In the 80’s we always ran multiple characters. When one died we would often roll up new ones at L1. We’d end up with a bunch of different characters with levels all over the place. Was fun as hell.
AJ, if you're ever kicking around ideas for another video, why not one on mounted combat? I had a DM that hated horses in the game, and would kill horses right-and-left, other than maybe a paladin's warhorse or special pets like that. I use them extensively. They let you explore more terrain, pack horses let you carry more treasure, they make it drastically easier to get fallen comrades back to safety, etc. Hell, I've had players buy pack horses and wagons, and do everything from set them with tents (think American Wild West covered wagons) for more defensible campsites, to mounting ballista on them for a legit siege weapon against bigger monsters. Nothing ruins a hill giant's day like a ballista bolt through the chest! :D One point to consider: horses give the rider a height advantage in combat, and the ability to make a hasty retreat, while trained, professional infantry fighters (we're talking mercenaries, town guard, not just common rabble) will try to crowd the cavalryman and make grab attacks at the reigns of the horse, removing the rider's control of his mount. If they can, they will try to drag him off the horse if possible, and indeed, many polearms were designed with hooks on them for just that purpose. Some neat stuff to think about, to make battles more tactical, believable, and exciting! :D
Yes... one main character plus 1 to 3 henchmen/hirelings/relatives. There were rules in original DnD and 2nd Edition for having henchmen/hirelings. Character class plus charisma modifier controlled how many any one character could have. And then there were followers. Essentially an NPC mob that wanted to follow the party around to do their cooking and manage the campsite or operate the Paladin's stronghold.
I play three characters. It's fun and hilarious as the table looks on in awe as I have three people talking with each other, cracking jokes, arguing, howling battle cries. Good times.
Playing twin Warlocks of a Great Old One are a great intro to multi-character play. Make their Awakened Mind Feature into some type of link between them giving them a pseudo hive mind and you never have to RP the exchange of info between your two characters. Get them within 60 feet of each other and they know what the other knows.
Death saves mechanic rather than damage carrying over to -10 makes a fair amount of difference. And if worst happens a quest can always be cooked up to resurrect or save a player character. People that don't get to play often most likely, and should, have several character ideas put away for reserves.
Another player of mine was playing a neutrally-aligned drow kicked out of the Underdark, and adventuring in an area with a large community of wood elves, and a small community of grey elves. The NPC elves naturally didn't trust him, so they insisted a small body of wood elf archers follow him around at all times, keeping watch on him. Again, he didn't have to pay them, they were more-or-less self-sufficient, though when the players got in combat they naturally fought to defend the group. The player was eventually able to role-play and persuade the wood elves that he wasn't such a bad guy, and they became the core of his personal retinue as the campaign went on. Initially, I role-played the wary NPC elves, but as he gained their trust and learned their personalities, I let him take over running them. This let the group take on some bigger challenges than their normal level, since they had a half-dozen extra bows to help them out.
Completely agree here with everything said here. A couple examples from my own campaigns, I had a paladin in 3.5E that accepted a squire from his feudal lord as soon as he was qualified to train one. At first he was reluctant, but then he realized the value of having someone to look after his horse when he had to go where his horse could not. Likewise, the ability to send a recognized servant back to his lord with messages when the players uncovered a situation they didn't previously know about. I believe the main requirement I set for knights and paladins being assigned squires, was that they had to be at least 3rd level, and have the feats Mounted Combat, and Exotic Weapon: bastard sword, the basic combat prereqs for a mounted cavalryman. He didn't even really have to pay him as per the 1E retainer rules, other than making sure he was fed, housed, upgrading his equipment, and giving him a small retainer from time-to-time for some spending coin in towns.
Great video, great argument for multiple characters. I respectfully disagree. Most players, no matter how devoted, cannot disinvest from characters they have. All they know and experience will affect their roles in the other characters, even as inklings and hints they don't mean to involve. My best role-playing player when I was a DM, the only guy who showed up to every session I DM'd, every mission in the same campaign world I was running, his characters all shared the same experience knowledge (no matter how he downplayed it) as an advantage. In disconnected groups, they all saw this common player's character as a bit of a spy in disconnected ways and followed his lead. One campaign world I had in my late teens had 5 groups... only one common player in all. Several with each but I digress. Most people really ignore or downplay retainers.
I am running a campaign where one player wanted to play a wizard, since he was never able to play one beyond one game. Since everyone else had free reign no melee fighters really stepped up. So he chose to also play a fighter as well and tied the two characters together as brothers. We added on new players playing melee and no longer needed to play it but it was too late. He knows he is getting no special treatment and no one seems to have a problem.
I like the broadcasts like DCA where when a player dies the rest of the party has to do some type of quest to resurrect the dead character. I like that they remember that you can be resurrected in d&d but did’t make it so commonplace as to make death pointless.
You could also pay a character who has multiple personalities. Each personality can be a different class, or even race. The idea of a human wizard who has been stuck in his tower for too long gaining different sides to his personality like a dwarf fighter and a elven druid can be fun to play. Stats slightly altering when the personalities come to the surface.
This works great if you're wanting your character to be part of a duo, a la Raistlin and Caramon Majere of Dragonlance fame, as we are often disappointed when another player in our group falls to fill that complimentary role. DYI folks!
I think players might feel awkward roleplaying more than one character, but there are multiple ways around that. For example, have a rocket racoon / Groot duo, or have the DM roleplay all but 1 of your characters (aka your main character)
This is perfect timing, haha. Watching the most recent episode of Critical Role yesterday it was CLEAR Matt (amazing person and DM) pulled his punches and opted not to kill someone when the for logically would have ended that person. I've loved Critical Role for awhile now but their fandom is ridiculous. . .
Oh, I remember fondly that the AD&D 2e Dark Sun explicitly said "Make at least three characters. Your current one can die real, real fast." That's Athas for ya of course but also teaches to prepare for your beloved character's lonely dehydration, suffocation in dry quicksand, death to cacti or whatever ignoble death (or noble even!) you may face and carry on with understanding and respect to the setting and game.
