Multiple characters per player?

[Mathew_Freeman]

I've tried both extremes, from playing one-on-one with just me and a DM and one character, which is excellent from the point of view of roleplaying and characterisation, right through to a game where I started out playing six characters in order to try out a new DM's skills. Both were enormous fun.

 

[Desdichado]

I'm not saying that the world should be tailored for the PCs, merely that the adventures should be tailored to the PCs. There's a difference. Plus, tailoring doesn't mean that the PCs can actually wade into any combat and come out smiling. I personally prefer to run pretty tough campaigns where the PCs have to be almost paranoid to do well. If players think, "oh, the DM tailored this game to be the perfect ECL for us, we can take them" then those players will be generating a lot of characters.

By the same token, though, just running PCs through modules, or essentially saying, "this is the adventure I wrote (or bought) so this is the adventure we're doing," regardless of whether or not it makes any sense whatsoever for those characters to do, is no fun for me. I dislike any hint of railroading, and telling the PCs up front that they need to construct a "balanced" party is the first hint to me of a campaign in which PC choices don't matter much except on the tactical battle map. If the PCs can't decide to avoid combat altogether, or avoid the adventure altogether, or that their strengths would naturally lead the group into a different type of adventure than what the DM had decided to put them through, then that's not tailored to the PCs.

I, too, value a living breathing campaign world in which what the PCs do (and even more telling, what they don't do) has long-reaching effects that they can see later on in the game. But that doesn't mean that I put them through the adventures I want them to, it means I throw out hooks and see where they want to go, and I let them ultimately be in charge of their own game. And the hooks I throw out make sense for the PCs I have in the game, not the PCs that I don't have. So, yeah, I have to really tailor the game for the PCs: what choices they made in character generation and development, what choices they made in background and history, what they like to do, what they are good at doing, and what they can't do well. Doesn't mean that they don't face a broad range of challenges from those that they can sneeze at to those that they better run from as fast as they possibly can, but the game itself is very intimately tied to who the PCs are.

 

[Arnwyn]

By the same token, though, just running PCs through modules, or essentially saying, "this is the adventure I wrote (or bought) so this is the adventure we're doing," regardless of whether or not it makes any sense whatsoever for those characters to do, is no fun for me. I dislike any hint of railroading, and telling the PCs up front that they need to construct a "balanced" party is the first hint to me of a campaign in which PC choices don't matter much except on the tactical battle map. If the PCs can't decide to avoid combat altogether, or avoid the adventure altogether, or that their strengths would naturally lead the group into a different type of adventure than what the DM had decided to put them through, then that's not tailored to the PCs.

Ahh... now I see what you mean (I think). *If* the players decide to create an "unbalanced" party (eg. 6 wizards) and *if* they decide to tackle challenges that would be appropriate for that sort of party (whatever that may be...) then all the power to them. They'd be playing smart, and as a DM I'd have no problem designing adventures to suit this party of wizards - assuming that the party is smart enough to look for the "appropriate" type of challenges.

However, I don't think that's likely. I would expect most groups - not all, of course - would try to have the same type of adventures as a normal/"balanced" group. If they try that, then they're in deep trouble.

(An aside: As a DM, I do expect to only have to spend a "reasonable" amount of work on my campaign - and my campaign is designed for a "normal" group. I had no problem (years and years ago) making my type/style of campaign known to the players. And if they want to make screwy groups - like the aforementioned party of 6 wizards - they are likely to be at a severe disadvantage, unless they play smart and expect a specific type of adventure. If they don't like this, then I'm probably not the appropriate DM for them. My players, thankfully, would never even consider something so asinine.)

Finally, lots of people "just run PCs through modules" (though I'm not one of them). Do you have a problem with that style of play?

 

[mkletch]

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

Deathtraps aren't any fun.

I'll agree on the death traps. But tailored in my mind is the 3E tailoered: "the PCs could overcome any four of the encounters from the module per day, chosen at random, until all encounters in the module are vanquished."

I tend toward the EL=average party level plus 3 to 6.

Multiple characters can sometimes slow down the game, but experienced gamers can juggle effectively. It just comes down to how well you know the characters and the rules. If you've never played a cleric, and one of your two is a cleric, the game will drag.

-Fletch!

 

[Desdichado]

Ahh... now I see what you mean (I think). *If* the players decide to create an "unbalanced" party (eg. 6 wizards) and *if* they decide to tackle challenges that would be appropriate for that sort of party (whatever that may be...) then all the power to them. They'd be playing smart, and as a DM I'd have no problem designing adventures to suit this party of wizards - assuming that the party is smart enough to look for the "appropriate" type of challenges.

However, I don't think that's likely. I would expect most groups - not all, of course - would try to have the same type of adventures as a normal/"balanced" group. If they try that, then they're in deep trouble.

