PDA

View Full Version : How many 4E PCs are too many PCs (per player)



Fenrazer
2010-06-11, 01:09 PM
Enter long winded question here...

So I hadn't gamed in about four and a half years once I moved to San Antonio with the exception of a once a week online thing I did on Myspace where everybody posted comments and I integrated them into a story.

Now I had been developing for these four years a campaign that just kept getting larger and larger until I had an entire campaign mapped out from 1-30 because I had been studying the new 4E D&D. Back then it was new-ish anyway. So once we began playing, it wound up like Robert Jordans The Wheel of Time series. There were three major groups of characters at any given time, one leader for each, and each group consisted of around six characters each and there were only two players, me an this other guy. I had plenty of fun, and it was only a little hectic to keep track of the players stuff with this auto-fill excel program.

Heres the problem. That campaign is on the shelf now, and I am playing with a friend of mine. We are only around level three and I have only two characters that I myself are handling, a Human Telekinetic Psion and a Warforged. I've also heard that this, 4E, is a game more based on teams than on solo characters.

Now the question: Should I push for more PCs from the current DM, or do you think I am just getting restless after DMing nearly twenty PCs for a good six month campaign?

Doc Roc
2010-06-11, 01:10 PM
4e isn't much faster when it comes to turn resolution than 3e. I recommend one PC per Player. If you want to use more, or to have big-hooping-battles, I recommend savage worlds.

Hzurr
2010-06-11, 01:14 PM
I'd say that per player, you want a max of 2 PCs. If you can get at least 3 players, only do 1 PC/player.


--Edit: Misread post title, didn't read the question right. Here's my origional post----
For 4E, the "sweet spot" is 4-5 PCs, but the game works without too much trouble with 3-6. I've run a game with 7 PCs, and it was...tough, to say the least. Doable, and we had fun, but things became much simpler to run once we went down to 6. Once you're down to 2 PCs, I feel like the encounters would get so small that a lot of the fun aspects of 4E combat would be marginalized.
----------------------------

Fenrazer
2010-06-11, 01:28 PM
We are currently a group of three players, one of which is DMing, and we have four characters between us. I feel antsy after being DM of eighteen PCs and now Im just a player in control of two. Yawnage.

Another_Poet
2010-06-11, 02:21 PM
Despite your awesome and admirable experiences playing multiple PCs at once, Fenrazer, doing so is quite unusual. I would not push my DM to let me play more PCs. Having two is already plenty.

Unless you mean you play only one per session, rotating them out in a sandbox style game or series of one-shots. Then I see no reason not to have a large stable of characters from which to choose one per session.

When players use multiple PCs at once it can cause problems, ranging from:
-One character using the other as a human shield, or for suicide jobs, which the character wouldn't be able to do if someone else controlled them
-More powerful characters (from more logical loot distribution) and more powerful tactics (from one-mindedness of purpose, seeming telepathy) which make it harder for the DM
-Some players feeling outvoted or pushed around if other players have more characters than they do
-Character creep; if YOU have 3 characters then *I* get to have 3 characters!

I'm not saying you'd cause any of these problems yourself but a DM is rightly wary of such problems.

Also, 4e combat runs slow with just 6 players in my experience. It runs best with 4, despite what the marketing may say. As a DM I wouldn't artificially inflate the group because it would slow combat.

ap

okpokalypse
2010-06-11, 04:26 PM
1. 4e is an awful system. Feels like playing a video-game it's so darn cookie-cutter.

Fenrazer
2010-06-11, 04:27 PM
Understood. I did have a good time, but combat took a while. I think the thing that kept us so into it was that there were so many different characters that there were loads of options for all of us each time. I think that with as painfully long as it was, it still kept us involved because with that many characters, it was like a game of chess, only with wicked cool storyline.:smallamused:

Kylarra
2010-06-11, 04:32 PM
1. 4e is an awful system. Feels like playing a video-game it's so darn cookie-cutter.:smallannoyed: Way to post an unsupported opinion as fact with no relation to the OP except tangentially, at best.


@OP
To be honest, more than 1PC per player is generally just asking for trouble. I do admire your ability to play 6 at once, but suggest strongly that the reason that it worked out with two people is because there were only two of you.

Fenrazer
2010-06-11, 04:35 PM
1. 4e is an awful system. Feels like playing a video-game it's so darn cookie-cutter.

I thought so at first, but I enjoy that you dont have a completely different system for every single action you do, like 3.5 on back. Thats why I enjoy the 4e. Spells use the same system as sword attacks, just against different defenses. Ill take easy prep cookie cutter style over the work it takes to prep a Turkey-day dinner any time. Less work, same fun.

Fenrazer
2010-06-11, 04:36 PM
To be honest, more than 1PC per player is generally just asking for trouble. I do admire your ability to play 6 at once, but suggest strongly that the reason that it worked out with two people is because there were only two of you.

Understood. I hadnt thought about having to deal with that many players. Gratzi!

Curmudgeon
2010-06-11, 04:42 PM
Ill take easy prep cookie cutter style over the work it takes to prep a Turkey-day dinner any time. Less work, same fun.
Well, you obviously haven't tasted my stuffing. It took me years to get the right blend of herbs in the homemade cornbread. (It also took years to realize that pretty much any white wine is good for sautéing the mushrooms, and I don't need to spend a lot there.)

Making a good 3.5 D&D character, like making a good Turkey dinner, yields more fun.

Mando Knight
2010-06-11, 04:48 PM
Making a good 3.5 D&D character, like making a good Turkey dinner, yields more fun.
Not. The. Topic.

Anyway, 1 PC/player is normal. I'd think that any more than 2/player is stretching it.

Chainsaw Hobbit
2010-06-11, 06:33 PM
6 Works ok but it gets a little clunky.
7 Is pushing it but can be done, not recommended.
8 Will probably kill the game in the first encounter, could drag on but won't be fun.
9 Is next to impossible and even if accomplished will be nearly unplayable.

Touchy
2010-06-11, 06:54 PM
Well, you obviously haven't tasted my stuffing. It took me years to get the right blend of herbs in the homemade cornbread. (It also took years to realize that pretty much any white wine is good for sautéing the mushrooms, and I don't need to spend a lot there.)

Making a good 3.5 D&D character, like making a good Turkey dinner, yields more fun.

Why can't we have both, why can't we have cookies and turkey at the same dinner table?