I'm running a WoW themed solo one shot for a level 14 elf wizard (with next to no gear), I'm using a bunch of low level mobs with high attack but low damage. And it's been going pretty good, so let them be high level but with starting gold as if they're level 1 (or just give em 1,000gp) this way they're not fragile nor are they OP.
Never had an issue with the party splitting up during quests or crawls. Plus character death is great from my perspective, as the DM. I get to see how they all deal with it. And I love the idea ov creating a legacy for others to follow, when people have a pc start a family, clan or foundation or group and then they die and create a new character out ov the group they just created. Create items that then get abilities added upon as the game goes on. This was a much needed video as i hear a lot say not to split up
AJ, hey man huge fan of yours over here in the US. I've been a DM for a long time and your channel has made deepening my knowledge of monsters and lore so much easier. I actually use your channel as a teaching tool when I teach lore to players. That being said I wanted to front an idea to you for another series of videos. Cities/Nations. Iconic cities like Waterdeep, Neverwinter, and Mithral Hall have so much lore to them, not to mention SCENERY, that I think you might justice possibly doing videos on them. I love taking players to a new city, but unfortunately I'm not so great at really giving them a sense of wonder about amazing places like Silverymoon and Gauntlgrym. Maybe help a few dms out in the process? You're a fantastic D&D Scholar, so you keep doing what you do. Just a suggestion.
I am running a game for one person, and I have some advice based on what I have learned. -Have them run one character. It will let them really rp, and it will make the game more personal. -Make the game personal. Explore their backstory. Use their background. -Do not try and run encounters with too many NPCs or monsters. If you have to roll 5 times before the player gets to roll once, something is going wrong. -Use this as an opportunity to flesh out your world, and work on your particular DM skills.(I.E roll playing, voice acting, etc.) -This is a good time to tell a very cohesive story. 1 player is pretty easy to predict and therefore guide to where you want in a story. 2-5 players is completely unpredictable, and will derail your game. -Remember that a hero is made by his villain. Make a good villain and the game will be memorable. Use the particular character's weaknesses to force difficult decisions. -Play up the isolation. Have allies get mad at the character, or disbelieve the things he tells them. Make them feel crazy. Have them get trapped all alone, with no one coming to save them. A solo game is the best horror game. -Be descriptive. It is only the two of you, so you don't have to try to include 3 other people. -Give them tasks they are bad at. A game should have a diverse set of challenges. If it is a fighter, give them charisma checks. Give that bard some strength checks. -Social encounters and combat encounters are really important. A solo game needs much more social interaction, but combat abilities that go unused are just disappointing. -Flesh out the NPCs. They don't have a party to play with, so the NPCs are the cast. Just remember, the player is the main character. I will add more if I think of more.
-Reward good decision making, and make bad decision making punishing. Do the same with good and bad rolls. Let them know they are doing good and it will FEEL good.
I am playing a game with two of my friends 1 is the DM and the other and I, both of us have 3 characters atm 1 of theirs and 1 of mine are atm are arena fighters/gladiators. well the other 4 are off "saving the world". And before that my fighter/arcane gunner was killed well setting up a rope line around a giant hole because he took off his armor to reduce his weight ( RP choice) and something came out of the darkness cause he was human.having multi characters is fun cause it's fun to play out the fact that they think and act differently, but are played by the same person.
I have DM'ed for a while now and so I am used to managing multiple Characters at once but I tried playing 3 (LvL 6) characters in a one shot with a friend (who was DM'ing) and it was a lot to keep track of. I highly doubt any newer players would be able to do this
I let my players run 2 characters, usually it is 1 main and 1 assistant/apprentice/body guard. The main would be involved with the primary interaction, but their support character can be used for hooks or specialized knowledge only their race/class would know.
I'm running 2 in a campaign now. I like the contrast in their personalities. Berret is a cautious, humble human cleric and always wants an escape plan. "Grin" is a loud, boastful, aggressive dwarf pally that just wants to get on with it. Our last session had them fighting eachother as Berret had been charmed by a vampire. It was strange but fun. Playing 2 characters has always been fun for me. My advice to others would be to be ready when it's your character's turn, don't pause the game.
Interesting.... I already had a concept for an artificer in charge of the creation on warforged who's paladin son was mortally wounded by a cornered thief so he performs a ritual to bind his son to the automaton.
When I first played D&D back in 2e in 1993 it was just me and my friend DMing. So after a few sessions he introduced to my character NPCs that he gave me to play as PCs so my Drow adventuring in the Underdark that eventual met two Duergar and a hobgoblin in a crypt in a near a sewer which I played for several years after before I started DMing myself for a few friends in Ravenloft in 1995 using the campaign box set💯
I never plan my encounters based on character level, or CR. I had a 1st level player drop down a hole on to the snout of a sleeping red dragon, awakening it from a 30 year sleep, which was the main plot point of the adventure. And yes, he died, but that's because of instead of fleeing down a narrow passage, he tried to stab it in the eye.b
I quite agree. In the 80s, I typically fielded more than one character at a time. I like the idea of each player having a roster or pool of characters that they can pull from. Even if one character didn't die they might be injured badly and out of action for awhile and so you can field a different one for a time. I think the Critical Role style has caused more new players to think they have to use accents , voices, and theatrics all the time as if they are LARPing. There are some players who almost take on the identity of their characters even outside of gaming. Seems a little cuckoo, but maybe that's just me being cantankerous. To each their own.
YES! I was recently considering having my mid level players start to get hirelings whose maintenance and role play was up to them. My party has a noticable lack of raw physical damage, and I'm tired of backing them up. Also, they want to provide services (ie operating a temple or druid circle) to the locals. I REFUSE to rule play for 10 more druids, as many clerics and governing functionaries 🙄 I want to allow my players to do this, but by the gods, they're gonna do it
Aka for every wizard go to the apprentice classes and make a weaker acolyte for them that has a level -1 or 0 with bad stats weaker then you and create a secondary level system of rank for both that gives a bit more strength.
