Is this a common thing to do or are 90% of games played with the player having a single character and the GM controlling the rest?

Is this more a "Chainmail" or miniatures type of thing instead of a Role Playing game?

At what point / how many is it no longer a RPG and is just a miniatures game?

Would it be considered a Braunstein?

What is "wrong" with investing less in a single character and more in the "Team"?

Seems to depend alot on the player and the adventure.

Used to be you just hired some NPCs and those made up the difference. But the AD&D rules even mention considering having one or more players handle more than one character as needed. The other option being NPC PCs that are part of the party but not handled by a player.

Seems to REALLY depend on if Henchmen, Hirelings, Mercenaries and Retainers are an option or not. I think I have an old thread here asking if folk use them or not. If I did not then I should! :rolleyes:

Personally as a player I tend to seek out some NPCs to hire for various tasks as needed. And I love to just pick up NPC characters as their own thing.

Correct me if I've misread, but in this situation is it a 1-on-1 affair with a single Player and the GM? In my experience, because these types of games tend to be so focused on the lone player, they'll involve a small party of 'GMPCs' (gulp) rather than having the Player take on multiple characters at once.

This might be off-tangent, but Band of Blades is an interesting case of 'multiple controlled characters' wherein GM create a roster of characters in addition to the starting PCs. Since the mortality rate is quite high, they can immediately be handed a sheet off said roster and continue playing (the game assumes you're usually bringing some Redshirts along). The players can also 'trade out' their character for a session if their current one might not be appropriate or is otherwise wounded in some way. Somewhat akin to Xcom or the original Rainbow Six games. It's an interesting concept, especially in a system that leans very strongly towards the dreaded Narrative-led (rather than crunchy). Ironically, it can mean the characters just feel less personal, either owing to how likely they are to drop, or because you'll be splitting your focus so much.

You read right.
This was sparked by the thought of playing something like "Five Leagues From the Borderlands" where you run a group.
Yeah maybe you don't get the depth of each character but as you say, it is likely you will churn through them like back when OD&D and Chainmail were a thing.

How much investment do you need to play at all?  
As you play, you will develop a history and get a feel for each hero.

If its a single player game with just a DM or oracle then that changes some things quite a bit and some things not. Its a similar thing as with the hired help.

Again it depends on the player and/or the DM. Some players prefer the DM handle the rest of the party, some like to run the party themselves. And some DMs prefer the player handle the party.

The main factor is how well a player can multi-task characters. Similar to how well some DMs can do that. I've met a few who really just cant, or can only focus on one at a time.

I was in one large D&D adventure where several of us were running two or more characters at once, while others in the session were not. From lots of experience with this as player and DM it really boils down to the individual and how well, or not, they can handle more than one character.

And even those that can, theres some variance in styles. Some cover all their PCs equally. Others focus on one and treat the rest like retainers. Some bounce around focusing on different ones depending on the situation.

As for how much investment? Thats really up to you. How much do you want to? How much will you expect to even need to? Some adventures might push character X into the limelight alot more than Y.
As for developing a history and feel for the characters. Again thats up to you. We can not tell you doing X will be fun. It might be the diametric opposite for you. And again the adventure may skew things unexpectedly. I usually create characters with a general idea of who they are and what they have done prior to starting adventuring. The rest develops from play and interaction.

You can do a simple test really. Get out a module you have played before and grab a GM emulator like FU or Mythic. Create say 4 PCs and run them through some of it and see how things go and how you feel after a while managing more than one PC and how they developed or did not.

But from experience and observation I can say that you will have to discover what your style is or if multi-tasking PCs is something you will like. Or even what style you develop or end up preferring. It could turn out that you end up liking focusing on one PC and the rest are mostly in the background and effectively retainers. 5e Essentials/UA rules for Companions could be used to handle the rest of a party like that even.

I greatly enjoy running tables where players have 2 characters.

Maybe I've been blessed with amazing roleplayers, but I've not seen a drop in immersion. If anything, the players take pains to draw stark contrasts between their two PCs. FYI, I've only done this with low to medium crunch games.

I've tried having 3 PCs to a player, but that's too much paperwork for most players, also I suspect mindspace too. It's one thing to run Elf Mage & Dwarf Cleric, but that third PC seems to gum up the works.

