Forums of the Megaverse®

Depends on the player and the group. Smaller groups are more likely to actually need extra characters per player because I have minimal npc contributions. Highly skilled players might even be able to play several characters in a larger group and I have been known to have them play non-"storyline" NPCs from time to time while the group is in town.

It should not only based on the player, but the group, game-style, and GM as well. In my original Rifts group, a couple of my players had as many as four characters, sometimes playing as many as three of them in a single sitting. That was good as it gave us a great degree of diversity for accomplishing missions (merc company) and allowed the players to test out a variety of classes and outlooks. However, it did tend to mire combat and garnered less focus on individual characters.

So, for my HU2 campaign, I limited them to ONE character to get them to invest more time and creativity into the back story, attitude, etc. Both campaigns have run marvelously (though we are currently on hiatus while I shift them to PBP format), but have very different styles.

sawg138 wrote:

Warwolf wrote:It should not only based on the player, but the group, game-style, and GM as well. In my original Rifts group, a couple of my players had as many as four characters, sometimes playing as many as three of them in a single sitting. That was good as it gave us a great degree of diversity for accomplishing missions (merc company) and allowed the players to test out a variety of classes and outlooks. However, it did tend to mire combat and garnered less focus on individual characters.

So, for my HU2 campaign, I limited them to ONE character to get them to invest more time and creativity into the back story, attitude, etc. Both campaigns have run marvelously (though we are currently on hiatus while I shift them to PBP format), but have very different styles.

This guy might know something about GMing.

Nope, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

I said yes, as in, if it happens I won't raise hell about it.

In my current Phase World game, characters from two different plotlines have come together for a shared cause. Thus, at least two of my players now have two active characters: Tim, who's playing a Spacer Captain and a Cosmo-Knight, and Roland, who has an Operator and a Promethean Time Master.

The trick is not have this happen very often, and for the Players to know when one of their characters has to stay on the ship, run repairs on the computer, or otherwise take a back seat.

in our pf campaign we are amassing a bit of a following of npcs. im thinking of doing a few 'b-team' games where we play as our underlings. we have also had a few times where the players get to steer npcs that join our group unexpectedly...(like when we recruited the pseudo-demons in the place of magic, everyone got to play one along side their characters). im not sure if i would let them roll up another full time character to steer though, unless one of the two was mostly 'on the ship doing repairs' or otherwise out of the picture most of the time.

im also considering doing solo quests where one player (say the psi healer) gets a job on his own and the rest of the group plays the npcs in that job (he gets hired to have a look at some kid whos possessed, the rest of the players play the possessed kid, his parents, the evil mage etc) in a one night one off.

I think your pole should include

"It should be up to the GM!" Since the Gm creates the parameters for what he'll allow into his game.

Simple rules;
1) How many players in the group? If over 5, then odds are "NO", unless there is a major gap in skill sets (all heavy weapons teams suck if they are confronted with cerebral puzzles).
2) Can the player even handle ONE character? If no..then definately "NEIN!!!!!"
3) Will you as the GM, be able to keep the two PC's from the same person seperate in your mind?

I voted No as I have not yet GMed multiple characters per player. I won't rule it out as a possibility, but I have yet to come across a game session or group that I thought it would be good for. We have enough players in our game now; 5 regulars, one more coming back after family comitments, and possible two newbs. I'm gonna run outta chairs!

Depends on the player.

I have some players who are quite capable of running two characters but don't.

Some players have two characters.

There are some players I KNOW would be unable to handle two or more characters.

bob the desolate one wrote:

asajosh wrote:I voted No as I have not yet GMed multiple characters per player. I won't rule it out as a possibility, but I have yet to come across a game session or group that I thought it would be good for. We have enough players in our game now; 5 regulars, one more coming back after family comitments, and possible two newbs. I'm gonna run outta chairs!

ahh you voted no to enforce your choice to not let me run two

Thats not true at all, we have enough players busy trying to plot against aand kill each other, we don't need one player trying to "kill himself" when it becomes convenient.

Don't tell me he wants to play an Alpha & Beta AI now instead of the Veritech AI.

I voted it's dependant on the player.

It's also dependant on the GM. What I mean by this for one example: will you be able to track the experience points each character deserves? Something only you can answer for yourself.

Snuffy wrote:Don't tell me he wants to play an Alpha & Beta AI now instead of the Veritech AI.

I voted it's dependant on the player.

It's also dependant on the GM. What I mean by this for one example: will you be able to track the experience points each character deserves? Something only you can answer for yourself.

No its me who wanted the Veritech TI (transferred intel) for a possible back up in Bob's campaign. Bob wants to use two characters simultaneously in my campaign (group meets 2x a month and we trade off).

I'd say that you still have to be careful with it. I found that players will tend to favor one of characters being played over the other, so that any good ideas the player comes up with like planning or puzzle-solving will attributed to the favored character. The back-up character may occasionally be used as 'shielding' for the favored character.

I've allowed people to play multiple characters quite often. The biggest pitfall of it I've found is making sure the real life person doesn't go too softball on his two characters (they're close buddies) or that he doesn't make them mortal enemies.

My personal favorite time it's happened is when I allowed two rather gifted players run their regular characters but also run the two sentient AI's of a modified Robotech Cyclone -- they were competing with each other and with a third player's character's wife for the player's affections and attention. It was unbelievably hilarious.

Pretty conclusive polling - it depends on the players (well conclusive with a very small sample size). I think we mostly knew that, but it is nice to see the thoughts of others on the matter.

One player = One character / no more no less

I find that players can barely remember to roleplay with one character, let alone more than one.

And never, never permit the GMPC to exist! That's the path to madness.

i've ran games with my old group that each one ran 2 or more skins, it really depends on the game, the GM, and the players. if the players are good enough, then cool. the GM has to know what he's doing.. runing that many PCs isn't easy depending on the game.

Eryk Stormbright wrote:i've ran games with my old group that each one ran 2 or more skins, it really depends on the game, the GM, and the players. if the players are good enough, then cool. the GM has to know what he's doing.. runing that many PCs isn't easy depending on the game.

It can also depend on campaign type. In a Vietnam war supers campaign (don't ask!) my friend and I co-GM'ed we had each player create two characters to give the sense of a squad. In each session the player would opt to concentrate primarily on one character as their lead for the session, but still running the second. Even with fatalities or serious injury (which happened quite a lot) each player always had at least one character in the game.