I totally agree with you on running two characters at a time. My old group , it was normal for us to be playing two characters and have one just in case, lol. Love the videos, keep it up 👍
My first years in the hobby were spent on me playing THREE PCs at once, whom are now affectionately called my "Big 3". It was a lot of fun. They're still alive and about in the world. One further comment: Man, "a big fuss" is a bit of an understatement for the "Critter" community around Molly's death. Some people straight up threatened Mercer over it. Some people's kids...
I love that the players have multiple characters because I bloody hate having to have an npc join the party that I have to manage as a DM. two of the party members wanted to have more meat shields so they enjoyed making two more characters two levels below their own characters. Usually the players have one main character and another “silent” character. My players dwarf fighter cleric goes around with a minotaur right hand man that have sworn absolute loyalty to the dwarf. When one of my players characters died, one of the party members bargained with a devil to get him back to life. Radically changed the entire story from that point. Another time two of the characters died, giving the druid the highpoint of his career when he had the opportunity to cast two reincarnate spells, which caused one of the most exciting sessions in my campaign. I permanently killed of one character when the players entered a forbidden cave sealed with a powerful ward that kept an ancient vampire inside. Having given the players fair warning, they still entered the cave and fell in combat. The players second character was more fun for him to play because he had been the same character for so long, while it was a bitter moment when it happened my player was in hindsight very happy it did happen so that he could make a new “grand summoner” druid.
i used to run a game in 5e that only had one player so i had him make 2 others it just took some time to get used to the extra characters but we made it work
Regarding lethality, I think the important thing is for everyone to be more or less on the same page. There's nothing wrong with either old-school meat grinders or with gentler, more character-focused campaigns, so long as everyone's preferences are at least roughly compatible and no one goes in expecting one extreme and getting the other. Personally, I like something in between, the kind of gaming where there's still an element of risk but not to the point that you can't get invested in the characters. That doesn't mean that every encounter has to be tailored to the party's levels and composition precisely according to the DMG formulas, but that barring very bad luck or very bad decision making, most incidents should at least theoretically be survivable through one means or another. If a monster is too overwhelming for players to overcome in combat, maybe it can be avoided by stealth or reasoned with and persuaded through diplomacy or smooth talking. Maybe there's some feature of the situation or location that clever PCs can take advantage of to even the odds a little. If worst comes to worst, maybe the enemy has an agenda and threatens, geasses, or otherwise forces the characters to do its bidding in exchange for their lives- instant plot hook! (One of the most memorable campaigns I've played in more or less began with that kind of scenario.)
I agree with this, sometimes the party can't beat that inraged deity, in their own temple, on a mountaing piercing the cloud tops, floating in the sky. But there are other options, so many other options, so many possibilities to change or twist the plot. Hell maybe they even do die, but it doesn't have to end there. There are few narative limitations in DnD. 👍
I always felt like I wasn't missing out by not watching "the big" D&D podcasts and this kind of confirms it, its a game I have been wanting to play since I was a teenager, and only in adulthood finally realized I could recruit friends into playing(its been just over a year now and still going strong). When I started a player did ask if she could run multiple characters, but in the interest of keeping things simple for myself, and fair for other new players who struggled with one character and I didn't want to feel pressured to take on a second, I told them no. Honestly though after hearing your reasoning, even from an in-game perspective(knights with their squires etc), its a topic I'm definitely revisiting with my group. On splitting the party: I've only had a problem with this once, when a new player WOULD NOT join the party on an adventure, despite agreeing to play, agreeing to join, and given multiple invitations and chances by both myself and the party to join. We're talking "you go to the Inn's dining room and see a group of adventurers discussing requiring help to bring down a deadly foe" level, served on a silver platter invitations responded to with "I'll go outside and play my instrument for money, after that I'll spend the next 6 hours fishing", all this despite multiple talks, I just cut the player loose. Other than that when a player decides to run off and fail on their own the rest of the party enjoys chance to dig into the snacks and laugh at said player's misfortune.
I will never understand those non-interactive players... why are they even at a game session when they behave like they are playing skyrim on their own? It's just silly, and kind of sad.
@@AJPickett For this particular player I know his ideas going into the game was informed largely by games like Runescape, but he's always been weird about social situations(I've known the guy almost 20 years now) so I just chalked it up to the anxiety of sitting in a room full of strangers.
I might have to do this I organizing a session for a party that consists of my Mother and two neices Brianna and Cassandra and after Phandelver were going into Storm Kings Thunder wich garantees the deaths of two characters easily. Also on a separate note I was watching your Spelljammer videos and got inspired to make a coffin shaped Spelljammer ship controlled by a Demilich and crewed by it's undead entourage that uses passengers for treasure hunting because It has a pact with the Archdevil that wants treasure more than souls.(I forgot his name and even if I remembered it I probably wouldn't be able to spell it unless I was looking at it. Blasted Latin names!)
