Multiple characters per player?

[fett527]

I've personally never understood why people want to play multiple characters. If you only have two to four players then why doesn't the DM tailor the game that way? We've always put the emphasis on roleplay, personality and background. Make your character real. I don't see how this is done effectively with trying to play multiple characters at the same time. I played in a two player campaign over a span of years and was the most fun and memorable game I've ever been a part of. Our DM made sure everything was tailored to two characters and of course there were many different NPCs along the way, but we had great fun with just two characters.

 

[mkletch]

I've personally never understood why people want to play multiple characters. If you only have two to four players then why doesn't the DM tailor the game that way? We've always put the emphasis on roleplay, personality and background. Make your character real. I don't see how this is done effectively with trying to play multiple characters at the same time. I played in a two player campaign over a span of years and was the most fun and memorable game I've ever been a part of. Our DM made sure everything was tailored to two characters and of course there were many different NPCs along the way, but we had great fun with just two characters.

I particularly despise the practice of tailoring adventures and campaign to the characters, whether number of characters, their levels, their calsses, magic items abilities or whatever. Design an adventure, concentrating on the story, the location (set), the NPCs, etc. Different parties with different characters should approach the adventure in different ways, based on their abilities. But that is the players' problem, not the adventure designer's (usually the DM). IMO, tailoring cheapens the gaming and roleplaying experiences.

We did the WotC Adventure Path with 3 characters. We were OK on level and buff with magic items, that is how we made up for the 'fourth person'. Another group of players might approach the modules less agressively. But tailoring takes those choices away form the players. "Oh, this is tailored. We can do it the same way we do everything else...".

-Fletch!

 

[Nifft]

IMO "Tailored" means: "my PCs can survive anything here". Survival includes running away.

Deathtraps aren't any fun.

-- Nifft

 

[Quickbeam]

For about a year or so, our group had dwindled down to only four players including the DM. Each of the three players ran two PC's, and it worked out fairly well all things considered. But to a person we all agree that we much prefer our current seven player group, where each individual is only responsible for one PC. IMO, you develop a stronger bond and a better understanding of your characters when there's only upon which to focus your energy and attention.

 

[Arnwyn]

I absolutely abhor the "tailored" approach. If my group (of 6) decided to make a party of 6 wizards - well, they're asking for it. I would have no intention of "tailoring" any adventures to suit them. There's a reason why each class has a specific utility.

To the original poster - if your players are competent (know the rules decently, etc.) then I can't see any long-term problems with running two characters each.

 

[ladyofdragons]

I particularly despise the practice of tailoring adventures and campaign to the characters, whether number of characters, their levels, their calsses, magic items abilities or whatever. Design an adventure, concentrating on the story, the location (set), the NPCs, etc. Different parties with different characters should approach the adventure in different ways, based on their abilities. But that is the players' problem, not the adventure designer's (usually the DM). IMO, tailoring cheapens the gaming and roleplaying experiences.

We did the WotC Adventure Path with 3 characters. We were OK on level and buff with magic items, that is how we made up for the 'fourth person'. Another group of players might approach the modules less agressively. But tailoring takes those choices away form the players. "Oh, this is tailored. We can do it the same way we do everything else...".

-Fletch!

I have the opposite opinion, I think, if I'm understanding you correctly. I tailor everything for my players. If I'm using a Dungeon adventure, I look at the challenges and make sure I think they're a match to the party. if not, I beef them up! If I don't think the party's ready for an adventure yet, I just put it off until they are. If I'm designing from scratch, of course I tailor it for the party I'm writing it for! if I didn't that'd be silly. Why go through all the trouble of writing an adventure for someone else's group? Then again, I've never ever run a pre-generated adventure path like WotC's. Personally I prefer a campaign that is built around the characters, where each new story arc is built on events that have gone in the previous, using a combination of both purchased and personally written adventures. But that's just me.

But, getting back to the original question, I guess it depends on whether you run a roleplay-oriented or action-oriented campaign. Action-oriented campaigns with less emphasis on roleplay make it easier to juggle two characters. I personally don't like playing two characters, it makes it so you can't give the amount of attention to each character that they deserve. Our long-running campaign has one player who has two characters, and it is confusing and makes it very difficult to interact with him when he's trying to hold two conversations at once with two very differing opinions (one character is a dwarven fighter, the other a rogue). Once when his rogue character got a throat injury, he had to make signs to hold up so we knew who was talking since his sore throat voice sounded very much like his dwarf voice.

 

[KnowTheToe]

I absolutely abhor the "tailored" approach. If my group (of 6) decided to make a party of 6 wizards - well, they're asking for it. I would have no intention of "tailoring" any adventures to suit them. There's a reason why each class has a specific utility.

To the original poster - if your players are competent (know the rules decently, etc.) then I can't see any long-term problems with running two characters each.

This does not make any sense. Most published adventures are tailored for 4 players of a certain level and assume they will have certain levels of magic items and abilities. Do you run 1st level character through 15th level adventures? I mean after all, 1st level characters could get caught up in the same plat as any other level character.

 

[Arnwyn]

This does not make any sense. Most published adventures are tailored for 4 players of a certain level and assume they will have certain levels of magic items and abilities. Do you run 1st level character through 15th level adventures? I mean after all, 1st level characters could get caught up in the same plat as any other level character.

*grin* I guess I should have been more specific. My disclaimer would be, of course, "within reason". Levels are the core to the game, so characters should take part in adventures that are appropriate to their level. However, the party composition is their problem. If they choose an all-wizard group, for example, they will obviously struggle when adventuring. I won't tailor my campaign to fit an all-wizard group. (I assume a "standard" party composition of Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Sor or Wiz. From reading the many published adventures out there, it seems that they assume the same thing as well.)

(Please don't assume I used the word "tailor" at its absolute most liberal usage. Of course, everyone tailors the game to some extent. *Everyone*.)

 

[Desdichado]

I absolutely abhor the practice of throwing PCs into situations without regard for who they are!

Campaigns (mine, anyway) are designed with the PCs in mind. If everyone wants to play wizards, then I don't send them into situations that wizards can't handle. If the PCs choose to go into such a situation, that's their problem, but that should always be their choice.

IMO, any DM who can't make the game fun for whatever the PCs want to play (within the constraints of the setting, of course) is a lousy DM and I don't want to play in a game in which I have to worry about constructing a "balanced" party, even if everyone wants to play sorcerors (or more likely, fighters) or what have you.

And the best campaigns are the ones that are built around the fact that the PCs are the main characters. If the PCs are completely interchangeable and the adventure is pretty much the same no matter who does it, that's not a campaign, that's an adventure module, and one step removed from railroading.

No thanks, count me out.

 

[Arnwyn]

IMO, any DM who can't make the game fun for whatever the PCs want to play (within the constraints of the setting, of course) is a lousy DM and I don't want to play in a game in which I have to worry about constructing a "balanced" party, even if everyone wants to play sorcerors (or more likely, fighters) or what have you.

*shrug* I don't blame you for feeling that way - if such a style works for you and your group, that's great. Thankfully for both of us, we don't play in each other's campaigns.

My style is, of course, designed with my group in mind. If they knew that everything would be designed perfectly around them, they would not want to play anymore. My players are ones who very much (*very* much) appreciate a "living, breathing" world - not one designed perfectly for them.

That's where their fun lies. I don't expect it to fit anyone else but us.