Giving players more than 1 Player Character

[heavyfuel]

For you to understand what I'm talking about, I should first give you a general idea of how the campaign will work.

So, it's a sandbox game where the players will be high-ish level rulers of a small country they've just took by force. Good thing is, the old ruler was a lazy prick, so (almost) nobody really minds.

However, despite the sandbox element, there will be a somewhat tight in-game time constraint. The family of the usurped ruler is seeking revenge, they are only awaiting *insert cosmic event that will grant them a large advantage in combat* before all-out war. Maybe a year before the cosmic event.

Anyway, citizens of this country will go to court and ask for their help with any problems that might be troubling them (aka quest hooks). However, because most such concerns are boring and we're playing a game to have fun, I will have an NPC subject of the players that's going to take care of the more mundane stuff like food, taxes, and so on. The players can still intervene in that if they want, but I don't think they will.

Not only that, but the rulers/PCs themselves are too important to be bothered by any small quest hook. So my solution was: Give every Player multiple Player Characters.

These extra PCs will be proxies for the actual PCs. Elite soldiers or whatever. If there's a couple of Chimeras attacking travelers, they might not want to deal with these weak monsters themselves, so they can send the Extras. Essentially, the Extras will be their own party, and won't usually join the actual PCs in quests (if ever).

The Extras will allow for many such quests to be resolved in (relatively) the same in-game time. It will allow players more variety in the challenges they face (so they're not always fighting tough monsters because of their high level), and will also allow players more variety in their builds. I know my group loves making new characters, so this will give them a chance to do just that.

Think a Bioware game. The PCs' actions and decisions (extras or otherwise) will determine who will be their ally and who won't during the upcoming battle.

So, giving players more than one character. Good, bad, just different? Any uninteded consequences I might not have noticed in my enthusiasm? Thanks!

TLDR: Read the underlined part

[Quertus]

You need at least two parties of extras, to cover two types: "this sounds cool but we're too high to enjoy it - send in our PC minions" and "that doesn't sound fun - send in our NPC minions".

Don't forget that there's also the "split the party" / "dang I forget the name of that mage-based game" solution of sending a mixed party, possibly 1 high level character & the rest are in training.

[Palanan]

I was recently in a campaign that took this exact approach. The main campaign was a mid-level Kingmaker game in which each of the PCs was responsible for running part of their new realm, and collectively we were dealing with kingdom-level threats from the AP as well as our DM’s own plotlines.

We also had a sub-campaign of lower-level PCs, nicknamed the Red Shirts, who were intended to put out smaller fires around the kingdom. It sounded like great fun, but ended up being a problem because different people became attached to different aspects of the two campaigns.

There were some other issues involved, but it ended up being less than ideal because we were lurching back and forth between the upper- and lower-level campaigns, and in a strange way they ended up distracting from each other. I ended up leaving that campaign—for several reasons—but as a player who’s gone through it I can’t recommend this approach.

[heavyfuel]

You need at least two parties of extras, to cover two types: "this sounds cool but we're too high to enjoy it - send in our PC minions" and "that doesn't sound fun - send in our NPC minions".

Don't forget that there's also the "split the party" / "dang I forget the name of that mage-based game" solution of sending a mixed party, possibly 1 high level character & the rest are in training.

This is definitely a good suggestion

I guess they can split the party to cover even more ground, but that has a logistic problem of how do I even DM these separate stories. This would only work if they agreed before the game and only one person showed up hahaha


I was recently in a campaign that took this exact approach. The main campaign was a mid-level Kingmaker game in which each of the PCs was responsible for running part of their new realm, and collectively we were dealing with kingdom-level threats from the AP as well as our DM’s own plotlines.

We also had a sub-campaign of lower-level PCs, nicknamed the Red Shirts, who were intended to put out smaller fires around the kingdom. It sounded like great fun, but ended up being a problem because different people became attached to different aspects of the two campaigns.

There were some other issues involved, but it ended up being less than ideal because we were lurching back and forth between the upper- and lower-level campaigns, and in a strange way they ended up distracting from each other. I ended up leaving that campaign—for several reasons—but as a player who’s gone through it I can’t recommend this approach.

Oh, that sucks... Could you elaborate more on the "different people became attached to different aspects of the two campaigns"? I mean, I guess it makes sense to have favourite characters among the 2 or 4 you're playing.

Also, when you talk about them distracting from each other, do you mean that you as players got some stories mixed up and stuff, cuz I totally see this happening now that you've mentioned it

[Mike Miller]

If your players enjoy making new characters, maybe take an approach like the "mission jobs" in final fantasy Tactics. I forget what they were actually called, but basically you were given a description of the task and picked one member of the party to resolve the issue. That person was out of the party for X days. If you chose a person capable of succeeding, you were going to have a better chance of success than picking someone who shouldn't go. This is vague, but what I am trying to say is this:

Have the PCs make however many lower level people they want. You as DM just stick with the higher level people in actual gameplay. When problems arise in their kingdom, they have to think about what is going on and pick which of their lower level characters deal with it. Then next session (or whenever) you can tell them how it went.