Players of the old is far different than the newer players I don't know if it's because a different company runs it or the changes they have made but what I say is if it ain't broke don't fix it
*courier rides frantically on horse back carrying a scroll, with the seal of an inquisition on it. Only to pass it on to some official in terror, ridding away just as fast. The official then having received the scroll, proforms serveral religious gestures of purity, silently weaping for deaths they are now powerless to avoid, kneeling with the scroll for an hour in incoherant frightfull and agencyless prayer. They then rise, and turn around in an imperial city square, to walk with the scroll down a marble pathway inlayed in a white stone pathway with the guilded structures of a vast city sized temple all around them. Only to walk through the open scerent entrance to the main building, the pathway now flanked by gold dragons uttering lines of a rhymic poem in draconic as the official passes the massive heads of the ultimate palladins only to pass the scroll into the awaiting hand of an avatar, who's back is turned to them, bearly able to contain their glee. At which point the official breaks down, moping at the heels of divinity, groveling for impossible mercys and restraints only to be met with* "See! I told you mortals this day would come! Herecy, blasphemy is wonderfully impossible to ignore! The inquisition has been summoned! And the inquisitiors will awaken inside their mortal hosts! Ofcourse multi character role play was a stapple of D&D, but you little prostraters were lucky untill now... Oh yes my humble servant, i shall be restored in full. In such fury that even dragons shall terror to behold, i mean look at those old busy bodies, they're possitively quacking." 🔥🏛🔥
I know there isn't really an objective answer to many of these questions, but you have a lot of experience with D&D and I was hoping to get your advice. 1.) Do you have any suggestions on the number of characters for a player to control at once? 2.) Would you suggest keeping players at roughly equal number of characters and levels to prevent one player from dominating, or just let things happen as they many? 3.) Dose it matter whether you have more than one equal character, one character with a sidekick, or one with a few minions (ie. two knights vs. a knight and his squire vs. a noble knight and his three servants)? Would those change anything since some will get more focus (and possibly more power) than others? 4.) Do you have any advice on staying in character with multiple characters without messing up to often, let alone interacting each other? 5.) How do you feel about gestalt characters (2e style multiclassing) and (assuming you didn't say to stay away from it) do you think they would take up one "character slot" or one per class? Also, do you think it would be okay if only part of the party did it, or would it need to be an all or nothing thing? 6.)Would the gm take over characters at times or would they be entirely in the control of the player (at least as much as one character would be), and again, dose it effect the answer if they are two or more equal adventurers or one main one and an apprentices, or henchmen? 7.) When would pets/mounts count towards the number of characters? 8.) This isn't really a question as much as to say that I don't think splitting the party is mostly about people getting bored waiting. I have always heard people say don't split the party in the same way people say to not split up in a horror movie: it increases the possibility of everybody dying (though I suppose multiple characters would help with that too). 9.) On a slight tangent, how do you handle death in your game? I imagine you do not make it easy, but if they don't have a spell to bring them back are they out of luck, or can they go on a quest or something to get what they need to do it? If they make a new character, do they start out at the same level as the rest of the party?
I was introduced to D&D through 5e, and this video has given me an idea. I have been toying with the idea (not necessarily for an rpg) about a group of people known by the masks they wear, with each mask being past from one generation to the next. I think I'll take that idea with this style of play and take that into the next time I (hopefully) get to be a player: rather than the character being the one that becomes more powerful, the mask becomes a magic item that grants a commoner its strength while worn.
Well, duh? But, the one thing that you didn't touch on is that some times, a person has enough trouble playing just 1 character & mentally can not handle multiple pcs. Its not easy thing to do at least not as individual pcs and not as main and retainers/follwers/npcs. Also, for a DM, you also need to be aware of character knowledge versus player knowledge. Unscrupulous players would use knowledge from one of for another, or situation knowledge from a different part of the location. Multiple pcs does allow for a fuller, more rounded party where physical bodies are limited. Its just a fine line between good role playing and party dominance
Come to think of it, I almost killed a level 2 Ranger after this player's very first boss fight. I craft it all ahead of time, and just happened to roll that one of the loot chests from the boss fight was a mimic. It was a cleric npc they hired who saved him from that near death
The only problem with multiple characters is combat, if all those characters are involved in one combat, things can get really bogged down. Less so if you have a really small group of PC's, but if you have a medium or large group it can get hectic/mid bendingly slow. Now, having a sort of...revolving door thing makes sense. Letting the cast get bigger, and people decide who they want to control in the session, or at different points, makes sense. It really depends on your players though, a lot of mine would struggle to keep all the different abilities coherent (it's been years and they still forget about saving throws, and some ask which dice to roll for ability checks...Sigh.)
this is my favorite video of yours, everybody interested in dnd (and anything remotely similar) should see this. one thing you mentioned on stream that you implied here but didnt explicitly state: running multiple characters also encourages retiring characters at appropriate points in their stories; losing a character can be a 'win' if they didnt die but simply left, stopped adventuring, having completed their story. then, as you stated, you can find them later as npcs or npcs that have since interacted with them. edit: I would love to watch games run like this (bewarethecarpenter, or anyone else) /edit thanks for sharing this knowledge so it is not lost, this was the first place ive heard of such a thing, but it has been something i've thought of from the very beginning (each player running a small 'squad'). p.s. that also goes in line with the bit of info you shared, about how dnd evolved from roleplaying as scouts in a wargame to gain advantage ahead of time: you were the first place ive heard of such a thing, but that is actually the reason i became interested in dnd in the first place, to have rules to roleplay scouts for a wargame; without even realizing the connection.
As someone who can only get two consistent players, this appeals to me a lot. It's not the worst but certainly can take effort not to add one too many monsters to a fight and kill them with simple action economy.
Excellent and pivotal vid, sir! Oh, the lonely evenings that were made more bearable by taking my multiple characters through a random dungeon generator from the appendix of the 1st edition DMG... yes, I was THAT SAD in true nerdish idiom. Thus did I lunch out a portion of my secondary education by being too knackered to show up for class the next day, yet my creative imagination burgeoned as a result. Breaking down the soap opera format of online Dnd vids is a good thing - and we shall discover many more ways to do this...
One thing, I do DM a bit me and my frainds play and one of the other people aslo dms a different game where I play a pc. I do run a character with the players to fill out the party and let me just say, its hard enough to run a cleric and the monsters they are fighting. In addition to potentally any further NPC alies such as another fighter or cleric, it gets to become a lot at once and can slow things down.
In AL its expected you have more then 1 character after a few sessions. Also If some1 can't play it normal 4 a sibling or friend to keep their character alive & up to speed w maintaining XP
I watch a live Stream of a homebrew Digimon RPG one shot and was very confused why the DM was controlling the player's Digimon and not letting the players control both the Kid characters and their Digimon they are kind of the same unit. So yeah people thinking they can't play multiple characters seem to big issue in all of Table top gaming.
