Players running more than one PC

[blargney the second]

I'm curious what you folks think of players running more than one PC at a time. Do you like it or not? Does that change if you're the DM or a player?

Are there any other variables that make you like it more or less: number of players, game system/edition, party level, number of PCs being run per person, character complexity, etc.

Finally, is your opinion categorical, or are there exceptions?
-blarg

 

[Agamon]

Not a fan of it. I allow it once in a while temporarily (if a player can't make the game, for example), but not on a permanent basis.

I guess if the game was more of a delve format game, it might be possible, but for anything with roleplaying, it just doesn't work in my experience.

 

[EricNoah]

I don't mind but to me it makes sense for the player to have a "main" character to focus on for roleplaying, and then take more of an NPC approach with the other character. Roleplaying conversations between PC 1 and PC 2 from the same player's a little weird.

 

[Scribble]

Usuall the only time I;ve done this is when we have a very smal group... Like 2 players and a DM. Things I've noticed:

1. Role Playing tends to lessen in favor of out of characterness. (I think maybe it's hard on the brain to shift back and forth as much as would be needed to always be in character with both characters, so people tend to just not do it.)

2. Players tend to have a favored PC. (They say they don't but they do tend to risk one of their characters more often then the other.)

3. It's a different dynamic in battles and such because both of each players characters always know what the other will be doing... So things tend to be more based on two characters instead of one... (Not really a bad thing per se, just different.)

4. It does actualy tend to be slightly faster in combat roles though which seems strange. You'd think it would eb slower, but I think players tend to think about both actions at once... (I guess it goes back to number 3.)

 

[Cadfan]

I've done it. It lessens roleplaying but otherwise seems to work just fine.

I don't have anything against it, although I wouldn't do it unless I couldn't get enough players for a normal game. Which happens.

 

[Nymrohd]

I might allow it if we had a very small group (3 or 2 players) but still not if both characters were complicated during combat rounds. I'd still not be OK with it but it might feel necessary so that combat encounters can feel somewhat balanced.

 

[blargney the second]

It sounds like most of you are talking from the DM's perspective. Do you feel the same when you are players in games with multiple PCs?

 

[weem]

I have played two.

In one game (we played a few sessions) I played a level 12 Cleric, and a level 12 Wizard (another person played 2 characters as well and a third player just played one).

I liked it a lot. Bare in mind, it was 99% combat total between those sessions, but I enjoyed it. I would prefer to have 5 players each playing one, but for this it was fun.

RP-ing? Yea, I think I would have a favored one, and play the other one pretty loose... maybe make him mute... horrible... kissing accident when he was young j/k

 

[caudor]

The norm for me is to have one DM (me) and two players. I've tried several approaches including:

1. Two PCs per player (I sometimes add in a DM controlled companion as well)

2. Adjusting published adventures for just two PCs

3. Making my own adventure customized for two PCs.

Since I often do not have much preparation time, #1 tends to work well for our group. #3 is actually best for those times when I actually have time.

#2 just seems to fall flat most of the time. I like two PCs per player because I can take advantage of purchased adventures I buy without mucking them up with too many adjustments.

 

[blargney the second]

For my part, I've both DMed and played with multiple PCs, although nobody ever had more than two at a time. Players that have DMed before seem to handle two PCs better than those who haven't - both in-combat and out.

I've found that it goes smoother if one or both of the PCs is low-complexity. Taking always-on flat bonuses in favour of abilities that require triggering is one way to accomplish that. In a similar vein, the higher the frequency that a given ability can be used at, the easier it tends to be to remember and to run. So anything at-will is more straightforward than encounters, which are simpler than dailies. In 3.5, fighters that specialized in a weapon were awesome as second PCs.

As a DM, one thing I've encouraged to ease roleplaying complexity is to make one character be some sort of non-sapient. Players have done some interesting things with that... I've seen pseudodragons, drakes, humanoid and four-legged constructs, guardian angels, and floating weapons. Sometimes they're statted up like the creature they chose, and other times they're done up as a regular PC and simple reskinned to the selected creature.

I've also seen it happen in both small parties and large parties. With small parties it can be a necessity to enable play at all, but I haven't found it to be a detraction for big groups. Sometimes the neatest interactions come about as a result of it...

I quite like multiple PCs, both as a player and as a DM. It's fun!
-blarg