ranks are filled we no longer need everyone to play two PCs. I am the only one with 2 now (monk and a rogue/ranger/shdancer). I was allowed to play two (after the other PCs died off) because our party needed a rogue (and no one wanted to play an NPC rogue) and the monk had become part of the plot (and he was my primary PC).

I have had no issue RE sharing items. The monk is VoP. And both have disparate styles of combat, so there are no issues of one "reading the mind" of the other in order to get a game advantage. Like others RP, these two have different personalities.

Like others have said, two PCs free up the DM (NPC wise) and allows for fewer games to be cancelled from no shows.

I have been in a game where players can have 2 PCs but only one may be in combat at a time. Additionally only one PC would receive full xp for the adventure (this was later modified to allow the player to allot the xp to either PC). Another version was allowing a primary PC and an "apprentice" PC (that did not have to be the same class) who could receive a percent of the xp that the primary PC earned.

 

[sniffles]

The GMs I play with are generally very resistant to this idea, and I can see their point.
If everyone has two PCs and a player is absent, you've now got 2 characters that either have to be run by someone else or have their absence from the game explained away. If you're in a very roleplay-heavy, plot-based game this can be quite a challenge for even one PC, let alone two.

 

[Tinner]

I find this worst best with certain types of games.
In my "Crush, Crumble and Chomp" MSH campaign, I let each player have three different super-heroes. This was no problem, since you expect that sort of thing from groups like The Avengers, etc.
In D&D we sometimes do it, but it usually boils down to one "real" PC and the extra character is just a cohort.
In a story-driver game like Vampire or something? No way. It would really put a kink in the works.

 

[BryonD]

If everyone has two PCs and a player is absent, you've now got 2 characters that either have to be run by someone else or have their absence from the game explained away.

If you only have three players, when one can't make it you do something else.

As far as role-play, I still say that my experience supports great role-play potential. The primary character gets the play just as a character in any other 1 char game. And the secondary allows for change of reference based on circumstance. Which, for my group, just ands to the rewarding experience. YMMV

 

[hexgrid]

We do this in a game I run that has two players.

Each player has one "main" character, and one slightly weaker, cohort-like character. The plot lines tend to deal only with the main characters.

 

[sniffles]

I find this worst best with certain types of games.
In my "Crush, Crumble and Chomp" MSH campaign, I let each player have three different super-heroes. This was no problem, since you expect that sort of thing from groups like The Avengers, etc.

I wish I could convince my Champions! GM to do this. It would sure help to alleviate my problem of too many character concepts and no opportunity to play them!

 

[cwhs01]

I'm not sure i like the idea of multiple characters per player in a DnD campaign. I usually find it difficult enough to do the number crunching aspects of combat for one characer

And also, even though i enjoy the tactics and dice rolling of combats, it's the "rest" of the rpg i really enjoy, the opportunity to actually roleplay a heroic persona, in a fantastic setting. This is difficult to do "convincingly", if you have to switch between 2 or more characters.
Though, ofcourse, it isn't impossible and i'm sure there are groups doing this just fine. I'm just not sure it would work for me and the group i usually play with.

BTW people interested in Troupe style games, should check out Ars Magica, which was designed to be played with rotation in Gm, and the pc's playing all inhabitants of their Covenant (the home for a bunch of magicians and their companions/servants) in mythic Europe. A cool game, with alot of good ideas. 3rd edition ArM was free online once i think?

 

[Endur]

I don't mind letting players run cohorts, bonded mounts, familiars, and the like.

I do think letting players run multiple PCs would cause one PC to take center-stage and the other would be treated like a cohort.