Should I be Worried?

[tlalocbyu]

For the first time in twelve years, I have found a gaming group. We will be having our first session this Friday, and I am really looking forward to getting back into the game.

However, I have a vague feeling of unease about the composition of the group. It may actually work out well, but I'm not sure. Here's the thing: we have five players and seven characters. Two players will be playing two characters each.

Is this normal? Can this type of thing lead to the two players completely dominating the direction of the group or take more than their fair share of face time with the DM (either in combat or in role-playing situations)?

I'm not sure if I should say something to the DM (who is very experienced and been playing the game since the late 1960's). Or should I just wait it out and see how things work in the first couple of sessions? Anyone else been in a group where one or more players played more than one character?

[crimson77]

I would wait to do anything. Experienced players can play two characters. The good ones can actually have those characters in conflict.

If the players are being obnoxious with their two characters (e.g., they are using it to their advantage rather then the parties) then make a note of these times and talk with the DM about it later.

[BCOVertigo]

I would try to befriend one and turn him against the other, but then again I don't really see why a person would want two characters in the first place so I don't find fault with the idea of killing one off.

A little childish? Sure, but you can just write it off as good RP on their part and shower them with compliments so they can't possibly get mad.

[Nerd-o-rama]

I once played AD&D with some skilled vets playing two characters at once. It worked out quite well, even if they did tend to complement each other a little too well in combat. This has the potential to turn out badly, but it's quite likely they know what they're doing. Wait and see.

[valadil]

I wouldn't worry about it. What harm can they do? They can out vote you. They can take up more time. They can turn against people and know that their alt character will be on their side. They can send all of one character's resources to the other character and end up powergaming the hell out of one character. Aside from taking up more time, anybody that does these things would probably find ways to be a jackass even if they only had one character. Good players will be mature enough to handle two PCs, bad players won't. It's that simple. The only effect you'll see from them having more characters is that you'll have an easier time figuring out what type of gamers they are and whether or not its worth sticking with the group.

[Dairun Cates]

The other two characters could also be nothing more than higher level cohorts. As such, it's probably not going to be that big of a deal. Every group has their small problems and this seems to be one of the simpler ones. Go with it for now.

Edit: Alternatively, they may just want a character to share a backstory with to make it more interesting. The next campaign you start, you may want to collaborate your backstories.

[Dragonmuncher]

Especially since it's going to be your first session with an all-new group. Having an outsider come in and immediately start complaining about things everyone else is fine with can be grating.

[Darrin]

However, I have a vague feeling of unease about the composition of the group. It may actually work out well, but I'm not sure. Here's the thing: we have five players and seven characters. Two players will be playing two characters each.

"Multiple Character Syndrome" is generally indicative of gamers who are used to small groups of 2-3 players, or larger groups where only 2-3 players consistently show up every session. Essentially an earlier form of "Gestalt" characters, this allows a small group to take on higher-crunch campaigns that would normally TPK a party of only 2-3 PCs.

And yeah, it's rude and snotty to stereotype, but you can probably expect those players to prefer an over-emphesis on combat and avoid the social/narrative elements of the game. Or they may have other reasons beyond tactical play or combat effectiveness.

Keep in mind, it's not an inherently *bad* way to play, so long as everybody's having fun. But if by having two ultra-optimized characters it allows them to dominate the rest of the party, take the lion's share of treasure, steal the spotlight from other characters, and bully the other players, then talk to the GM and see if he can work out a solution that makes the game more enjoyable for everyone. Some suggestions:

* If one of the characters is around 6th level or above, encourage them to take the Leadership feat and use the 2nd PC as a cohort. This allows them the freedom to build a character they like, and still leaves the GM some control to step in and shut down any obvious abuse.

* If a player has two characters with different roles, such as a fighter and a wizard, suggest they combine the concept into one of the hybrid classes that combines those two roles, such as hexblade, warmage, or duskblade.

* Familiars, animal companions, and mounts offer opportunities to roleplay as separate characters, and certain feats and PrCs can buff them to where they are just as useful or important as cohorts.

* Try a gestalt campaign, where everyone has two classes.

* If all else fails, and they're being complete twinks... kill off the extra PCs until they grow up or settle down with a single character without the Feat: "I Want To Be A Drow Vampire With Adamantine Claws, Twin Scimitars, and Can Only Speak in Bad Movie Quotes".

[tlalocbyu]

Thanks for the tips everyone.

The two players in question are the most experienced in the group, and the rest of us are either new to the game or are returning from a long hiatus. It is not an established group, so we are all new to each other.

Hearing that it won't be a problem (especially for experienced players) has set my mind at ease and allowed me to really get excited about Friday night.

Thanks.

[Amiria]

Don't be worried. As crimson77 said, experienced players can play two characters. or more. Heck, I played four characters in City of the Spider Queen (five after we actually arrived at the city, then my cleric called a Planar Ally). The DM had a Bard as a DMPC. The two of us (yes, that's our whole RPG group since many years) still had lots of fun, in fact that FR campaign was one of the best I ever played. Although I suffered a bit from dissociative identity disorder ...

[BardicDuelist]

We have a group where we have only two consistant players and a DM, and as such it is very common for our players to play two characters. They tend to roleplay well between the two as well, though one of the characters seems to be the leader a little more than the other.

With your group being new to each other, it may just be that the players want to make sure that they have all of the bases covered, not knowing if the new group will.

[Raolin_Fenix]

Like everyone's said, there's no problem having two characters under a given player's control. Seriously, the DM does it every single session, only he has about eight hundred billion characters under his control. I've done it a few times myself. I've found an easy cheat toward playing two separate, individual characters is to make them hate each other. =D

The question I have is, why? Why are they playing two characters? Unless they're cohorts (as per the Leadership feat, or similar class ability), in which case they don't really count as full characters anyway, a group of five people is already larger than normal. Adding two more for a group of seven... well, I play in groups of seven or so (not counting mounts and cohorts). It's fun, certainly, but it can get slow and tedious.

Five characters is a solid group; you've got the Basic Four (Tank, Blaster, Healer, Skill-Monkey), plus a Bard to bolster everyone. I could see throwing in two more players, with their respective new characters, but two more characters under the control of existing players seems sort of silly.

[Matthew]

Since the late 1960's? Who is this guy? Also, what edition are you playing? 1e and 2e had a tendency to use larger groups of Characters.