Playing with multiple PCs

[Trey Bright]

So I played a game a while ago in 3.5 ed where the DM had me and the other players all make multiple characters. We made three. I made a sorcerer/pyromancer, a rogue, and an artificer. It was a lot of fun!! Ever since then though, I haven't met another DM who'd be willing to do the same sort of thing. What are other people's opinions on this sort of thing? As a DM, would you be willing to run a game where all the players could play 2 or 3 PCs? As a player, does this sound fun to you? Would this work better in 5e then it might in 3rd? Or worse?

[Aett_Thorn]

I'm open to this as long as there are only a few players. For instance, if it were two players and one DM. Any more than that, and each player having 2+ PCs can make the action economy problematic for the DM.

[Zanthy1]

I love this idea both as a player and a DM. From the DM side however, it changes to disdain if I have 4+players with multiple PCs, just cause of how long it takes. but 2-3 players with 2 characters is fine by me.

[MaxWilson]

So I played a game a while ago in 3.5 ed where the DM had me and the other players all make multiple characters. We made three. I made a sorcerer/pyromancer, a rogue, and an artificer. It was a lot of fun!! Ever since then though, I haven't met another DM who'd be willing to do the same sort of thing. What are other people's opinions on this sort of thing? As a DM, would you be willing to run a game where all the players could play 2 or 3 PCs? As a player, does this sound fun to you? Would this work better in 5e then it might in 3rd? Or worse?

It's confusing to have multiple PCs from the same player onscreen at the same time--unless they use distinct mannerisms, it can be hard to know which PC is speaking. I'm very supportive of a given player have multiple PCs in his character tree, in a given campaign, but I make it a general rule that you can never have two PCs from your stable onscreen for the same adventure, nor do they get to interact with each other offscreen. (So, if you want to transfer an item between two PCs in your stable, you have to either hide the item onscreen in one adventure and retrieve it from its hiding place with a different PC in another adventure; or you have to work through PCs that belong to another player as go-betweens.)

This just prevents PCs from becoming too interchangeable by swapping magic items offscreen.

[JackPhoenix]

From my experience, playing two characters comes at the expense of roleplaying (I've never met anyone who could fully focus on two different characters at the same time), but you get better control in combat (as you directly control what multiple participants do and can take advantage of that). At least for games in person or over voice. Also having the characters interacting with each other may be a bit awkward, and you interrupt being in character more, as you switch who you're speaking for.

It's less of a problem in text-based games, as typiyng the responses gives you more time to think about every character's actions, and you can keep them separated better.

[Tanarii]

I prefer 1 active PC per player. But I have no problems with the concept of Henchmen, followers, or henchmen retainers. That gives them just one primary role to play, but access to additional power, in the form of giving orders to others.

The difference is the players speak for their PC directly, almost always in first person. They generally control the others by telling me what they are having them do in third person, but that represents making vocal (or handsignal if theyve worked them out in advance) orders to them in game. Sometimes I tell them what the NPC is doing instead.

[Draconi Redfir]

i once made a pair of twins i wanted to play together, only got to do that once, but the game didn't last too long.

i think it could work well of some restrictions or limits were put into play. Maybe the player with two or more characters had to be 100% certain on what they were going to do before their turn came up, and rolled preemptively on whatever they wanted to do just to save time. (i have a player in a real-life game that does this with summoned monsters. when it's not her turn, she rolls multiple dice and finds out the attacks and damages of the creatures she's summoned for the next five turns ahead or so) And/or maybe both characters need to share an action pool. Maybe they either both get a move but only one gets a standard action, they they both get a standard action but only one can move, not both. Perhaps they're merely limited to no full-round actions unless the other doesn't do anything other then free / swift actions.

think it could definitely be doable though.

[bc56]

Try this:
Have one "main PC" and some "sorta PCs." The sorta PCs are controlled by the DM in a social situation and are essentially NPCs then, but in combat or exploration they are controlled by players. I did this with some low level adventurer allies the PCs had for a while, in a setpiece encounter.