(An aside: As a DM, I do expect to only have to spend a "reasonable" amount of work on my campaign - and my campaign is designed for a "normal" group. I had no problem (years and years ago) making my type/style of campaign known to the players. And if they want to make screwy groups - like the aforementioned party of 6 wizards - they are likely to be at a severe disadvantage, unless they play smart and expect a specific type of adventure. If they don't like this, then I'm probably not the appropriate DM for them. My players, thankfully, would never even consider something so asinine.)

Finally, lots of people "just run PCs through modules" (though I'm not one of them). Do you have a problem with that style of play?

Yeah, you've got it. I play relatively fast and loose as a DM with only high-level preparation (and a few pre-generated NPCs and enemies) so I feel that I can tailor the adventures to the PCs I have without it being much harder on me than using a "balanced" party. In addition, I feel that giving the players their choice of PCs and making sure that the game is playable for them given that choice is, to me, one of the primary jobs of a good DM.

As to modules, I don't particularly like to play them or run them, no. I don't have a problem per se with that type of play, but I don't particularly enjoy it either, especially for a "campaign" -- in my opinion, modules are best either carefully integrated (and tailored) into a campaign or better yet, run as one-offs. Of better yet, not used at all except as an idea mine.

 

[mkletch]

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.

Here is where my groups fall. Characters hear rumors, legends, pick up other info, and tell me what they want to pursue. All of it is charted out in advance, so if they go after the cattle mutilations, and stumble into a green dragon that is far beyond them, that is a possibility. I don't give them totally flat rumors like that, but if they fail to get repeated hints, the hints will eventually get them. If you have a small group, multiple characters per player can give you the flexibility to do this sort of thing. If you have only a couple characters, then it is more of a total success/total loss situation for any encounter or adventure as a whole.

By the same token, though, just running PCs through modules, or essentially saying, "this is the adventure I wrote (or bought) so this is the adventure we're doing," regardless of whether or not it makes any sense whatsoever for those characters to do, is no fun for me.

That would be irresponsible, of course. I have had the fortune of never playing with a DM like that. However, we started RttToEE, and the two new gamers wanted to go to the moathouse first, and the result (which we deserved) was a TPK.

I, too, value a living breathing campaign world in which what the PCs do (and even more telling, what they don't do) has long-reaching effects that they can see later on in the game. But that doesn't mean that I put them through the adventures I want them to, it means I throw out hooks and see where they want to go, and I let them ultimately be in charge of their own game. And the hooks I throw out make sense for the PCs I have in the game, not the PCs that I don't have.

Emphasis mine. And that is where we would disagree. I give the players enough information that they should be able to distinguish between adventures that are appropriate or inappropriate for their party size, level and composition. Just enough rope to hang themselves, but also enough to haul the treasure chest out of the mine, if that is the case.

So, yeah, I have to really tailor the game for the PCs: what choices they made in character generation and development, what choices they made in background and history, what they like to do, what they are good at doing, and what they can't do well.

To me as a DM constructing a world which may span several gaming groups and multiple campaigns for the same group, these things are irrelevant. It is the players' responsibility to know their characters, not mine. They make the decisions, and I just lay out the structure of the story for them to fill in.

Doesn't mean that they don't face a broad range of challenges from those that they can sneeze at to those that they better run from as fast as they possibly can, but the game itself is very intimately tied to who the PCs are.

But if they know that they are capable of overcoming any challenge they encounter (I don't count running as overcoming a challenge), then there is no danger. There is no real danger.

Back to topic, if you have real danger (as opposed to fake danger that never bites), characters may want multiple characters to mitigate the effect of a character's death. Another thing to consider. If the players want to feel that their characters are 'special', heroic and nearly deathless, the additional characters are simply not necessary.

-Fletch!

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I strongly prefer to have multiple characters per player. If you only have one character and he's killed or incapacitated you just sit there, bored, untill he can get back into the action. No fun. My longest running group (about 10 years) always played with multiple characters. They had no problem roleplaying their characters seperately. Mostly they used two characters per player, with a few using three.

 

[Sanackranib]

style of play

when the skills and powers books came out for 2e I told my players that I wanted to run an all wizard game. I had 4 players and had them each play a differn't type of wizard (red wizard etc) each pulled a type from a hat. and I let each start off with an NPC fighter bodyguard. The campaign was fun once the got past 2nd level.

I am currently running a series of moduls that I have pulled from dungeon mag and converted to work in my SL campaign, I am weaving other plot theards of my own in to tie it all togather. I think modules can be a good tool as long as they are not too linear. if they are then you will just have to be more flexable as a Dmbecuse the party probable wont act as the author intended. so you will have to account for/plan for that and adjust accordingly.

 

[Desdichado]

Here is where my groups fall. Characters hear rumors, legends, pick up other info, and tell me what they want to pursue. All of it is charted out in advance, so if they go after the cattle mutilations, and stumble into a green dragon that is far beyond them, that is a possibility. I don't give them totally flat rumors like that, but if they fail to get repeated hints, the hints will eventually get them. If you have a small group, multiple characters per player can give you the flexibility to do this sort of thing. If you have only a couple characters, then it is more of a total success/total loss situation for any encounter or adventure as a whole.

