I'm planning to GM a game with two people. Because of reasons, only these two can attend. So I thought that maybe two characters per player might be a fun experiment.
Has anyone tried this? How was it for you?
My gaming group occasionally does this. Usually when someone doesn't show up.
Its pretty fun, and allows players to try different character concepts. I like it.
yeah it can work. I have done it before.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just make sure the characters are different enough that there is no overlap. I person I know is very good at this. He would wear a hat and take it on and put it back on depending on which character he was playing. The best example of role playing I have ever seen is when he got into a heated argument with himself.
Some people are better at multiboxing than others...
I'm with the above posters. Its not just possible. It can be awesome. Mysterious stranger is right though. Only if you are good at keeping each player's actions and in character knowledge separate. I prefer it to gestalting. Action economy is a big deal.
I'm planning to GM a game with two people. Because of reasons, only these two can attend. So I thought that maybe two characters per player might be a fun experiment.
Has anyone tried this? How was it for you?
Did this too sometimes. IMO if your players are firm with the rules it will work.
The main problem in my experience is keeping up character play, while having to switch beetween two characters.
A combat heavy action oriented adventure would therefore work better, than going for roleplay/interaction oriented scenarios.
Other Options would be using Gestalt characters or having characters with free Leadership, giving them a second PC, they can control in combat, but have to interact with them like with other NPCs via talking out of combat.
|
I haven't tried that exactly, but I did run two-player game where one player had an Improved Familiar and another had a cohort, which I expect would be similar. It worked fine.
Alternatively, I played in a game where some players had two characters and switched between them depending on what was going on that session - except for a handful of key sessions where people played both characters if applicable. It also worked fine.
Players with a decent amount of experience can handle two characters in combat fine. The RP side can get trickier, however. Based on the above two experiences, I would expect that even if all four characters are always present, the player will primarily RP only one of their characters for most or all scenes. This may be the same character if one is more obviously the "face" or it might switch off based on which character is more interested in the scene (Bob's fighter talks to the town guard, then Bob's wizard talks to the priest of Nethys). I've found that even players who can get into a heated discussion with themselves often don't want to do so at table because it turns the rest of the group into spectators.
|
My group (7 players) does this all the time because it's rare when we all are present. Some players tend to synergies the actions of the PCs they control a little more than I like, but it doesn't rise to the level of being a problem. Players playing multiple characters is far superior, in my opinion, to constantly dropping absentees in and out of the game.
Just tell your players upfront to keep the metagaming to a minimum and you'll probably be fine.
-Skeld
Some people are better at multiboxing than others...
I'm with the above posters. Its not just possible. It can be awesome. Mysterious stranger is right though. Only if you are good at keeping each player's actions and in character knowledge separate. I prefer it to gestalting. Action economy is a big deal.
We actually tried gestalting with Carrion Crown. It did work but had a lot of issues. That's why we're trying another solution this time.
In one of the games that I am currently running the roster was down to 2 people and we ended up treating cohorts kind of like Final Fantasy 6.
They could still only have one cohort each during story arcs, but they were able to swap them out for different missions.
I would roleplay the NPC's and when combat rolled around they would utilize the NPC's sheet like a second character.
Worked very well in giving the party a rounded group since it let them play the classes that they wanted without worry of group synergy, and it let them interchange the party depending on what they felt like they were going up against.
I imagine that it could be a potential option if your group struggles with keeping two characters going during RP.
|
It can work - but as others have said - it can only work if everyone has the rules down cold. If a player already has some rules issues - they get exponentially worse when they pick up a second character.
You might be better off giving them each the leadership feat for free. Sort of the same for combat - but they only have one character to role-play.
That's how we did it when I was young and I only knew a couple of people who played. It works, but you're missing out on a lot of the enjoyment of playing a character.
I would give them each a PC and free leadership myself