Quote from: Ladybird;813502There's three types of character in Ars Magica; Wizards are... wizards, Companions are more interesting types of people (Like knights, scholars, craftsmen, etc) and Grogs are the lesser types (Servants, shieldbearers, hunters).

One of my grogs is (was) my wizard's servant. My wizard is a jerk, he's a bit of a spoilt teenager with no empathy, and she's been loyal but openly contemptuous of him for a long time (He's never noticed, because why would he pay that much attention to her?); it was getting tedious to add "...and (Servant) rolls her eyes" after every time he said anything stupid.

Another player had a sideplot going on between her wizard and her shieldgrog (Not going into detail on this, as the details are a secret). The GM would sometimes play these characters for us, but we like playing grogs, and this way we're more engaged as players (Because with more characters, we're more likely to have one of our characters in a scene).

If you want to play out interaction between the wizard and their grogs, one possibility:  Player A plays the grogs associated with Player B's Wizard, Player B plays the grogs associated with Player C's Wizard, and Player C plays the grogs associated with Player A's Wizard. That way the Wizards can interact with their grogs without the Player having to hold a conversation with themself.

QuoteI'm not sure how I feel about pooling them as a mechanism, though; I could see an at-table issue (Having to sift through the group pile of grogs every time, rather than each player having a few and knowing their capabilities), and also an issue of keeping them in character. I like the grogs, I like the contrast of doing sessions about them instead of the wizards (And the challenge of solving problems with them), and I like how they feel more grounded and part of the world than the wizards do. I'm not sure I'd get that without a character that was "mine".

I agree. We used the equivalent of group grogs for NPCs who were unimportant and who didn't show up often. Not for NPCs who were retainers who were going to be seen frequently. Typically someone consistently played them.

In H+I I frequently have players play some of the NPCs. Everybody seems to enjoy doing that for a modest amount of the play time. Since it is difficult to kill a Hero, the players don't have to worry too much about holding back when their NPC fights someone else's PC and it gives the player a chance to try out different dueling styles and to see how the typical NPCs stack up vs. a PC.

Quote from: Bren;813506If you want to play out interaction between the wizard and their grogs, one possibility:  Player A plays the grogs associated with Player B's Wizard, Player B plays the grogs associated with Player C's Wizard, and Player C plays the grogs associated with Player A's Wizard. That way the Wizards can interact with their grogs without the Player having to hold a conversation with themself.

Yeah, that's basically what we've done. We're the only ones with grog relationships this detailed, though.

QuoteIn H+I I frequently have players play some of the NPCs. Everybody seems to enjoy doing that for a modest amount of the play time. Since it is difficult to kill a Hero, the players don't have to worry too much about holding back when their NPC fights someone else's PC and it gives the player a chance to try out different dueling styles and to see how the typical NPCs stack up vs. a PC.

That sounds like a lot of fun, it would let players use a lot more of the system than they're going to get from just their own characters; plus there are quite a few PC's from other campaigns that I would love to fight (And one in particular that I know I'm going to end up fighting, using my character from that campaign, but I am not looking forward to it). I've never used anything like that before though.

Quote from: Ladybird;813536That sounds like a lot of fun, it would let players use a lot more of the system than they're going to get from just their own characters; plus there are quite a few PC's from other campaigns that I would love to fight (And one in particular that I know I'm going to end up fighting, using my character from that campaign, but I am not looking forward to it). I've never used anything like that before though.

I doubt it would work or be fun for every table, but it has worked well so far for us. For pretty much all the reasons you mentioned. Sounds like it would work at least for you and your friend.

It also helps in some scenes where there are multiple NPCs. I find that as a GM running multiple NPCs talking to themselves is not my strong suit. Having players running one or two NPCs helps the conversation be more dynamic. I also think it is helpful for transparency so players can see what the stats are on some of the NPCs. It helps them benchmark how their characters compare. Some people who are good at rules and read them can do that without the side by side comparison, but for other players that can be a big help.

We one session that was predominantly all the playerscreating and running a group of Dutch Militiamen. These were H+I Pawns and even 4-6 pawns aren't much of a challenge for one PC hero. But the players had a blast running the relatively incompetent militia men and it gave the players the feeling that the battle was dangerous (because it was very dangerous to the pawns, several of who died, several were hospitalized, and almost none were uninjured) without having to ramp up the danger so that the PCs were dropping right and left.