If the problem was an orc invasion and they all sent Healers, they might not see those characters come back alive. But if they sent barbarians and warblades to fight the orcs, the invasion may be over.

This way it doesn't have a large influence on session time but can still let them make characters and help their kingdom.

[bean illus]

I think it's a fantastic idea, and you sound up to the challenge.

I would talk to the players in advance and be clear about a few things. Each player gets exactly one sub-PC. These spcs are LOYAL, and bound by oath, and tampering with that oath will have expected consequences (as in; please just don't).
Also, any splitting of the sub party should be prohibited. They should just accept that the sub party is on a railroad track. Even to the point of players or DM needing to break character and ask, "Are you implying that I should NOT follow the beggar down the alley"? "Sure, if you want to ask him some questions, but don't invite him to join the party or anything".

Heck, I suggest you consider expanding the idea, by asking your playground pals to sub DM. Arrange 4 sub DM's the play the deity's of the pcs, so if things heat up at the very end of the campaign, not even you control every aspect of the final plot twists.
Or maybe have a guest DM run the 8 hour 2 session long subquest to the ogre magi's lair. You get to spend more time writing plot for the Main Quest, and everybody gets to enjoy the experience of wondering exactly what's going to happen.

Anyway, I just didn't want you to get all negative, cautionary, scary reviews of your idea.

[ngilop]

This is definitely a good suggestion

I guess they can split the party to cover even more ground, but that has a logistic problem of how do I even DM these separate stories. This would only work if they agreed before the game and only one person showed up hahaha



Oh, that sucks... Could you elaborate more on the "different people became attached to different aspects of the two campaigns"? I mean, I guess it makes sense to have favourite characters among the 2 or 4 you're playing.

Also, when you talk about them distracting from each other, do you mean that you as players got some stories mixed up and stuff, cuz I totally see this happening now that you've mentioned it

I have been in similar situations, so I can elaborate on that a bit. My experiences are not going to be the same a palanan's, but, at leas you will get a gist of what he is talking about, with 4 points that I can pinpoint on why this always ended up not working as expected.

First: the players are not making multiple characters, they are playing completely different campaigns. You might be thinking 'uhmm... no, it is the same campaign..but with different characters' I am going to argue No The different groups of PCs are going to be encountering much different obstacles and themes in the course of play, hardly anything remote to the same campaign.

Second: There are going to be player's who enjoy the political intrigue and maneuvering more than the dungeon delving campaign and vice versa. It is just human nature

Third: related to the second point, the players are going to develop an affinity for one particular character, because of how the story evolves, certain npc relationships, etc etc.

Fourth: One of the campaigns (more often than not, both) never finish. You basically create two, three or how ever many different campaigns only tangentially related. Not only do the second and third points come into play.. but you (the DM) are giving yourself multiple amounts of work.

What ends up happening is a score of half-finished, campaigns, ideas, and lore. If humans were not such impatient things, you could spend the 4, 5, or 6 years to get through the 2 or 3 campaigns. But alas...we are not.


I have played 7 (maybe 8) sets of campaigns like this, and each one turned out the same way, basically dying to attrition and lack of desire from either party to continue. Maybe your multiple campaign idea will work, I hope it does. But, I needed to explain what I have experienced and kinda what Palanan touched on earlier.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by ngilop
First: the players are not making multiple characters, they are playing completely different campaigns…

You basically create two, three or how ever many different campaigns only tangentially related [and] you (the DM) are giving yourself multiple amounts of work.

All of ngilop’s points are right on target, and I want to emphasize the bolded lines in particular. You really end up playing two different campaigns, even if there are some points of tangency between them, and they become completely different experiences.

I found it extremely frustrating to jump back and forth, because once you get into the groove of a campaign you naturally want to continue with it. You’re thinking of your next levels, making plans and strategies, getting a feel for the current situation—and then bam! over to something completely different. It may sound like fun, but in practice it’s just frustrating. You never seem to make progress in either campaign, and you end up with a lot of unfulfilled ambitions for all of your characters.


Originally Posted by heavyfuel
Could you elaborate more on the "different people became attached to different aspects of the two campaigns"?

As for this, running a kingdom is very different than fighting a mob of flaming skeletons. We had some players who really enjoyed the roleplaying, diplomacy and strategizing of the upper-level campaign—but we also had some players who just wanted to roll dice and kill things, and they were increasingly bored stiff.

By contrast, in the lower-level campaign there was plenty of action, but not as much opportunity for roleplaying. You might think alternating between the campaigns provided something for everything, but in practice it meant several players were dissatisfied no matter what we did.

