Hi,
The gaming group I belong to consists of 7 players and a DM. It happens occasionally where two or more people can't make it to the session and the adventure is delayed until next week. I've been mulling a solution to the problem and wanted to hash it out a bit before I present to the group. (You guys are usually pretty helpful)
So my idea is to have 5 core characters that are used by the people who show up, and two npc's that can be developed prior to the session, or could be one of our previous campaign's characters (we have plenty of them). That way whomever shows up to session first could select the character they wish to play and so forth, solong as we have 5 people we should be good to go. If we have more, the npc could be worked into the story.
I believe it would be fun to play previous campaign's characters occasionally. Also, I would rather play than not and this offers a solution to the problem of coordinating 7 people for a gaming session.
So, has anyone tried something like this with a larger group? Do you have any suggestions on how to make it work?
I am not sure how well rotating characters would work long term. Who would control their development? Who would determine their personalities? Would people like roleplaying a character they dont have control over? Are your players ok with arrival time dictating whether or not they get to play a character they like?
I mean I certainly wouldnt want to play in such a situation. For me I develop a cahracter's personality as I play, and not having control over the same character session to session would make the campaign more or less meaningless to me. I cant imagine sustaining relationships and character development through something like that. I mean I'd like to play some of MY characters from previous campaigns sometimes but definately not someone else's.
Not to mention whoever hosts is going to have to deal with the issue of people showing up increasingly early in the hopes of getting the character they want. All in all, it seems like a poor idea to me.
I think I'd take a look at my group and see if maybe its time to reduce its size. Generally the more people the harder it is to schedule, where as smaller groups are inherently easier to schedule. I'd rather a small group (even 3 players) with consistent characters then a 'round robin' where I dont know who or what I'm playing until I arrive.
My group sometimes has issues with scheduling. So we make sure we have redundant characters. That way as long as we have 3-5 players, we can play. What I mean by redundant characters is that we have overlap in the 4 traditional 'roles' (fighter, wizard, cleric, rogue). In general I almost always make characters that ocver multiple such roles for just that reason.
So if you say have a druid, witch, bard, ranger, and paladin in the party, then almost any combination of 3 of those characters is a functional party, and you just need to scale encounters for numbers.
I would only use a character someone else made for a one-off or a special exception. For an ongoing campaign I would only use my own character and wouldn't want another player to have control of my character if I were gone that week. I imagine most players feel similarly.
If the other players in your group are ok with your idea, then there is no need for the opinions of people on a message board. If they are not, then I suggest the group starts scheduling better ahead of time so the GM can prepare. Or... The missing characters just magically vanish for the duration of the session and everyone else carries on as though they were never there in the first place.