Less Players More PCs

[Captain_K]

Along the lines of the "what group size?" thread, what do you think about all or several of the players playing two PCs.. 3-5 players with 6 to 10 PCs? My ideal is 3 players and 6 PCs.

[Go0gleplex]

If you have good players then multiple PCs are doable without losing too much from the game. However my experience is that few players can actually play multiple players effectively and the game suffers.

[lobocastle]

I would have the players just play one character and I would have the characters be more powerful and add NPCs as needed.

[Rigon]

My original group shrank to 3 players and one GM many, many years ago. We started allowing people to run multiple PCs if they wanted to. Plus, the GM would make a PC also. This gave us party sizes in the 5-8 range and seemed to work out fairly well for us. When our group had 5-7 players, we limited it to one PC per player.

We are about to retire characters that we started in 2e and converted to 3e and are looking at switching systems after this last adventure wraps up. If we go with C&C, I'll be running the game and will allow 2 PCs if the players want to run multiple PCs and I'll have one of my own. If we go with 5e, the current DM will be running the game and I'm not sure how he will want to proceed with PCs. It is on our list to discuss this summer when we go on vacation.

R-

[alcyone]

I prefer 1 player per PC, even if it leaves the group at 2 or 3 players, which is typical for my groups. It's only a problem for published modules, though now I've discovered Scarlet Heroes, which has techniques for scaling up a character's capabilities so it can solo a published module.

The player characters can usually hire some help. If they do, I run them as the CK and try to keep their personalities subdued so the players are the stars.

If you play 2 PCs it's hard to impart any personality to them, and one or the other invariably gets neglected. As a player I find it a lot to keep track of, especially with spell casters.

I generally allow multiple PCs, and play multiple PCs in some games. I just prefer 1.

[serleran]

Used to do it.

I have grown.

[Captain_K]

When each of my PCs (just like as CK each of my monsters) gets their own turn on the initiative roll, switching between "personalities" seems pretty easy. I like the concern for multiple spell casters, ideally, one fighting class and one spell caster for the multiple PCs for each player. Alternately multi-class to fill in the empty classes. I kind of recall one fighter, one thief and one mage/cleric.. it helped with only three players.. alternately multi-class, one fighter/cleric, one fighter/thief, and one fighter/mage... I kind of recall someone more or less forcing such a thing on a group, was it Buttmonkey?

So, great food for thought, right now I have the opposite problem, too many players..., but things always turn...

[Buttmonkey]

When each of my PCs (just like as CK each of my monsters) gets their own turn on the initiative roll, switching between "personalities" seems pretty easy. I like the concern for multiple spell casters, ideally, one fighting class and one spell caster for the multiple PCs for each player. Alternately multi-class to fill in the empty classes. I kind of recall one fighter, one thief and one mage/cleric.. it helped with only three players.. alternately multi-class, one fighter/cleric, one fighter/thief, and one fighter/mage... I kind of recall someone more or less forcing such a thing on a group, was it Buttmonkey?

So, great food for thought, right now I have the opposite problem, too many players..., but things always turn...

Not me. I don't think I've ever used multiclassing rules with C&C. I may have allowed multiclassing in my Castle Zagyg campaign, but I definitely didn't require it.

[Treebore]

It definitely takes practice to role play two or more characters, that is for sure, but its been a long time since I have been in a role play intensive game.

Still, I just make a list of key personality points and beliefs of the respective character, and mentally switch between them as needed. Any CK should be able to do it, after all, we can play dozens of characters in a given session.

Another good tool is the personality tables in the 1E DMG, or any number of similar tables that have been made over the decades.

[dawnrazor]

In our current Blood & Treasure game set in Frog God Games Lost Lands we started out with 1 PC each (I have 5 players in total), but since it's very rare that all the players are present at every session I allowed them to make a secondary (or backup PC) as well. When we're few players at the table, they use 2 PCs each and when we're full, they use 1 PC each (the other PCs are taking a nap or whatever lame explanation we use). Also, for the first time in our long play history (we started back when B/X was new) they have realized that hirelings are a good way to flesh out a small PC party.

I'd say that my group are quite good at running two PCs simultaneously, but of course immersion in the game suffers a wee bit.

[Captain_K]

dawnrazor you have hit the nail on the head. To play with one PC per player with 5 (give or take) players is optimal. However, games swell and shrink, you got to handle the big group of 9 when it happens, but you got to handle the two when it happens. Lets face it, a less than perfect game of 3 people is still better than a "sorry not enough people, no game". I'm working (slowly) to get our group to each have two PC so we can do just that.

[Captain_K]

The lame excuse... might I suggest a magical mirror or other transportation device and a "home base" keep, castle or cave. Once you have these two things then you can send PCs to or from the adventuring group to the home front based on certain "lame" reasons to need folks at home vs in the field.