Two PCs per Player

[Minty23185Fresh]

It bewilders me but, we're having difficulty filling our table. Time slot is an issue, I'm sure.

So we've decided to go very small group with players using two PCs each; it just gives the DM more options in encounters.

Aside from the obvious metagaming of two PCs knowing exactly what the other is going to do before they do it (they're both in your head).

Anyone else with past experience in playing two PCs?

[damned]

There is no issue with it.
You might alternatively just play with the small group size, scale the challenge and you will cover more ground and each player will get more time in the spotlight.

[Minty23185Fresh]

There is no issue with it.


Thanks. I'm not concerned with the technical issues and Fantasy Grounds; I know FG can handle it. Wondering more about the philosophical issues.

Spotlighting is a plus. Less falling drifting off as others take their turns..

[Zacchaeus]

I'm not sure what the question is. Technically it isn't an issue so what exactly does that leave?

[Minty23185Fresh]

I'm not sure what the question is. Technically it isn't an issue so what exactly does that leave?

Well maybe I’m in the wrong forum section?
I picked this section to pose the question, because this section is about non Fantasy Grounds related gaming questions....

So the question is, what are the drawbacks, or positives, of allowing someone to play two PCs as opposed to one PC. It’s my belief that the norm is one player, one PC. Maybe more people are playing multiple PCs and I’m just out-to-lunch on this one?

As I said above, meta gaming is an issue. If I’m playing two PCs, Fred and Joe, and Fred has initiative before Joe... Because I know what what Joe’s plan is, before he does it, I can modify Fred’s actions to accentuate Joe’s when it becomes his turn.

Typically one player can help another after the first player played. Or the first player can try to set up the scenario to help the second player. But by playing two PCs I can guarantee my setup by my first PC benefits the second PC.

[Zacchaeus]

Ah, ok, I see. This somewhat escapes me since my players play tactically; so before a battle there's discussion of what they will do - you go there, I'll go here you do this, I'll do that etc. I don't consider this metagaming. Metagaming to me is in the area of player knowledge vs character knowledge. So trying to erase from your mind the knowledge that a Troll has regeneration capability and what prevents this and so using that player knowledge rather than thinking my character hasn't seen a Troll so they're not going to have that information.

So, yes, if you are keen that your players don't play tactically then having the same player play more than one character is going to be an issue for you. I can't, off the top of my head, think of any logical solution to this.

[Bonkon]

Good Day All :)
I have had players play two PC's before, but it takes a very disciplined player to do it :)
It is easy to get the info each one has, as well as the personality if you do RP, confused between game sessions :)

Lots of good notes by the player will help here in my opinion.


But as Damned mentioned, you can just scale down encounters as needed for a smaller group and tailor plot line to fit the group size.

[Minty23185Fresh]

... my players play tactically; so before a battle there's discussion of what they will do...
if you are keen that your players don't play tactically ...

Nahhh.. Not quite where I was going.. I would hope all players go into battle with a tactical plan...

Here is an example. The PCs are in a tavern, known to be frequented by a group of thugs that they're investigating. They are conversing with the leader of the group and things are falling apart quickly. They are seriously outnumbered. I think to myself Joe needs to Charm this guy. As soon as they see me trying to do this though, we're in trouble. I need a diversion. So, I'll use Fred. Fred will fain a fit, drop to the floor and start screaming and writhing around. That way I can use Joe to cast the spell while everyone is focused on Fred.

Not the best of examples, but... Now this scenario might occur, but might not, if I don't have control of two PCs. With one PC per player, Fred's player has to believe my PC Joe wants to cast a Charm spell. He/she must come up with some way to allow that. In the meantime every player is thinking independently, how are we getting out of this? Someone might think of diversion. But they might not. Etc. Etc.

This is different than just attacking and having a tactical plan. This is using knowledge that you have because you have control of two PCs to directly effect a plan that affects the actions of another PC had you not had that knowledge.

Given my lack of ability to express my concern, my concern is probably moot and "I'm just screaming at the rain", so to speak.

[Minty23185Fresh]

... it takes a very disciplined player to do it :)
It is easy to get the info each one has, as well as the personality if you do RP, confused between game sessions :)

"mixing up personalities". I can see that. I go to a game to play my PC. I must effect that personality in my roleplaying. If my two PCs have very different personalities, I might confuse them, on more than one occasion, I'm sure. Also, over time my two PC's personalities might merge into one. Not on purpose, just due to laziness, that lack of discipline.

