D&D 5E Players with multiple characters

[Blue]

In the current campaign I run, it's one PC per player. In a different style of campaign I wouldn't mind a stable of characters - but I feel the campaign needs to be set up for that. Even then, it would be primarily one at a time, with occasionally RPing additional ones or rare circumstances where the situation demanded multiple characters from the same player to be present.

Back in my teens/20s, I had one DM I played D&D and Champions with, and he ran multiple groups in the same world. Some of those groups had overlap, so we'd have multiple characters in the world. We'd also have things like our 12+ hour Saturday games (ah, college) with 6 players, and we had different campaigns based on which players would be able to make it - all within the same world. Though invariably the cool stories would get talked about, the people who weren't part of a particular group would want to be part, make characters, and then we'd end up making a new campaign somewhere else in the world when they couldn't make it.

For Champions we didn't have it quite as much, but he ran for several groups, with some overlap, for decades. Once a year he'd have a big crossover session that was hella fun to RP across all the groups, would end up a bit like Avengers: Infinity War in that we'd break up into smaller groups (though not the normal hero teams, so new dynamics) for much of it to allow us to get thigns done, and then end with a huge crossover combat-with-plot - or several simultaneous combats where we each had to do their part of stopping the major villain plans (team A disable the earthquake generators while team B dealt with the subterranean menace...). These combats would use the same phase/Dex countdown so it was all super simultaneous. The only problem is that Champions combat is detail-oriented and slow in normal play. With 30+ heroes and a reasonably sized threat, it slowed way down. While that was supposed to be the spotlight, the character RP between characters who weren't on the same team was really the highlight.

In that same Champions world, we eventually started a UN team where each player had three characters (later reduced to two as more players got into it over the years to keep the roster reasonable). It was inspired by an 80s cartoon, maybe M.A.S.K. where a different group of operatives was assembled for any particular challenge. Part of the fiction was that there was plenty of other missions going on so it's not that unused heroes were free to bring along for more firepower, but that we could easily catch each other at HQ for RP so we had a large amount of interaction. There was definitely an aspect of soap opera to that, with the drama of everyone's lives, dating on the team, grudges (player okayed), etc.

 

[iserith]

I'm jealous of Iserith and his abundance of players.

The way I set things up is actually a defense against games being called off due to scheduling issues. If the DM can play, there's a game, so I never have to deal with the heartbreak of putting together an adventure and then having the game delayed because of a lack of quorum. In the Sunless Citadel game I'm running tonight, I have 5 regulars and 3 alternates. One of the regulars had to drop last night and *poof* one of the alternates jumped in and took the spot. It's a beautiful thing.

 

[mrpopstar]

I would allow someone to play more than one character if they really wanted to, but I've honestly never had anyone ask to do so.

 

[77IM]

I've seen this work really well, and I've seen it work really badly. I think it depends on the group and the players.

Badly: If you already have a large group, adding more characters is just going to bog the game down. Not everyone wants to run multiple PCs, and forcing them isn't a good option either, but if there are already balance issues between PCs (either mechanical balance or spotlight balance) giving some people more characters than others is going to make it worse. Heaven forbid you let powergamers get their hands on this option, and treat both characters as functional tactical combat units devoid of personality. Worst case scenario, a player forms their own little mini-party that doesn't really need the other PCs and doesn't see much role-playing reason to interact with them.

Goodly: Each player starts with one character, and only later, once that character is well-established, role-playing-wise, do you allow a second character. The player's characters role-play in tandem, like a mentor and an apprentice, but mechanically they complement the rest of the group. They are somehow mechanically balanced against people who have a single PC. (The best option I've seen for this is to award XP to the player and force them to split it between multiple PCs -- they'll lag a level or two behind the other PCs, which is still playable, but is enough of a deterrent that most people won't do it.) Best-case scenario, everyone at the table appreciates the extra role-playing opportunities.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Back in my teens/20s, I had one DM I played D&D and Champions with, and he ran multiple groups in the same world. Some of those groups had overlap, so we'd have multiple characters in the world. We'd also have things like our 12+ hour Saturday games (ah, college) with 6 players, and we had different campaigns based on which players would be able to make it - all within the same world. ... Once a year he'd have a big crossover session that was hella fun to RP across all the groups, would end up a bit like Avengers: Infinity War in that we'd break up into smaller groups (though not the normal hero teams, so new dynamics) for much of it to allow us to get thigns done, and then end with a huge crossover combat-with-plot - or several simultaneous combats where we each had to do their part of stopping the major villain plans (team A disable the earthquake generators while team B dealt with the subterranean menace...).
In that same Champions world, we eventually started a UN team where each player had three characters (later reduced to two as more players got into it over the years to keep the roster reasonable). It was inspired by an 80s cartoon, maybe M.A.S.K. where a different group of operatives was assembled for any particular challenge. Part of the fiction was that there was plenty of other missions going on so it's not that unused heroes were free to bring along for more firepower, but that we could easily catch each other at HQ for RP so we had a large amount of interaction. There was definitely an aspect of soap opera to that, with the drama of everyone's lives, dating on the team, grudges (player okayed), etc.

Champions! lends itself to multiple characters, that way, both because of the genre, which is rife with crossovers, and because the build system which lets you create so many different/interesting characters.
The group I gamed with in the 80s & 90s had a multi-GM Champions! campaign going that was dubbed "The Crowded Earth," there were so many PCs in it. Every player would have a PC in each super-team, and, in keeping with Avengers tradition, the heroes would fight eachother half the time...

 

[Mercule]

My general feeling is that players running multiple characters promotes a more "hack and slack" or "board game" mode of play, which I do not care for. I much prefer more character/plot driven games. I like to get to know the characters and give everyone a chance to be "the star". When a player has to split their attention, they don't really get the full effect of being in the spot light.

What I've done, when running games with only a couple players is to present the opportunity to recruit NPCs as party members. I make the effort to portray them as equals in status, but they're there mainly for the PCs to play off of, story-wise, and don't compete for the cool scenes -- unless the players seem to enjoy a rivalry. I don't treat them as DMPCs, though, and adamantly refuse to play them, in those groups where we've rotated GM duties. I generally don't even let this sort of character recur between parties or groups, just to avoid the potential to get too attached, and will usually kill off or retire the NPC if they start to get too showy.

The other factor, when I GM, is that I generally use home brew settings and adventures, so I can tweak things for both scale and gaps. So, if no one wants to play the Cleric, I can make potions more available, tweak the danger level by feel, or some combination.

As a note, I feel differently about troop-style play, henchmen, or extras. As long as each player has a clear "main" character, that's what's important.

 

[Shiroiken]

The way I set things up is actually a defense against games being called off due to scheduling issues. If the DM can play, there's a game, so I never have to deal with the heartbreak of putting together an adventure and then having the game delayed because of a lack of quorum. In the Sunless Citadel game I'm running tonight, I have 5 regulars and 3 alternates. One of the regulars had to drop last night and *poof* one of the alternates jumped in and took the spot. It's a beautiful thing.

The fact that you have that many players available is what makes many of us jealous. Of course, I'm a bit too selective with my players, which limits my options (I'd rather have a group of 5 friends playing than 5 friends and 1 jackass).

 

[iserith]

The fact that you have that many players available is what makes many of us jealous. Of course, I'm a bit too selective with my players, which limits my options (I'd rather have a group of 5 friends playing than 5 friends and 1 jackass).

I hear you. What I do is run a lot of one-shots and then from those pickup groups invite players I like to join regular games. I have a FANTASTIC group as a result.