Ive run as many as six characters in a campaign and with 6 players thats a lot of PCs 😎 EDIT----As a Dungeon Master it really helps when you've memorized most of the core rule books including spells without having to constantly bog the game down looking up stats 😎
while i have no problem with that playstyle, i personally dont like it. i like my players to be immersed in their characters and that is easier to do when they have 1 character that they can focus their energy on. and then when they do die, its that much more heart-wrenching because they cared about their character instead of having 3 throw away characters in case one dies. and it makes rp so much easier because characters dont have to talk to themselves ever or other players dont get confused with who is talking to them or anything like that. i prefer a more rp and story based game instead of a strategy based game that having multiple players would be build for.
Great Vid. I think PC deaths are the taboo, Losing is fun if you let it. Death of a PC in the DM's world can make legacy's or lore. Other players can use the death it to shape their PC's actions, to mourn or swear vengeance. and for the Player milk it for all worth. Dying words, a last attack like uncorking an alchemist flask or tackling an enemy off the edge of a cliff. I think DM's would bend rules if its going to be awesome.
That’s good advice but another option is for the DM to say, “Good news, a peasant found you half dead, took you back to his hut, and nursed you back to health. The bad news is that all of your gear and money is gone. Good luck with all of that.” That’s going to be a challenge for any character and absolutely devastating to certain classes like the Wizard. Although, I probably wouldn’t give a player more than one out like that. Next time he or she dies, the player would have to die for real or else the game would get silly and be low stakes.
I may just be a newbie here, I started in 5e just a couple years ago after all, but I really don't mind some leniency so long as everyone is on the same page. There's a balance to be had. I do think death should always be a possible outcome. At the same time, I've seen plenty of D&D horror stories about people on the other extreme. There are toxic DMs out there who purposefully try to undermine their players and kill them off in their own attempt at "winning" D&D. There are also some old-school players who pride themselves on playing D&D "back when it was hard", and wind up being very gatekeeping against potential new players. Maybe I'm rambling here, but I guess the point I'm trying to make is it always seems futile to me whenever people argue what D&D is "supposed" to be. It seems to me the game is meant to be malleable, varying from group to group. There's no "correct" way to play. So long as everyone is having a good time, the game is serving its purpose.
some players like to play campaigns with little or no fear of PC death. Some don't. They're both right as long as they are having a good time. There is no wrong way to play D&D. THERE IS NO WRONG WAY TO PLAY D&D
Do you have any rule suggestions for doing this? Should the players start with two characters or should they gain a lower level follower after they've gained a few levels? What do you recommend?
If they have a lower level character, it will just end up being used as cannon fodder, sent down trapped corridors, used to carry items and forgotten the rest of the time, so, I strongly suggest you keep the characters the same level, also, it makes it easier to keep track of the paperwork.
You should try the Sidekick system showcased in the Essencial's kit. The ruleset was handed out for free by WotC last week on the D&D website. It's pretty good.
Unless you're running straight out of the campaign books, Adventurer's League seems to push for multiple characters due to the spread of tiers and characters leveling out of them or into new ones that prompt lower level players to keep being added to the ones you're handling.
My advice, as a player, is to start out with one character, flesh them out, get to understand them. Then start introducing more, if your game master allows you to do so. (This statement is made before watching the video. I shall edit in my thoughts after the full video.)
I'm currently a player in a high level campaign. I'm a level 18 Wizard. It gets... A little crazy sometimes. Death isn't really a worry at this point because we also have a level 18 Life Cleric. Oh, we could still die. Our final fight is going to be with Tiamat. But everything between then is mostly planning and politics. The five headed bitch has basically taken over a whole continent and had the bad luck of it being the continent a very pesky wizard happened to live on. At this stage of the game, I don't think character death is that important. One way or the other. There are also 6 players in the game. Its not important because we know that its on us to stop a goddess. It doesn't matter if we die because if we do, the world is over. It doesn't matter if we don't die because, if we do, we already know what we have to do. That may very well be my character sacrificing himself (again) to save everyone. And it won't really matter at all.
I run a moderately lethal campaign, I don’t really think death is as important as you make it out to be. But the issue is, that since death isn’t on the table combat and etc can become less urgent. I counter this in my game with the risks of failure. Getting the party properly invested in the plot, and subjecting them to failure is just as bad as death. I’ve run hostage encounters where the enemies killed several captives due to poor diplomacy. I’ve had enemies escape, only to inform the main villains. I’ve had players titles revoked, reputation tarnished, and mistakes called for. The risk of death, I don’t believe needs to be on the table. Instead wager something else, if you or your players aren’t up for such risks.
Question: Aj I've reciently noticed that summoning as in creating a reverse magic circle and then summoning a creature to Planar Bind is highly under developed in 5e for PCs but in many campaigns antagonist npcs may have some bound creature in servitude. Are there any thoughts you have that may get around this without being game breaking for PCs?
I have had terrible experiences with these post-Critical Role players. I'm not an old Grognar who takes glee in killing a PC, but holy balls, I have had three players at three different tables with three totally different groups completely bail on the game after their character dies to a terrible decision, one even tearfully calling me an asshole because his rogue was killed... After jumping into a fight against a pack of gnolls, despite warnings from me and one other player, without the rest of the party. Also got chided for, and I quote here, "not doing voices right." I don't do over the top accents during the game, but I do make sure that each NPC has an inflection or change in posture to show that it's not narration. Dunno, maybe it's just the lower average age and I'm sure there are plenty of new folks who are blossoming into fantastic players, but I'm at the point of putting up a notice when I post a game: don't sit down if you started playing after CR.
Speaking only for myself when I DM games, I kill PCS. Not every game but it is a real risk. I only allow my players to have one character at a time, and when that character dies they lose level the next character they make will be one level lower than the previous character they had. I believe it's no fun if there are no consequences.
