Letting players run 2 PCs each

[Hairfoot]

What happens when you let players run 2 or more PCs at a time?

Pros I can see are:
A small group of players can take on larger challenges

Creative players can make interesting PC duos

The party can split into two groups and still function


Cons:
Lots of data for players to manage

...and that's about it.

Any tips?

 

[Menexenus]

Works well for small groups.

When you only have 2 or 3 players, allowing players to run multiple PCs is a great solution.

The current campaign I'm playing in has a military theme, and each of the 3 players started the campaign with 6 PCs, a leader character with a PC class and 5 subordinates who all started out as 1st level warriors. (The subordinates receive half as many XP as the lead character, but they are permitted to take PC classes after 1st level.) Over the course of a few battles, we've lost a few of our subordinates due to attrition. But the concept has worked quite well. As you pointed out, having multiple characters allowed each of us to create well-rounded mini-parties where each "squad" can act independently or as part of the whole group.

Obviously, our group's main emphasis is not on story-telling/character-development in the White Wolf style. So running multiple characters might not be for everyone. But it has worked quite well (surprisingly well) for us.

 

[RhysG]

I've tried this before. It has a good chance of working out great, but it depends on the group. I think the main thing to consider is how much you're going to allow the players' two characters to 'share' various things--i.e. knowledge, items, or outlook--particularly if the party splits into two groups. Such should be decided by all before the campaign begins, so there are no surprises (yeah, easier said than done, ha).

There's also this issue: will the players be able to handle dealing with two characters each? Again, it depends on the individual.

Generally, I think it's very useful in a small player-group. Give it a try, it can be fun.

 

[lukelightning]

I see no problem with this; it'll be great in situations where the party has to split up: the players take one of their characters to split off from the other set of characters, and no player gets left out.

 

[JoeGKushner]

You also have to worry about favoritism. Players trading items between characters for example.

And lack of personality. Not so much when just doing beer and pretzels D&D or dungeon crawling but more of an issue in city based games.

 

[John Desmarais]

Usually when I've done this, I had the players make a conscious decision to create one "primary" and one (or more) "secondary" character(s), which gives weaker players the option of only fully fleshing out the personality of a single character.

JD

 

[BryonD]

I'm doing it in my current game. It works fine and everyone has a lot of fun.

I have to step in every now and then and prevent some of the favoritism that Joe spoek of. But not really that much. My players "get" it and don't go there.

As far as role-playing goes, I find that all three of my players tend to have a favorite and are in-character with that one 90% of the time. The second characters tend to be soemwhere between PCs and henchmen. But times come along when the other character is at the fore and they switch hats.

It works well for me.
I've done three chars and true NPC henchman with them. We all find 6 chars more rewarding, so we stayed with it.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I strongly prefer that my players have 2 PCs each, and I've allowed and promoted it pretty much since the time I started playing. There are a couple of good reasons to do it. FIrst, if your character is killed or disabled, you're not out of play for the rest of the game and can continue to have fun. Second, you can split the party without leaving half of you rplayers sitting around bored.

The players determine the relaitonship between their characters, and I've found that it helps to make them best friends or in some cases siblings. This explains their close cooperation. This is also one of the very few areas where I would tell a player, "you're character wouldn't do that" if they're cooperating in ways that people just wouldn't, like pooling their gold.

I thought that it might hurt immersion, but when I went over to the player side of the screen, I found that that wasn't the case. It does help to have two characters with very different personalities, though, to help keep them straight.

 

[Bardsandsages]

At lower levels, probably not an issue. But at higher levels where PCs start forgeting all the magical items, spells, etc they have, you are probably asking for trouble expecting them to keep track of TWO PCs.

That said, I often have games where the PC has a cohort or something. I'll design the original cohort, then pass it off to the PC to actually run it. They can share XP with it and allow it to level, or just leave it as is. The paladin in our high level campaign is responsible for his bonded mount (a young adult blue dragon), and when the mind bender had his barbarian "friend" (the barbarian had been part of a raiding party, and the mind bender used his powers to make him an ally), the PC was responsible for the NPCs actions. The Druid in another game has an awakened dire wolf, whom is is responsible for running.

 

[Dark Dragon]

I'm currently playing two PCs in a 4.0 house ruled group (although some players IMG would say that one of these PCs is only a class feature ).

The main character is a hathran (Clr 4 / Sor 3 / Hth 6), following the table in the FRCS. The hathran update (in the PGtF) was out too late, so the group decided to move on with the 3.0 version. Her bodyguard is a Bbn 3 / Ftr 8 specialized in fighting with a spiked chain and almost maxed out ranks in listen and spot.

The hathran is the party's only cleric (CL 10) and often takes the role as a speaker, healer and rarely as a scout (she took the illusion and spell domains and invisibility as her 2nd level sorceress spell). Most time in a session I'm playing the hathran.
The bodyguard is a quite silent man (Cha 9), happy to work as a protector of a hathran and the possibilities to increase his combat abilities. As a front-line fighter, he dislikes the party's archer because he almost only uses a bow and tries to stay in the second line. Otherwise, he follows the orders of the hathran, even if he has to stay behind when she is on a scouting mission or visiting a temple or the like (however, as a bodyguard, he dislikes such trips).

It is quite funny to play two characters and so far it seems to be ok. Although it quickly became clear that the Bbn/Ftr may take a very important role as a front-line character (high hp, and the attacks with a spiked chain proved to be very nasty for the foes...). But the group also learned it the hard way, that the bodyguard rarely would leave the hathran to help other party members. In fact, he never did so.
The three other warrior types in the party are a monk, a fighter/rogue/tempest and a ranger (with the archery combat style, so effectively a guy for the second line).