That's not so dissimilar to what I'm describing, really. Just that as a DM, I'm making sure the rumors they are likely to act on are rumors that are meaningful for them to act on.

That would be irresponsible, of course. I have had the fortune of never playing with a DM like that. However, we started RttToEE, and the two new gamers wanted to go to the moathouse first, and the result (which we deserved) was a TPK.

I guess I'm not really sure we disagree that much, then. Anyway, moving on to the rest of your post...

Emphasis mine. And that is where we would disagree. I give the players enough information that they should be able to distinguish between adventures that are appropriate or inappropriate for their party size, level and composition. Just enough rope to hang themselves, but also enough to haul the treasure chest out of the mine, if that is the case.

How is that different really? The question was, do you tailor the adventures to your PCs. Especially if they aren't store-bought modules, there's no point in even making an adventure if it's not tailored to your PCs. If they have no hope of success, you have to make sure they can find that out before they embark on something.

To me as a DM constructing a world which may span several gaming groups and multiple campaigns for the same group, these things are irrelevant. It is the players' responsibility to know their characters, not mine. They make the decisions, and I just lay out the structure of the story for them to fill in.

Yes, but it's your responsibility to not provide a lot of challenges that only a rogue or a fighter can overcome to our hypothetical all-wizard party. Sure, they may overcome them by hiring a consultant rogue, or some cheap mercenary muscle, but the point is, there has to be some way to overcome the challenge, even if it just means ignoring that and going around it. And that requires tailoring.

But if they know that they are capable of overcoming any challenge they encounter (I don't count running as overcoming a challenge), then there is no danger. There is no real danger.

I don't know what part of my prior message you didn't understand. I said already that I encourage my PCs to be almost paranoid, and they still have trouble getting through a campaign without a few deaths. There's plenty of danger. At the same time, making tons of challenges that the party isn't suited to deal with in one way or another is a waste of both your time and the players. Neither group is going to enjoy that. You've got to tailor the adventures to the PCs you have, not take them as is for the hypothetical balanced party, otherwise, not only do the PCs fail at almost everything they attempt, but the players get extremely frustrated and you are left to DM alone. The other option is, you can state up front that they need to create a balanced party, because you'll be throwing challenges at them that require the full suite of abilities that a "balanced" party provides, but then you're taking away one of the key elements of player enjoyment: the ability to create the character they want to. YMMV, but I don't have any interest in that game.

I've said already before, but since your comments indicate that you probably didn't pick this up, tailoring the challenges to the PCs doesn't mean making things easy for them. It just means that the adventure isn't wildly unsuited for that you have to work with, which only frustrates the players, and ultimately the DM as well.

 

[Hollywood]

Ahh... now I see what you mean (I think). *If* the players decide to create an "unbalanced" party (eg. 6 wizards) and *if* they decide to tackle challenges that would be appropriate for that sort of party (whatever that may be...) then all the power to them. They'd be playing smart, and as a DM I'd have no problem designing adventures to suit this party of wizards - assuming that the party is smart enough to look for the "appropriate" type of challenges.

I absolutely never change an adventure because of what characters the player choose to play. Right now we have a wide assortment of characters, and levels, all playing in the continuing campaign we have.

However, the campaign and adventures do not change just because the adventure works best with a talented wizard, but the party has only some multi-class characters with a level or two of arcane magic. The players/characters MUST deal with it and that usually means they have to deal with things in unusual manners, which my players happen to find exciting.

Maybe I just have unusual players, but they actually enjoy having to come up with off the cuff schemes to overcome obstacles. And well, if they can't, then the characters suffer the consequences.

As for multiple characters per player. I don't have a problem with it, but that depends on the player and how he/she handles it. Currently, since we ended up combining two campaigns together, one around 12th and one around 6th, it ends up that all the players [3..we just lost one due to new members of family] have a high and low level characters. And it works fine... all the characters have different personalities and interact with the group in different manners [player's characters: lazy human fighter attempting to become a wizard/sarcastic halfling bard who is always causing trouble, elven monk raised by gnomes and is a master of the Death Nostril/dwarven underdark archer and stalker of foul beings, stoic barbarian out to make a name for himself/dwarven cleric-fighter whose aim it is to spread the word of fine dwarven ale, halfling rogue whose given up thievery and learning the "ranger" trade/half-orc wizard who died and was ressurected as a leopard and is attempting to make the adjustment]. It just depends on the players and your game.

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.

Yes, I suppose it can. Maybe I like sitting on the fence, but I prefer to run a campaign that wanders down the middle of the two-extremes. A little role-playing, a little action and wash it down with some beer makes for a fun time. Too much of any of the above makes for a less entertaining time.