Yeah, i agree with this on many, many levels. The game shouldn't have pulled punches for your special P.C.s, they should should die like everybody else does. And their inflated conquerous egos should get PTSD from it. The party should live in fear from than ancient vampire that is hunting them with a crossbow. And is a ranger. And their "'forest" is the night... Itself. & they skin the pelts off of their scientent kills. You can even build subcultures in games around the legacies that charachters create. If ascension to god hood is possible then everything underneath that should always be fun for your party to achieve. You shouldn't just be stuck with human fighter for an extensive campaign running on for years, like it's some given law - that cannot be broken. Why not role play as their awakened pet cat, helping the party outside of combat, weaving through the urban and rural environments with events, like the vampires crossbow bolt. Stricking home when that poor, isolated murder hobo goblin expects it the least.
This may not be the place but I was just curious. I have a party of 6 player characters. Should they have multiple characters or is that a good number?? I plan on giving them hirelings once they are stronger, but as of now storyline and the like seem to be progressing fine.
Seems like this game turned from an RTS to a chosen one linear story path. Because if you pull the "it's what my character would do" line out and not unanimous with the rest of the party decisions, the player themselves usually gets overruled and they don't get to make that character decision....like it's not a dynamic shifting fantasy world....just a roller coaster in a theme park.
There once was a PC named Seamus......and also a DM named Reamus.....Roll the polyhedron again.....soon to be,my dead friend....as Tiamats right here between us! 😨😨😨
Only running one character isn't right or wrong, it's just one way to run a game. If you're playing a game with a focus on story and character development, then you want one character to focus on. If you play a "west marches" game, or just want to take risks and see what happens, then run more. It's not a right-or-wrong debate.
LOL, I just realised I left a blooper in the video, where I repeated myself, normally I would have edited that out.
To err is human, to obsess over your number of followers Divine.
@@DyrgeAfterDark words of wisdom gabe,words of wisdom! 😁
In the 80’s we always ran multiple characters. When one died we would often roll up new ones at L1. We’d end up with a bunch of different characters with levels all over the place. Was fun as hell.
AJ, if you're ever kicking around ideas for another video, why not one on mounted combat? I had a DM that hated horses in the game, and would kill horses right-and-left, other than maybe a paladin's warhorse or special pets like that. I use them extensively. They let you explore more terrain, pack horses let you carry more treasure, they make it drastically easier to get fallen comrades back to safety, etc.
Hell, I've had players buy pack horses and wagons, and do everything from set them with tents (think American Wild West covered wagons) for more defensible campsites, to mounting ballista on them for a legit siege weapon against bigger monsters. Nothing ruins a hill giant's day like a ballista bolt through the chest! :D
One point to consider: horses give the rider a height advantage in combat, and the ability to make a hasty retreat, while trained, professional infantry fighters (we're talking mercenaries, town guard, not just common rabble) will try to crowd the cavalryman and make grab attacks at the reigns of the horse, removing the rider's control of his mount. If they can, they will try to drag him off the horse if possible, and indeed, many polearms were designed with hooks on them for just that purpose. Some neat stuff to think about, to make battles more tactical, believable, and exciting! :D
When playing this style one of my extra characters will either be a sibling, a servant or even an apprentice.
Yes... one main character plus 1 to 3 henchmen/hirelings/relatives.
There were rules in original DnD and 2nd Edition for having henchmen/hirelings. Character class plus charisma modifier controlled how many any one character could have.
And then there were followers. Essentially an NPC mob that wanted to follow the party around to do their cooking and manage the campsite or operate the Paladin's stronghold.
I play three characters. It's fun and hilarious as the table looks on in awe as I have three people talking with each other, cracking jokes, arguing, howling battle cries. Good times.
Playing twin Warlocks of a Great Old One are a great intro to multi-character play. Make their Awakened Mind Feature into some type of link between them giving them a pseudo hive mind and you never have to RP the exchange of info between your two characters. Get them within 60 feet of each other and they know what the other knows.
That's what we're talking about, role playing reasons for being more than one.
Death saves mechanic rather than damage carrying over to -10 makes a fair amount of difference. And if worst happens a quest can always be cooked up to resurrect or save a player character. People that don't get to play often most likely, and should, have several character ideas put away for reserves.
Another player of mine was playing a neutrally-aligned drow kicked out of the Underdark, and adventuring in an area with a large community of wood elves, and a small community of grey elves. The NPC elves naturally didn't trust him, so they insisted a small body of wood elf archers follow him around at all times, keeping watch on him. Again, he didn't have to pay them, they were more-or-less self-sufficient, though when the players got in combat they naturally fought to defend the group. The player was eventually able to role-play and persuade the wood elves that he wasn't such a bad guy, and they became the core of his personal retinue as the campaign went on.
Initially, I role-played the wary NPC elves, but as he gained their trust and learned their personalities, I let him take over running them. This let the group take on some bigger challenges than their normal level, since they had a half-dozen extra bows to help them out.
Completely agree here with everything said here. A couple examples from my own campaigns, I had a paladin in 3.5E that accepted a squire from his feudal lord as soon as he was qualified to train one. At first he was reluctant, but then he realized the value of having someone to look after his horse when he had to go where his horse could not. Likewise, the ability to send a recognized servant back to his lord with messages when the players uncovered a situation they didn't previously know about.
I believe the main requirement I set for knights and paladins being assigned squires, was that they had to be at least 3rd level, and have the feats Mounted Combat, and Exotic Weapon: bastard sword, the basic combat prereqs for a mounted cavalryman. He didn't even really have to pay him as per the 1E retainer rules, other than making sure he was fed, housed, upgrading his equipment, and giving him a small retainer from time-to-time for some spending coin in towns.
