Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Devin, The Rogue Princess 09-23-05, 03:56 PM	How many characters should a player be allowed to have before it starts become a nuisance to the other players? I think the maximum should be 3, and they should all be involved with different parties and campaigns. There should be no way in heck that the characters can meet each other, and the player then be able to use more than one PC during the game.
KJW 09-23-05, 04:03 PM	Depends upon the player. In my online campaign (where its easier to run multiple characters than a life session I think) I have a few players who can run two very effectively at the same time and frees me up from having to run another NPC. As for how many characters a player can run at any time in other campaigns? Why would there be a limit. I am a little confused on the question.
Devin, The Rogue Princess 09-23-05, 04:08 PM	I'm more asking because one of the players I game with has near 30 characters, and he continously forgets which one he is using in a campain. This leads to him trying to cast cure heavy wounds while playing as a Barbarian.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 09-23-05, 04:14 PM	I would say 1 charater per campaign. As for how many games a player can paly in, well that is up to the player. It is his/her time and their life. Not mine. Although 30 does sound little exesive, actual i would say this is a case of Power Geekism, but it is up to them. Just tell him/her to keep his/her games and his/her :censored: striaght.
q'afuu 09-23-05, 04:21 PM	That's a problem with that particular player, not with playing in multiple campaigns at the same time. The actual number where you lose track will be different from person to person, and is in theory unlimited. As a shot in the dark, can I ask if the person you're talking about plays online? That would mean he could conceivably be playing several campaigns (and thus characters) at the same time which would make him a lot more prone to getting confused. Trying to cure someone while playing a barbarian is not exactly an easy mistake to make, unless you're playing a cleric in another campaign in another browser or messenger window at the same time. ;) I've been D&Ding for nigh-on 18 years. If 15-16 of those hadn't been mostly as a DM, I'd probably have more than the 30 characters this person has. As it is, I can find my notes for about a dozen characters of mine that I've played over the years and could probably pick up playing them again with little or no time required to familiarize myself with the details. Ten minutes to check the specifics on the char sheet will most likely suffice to get rolling. The number of characters you have doesn't mean much when it comes to being able to remember which one it is you're playing right now.
Devin, The Rogue Princess 09-23-05, 04:25 PM	No, he is an actual paper and dice player. However, you're probably right about it being the player, not the amount of characters. He doesn't pay that much attention to the game when there's nothing going on really, and so when combat starts up he rushes over from whatever he's doing, tries to figure out which character he was using, and just blurts out an action.
Despana 09-23-05, 04:52 PM	So the player is off doing other things while the rest of the group is at the table playing? :confused: Sounds like you may just need a new player, since if he/she is doing that they are obviously not very interested in the game...
I Am Famine 09-24-05, 05:00 AM	I personally prefer one character per campaign. If others feel they can handle more and the DM agrees then go ahead but I couldn't be bothered with the hassle. Saying that i'm still relatively new to DnD (about a year now, but brought many books for about year before that) so i've only ever played 4 characters in my life. I have DM'd a few times though and I personally dont normally allow more than one character per player, unless I had very few players then i'd definately consider it.
KJW 09-24-05, 08:07 AM	Nor should you allow a player multiple characters in the same campaign, unless they can handle it. Most players CANNOT handle multiple characters. But experienced players (especially DMs) can get bored with only one player. I DM 99.9999% of the time and after 18+ years I have run thousands of characters. Those few times I play in a group and I don't have at least two characters, I start to go stir crazy. Its the curse of being a DM.
DarknessEternal 09-24-05, 02:43 PM	Per campaign, a player should have only one character (for that campaign) at a time. Anything more deserves ridicule and beligerance towards all parties involved in allowing such an abomination.
^Graff_EpsilonIX 09-24-05, 02:57 PM	I'd say that as long as you can manage them properly, you can play as many characters as you want. But it might be a good idea to cap it at about 3 or so. If you are trying to build up a personality and roleplay effectively it might get a bit hard to sort out personalities and you might end up having an identity crisis.