Overall, if I've got 3-4 players, I'd far rather 2 PCs per player. I know Olde Skool is supposed to be all about retainers and armies of mooks, but most players I know would rather go LotR's Fellowship than Platoon.

My current group only uses one PC per player, but two players have henchmen (lower-level subordinate PCs) and the rest usually run several hirelings (NPC Guards and Scouts mostly) on our adventures.

As to a specific question you asked, yes, in my experience over 90% of players are controlling only one character.  

I know the older versions of D&D encouraged henchmen, etc, but honestly my groups seldom used them even in the old days.  Something we did try for one campaign was having two characters per player.  That was actually very successful for a group of three players and stands out in my memory as one of the best campaigns ever.

It would be interesting to see someone write a set of rules on the assumption that each player will run a team of 4-5 characters.  It would need to be intentional, I think.  Perhaps some indy games with that premise already exists?  

Of course there are many tabletop miniature games that involve a small warband that allow some degree of character development (Frostgrave, for example).  But those are based on competitive play, with just a few scenarios geared toward player teams cooperating to achieve some objective.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1125303I've only done this with low to medium crunch games.

Quote from: Vidgrip;1125305It would be interesting to see someone write a set of rules on the assumption that each player will run a team of 4-5 characters.  It would need to be intentional, I think.  Perhaps some indy games with that premise already exists?  

Of course there are many tabletop miniature games that involve a small warband that allow some degree of character development (Frostgrave, for example).  But those are based on competitive play, with just a few scenarios geared toward player teams cooperating to achieve some objective.

Basically I'm looking at games like "Five Leagues from the Borderlands" and wondering if there was a reason that it could not be played as a low crunch RPG.
I understand that in these modern times players want rules for everything but "Back In The Day" that wasn't needed and people still had fun.

Hell, kids play with Green Army Men and can give them personalities without any written rules at all. Why can't adults?

We use multiple characters quite a bit when playing DCC.   The 0-level funnels will kill most or all of your characters anyway.

Quote from: Greentongue;1125312Basically I'm looking at games like "Five Leagues from the Borderlands" and wondering if there was a reason that it could not be played as a low crunch RPG.
I understand that in these modern times players want rules for everything but "Back In The Day" that wasn't needed and people still had fun.

Hell, kids play with Green Army Men and can give them personalities without any written rules at all. Why can't adults?

You dont need rules for playing multiple characters. Just play multiple characters. And you dont need them for modern games either.

Instead what you will see are systems for running solo games and NPcs that may do things unexpected or contrary to what you want. Those are NPCs and not your characters though. Some people cant seem to distinguish.

Been reading my old Faerun Adventures PBP posts as resuming game - one player had 2 PCs, others 1 each, and several NPC adventurers with the current party.

My feeling is that roleplaying one actual PC per player works best, though it may not hurt for players to manage the book keeping on their PC's retainers. This definitely helps with immersion, and the GM can roleplay the NPC adventurers. More PCs means more actual work for the GM, as he has more interactions to keep track of.

I've played videogames like Bard's Tales where you play an adventurer group, IME that makes them all pawns of the player without any real identification. Whereas single PC videogames, notably Oblivion, I have felt that sense of immersion in the character.

So basically you need a single character to be your In Game Avatar and any others you don't have direct control over are NPCs?
I assume that to mean if there is a moral mechanic, any character that is effected by it is a NPC?

Few people are interested in playing with intra-group dynamics, I'm guessing.

Quote from: Snark Knight;1125266Correct me if I've misread, but in this situation is it a 1-on-1 affair with a single Player and the GM? In my experience, because these types of games tend to be so focused on the lone player, they'll involve a small party of 'GMPCs' (gulp) rather than having the Player take on multiple characters at once.

If that's the situation, then you also have the option of the player playing a single character, but buffing that character up to the point that they're able to function as a full party all by themselves.  This seems to be something that Kevin Crawford of Sine Nomine Games has specialized in, with just the rules for doing this in old-school D&D in Black Streams: Solo Heroes, those same rules with a setting and stripped-down D&D-like system attached in Scarlet Heroes, and a still-higher-powered version in Godbound.

Buffed up solo characters are certainly an option if "My Team" doesn't do it for you.