Great video, great argument for multiple characters. I respectfully disagree. Most players, no matter how devoted, cannot disinvest from characters they have. All they know and experience will affect their roles in the other characters, even as inklings and hints they don't mean to involve. My best role-playing player when I was a DM, the only guy who showed up to every session I DM'd, every mission in the same campaign world I was running, his characters all shared the same experience knowledge (no matter how he downplayed it) as an advantage. In disconnected groups, they all saw this common player's character as a bit of a spy in disconnected ways and followed his lead. One campaign world I had in my late teens had 5 groups... only one common player in all. Several with each but I digress. Most people really ignore or downplay retainers.
I am running a campaign where one player wanted to play a wizard, since he was never able to play one beyond one game. Since everyone else had free reign no melee fighters really stepped up. So he chose to also play a fighter as well and tied the two characters together as brothers. We added on new players playing melee and no longer needed to play it but it was too late. He knows he is getting no special treatment and no one seems to have a problem.
Playing multiple chars or not, it's really important for the players to know when to run/retreat from those dangers and live to fight another day.
And then you have games like MCDM where life is cheap and you kill a PC in episode one
Thank you for saying this I've had this argument more times than I can count now I site this video again thank you I'm glad i'm not the only one
i like how you started adding music to your videos
Thanks Lucas :)
I like the broadcasts like DCA where when a player dies the rest of the party has to do some type of quest to resurrect the dead character. I like that they remember that you can be resurrected in d&d but did’t make it so commonplace as to make death pointless.
You could also pay a character who has multiple personalities. Each personality can be a different class, or even race. The idea of a human wizard who has been stuck in his tower for too long gaining different sides to his personality like a dwarf fighter and a elven druid can be fun to play. Stats slightly altering when the personalities come to the surface.
This works great if you're wanting your character to be part of a duo, a la Raistlin and Caramon Majere of Dragonlance fame, as we are often disappointed when another player in our group falls to fill that complimentary role. DYI folks!
I think players might feel awkward roleplaying more than one character, but there are multiple ways around that. For example, have a rocket racoon / Groot duo, or have the DM roleplay all but 1 of your characters (aka your main character)
This is perfect timing, haha. Watching the most recent episode of Critical Role yesterday it was CLEAR Matt (amazing person and DM) pulled his punches and opted not to kill someone when the for logically would have ended that person. I've loved Critical Role for awhile now but their fandom is ridiculous. . .
Oh, I remember fondly that the AD&D 2e Dark Sun explicitly said "Make at least three characters. Your current one can die real, real fast." That's Athas for ya of course but also teaches to prepare for your beloved character's lonely dehydration, suffocation in dry quicksand, death to cacti or whatever ignoble death (or noble even!) you may face and carry on with understanding and respect to the setting and game.
Tried to get my players to do it, none of them wanted to. Maybe this video will change their mind lol
I'm running a WoW themed solo one shot for a level 14 elf wizard (with next to no gear), I'm using a bunch of low level mobs with high attack but low damage. And it's been going pretty good, so let them be high level but with starting gold as if they're level 1 (or just give em 1,000gp) this way they're not fragile nor are they OP.
Never had an issue with the party splitting up during quests or crawls. Plus character death is great from my perspective, as the DM. I get to see how they all deal with it.
And I love the idea ov creating a legacy for others to follow, when people have a pc start a family, clan or foundation or group and then they die and create a new character out ov the group they just created. Create items that then get abilities added upon as the game goes on.
This was a much needed video as i hear a lot say not to split up
AJ, hey man huge fan of yours over here in the US. I've been a DM for a long time and your channel has made deepening my knowledge of monsters and lore so much easier. I actually use your channel as a teaching tool when I teach lore to players. That being said I wanted to front an idea to you for another series of videos. Cities/Nations. Iconic cities like Waterdeep, Neverwinter, and Mithral Hall have so much lore to them, not to mention SCENERY, that I think you might justice possibly doing videos on them. I love taking players to a new city, but unfortunately I'm not so great at really giving them a sense of wonder about amazing places like Silverymoon and Gauntlgrym. Maybe help a few dms out in the process? You're a fantastic D&D Scholar, so you keep doing what you do. Just a suggestion.
Great idea!
@@AJPickett I totally agree with Cainus on that. I would love to see you unpack the rise and fall and sort of rise and crash of Luskan.
I am running a game for one person, and I have some advice based on what I have learned.
-Have them run one character. It will let them really rp, and it will make the game more personal.
-Make the game personal. Explore their backstory. Use their background.
-Do not try and run encounters with too many NPCs or monsters. If you have to roll 5 times before the player gets to roll once, something is going wrong.
-Use this as an opportunity to flesh out your world, and work on your particular DM skills.(I.E roll playing, voice acting, etc.)
-This is a good time to tell a very cohesive story. 1 player is pretty easy to predict and therefore guide to where you want in a story. 2-5 players is completely unpredictable, and will derail your game.
-Remember that a hero is made by his villain. Make a good villain and the game will be memorable. Use the particular character's weaknesses to force difficult decisions.
-Play up the isolation. Have allies get mad at the character, or disbelieve the things he tells them. Make them feel crazy. Have them get trapped all alone, with no one coming to save them. A solo game is the best horror game.
-Be descriptive. It is only the two of you, so you don't have to try to include 3 other people.
-Give them tasks they are bad at. A game should have a diverse set of challenges. If it is a fighter, give them charisma checks. Give that bard some strength checks.
-Social encounters and combat encounters are really important. A solo game needs much more social interaction, but combat abilities that go unused are just disappointing.
-Flesh out the NPCs. They don't have a party to play with, so the NPCs are the cast. Just remember, the player is the main character.
I will add more if I think of more.
-Reward good decision making, and make bad decision making punishing. Do the same with good and bad rolls. Let them know they are doing good and it will FEEL good.
Make multiple Dvati characters. Name them all Legion.
Multiple characters, yay!
There are too many characters to play as to not have multiple.
That is how i started way back in '81. Unearthed Arcana has an article about sidekicks. Basically same thing. Keep up the amazing work.