[zinycor]

I would never do it for DnD, since it gives the players too much control during combat scenarios. On games more focused on roleplaying I would not have a problem.

EDIT: Ortography

[Vogie]

Try this:
Have one "main PC" and some "sorta PCs." The sorta PCs are controlled by the DM in a social situation and are essentially NPCs then, but in combat or exploration they are controlled by players. I did this with some low level adventurer allies the PCs had for a while, in a setpiece encounter.

I like this idea. Especially if they're either lower-level, or lower complexity classes, the Sidekicks could have a set number of defined actions (lets say, 3) to make sure everyone doesn't go insane. For example, the Rogue PC has a Ranger sidekick whose actions are 1) Hunter's Mark 2) Shoot Arrows and 3) Healing Spirit afterwards.

[Tanarii]

I would neve do it for DnD, since it gives the players to much control during combat scenarios. On game smore focused on roleplaying I would not have a problem.

Standard disclaimer needed: combat is roleplaying too

[MaxWilson]

Try this:
Have one "main PC" and some "sorta PCs." The sorta PCs are controlled by the DM in a social situation and are essentially NPCs then, but in combat or exploration they are controlled by players. I did this with some low level adventurer allies the PCs had for a while, in a setpiece encounter.

That's basically how I run henchmen.

It turns out that a 3rd level sorcerer henchman is not only very useful to a 10th-13th level PC, she can also be surprisingly surviveable even with a Con of 4, as long as she's not reckless.

[zinycor]

Standard disclaimer needed: combat is roleplaying too

Why is that needed?

[Breashios]

From my experience, playing two characters comes at the expense of roleplaying (I've never met anyone who could fully focus on two different characters at the same time), but you get better control in combat (as you directly control what multiple participants do and can take advantage of that). At least for games in person or over voice. Also having the characters interacting with each other may be a bit awkward, and you interrupt being in character more, as you switch who you're speaking for.

It's less of a problem in text-based games, as typiyng the responses gives you more time to think about every character's actions, and you can keep them separated better.

This is generally correct, but in my experience it is also true that no two characters have the same amount of in game participation when everyone is only playing one anyway. I've played in multiple games where more than one character per player is present at the same time. Usually one is a follower or a "role" character (in terms of party leadership and social skills they defer to others) and the other is the player's main character in social interactions. The game master may have an NPC address the "role" character directly, eliciting some interaction when appropriate, but as long as everyone at the table is having fun, it is fine for players to run more than one character.

There was even a case where I had three characters (my main character, a cleric -bc the DM felt we did need a healer for his campaign, and then a rogue until he died -bc we needed to pick locks and needed a dwarf for story purposes) and another player had one. That player preferred to remain silent and observe. She was always ready to take their action immediately upon their initiative (no delay) but never offering input in any decision making unless specifically asked. When asked she was on fire with her role-playing (very witty), just didn't want to say much - preferred to watch what happened is what she said - might have enjoyed just sitting there without a character for all I know.

[Angelalex242]

I've played multiple PCs before. To make it easier on myself, I usually give them quite a bit in common. Like a Paladin and a Cleric of the same God.

[Uzgul]

So I played a game a while ago in 3.5 ed where the DM had me and the other players all make multiple characters. We made three. I made a sorcerer/pyromancer, a rogue, and an artificer. It was a lot of fun!! Ever since then though, I haven't met another DM who'd be willing to do the same sort of thing. What are other people's opinions on this sort of thing? As a DM, would you be willing to run a game where all the players could play 2 or 3 PCs? As a player, does this sound fun to you? Would this work better in 5e then it might in 3rd? Or worse?

