Running Multiple Characters

[gamerprinter]

I've only run multiple characters when the group was too small to effectively run a given adventure - say a published adventure is designed for 5 players at 4th level, but there are only 3 players and a GM, so the 2 more experienced players run 2 characters. But I have an established group of 5 players and GM now, so we currently never have to do that. As a basic preference, I'd say running more than one character is a no-no, but circumstances can make this problematic, so we do as necessary based on circumstance.

 

[Umbran]

That is such an Umbranesque response.

Heh. I've been adjectivized.

Anyway, I think my post made it clear that I was not pontificating but simply offering a different, subjective experience.

For the record - I didn't think you were pontificating. I was just starting to talk about some of the sources of that different experience.

 

[Halivar]

Heh. I've been adjectivized.

Hey now, no verbing of nouns around here!

For my part, I can only run multiple characters if the two characters are nothing like each other. If they are at all similar they will start to blend in my head.

We had 3 players in my gaming group and I volunteered to pull double duty, so I rolled up a wizard to go with my paladin. I opted for a morally ambiguous, theivey illusiony wizard named "Old Scratch". Every time my paladin suggested something heroic and noble, I would have Old Scratch suggest something horribly offensive.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

In an ideal world I'd play a single character, since I have a "method actor" style. If I need to play two characters though, I don't have a problem with it, in the same way I don't have a problem role-playing multiple NPCs at once. Of course, the more you have going on at once the lower the quality gets, but two isn't a big deal for me personally.

But playing multiple characters at once and improv are talents of mine that everyone doesn't share. In general, what I've observed is that most people forget about one character or another--especially in the role-playing department.

Hmm...that's an interesting thought that just occurred to me. Should we look at playing role-playing games as a skill?* People have varying degrees of talent and can improve through experience and practicing techniques?

I've never thought of that in those direct terms (and now that I have, I realize I'm on the slow side, because most/many of the rest of you have already made that connection long ago), but now that I do it's kind of making me want to set up "role-playing lessons" for new gamers.


*I'm not talking about char op, I'm talking about all of the other elements that combine to make the general experience.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I prefer one character per player, because RP suffers with more than that. But it depends on the size of the group.

For a smaller group, I actually prefer a main character with henchmen rather than two (or more) fully-fledged PCs per player.

 

[Darth Quiris]

In my personal experiences I have found that I can run multiple character's if its a tactical miniatures base game of any tabletop variety (including board games), but if I have to get into the mindset of a character and do actual roleplaying than no I can't, not as a player. As a GM it's obviously different.

 

[Scrivener of Doom]

In my personal experiences I have found that I can run multiple character's if its a tactical miniatures base game of any tabletop variety (including board games), but if I have to get into the mindset of a character and do actual roleplaying than no I can't, not as a player. As a GM it's obviously different.

I find this a really interesting reply from the perspective that often we seem to feel as a DM/GM that we can run multiple characters and yet as a player we often feel that we cannot? I wonder why that is?

 

[was]

I find this a really interesting reply from the perspective that often we seem to feel as a DM/GM that we can run multiple characters and yet as a player we often feel that we cannot? I wonder why that is?

Probably because we are not as invested in our NPC's as players are in their characters. As DMs, we expect most of the characters we develop to die.

 

[Scrivener of Doom]

Probably because we are not as invested in our NPC's as players are in their characters. As DMs, we expect most of the characters we develop to die.

Speak for yourself!

Just kidding. I am sure that is the difference. But think about it. It's an emotional connection: that's the difference. Many of my NPCs have more developed backstories than some (most? all?) of the PCs in my games but I'm not emotionally attached to them.

But if you can manage that emotional connection - turn it off, as it were - there's nothing stopping from playing multiple characters. Agree? Disagree?

 

[Isida Kep'Tukari]

I've played with multiple characters per player before.

In a game that's focused on tactical objectives, it works well enough.

In a game that's focused on the impact of events upon the PCs, and their personality-based reactions, I find it works rather poorly, and don't recommend it.

Indeed. If you end up trying to really role-play multiple characters, at one point or another you're going to end up talking to yourself.

This can be awkward at the table.