Lord Gwydion 09-24-05, 09:26 PM	No, he is an actual paper and dice player. However, you're probably right about it being the player, not the amount of characters. He doesn't pay that much attention to the game when there's nothing going on really, and so when combat starts up he rushes over from whatever he's doing, tries to figure out which character he was using, and just blurts out an action. If I were DMing this poor soul, when he blurted out a random action like that, I'd politely inform him that he does said action in the room (or lonely stretch of road, or desert wasteland, or where ever) the last battle occured in, for absolutely no effect (other than maybe mangling the corpse of the last encounter). If the player can't pay enough attention to run his character outside of combat, the character gets left behind. And no, I'm not the kind of DM that makes players keep track of every morsel of food and every time they've stopped to take a potty break. But I do require my players to pay attention to the adventure I've worked so hard to write for them. If this player only likes combat and character creation, I'd suggest he switch to a video game like Neverwinter Nights for unlimited character creation ability, and D&D Minis for combat without having to sit through the "boring" story parts.
Brimshack 09-26-05, 05:29 AM	I've always preferred multiple characters. 1) I get bored with just one. 2) It often happens that a single character is negated, dropped, or outright killed. WIth 2 or more, there is a greater likelihood that players will be able to enjoy the encounter anyway. If you monk is trapped in a spider web the whole battle, well your Cleric can still turn the undead and heal the front line fighters. 3) Although I enjoy role-playing, I also like the occassional grand battle. Having multiple characters enables the players to engage in epic warfare without the aid of NPCs. 4) I like to split and resplit parties. There are various ways of doing this, but I like to present situations where the players have to decide who goes where and take steps to ensure that the right characters are sent in the right directions. Having multiple characters enables us to do this without putting individual players out of the game simply because they haven't been included in the specific subgroup. 5) I like starting campaigns with the xtra challenge of, "You have 6 Hit Dice to play with. It's up to you to assign the hit dice as you see fit. You can have 2 3rd level characters, 1 5th and 1 1st. Whatever suits your fancy." It makes for an interesting mix of abilities. That said, I am well aware that my preference is unpopular with most of teh local players. A few have gotten used to it, and even push for more characters than I want right now, but I also know of players who will not join my campaign because they don't like the multiple character concept. I can allow just 1 or 2, but then they feel cheated by the other players who have multiple characters. Some people just aren't comfortable with multiple characters.
I Am Famine 09-26-05, 07:57 AM	1) I get bored with just one. I see what you mean, but i'm not very good at keeping in character if I have more than 1 PC per campaign, thats why I try to be involved in more than one campaign... :D 2) It often happens that a single character is negated, dropped, or outright killed. WIth 2 or more, there is a greater likelihood that players will be able to enjoy the encounter anyway. If you monk is trapped in a spider web the whole battle, well your Cleric can still turn the undead and heal the front line fighters. That would be useful, but in a larger group like i'm blessed with at the moment its isn't exactly a necessity. In a smaller group however I would allow up to 3 characters, but only if I thought the player was up to it. 3) Although I enjoy role-playing, I also like the occassional grand battle. Having multiple characters enables the players to engage in epic warfare without the aid of NPCs. I'd like to try that as a one-off game, a sort of DnD wargame. Although the idea of each player controlling an organization instead of a single character would make an interesting and original campaign. 4) I like to split and resplit parties. There are various ways of doing this, but I like to present situations where the players have to decide who goes where and take steps to ensure that the right characters are sent in the right directions. Having multiple characters enables us to do this without putting individual players out of the game simply because they haven't been included in the specific subgroup. Do you mean as a DM you like to split the party up at intervals in the game? So if there was 4 players and they each had 2 characters each, you could split the 8 PCs into two groups so they could a much wider breadth of your mapped out dungeon/town/wilderness/etc. Thats definately good for a campaign with lots of characters. 5) I like starting campaigns with the xtra challenge of, "You have 6 Hit Dice to play with. It's up to you to assign the hit dice as you see fit. You can have 2 3rd level characters, 1 5th and 1 1st. Whatever suits your fancy." It makes for an interesting mix of abilities. That seems a little overcomplicated to me. I prefer a party whose levels are similar or preferably the same. That said, I am well aware that my preference is unpopular with most of teh local players. A few have gotten used to it, and even push for more characters than I want right now, but I also know of players who will not join my campaign because they don't like the multiple character concept. I can allow just 1 or 2, but then they feel cheated by the other players who have multiple characters. Some people just aren't comfortable with multiple characters. I'd still join your game you seem like a fun guy. If you were DM would you allow me to play just a single character, or would your minimum be about 2-3 or perhaps more?
