Players with two characters

[sidkfjjteidlkkf]

Do you allow this? Why or why not?

Me no - Players favor certain ones over others. Do not feel you can trully play multi characters well... They use some as crutches to avoid the nasty!

If the two argued, could they pull it off? What if they hated each other?

Just my thoughts.

 

[Rasta]

I do allow this, but it is more out of need than for the experience. I often have more characters in the party than there is party to play them. If that makes any sence. So they will be "filling in" while the other player is not there. I do this to speed up gameplay, because I could play all PC's but find it is harder to remember SR and such. (damned short term mermory loss)

I do however trump the player's intentions, if they do start to use them as a crutch.

"No, Drake the duck will not go on a suicide mission to get your great troll out of prison."

I think as a general rule, I would not allow it. It depends on the player though.

 

[Halfbat]

When needed I tend to run with a partial second character - an accomplice, if you will. They will do most of what the character wants, but have a mind of their own when it comes to awkward stuff. They may also have less experience checks.

 

[CthulhuFnord]

I'd say yes, depending on the circumstances. When I run Coc players typicaly make two to three PCs, so if one is healing up, mad or dead they can still go on the adventure. I don;t see a typical RQ working out that way unless is was a very lethal game or a one-shot.

 

[soltakss]

Yes, if they want.

In an old RQ campaign, we all had 2 PCs, some had 3 PCs, and they rotated depending on what the party makeup was. Yelmalians rarely adventured with trolls so we has roughly a Yelmalian-friendly and troll-friendly set of PCs. That worked well, although the few people with only one PC found that their PCs became more powerful more quickly.

In an old HeroQuest campaign, the players who had been with the campaign for a while had 2 PCs, which they sometimes rotated but sometimes played both in the same session. It worked fairly well and wasn't too difficult to manage.

In our current HQ and RQ campaigns, everyone has one PC, not because the GMs have decided that, just because that's what people have.

The only problems with having more than one PC are:
1. They help each other too often.
2. They take revenge on slights to the other PC.
3. It sometimes causes roleplaying problems where conflicts of interest occur.
4. It is sometimes difficult to play 2 characters at once.
5. Gameplay can sometimes be slowed down by playing two characters at once.

But, all those are easily overcomable.

 

[vitalis6969]

All my players run multiple characters. I don't like too many people sitting around my table :twisted:

As long as they can roleplay them as individuals, I have no problems with it at all.

-V

 

[sidkfjjteidlkkf]

As long as they can roleplay them as individuals, I have no problems with it at all.

-V

That was my point to start, very FEW can do that correctly. And I agree with Simon on his "Why Not List"...

I have always found again that too many people favor one over another, use them to the other characters advantage etc....

I do not neither will I ever allow it again.

I know I repeated myself in this one, from that first post that started this.

 

[vitalis6969]

I guess I'm spoiled with real good players...

Besides, I don't allow disharmony in the party to get too out of hand. I will squash them like bugs for being outrageously chaotic within the group. Its them vs. the world, and I'm the GOD controlling the world... :twisted:

Just like disruptive players are never invited back again.

-V

 

[weasel_fierce]

we often have characters with a henchman or follower, that they can send off to do something else.

 

[RMS]

we often have characters with a henchman or follower, that they can send off to do something else.

Same here. It's not unusual for me to have only 2 or 3 actual PCs, but each one may have 3, 4, or even 5 followers to deal with. In general, I roleplay them as NPCs but the players handle all of the mechanics and in certain situations they can take over the NPCs when their PC isn't around. Also, they can choose most of the actions for the NPCs. I only step in at certain points.

The is very well supported in old school RQ2, so a lot of us old timers have done this as a matter of course for years. In fact, I've run several mini-campaigns with a single player running a PC that was the head of a group made up of followers. It can be a lot of fun and moves along very quickly during everything except combat.

Also, with experienced PCs you get there naturally by the time you add in an allied spirit, a bound spirit or two, and the handful of loyal followers that naturally attach themselves to someone powerful.

 

[soltakss]

As long as they can roleplay them as individuals, I have no problems with it at all.

-V

That was my point to start, very FEW can do that correctly. And I agree with Simon on his "Why Not List"...

I have always found again that too many people favor one over another, use them to the other characters advantage etc....

I do not neither will I ever allow it again.

I know I repeated myself in this one, from that first post that started this.

But, I said that I didn't have a problem with them

They can be annoying, but a good GM can quickly iron out the problems.

I'd allow them unless they interfered with the game.

 

[Kagan Altar]

I guess for me, as GM, it will depend a lot on the players and the overall set-up of the campaign. Sometimes, for some players, I will allow it. For others (inexperienced, hugging the spotlight, for instance), I won't.

 

[weasel_fierce]

I find usually one character will become the primary and the others are henchmen or thugs. We did this in a solo Traveller game recently, where the player controls his own character, as well as 2 minor characters.

 

[pasuuli]

As I've noted before, if the players are mature enough to juggle two characters, ok. But, they have to be relatively untempted to mingle the characters' stuff, make them best friends, pool their cash, etc. I find that's the hurdle to overcome most often.

The other hurdle is in overlapping roles. If two characters are too much alike, (1) there's no point in playing both of them, and (2) they tend to blur. At that point, it's better to have a main character and an NPC henchman.

On the other hand, players playing two characters having two distinct roles is a good way to fill out a group.

 

[AKAramis]

I often have absent players due to work schedules, so, when one is absent, someone else runs his/her character.

Also, as an old Ars Magica and Pendragon GM, players having multiple characters is part of both rulesets.
In Ars Magica, both are truly PC's, one a Wizard, one a non-Wizard.
In Pendragon, the PC Knights have squires, which are both backup PC's and extensions of the Knight's will, as well as part time NPC's. Further, Vassal NPC's often get played as temporary PC's.

So, it boils down to this: I've run systems where it's encouraged, tried it, discovered it can and does work, and in some situations works well.

So I'm willing to allow short-term multi-character play when it meets the needs of the group.

 

[pasuuli]

I often have absent players due to work schedules, so, when one is absent, someone else runs his/her character.

This works pretty well with my current group, because we've finally matured in our decrepitude. I remember, back in the neolithic age of my careless youth, when allowing another person to play your character could lead to strained relationships.

 

[AKAramis]

I often have absent players due to work schedules, so, when one is absent, someone else runs his/her character.

This works pretty well with my current group, because we've finally matured in our decrepitude. I remember, back in the neolithic age of my careless youth, when allowing another person to play your character could lead to strained relationships.

Still can...