[Minty23185Fresh]

Scaling down encounters... Yuck!

When I ran Princes of the Apocalypse I had three players, then toward the end one dropped out.

I was constantly scaling the number of NPCs down to prevent TPK after TPK after TPK.

It is my opinion that having too few players at the table, too few PCs in the game, severely limits the range things a GM can do. (E.g. "Nope. I can't use that NPC. That's certain death to the party.") It limits the scope of player/PC experiences. And DM for that matter.

[LordEntrails]

I play or allow 2 characters per player quite frequently. Yea two PCs does mean you will get some meta-gaming coordination. It's all about fun isn't it? So if I've only got two players, they will usually each play 2 PCs. The fun outweighs the metagaming concerns, imo.

[DRGsabin]

First, you are going to run into the issue that if one player can't make a game, two PC's can't make the game.

There are ways you can add more bodies on the field without adding additional PCs, or perhaps you, the DM, can play a PC and just exclude yourself from the decision-making. Depending on the campaign, you might have NPCs accompany the party often, I've found this to be extremely easy to pull off in the Pathfinder Kingmaker campaign I'm DMing when a player can't make the game.

I'm not too familiar with the 5E ruleset if that's what you're playing, but in Pathfinder, the summoner class is often banned for the very reason that many consider the pet to be the equivalent of a second full PC. The leadership feat is often banned for a similar reason, it basically gives you the equivalent of a second PC. You can find ways like this to add "more PCs" to the group without adding more PCs, by allowing "overpowered" things you might not allow with a full table. In my opinion it might be better to just limit to 1 PC per player, and find a way as DM to give them kudos to make a party of 3 as strong as a party of 5, I.E. throw in extra gold in rewards, the examples above, etc.

[Ellspeth]

Hi, I am going to respond the specific question about experience playing more than one PC, with some tips
First I will note that before I started playing RPG's I had all ready earned my degree in theater and acting through a studio theater program. To earn the degree we had to appear in at least one stage show each term (minimum 4). The first show I was in actually had entirely different characters in each of the 36 scenes, the common character was the dining room, where each scene took place. Everyone of us played between 4-7 characters our first show. So I'll share some tips.
First, have each player make their character as different as possible, i.e a male and a female, or a dwarf and an elf, or a tank and a druid, so on. This makes it easier for them to keep their characters separate and distinct, and makes it easier for them to create a different "voice" for each. Alternatively, for someone not comfortable with that, have them play identical twins, who are frequently in tune with each other at what we would call a "meta-gaming" level.
The latter would also be true of two PC's that were partners before they joined the current team.
Now sometimes when I play more than one character in a game it is because a player had to miss that night, and some GM's will have another willing player run their character as well. When I do this I make my best effort to play that PC as their owner would run them. So far none of them have died when I ran them, though I take the same risks their regular player would.
As far as planning their moves in coordination, that only works seriously if they get back to back rolls on initiative. Any other PC's or NPC's going between their moves can blow that plan out of the water anyway.
Most party's after working together for sometimes even a short period learn to anticipate what their team will do, especially if they planned ahead anyway.
Another, we play a Star trek game with only 4 players by choice. However we each have built and run extras, red shirts, who while named are not invested with the same level of role-playing those characters. This is often because we inevitably have to split the party, and that way all 4 of us are present no matter how the party splits.

[HarryK]

What I did in my RL group is, not so much 2 PCs per player, but 1 "main" PC and a follower. The follower was mostly under the direction of the player unless they were directed to do something that went against traits that had been assigned to the character, in which some kind of roll was made (leadership, morale, or whatever). The "cowardly" thief launching a frontal attack against a group of enemies, for example.

This was mostly a combat thing, but if a follower had an ability or skill that would come in handy during a social encounter, a player might ask if the follower could assist.

For our group, that was preferable to playing multiple full blown PCs per player, both from my perspective as a DM as well as the players not really wanting to run multiple "full" characters.

You can definitely run into meta gaming as mentioned, as well as confusion in terms of personalities or who did what, when. Some groups may not care though. If it's fun for everyone at the table, go for it!

[Minty23185Fresh]

Thanks everyone for contributing to the discussion. There are great suggestions in each post. You’ve successfully assuaged my concerns about two PCs per player. We’ll take all of these comments and eventually get them molded into what works for us.