I played in a 6 years long campaign in 3.5 where everyone had multiple characters. We played a big mercenary guild and tried to only take one PC per player on each mission. It was pretty nice to have some variety in such a long campaign as we didn't have to retire a beloved character to try something different. It also allowed us to fill to the "full" team size, if a player couldn't make it. Or do something with the B Team, if the main ark were dependent on the missing player.
We used milestone leveling. So all characters were at the same level.

The primary problem was the amount of mechanical complexity at high level. This campaign ended at lv 30 and 3.5 at this level is a complete mess. Our DM didn't want to bother much with loot and allowed us to just buy everything using recommended wealth by level. So leveling up got even more complicated as it involved buying and improving a lot of magic items.

So I think it would work much better im 5e as it is so much simpler.

Having a multiple characters can be pretty interesting in a long running campaign, especially if you want to run an organisation and not just a few heroes traveling and doing quests.

It allows players to try more things and gives a LOT more freedom to the PCs. Usually the PCs have to stick together most of the time. If a PC wants to do something, that the rest of the party doesn't he either can't do it or has to be retired to go on his personal quest. With multiple characters in place. The PC can just go for his personal stuff, while the player plays his other PCs and then return. Such personal quests were usually handeld by meeting the DM and talking through the stuff with minimal dice rolling.


Would I run a campaign with multiple PC per player?
Absolutely, but I would ask the players to not have multiple characters of them on the same Quest, unless the story demands it.


EDIT:
Hit "Submit Reply" to early by accident.

[Pex]

In my cleric game that recently ended I ended up with multiple characters. A goblin from Phandelver we befriended survived the module while helping us in the adventure. DM choice had him ask to join our party which we accepted. He became an NPC party member remade as a fighter. He eventually got promoted to PC status under my control with everyone's blessing. We were a small group, so it worked out fine. When the DM couldn't make a session another player would DM with new characters in which I also played two characters, a sorcerer and a monk. For the last session with the regular DM I was the only player who was there. We were in the middle of a small module. Just to end it I played all four of my characters. I wouldn't do it regularly, but it was fun. Now we're looking for new players for a new campaign. I will be wanting to play only one character.

Multiple PCs are fine but it should be for a small group, no more than three players and a DM, if you're going to do it.

[KorvinStarmast]

(I've never met anyone who could fully focus on two different characters at the same time),

I have, and we did it for years. It's not that hard, or maybe, it wasn't that hard for us. Heh, I remember one of our players who was very much into community theater. He once had an argument, in game, between his two characters. (A ranger and a magic user) It was hilarious good fun.

An enormous advantage to playing two PC's at a time is that if one falls/dies during combat you are still playing, and are still in the fight.

[greenstone]

So I played a game a while ago in 3.5 ed where the DM had me and the other players all make multiple characters.

Sheesh, young people today.

This is how D&D used to be played. In 1st edition AD&D it was expected to have multiple PCs. Some of the modules published were designed for 9-12 PCs.

[EdenIndustries]

I played with a brand-new DM who was nervous so he DM'd Lost Mine of Phandelver just for me and I ran 4 characters. It was actually very fun! I'm not saying I'd only want to play like that, but it was still great.

[Vogie]

The 5e podcast Godsfall has one player who guides a trio of characters, the Jackdaws. To be fair, it's part of their schtick - the PCs have a linked mind, and even speak in sentences broken up between the three characters.

[Ivor_The_Mad]

So I played a game a while ago in 3.5 ed where the DM had me and the other players all make multiple characters. We made three. I made a sorcerer/pyromancer, a rogue, and an artificer. It was a lot of fun!! Ever since then though, I haven't met another DM who'd be willing to do the same sort of thing. What are other people's opinions on this sort of thing? As a DM, would you be willing to run a game where all the players could play 2 or 3 PCs? As a player, does this sound fun to you? Would this work better in 5e then it might in 3rd? Or worse?

Me and The_Brazenburn do it all the time when its just the two of us. I've played with 4 or 5 at once just to fill in for the lack of other PCs. It works fine in 5e.