And beyond this, some people are naturally going to be more interested in some plotlines than others, but with two distinct campaign tracks you're cutting off some players' interest whenever you switch between them.

Also, ngilop’s point about making more work for yourself as DM is completely spot-on. You’re designing challenges and encounters for two completely different groups, and that’s at least two full campaigns’ worth of work.

[Rawrawrawr]

As a player, I also enjoy making different characters, so I think it could work, since it sounds like you can get player buy-in - but it's tricky to pull off.

The key thing is it interrupts the flow of the story - there's a reason so many TV show story arcs that involve less-important B-characters are generally reviled - people don't like wasting time on things that seem like they don't matter to the main story (just look up "Trapped by Mountain Lions" on TvTropes :smalltongue: ) As a result, I'd say there are a few key commandments when doing something like this:

Don't interrupt the pacing of the main story. Whatever you do, it shouldn't feel like it's interrupting something the players actually care about. I think Paper Mario did a pretty well-implemented version of this - the interludes with Princess Peach come after the end of major story arcs, and the provide a nice, lighthearted tone after the intensity of boss battles.
Keep it short and sweet. This is a subplot to the main story, so it shouldn't take too much time. Story arcs should probably one session at most, maaaybe two for a major event - honestly, even if your players don't finish in one session, you might just want to narrate the rest, ask what choices they would've made, and move on (similar to how, if you didn't play the first Mass Effect, Mass Effect 2 just gave you a quick run-down of the first game and asked what you would've done at major story points).
Keep it self-contained. Players are already keeping track of NPCs, agendas, story arcs, etc. for one campaign - don't make them store another set of details in their headspace. There probably shouldn't be major, long running story arcs with loads of twists or anything. Sessions should probably be episodic, with minimal continuity. NPCs should probably be pretty archetypical, any longer-running plots should be simple and easy to follow, etc. - basically keep the cognitive load for the subplot to a minimum.
Don't give it equal screentime. Again, it's a subplot, so play it less. I'd say aim for at least 3 sessions between subplots? That way, the focus remains on the main plot, so the players don't feel like they're wasting their time on something... less important.
Don't play too infrequently. The other side of the coin - if you barely ever play the subplot, then it doesn't even feel connected to the main plot, players will forget details, etc. - so I'd say try not to let more than 6 sessions go by before playing the subplot again.
Make the effects noticeable. If you want player buy-in that these plots are important, don't be subtle. After a subplot session, make the effects obvious in the next main plot session. Right away. And don't try to be subtle - really bang the players over the head with the consequences. You can play the long game later, but to get your players into it in the beginning, you really need to show them that this is actually important, but like, for real guys.

[Algeh]

Another way to do this that might work with your overall idea would be to pitch each of these "lower level characters should go deal with the thing" sessions specifically as a one-shot with an outcome that'll have an effect on the overall campaign but which can have a different group of players as well as characters participating in it for each one shot. "So, it sounds like you want to try and establish trade relations with that nation over there now. Next weekend, I'll run a one-shot of an initial trade caravan heading over there to see what's what. Who's in, and what kind of characters do you want to build for that caravan one-shot?" and such rather than a consistent A team/B team situation. If you have some gaming friends who can't commit to an ongoing campaign, this can also be a good chance to let them in on an occasional game session. You could even have the players of your ongoing campaign pitch one-shot ideas for things they think would be interesting to have happen next, and maybe even have one of your regular players DM that session.

[Gnaeus]

Consider Ars Magica. Each Player creates 2 PCs a wizard and a companion, and a number of other lesser (n)PCs (grogs). The grogs are like your maid or your squire or guard number 3. They aren’t really a PC, but they have a name and a couple of personality traits. So on a typical adventure the player plays either the Mage or a companion and maybe a couple of peons also.

That seems like a valid model here, replacing (Mage) with (Royal family member). You have to expect the possibility that there may be royals who want IC to go on missions, or non royals who may he helpful in intrigue/rulership stuff, so just let the players swap them out at appropriate points.

[Cosi]

That seems like a valid model here, replacing (Mage) with (Royal family member). You have to expect the possibility that there may be royals who want IC to go on missions, or non royals who may he helpful in intrigue/rulership stuff, so just let the players swap them out at appropriate points.

This is worth bearing in mind. Part of the justification for Ars Magica-esque Troupe Play is that there might be characters that are appropriate for some situations but not others, but you should bear in mind that some characters will be appropriate in all (or simply distinct subsets of) whatever things the game covers. Character swapping should be an alternative for situations where one character might not be appropriate, not something that is 100% mandatory. You want to be facilitating (for instance) someone playing an uncivilized mercenary berserker in the dungeon-crawling parts of the game and his noble employer in the intrigue parts, not forcing someone to make Wizardus the adventuring Wizard and Wizardo the court Wizard.