TheRPGSite

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 (http://smonstats.blogspot.com/2017/08/rexx-vartal-of-luskan-1e-roxy-game.html?zx=4639eda01f97528e) 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 (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/114895/Black-Streams-Solo-Heroes), those same rules with a setting and stripped-down D&D-like system attached in Scarlet Heroes (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/127180/Scarlet-Heroes), and a still-higher-powered version in Godbound (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/185959/Godbound-A-Game-of-Divine-Heroes-Free-Edition).

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

Quote from: Greentongue;1125370So 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.

As GM I like having NPCs with the party. As player I want a single avatar yes - npc henchmen are great though.

Not a big fan of morale rules for PCs.

I usually play with relatively large groups of players.  Sometimes the power levels don't match.  This somewhat mirrors the early D&D PCs and henchmen, except all the henchmen have a dedicated player.  So as you might imagine, there isn't much scope for a player running more than one character.  However, it's come up a few times:

- Player is late or has to leave early.  Someone else runs their character for them for the interval.
- Temporary NPCs for part of the scenario, usually divided among the players to control.
- Huge groups of monsters.  I'll run the important ones, but have the players run the minions.  They are expected to do a good job of it, too, sort of a mini-GM thing.  (Some players enjoy this more than others. ;) )

Then there was that one memorable adventure where the party ran afoul of a magical curse that caused "souls and personalities to switch bodies" semi-randomly.  I had full character sheets for the NPCs.  Every time the switch happened, the player was handed the appropriate character sheet.  Was billed as a roleplaying challenge, where the player was supposed to play the character in front of them with what was established so far in the campaign, but also with a hint of their old personality trying to get out.  It was great fun for me, especially when two PCs switched players.  The players said it was a fun exercise, but they'd just as soon not do it again soon. Anyway, something you might try in a regular game if you want to see how well the players handle switching roles back and forth. :)

Quote from: Greentongue;1125370So 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.

1: Id have to say... No. It really depends on the player. As noted above ones going to be able to multitask characters and the next cant. And not just players. Some DMs cant multitask NPCs and tend to focus on one at a time. Moral mechanics do not necessarily shunt a character to NPC. But depending on the system and/or players it can very easily drift there if the system is running the character really and not the player.

A good example might be Mythic's system. You can allow it to pretty much run extra PCs and they can and likely will end up doing unexpected things. They are a little, or alot not under the players control. This too is really up to the player and how much they allow the oracle to run the other characters for them.

2: Depends on the intragroup dynamics? If you cant compartmentalize the characters then either you need some system to NPC them for you, or learn how to multi-task them.

But personally my view is that the minute you give up control of the character and let the system run them then they stop being PCs and become NPCs. Possibly no different from actual NPCs.

YMMV as with all things.

I've seen a number of folks talking about moral mechanics and I confess I'm baffled. What are moral mechanics and how do they differ from mechanics for morale?

Quote from: Bren;1125480I've seen a number of folks talking about moral mechanics and I confess I'm baffled. What are moral mechanics and how do they differ from mechanics for morale?

A moral mechanic tells you the truth about what's wrong with your car and charges you the exact amount of labor it took.

Quote from: Bren;1125480I've seen a number of folks talking about moral mechanics and I confess I'm baffled. What are moral mechanics and how do they differ from mechanics for morale?

Depends on the game. In some it can NPC a PC till its resolved, if ever. Fantasy Wargaming had that. If the players werent fucking eachother over enough to satisfy the DM then the DM was told to take over the PC and make them do wretched things. Part of why I so despise the game and its designers.

In others its social mechanics. Essentially resolving stuff with lots rolls instead of just talking and maybee one roll. If NPCs can use it on PCs then you can end up losing control of the character.

In yet other games its mostly a system for giving NPCs personalities and quirks. 5e for example has this with an optional system no one seems to use which is a sort of convoluted BX reaction table. Or Mythic which can cause NPCs/side PCs to do unexpected things.

And all sorts of other variations and approaches.

I guess moral mechanics would be like the Passions in Pendragon?

"It's what my character would do" only due to a roll not just from being a jerk.

(At least when it's not a misspelling.)

Quote from: S'mon;1125505I guess moral mechanics would be like the Passions in Pendragon?

As one take on the concept if I recall that system right.

Or its like how Alignments in D&D can be used as a sort of override of the character rather than a guide or totally ignored.

