Two players playing one character?

[random user]

This situation just came up in my campaign:

One of the players just moved and isn't sure he can make it each week for our gaming session. He has suggested that he alternate playing his character with another person (who currently is not playing).

My initial thoughts on the matter was that it was a bad idea. The campaign I run is largely character and roleplay driven. There is some chance for death, but luckily I have some people who hate to lose, so the fear of failing or being made fools out of is almost as good a motivation as the fear of death.

I've taken advantage of this to create a campaign where they can truly create memorable and unique characters, ones who I hope they get attached to as more than just numbers on a page. As a way to reinforce this, many player actions have a habit of having consequences on the world... whether they intend to or not. They have (hopefully) learned that they are responsible for the consequences (good and bad) of their actions.

To me, having multiple people playing one character reminds me too much of Everquest (which I also play, but is a completely different experience than D&D), which is fine in a hack-n-slash or highly combat driven campaign, but if I wanted that I would just play Everquest (please don't hijack this thread into EQ please

So my initial reaction was that I didn't think two different people could play one character consistantly, know what was going on with the story (which weaves in and out of the adventures), and care about what their actions did. I'm not sure, at least without a lot of preperation, they could create a cohesive and compelling singular character. And even if they did for now, could they guarentee that they would continue to have the same goals as the game progressed?

If the character is presented with a true dilemma, could each player always act in a way that is satisfactory to both players?

I have offered to let him do this if he really wanted to do it if his character suffered from multiple personality disorder, but he didn't like that idea. (Personally I think that would be kind of cool... different at least).

As I thought about it more, though, I thought I should seek some advice, or at least see what other peoples' opinions were instead of making a quick judgment. So, any thoughts?

 

[Thanee]

On a german D&D message board, there is a PbP with every character being played by 2 persons... I havn't really followed it, tho, and do not know if that actually worked out.

Heh. A character with MPS and two players sounds kinda weird.

In a more roleplaying heavy campaign, it should usually be possible to find an excuse why one character is absent for a while (being a little lenient about that). I'd just let the other player make a new character, really.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Goobermunch]

I played in a campaign once where the party had two wizards, Brimstone and Treacle. One was a fire specialist, the other a water wizard. Odd thing was, we never saw them together at the same time. One would wander off, just before the other showed up. It turns out, they were the same guy.

It's an interesting concept if you can pull it off right. But without something like that, I don't see how two players could embody the same character.

--G

 

[Asmor]

I played in a campaign once where the party had two wizards, Brimstone and Treacle. One was a fire specialist, the other a water wizard. Odd thing was, we never saw them together at the same time. One would wander off, just before the other showed up. It turns out, they were the same guy.

It's an interesting concept if you can pull it off right. But without something like that, I don't see how two players could embody the same character.

--G

Wait... I can accept Brimstone for a fire mage... But why the hell would the water mage (or anyone for that matter, except maybe a confectioner) name himself for syrup?!?

 

[Chimera]

Could work, probably won't. I've never had good experiences with a new player taking over a character with well established personality traits.

You might also run into problems between the two of them over choices in skills and feats, treasure and so forth.

 

[Zappo]

Wait... I can accept Brimstone for a fire mage... But why the hell would the water mage (or anyone for that matter, except maybe a confectioner) name himself for syrup?!?

He didn't, his parents did. Same for Brimstone, of course. I think that D&D moms have innate prophetic powers when it comes to naming their kids. Apart for Treacle, of course.

 

[Asmor]

He didn't, his parents did. Same for Brimstone, of course. I think that D&D moms have innate prophetic powers when it comes to naming their kids. Apart for Treacle, of course.

*half laughs, half groans*

 

[Dareoon Dalandrove]

Just have him play a character normally. Life interferes with playing sometimes you've got to accept that. In every story there is always a minor character that shows up from time to time to help the main characters. He's that guy. Heck you could even chat with him online and feed him information that the regular pc's need. He's be a quasi npc.

 

[kamosa]

I did this once and it was a lot of fun. I was co-DMing a campaign. We were swapping out every other adventure. Our feeling was that if we each played a character, our characters would fall behind fairly quickly. So, we shared an archer kobold. The character was chaotic, so any changes in personality were quickly glossed over.

It's harder if the other player isn't there though. In our situation I witnessed all the actions my partner took, and he witnessed mine, so we shared the characters co-history. Make sure each player takes notes, so they can pass the important plot points back and forth.