Okra.King wrote:
In a similar situation, I let the two players each have two characters and I played one myself. It worked out well. The combat went very fast and players got confused about their guys a little, but they enjoyed running two PC's.
The only hang up I had was finding a balence between over and under playing my character. I didn't want him to be the standout because he knew all that I knew, nor did I want him to not act when someone in his position would. I did use him to provide some direction and guidance with his suggestions, and believe it or not, his(my) suggestions were not always followed.
For example, the party was almost taken out (but killed the moster) and scrambled out to get back to camp before anything else hit them. In their haste, they forgot to search the beast's lair losing out on a $62,000 item. My guy suggested that they go back and look, but they wanted to go on with the adventure. It was hard not to do more than that, since I had a stake in some of that money.
But like I said, other than situations like that, our group of 3 has fun runing 5 characters.
I can see how this strategy would work in combat situations, but does it breakdown in roleplay encounters? How well does it go in a "split personality" type situation when both of a player's characters converse with each other? I guess I've had to do something similar with NPCs as a GM, so it might not be too bad.
Another concern is simply complexity. My players are completely new to the idea of RPGs and I can see things being slow going even in normal circumstances. Would running multiple characters be much more daunting?
Also, what's the consensus on GM run PCs? Does it work without coming off as having too heavy-handed of a GM influence in the world? Does it create unsure headache and bookkeeping for the GM?
Appreciate your opunions. Thanks.