Brimshack 09-27-05, 03:25 PM	Hey Famine, I am currently requiring 2 characters of each player, which is partly due to impending splits in the party and partly due to the start up challenge. The idea behind teh challange is to have the player weight the benefits of 2 equally balanced characters versus the chance to start with a relative power character and a small side kick. The challenge only works though if each player is responsible for maintaining 2 active characters. It's a complication, yes, but one that has played out in the first game, and I think one that actively engages the creative energies of the players. If that was an explicit deal breaker for a single player - especially Famine itself - I would certainly reconsider the policy. Yeah, I like to split and resplit parties, but I leave it to the players to decide who to send where. This has worked well in 2 campaigns and I hope it will in my current campaign: 1) I ran a 1st edition campaign based on the patrol boat craft in Vietnam. We used magic to generate boats that could move like the actual patrol boats, and kept the rest of the campaign as close to fantasy as possible. The party was divided into 4 parts: 2 Patrol Boats, a Seal Team (just assassins, some multiclassed), and a Back Up boat with a heavy landing force of fighters. The group would travel up river into orc and lizardman territory and conduct missions in the area. The group leader could keep everyone together if he needed the force in one place or he could spread them out to cover more territory (if for example he needed to find a moving enemy). He had to decide how close to keep the characters to one another based on the available information, and if he made the wrong decision a segment of the campaign could end up TPKed. This was one of my most successful campaigns. The strategic questions flowed naturally into the actual play, and we would let each subgroup play out on its own pace. If a mission for the Seal team took a full day while the patrol boats passed unharmed, so be it. Had a lot of fun. 2) I once ran a campaign in which the PCs composed a police unit in a region full of different ethnic groups and some active monster groups. The force had to cover a large area, and they would get people coming in saying, there was a murder here, a pirate ship on the coastline over there, the orcs are acting up on the Northern border, etc. The players had to decide which characters to send to which crisis, and then they had to play it out with the actual characters who were on site. If they sent more than was needed to what turned out to be a fight over a pig in a neighbors garden, then that meant the party facing the gang of Werewolves would be short handed. If the Ranger was off fighting a small band of orcs, he would not be able to use his tracking skills to find a murderer in the next town over. It was a lot of fun, and the players appeared to enjoy working on both strategic and tactical levels. I remember once they balanced the character classes and power levels of the party perfectly when they split the group only to realize the sub-party they sent to a Chinese village contained no-one who could speak with the locals. We all laughed about that one. 3) My impending campaign will be a ship-based exploration bit. The Players will be responsible for the boat and no NPCs will be in the crew. They need to make sure their character set contains the necessary skills for keeping the ship afloat and sailing it around, and they will need to make sure it is safe when they are in port. The group will then have to split up pretty regularly. If the landing party is underpowered, they will be aced, and if the boat gets a token guard the rest of teh party could find itself stranded in a strange land. The only times they will be able to group up will be for sea battles, and then significant portions of the party will be forced to man the ship while the other half actually fights. ...I have high hopes.
Slamex man 09-27-05, 05:13 PM	I'm very picky and can't ever make my mind up on who i'm going to use, so i had my dm killing off one of my characters and introducing another one every session, but now he's banned me from making anymore, but that's alright because I'm using a warlock and i really like warlocks. I honestly don't know why i just said that, maybe it'll help you somehow...