Also the time one player ran Cardinal Richelieu was excellent. He did a great job, as his wife said, "Honey you were born to play Richelieu." His Richelieu was so clever and persuasive that his actions changed the direction of the campaign so that now two of the PCs are in the Cardinal's Red Guards.

Quote from: talysman;813304Don't forget "Stable Style", from early D&D and Tunnels & Trolls: multiple characters per player, sometimes in a single session, no fixed hierarchy; each player decides whether one of their characters is the leader and the other followers, or whether to play them all as equals, sort of like the DCC character funnel. The structure is not enforrced by the GM.

I like that a lot. I think it works best when the ref is able to run several sessions per week and players' schedules are flexible, so the mix of both players and characters can vary more freely. However, it can add interest even without that.

Quote from: flyingmice;813364Kiero - My players just don't like non-random games, so I can sympathize!

I did a bit more digging, and they played a Vampire: the Requiem game where everyone had ghouls as secondary characters. The notion being that when the vampires were unable to do stuff (in daylight, or they were asleep, whatever) it would switch focus to the ghouls. Mostly they didn't have the same level of investment in the secondary characters as they did primary, which made it less appealing.

Which is a shame, but I guess I understand where they're coming from.

Quote from: Kiero;813745I did a bit more digging, and they played a Vampire: the Requiem game where everyone had ghouls as secondary characters. The notion being that when the vampires were unable to do stuff (in daylight, or they were asleep, whatever) it would switch focus to the ghouls. Mostly they didn't have the same level of investment in the secondary characters as they did primary, which made it less appealing.

Which is a shame, but I guess I understand where they're coming from.

Yep! Some folks just have a way of playing that they are comfortable with, and that's cool. I like experimenting a bit, but that's just me. Mostly, my group goes along with whatever I want to try, because they are awesome, but even they have their lines in the sand - like no non-random games!

-clash

Quote from: Bren;813540I doubt it would work or be fun for every table, but it has worked well so far for us. For pretty much all the reasons you mentioned. Sounds like it would work at least for you and your friend.

Yeah, it's kinda what we've ended up doing; her shieldgrog is now mine (Well, in my character folder), my servant is now hers. It worked great in the last session; because my servant now had a player's full attention, her characterisation came across better (Exasperated, resigned to having to fill in details my mage can't be bothered with, loyal). The servant's brother is also one of my other grogs (He's an archer), so I can do something fun with that connection now.

Quote from: Ladybird;813955Yeah, it's kinda what we've ended up doing; her shieldgrog is now mine (Well, in my character folder), my servant is now hers. It worked great in the last session; because my servant now had a player's full attention, her characterisation came across better (Exasperated, resigned to having to fill in details my mage can't be bothered with, loyal). The servant's brother is also one of my other grogs (He's an archer), so I can do something fun with that connection now.

Oh yeah! I always have my group arrange their characters so that they are playing each others servants/mounts/rank and file. That way they can interact, and it works a treat.

We do, I guess, a certain type of troupe play in my Albion campaign. Each player has two characters; and at the start of each adventure they can choose which one they use.  If a player wants, they can always pick the same guy (except if its an adventure that's taking place at the same time as one of their characters is already busy somehow).  So the players have to balance out whether they want a single character to do all the adventuring and gain in levels, or alternate (meaning they'll gain less quickly but will have two experienced characters).

In RQ games set in the Troll Lands I had each player play a troll, and also another player's trollkin (the little ones).

Since it is quite acceptable for a troll to kill and eat his trollkin if they fail to amuse him, this led to a lot of fun and games.

Quote from: tzunder;815278In RQ games set in the Troll Lands I had each player play a troll, and also another player's trollkin (the little ones).

Since it is quite acceptable for a troll to kill and eat his trollkin if they fail to amuse him, this led to a lot of fun and games.

Shouldn't that be "her trollkin"?  

I think Traveller works well within a troupe-play style.

Back in the old days, when I was able to play D&D a lot, we never had NPCs with our groups.  Only "minor" characters adjunct to our primary characters.  Sometimes, though, they got promoted to primary when someone got killed...