Quote from: Greentongue;1125213Is 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"?

In my Dark Albion campaigns, players would always have two characters, but they'd only play one each session.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1126504In my Dark Albion campaigns, players would always have two characters, but they'd only play one each session.

Is that because of the death rate or for different adventure requirements?

Dark sun and Sanguine's Albedo both have that as a part of chargen suggestion due to the lethality of the settings. Though in Sanguin'es case that was a bit laughable as their system is far far more PC frrendly than original Albedo's ever was.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1126504In my Dark Albion campaigns, players would always have two characters, but they'd only play one each session.

Quote from: Greentongue;1126512Is that because of the death rate or for different adventure requirements?

I tend to encourage players to have multiple characters and switch off between them, too.

For me, it's not so much "death rate" per se, but I generally have very-little-to-no magical healing in my games, so badly-injured characters may be out of action for weeks or months as they recuperate.

Also, I like players having the ability to swap characters in and out to fit the task at hand.  If you're going to be infiltrating a monastery to steal a holy artifact, then not only will it be more useful to bring your thief instead of having your heavy armor paladin clanking all over the place, it also avoids having to come up with a thin rationalization for why the paladin would participate in robbing a church in the first place.

Quote from: Greentongue;1126512Is that because of the death rate or for different adventure requirements?

It was a bit of both. Having two characters (typically of different social classes and character classes) lets a player pick a character more suitable for the type of adventure, but it also means that if one of the characters dies, they'll still have one of (presumably) higher than 0 level to play while the other (new) one starts back from beginner rank.  Of course, a few players took their chances and only played one of their two characters all the time.

One thing my system includes are boons gained from your background that can grant you one or more companions intended to support your main PC and are generally controlled by the PCs player as they're essentially extensions of the character.

The ultimate example would be an Aristocrat's ability to take a bodyguard, three men-at-arms and three attendants via three boons... the default for a warrior being that the bodyguard is your squire, the men-at-arms are a lance of yeoman warriors (those you'd be required to bring in service to your lord) and the attendants serve you as a valet, a page and a porter. All these serve loyally, requiring no payment beyond provision of food, shelter and proper equipment for their jobs.

They're balanced relative to other boons mainly by their generally being of average competence (so it makes sense to select companions that cover weaknesses) while other boons boost your competence (making you even better at what you're already good at).

Larger forces can be hired with coin (or equivalent goods... household knights are generally hired by granting them land from which they can collect rents equivalent to the coin a mercenary would demand), but are generally under the GM's control unless they decide otherwise (ex. the GM intends to run a large battle where they'll have many enemy forces to control so lets the players control their hired troops directly in the battle).

Generally, my experience is that multiple characters works best when one is clearly "in charge" and the rest exist primarily as servants of the main PC. That way if the player forgets to roleplay distinctive personalities for their servants it's not that big a deal. They might grumble about the main PCs choices, but their key trait is their loyalty to the PC so they'll follow regardless.

Multiple characters have always been a feature in my games, depending on player interest (maybe a player wants to try out different character concepts) and number of players (to cover holes in the party if only three or less players are participating). I usually play GMPCs as well, which also covers missing roles in the party, though I'd rather not play a whole team of characters myself on top of GMing--maybe one or two, then have at least one player play two characters to cover other roles.

I also try to keep players from metagaming when playing multiple characters and don't give preferential treatment to my GMPCs--treating them mostly like regular PCs, having them act based only on their personalities and what they know (no metagaming with GM knowledge) and giving regular PCs dibs on treasure (my characters take only what the PCs don't want).

I take inspiration from Dark Sun's concept of character trees, which help provide backup in gritty campaigns with frequent deaths or limited healing, and also provide alternatives depending on what types of skill sets are necessary for the adventure. I've been toying with the idea of expanding on this concept to develop what I call "Player Profiles", which is a type of "character sheet" but for players, which instead of keeping track of abilities or inventories they maintain a Roster of PCs the player has in the campaign or game group. Any time that the player plays a character from their roster they earn XP equal to what their character earned, which can be spent on any character in their PC Roster. But no more than half (round up) of the Player Profile's XP can be spent on any single character.

This serves a similar function to Character Trees, but also expand to help manage multiple characters across multiple worlds or settings in game groups that like to play in different game worlds between sessions.