Players running more than one PC

[Silver Moon]

I do it all the time. A lot of my modules are designed for simultaneous teams, so players typically field more than one character, but inevitably the teams do get back together so you have a larger group with more than one PC per player for the module's climax battle. They sometimes also decide to rearrange the teams due to skill sets, so a player may have two PC's with one team and just play an NPC in the other. It's all good.

 

[Bishop Odo]

I have to say it depends on the campaign, DM, group and just how good your player is at role playing. I have ran two characters, but really one of them was just quite casually, it was really just a mechanism for the DM to add input into the campaign, and it worked well, because he was a lower level apprentice and I have a paternal streak.

However, I have seen it go very wrong as well. I have been in a game once, where one of the player’s habitually, saw, every NPC as a mechanism for the DM to manipulate his character, and he went to great length to KILL them, even if he was a Good characters, if they, the NPC, where in the game for more that a passing plot hook.

Kids, to him where the biggest anathema, and as an NPC no way, they where dead meat, I walked, no ran away from that group, and yea, the guy was as psycho as he sounds. Later, I also found out different guy from that same group who, always played Asian female characters, became a female himself, or herself. What can you say, I hope one guy is not in the mental ward and the other “gal” is very happy with her choices. Generalization are hard to make, it all depends on the group, what more can you say.

 

[scourger]

I don't like it in general.

I DM'd it in 1 game becaue I thought I would only have 2 players. But, it turned out to be 4 players. 8 PCs just made things too slow for d20.

As a player, one of the reasons I left our 3.5 game several months ago was because of another player's "party of 1". He had his PC wizard, 1 cohort cleric, 1 follower fighter and a magically-controlled minion. It was just too much. My paladin with cleric cohort couldn't compete, even with a special mount. I don't mind spending a feat to get a cohort (which is essentially another PC), but I think it can really upset the game's balance and fun.

The exception is Savage Worlds. The extras are spread among the palyers. While useful, they are inherently less special than the hero wild cards. So, it makes it fun to have extras around without them stealing the limelight.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm in a campaign active (now, only sporadically, though) since 1985, and all of the players run multiple PCs AND take turns behind the screen. The PCs in question are not main guy & sidekick- they're colleagues, equals

So far, no problems.

However, its not for everyone. Some players simply can't/won't do it. I can think of at least 2 players in my current main group who play the same archetype nearly every time they play, regardless of system or campaign. Running multiple PCs would either result in their confusion, 1 well-run PC and one (or more) poorly run PC(s), or "identical twin" PCs.

It also doesn't fit certain campaigns.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Yeah, it's fine. I did this frequently in 3e with cohorts and animal companions; this isn't dramatically different. The big issue is the "economy of actions" and the tendency for one player to hog the spotlight if they have 5 characters and everyone else just has 1. Just stuff to watch out for.

FFZ likes this, and prepares for this in a few ways.

Way #1 is the "stable": where characters involved in the ongoing plot but not on the current adventure stay. The players are only controlling the characters on the adventure.

Way #2 is the high level of "mechanical personality" FFZ characters have -- it aids you in roleplaying several characters at once, since the dice can dictate your reaction (if you don't care to emote it yourself).

A few FFZ philosophies work in tandem with it, such as simple job and power design, sub-jobs, and "non-role" design so that you don't need a team of 5 to do something.

Of course, everyone has the same amount of characters on the given adventure, and the DM always has a number of monsters to compare. Rules for running big groups of monsters help in streamlining multiple PC's, too.

I might not try it in 4e just because of the overwhelming options, but I might, too. It's fine. It's one way to play one-player D&D, for one.

 

[Jack99]

As a DM, I do allow it in my regular campaign in the rare instances when the fighter is late/can't make it (happened twice in 35 sessions, so not a huge deal). We have a "light" version of him that the cleric runs as an NPC henchman. I am not a huge fan, but it works fairly well.

As a player, I have been playing a 15th level rogue + 15th level taclord, and now I am playing a barbarian and a druid in the SoW AP.

It general it sucks for the roleplaying, but the combats work fine. I would rather not, but you do what you have to do in order to play

 

[pawsplay]

There are drawbacks to it, but it can certainly work in the right circumstances. We've had cases where attendance was uneven, so someone's PC would be turned over to a fellow player or the group as a whole, with myself as the GM having veto over anything that seemed completely out of character. It's also a good way to field a larger group when you have something specific in mind.

The dangers are:
- Lack of knowledge about a character's capabilities.
- The awkwardness of role-playing with yourself.
- Insufficient screen time to develop a personality for each PC.

All of these can be remedied with conscious effort. If the players spend a little extra time they can get to know each PC well enough so that they won't forget abilities, leave out bonuses, and the like. The GM, in turn, should be easygoing about letting players correct oversights, but then again, really hard-minded about saying, "No, we already played that out," when it would mean undoing important events in the game. Learning to role-play with yourself is not a hard skill. First of all, try to avoid needing to talk with yourself. If it's just informational, just narrate: "Joe and Zoe discuss their options, and they decide Joe will ___." If the dialog would be useful or entertaining, practice the look-left-look-right approach. Finally, as far as the PCs go, don't overburden them with complicated backstories. Just take a little time to come up with the relevant background information and make sure the players spend time identifying what motivates each character and what relationship they have with their PCs. Make sure each player's PCs have relationships with the PCs of other players. Drawing a little relationship web might help. Just writing, "They met at the wharf last month, and since working together they have tended to banter," can add a lot to the game.

I know different groups handle metagame stuff differently, but especially in this situation I think it's okay for the group to hive-mind their decisions, even OOC stuff, provided the individual characters do not act on OOC knowledge. If that becomes a problem, the GM can start enforcing rules about communication.

Definitely, definitely, track initiative as a group, ideally, with something visual.

 

[Sammael]

I've been thinking about a Transformers campaign for a long time. One of my ideas for the campaign is for each player to create two characters - one Autobot, one Decepticon - and then alternate playing them each week. Each session would be a self-contained "episode," much like the series itself, with occasional longer arcs - but players would get to experience playing both factions and, perhaps, witness the same events from different points of view.

 

[Shroomy]

I never had strong opinions about it one way or another, though I'd prefer one character per player. However, my experiences yesterday at WWDDGD have soured me on the concept (definitely, IMO don't try it in 4e with higher level characters; we didn't bother roleplaying and had problems with running our second character); so now, only if absolutely necessary.

 

[BarkingDeathSquirrel]

Each of the players in my group has been playing 2-3 characters (depending if we have a third person or not) each for a while now. However, none of them are very big on the amatuer-acting side of roleplaying, so it hasn't been a big problem for us.

If we ever did a campaign more focused on roleplaying than dungeon crawling (unlikely), I would imagine we'd only have one character each, however.