I am playing a game with two of my friends 1 is the DM and the other and I, both of us have 3 characters atm 1 of theirs and 1 of mine are atm are arena fighters/gladiators. well the other 4 are off "saving the world". And before that my fighter/arcane gunner was killed well setting up a rope line around a giant hole because he took off his armor to reduce his weight ( RP choice) and something came out of the darkness cause he was human.having multi characters is fun cause it's fun to play out the fact that they think and act differently, but are played by the same person.
I have DM'ed for a while now and so I am used to managing multiple Characters at once but I tried playing 3 (LvL 6) characters in a one shot with a friend (who was DM'ing) and it was a lot to keep track of. I highly doubt any newer players would be able to do this
I let my players run 2 characters, usually it is 1 main and 1 assistant/apprentice/body guard. The main would be involved with the primary interaction, but their support character can be used for hooks or specialized knowledge only their race/class would know.
Anyone who has ever played Dark Sun knows the value of multiple characters, at the very least a character tree.
In Darksun it was a necessity.
So much yes.
Also currently DM'ing a campaign 300 years later and the daughter of my first PC in the party.
I'm running 2 in a campaign now. I like the contrast in their personalities. Berret is a cautious, humble human cleric and always wants an escape plan. "Grin" is a loud, boastful, aggressive dwarf pally that just wants to get on with it. Our last session had them fighting eachother as Berret had been charmed by a vampire. It was strange but fun. Playing 2 characters has always been fun for me. My advice to others would be to be ready when it's your character's turn, don't pause the game.
Great video AJ, thanks for your PGA (public gaming announcement)
Interesting.... I already had a concept for an artificer in charge of the creation on warforged who's paladin son was mortally wounded by a cornered thief so he performs a ritual to bind his son to the automaton.
When I first played D&D back in 2e in 1993 it was just me and my friend DMing. So after a few sessions he introduced to my character NPCs that he gave me to play as PCs so my Drow adventuring in the Underdark that eventual met two Duergar and a hobgoblin in a crypt in a near a sewer which I played for several years after before I started DMing myself for a few friends in Ravenloft in 1995 using the campaign box set💯
This sounds more like an issue with nerfing/fudging to avoid deaths than an issue with someone playing multiple characters.
I never plan my encounters based on character level, or CR. I had a 1st level player drop down a hole on to the snout of a sleeping red dragon, awakening it from a 30 year sleep, which was the main plot point of the adventure. And yes, he died, but that's because of instead of fleeing down a narrow passage, he tried to stab it in the eye.b
XD that's beautiful, action and consiquence. 👍 But also realistic, in a sense.
I quite agree. In the 80s, I typically fielded more than one character at a time. I like the idea of each player having a roster or pool of characters that they can pull from. Even if one character didn't die they might be injured badly and out of action for awhile and so you can field a different one for a time. I think the Critical Role style has caused more new players to think they have to use accents , voices, and theatrics all the time as if they are LARPing. There are some players who almost take on the identity of their characters even outside of gaming. Seems a little cuckoo, but maybe that's just me being cantankerous. To each their own.
YES! I was recently considering having my mid level players start to get hirelings whose maintenance and role play was up to them. My party has a noticable lack of raw physical damage, and I'm tired of backing them up. Also, they want to provide services (ie operating a temple or druid circle) to the locals. I REFUSE to rule play for 10 more druids, as many clerics and governing functionaries 🙄
I want to allow my players to do this, but by the gods, they're gonna do it
Aka for every wizard go to the apprentice classes and make a weaker acolyte for them that has a level -1 or 0 with bad stats weaker then you and create a secondary level system of rank for both that gives a bit more strength.
I totally agree with you on running two characters at a time. My old group , it was normal for us to be playing two characters and have one just in case, lol. Love the videos, keep it up 👍
My first years in the hobby were spent on me playing THREE PCs at once, whom are now affectionately called my "Big 3".
It was a lot of fun. They're still alive and about in the world.
One further comment: Man, "a big fuss" is a bit of an understatement for the "Critter" community around Molly's death. Some people straight up threatened Mercer over it. Some people's kids...
I love that the players have multiple characters because I bloody hate having to have an npc join the party that I have to manage as a DM. two of the party members wanted to have more meat shields so they enjoyed making two more characters two levels below their own characters.
Usually the players have one main character and another “silent” character. My players dwarf fighter cleric goes around with a minotaur right hand man that have sworn absolute loyalty to the dwarf.
When one of my players characters died, one of the party members bargained with a devil to get him back to life. Radically changed the entire story from that point. Another time two of the characters died, giving the druid the highpoint of his career when he had the opportunity to cast two reincarnate spells, which caused one of the most exciting sessions in my campaign.
I permanently killed of one character when the players entered a forbidden cave sealed with a powerful ward that kept an ancient vampire inside. Having given the players fair warning, they still entered the cave and fell in combat. The players second character was more fun for him to play because he had been the same character for so long, while it was a bitter moment when it happened my player was in hindsight very happy it did happen so that he could make a new “grand summoner” druid.
Yes!
i used to run a game in 5e that only had one player so i had him make 2 others it just took some time to get used to the extra characters but we made it work
Regarding lethality, I think the important thing is for everyone to be more or less on the same page. There's nothing wrong with either old-school meat grinders or with gentler, more character-focused campaigns, so long as everyone's preferences are at least roughly compatible and no one goes in expecting one extreme and getting the other. Personally, I like something in between, the kind of gaming where there's still an element of risk but not to the point that you can't get invested in the characters. That doesn't mean that every encounter has to be tailored to the party's levels and composition precisely according to the DMG formulas, but that barring very bad luck or very bad decision making, most incidents should at least theoretically be survivable through one means or another.
If a monster is too overwhelming for players to overcome in combat, maybe it can be avoided by stealth or reasoned with and persuaded through diplomacy or smooth talking. Maybe there's some feature of the situation or location that clever PCs can take advantage of to even the odds a little. If worst comes to worst, maybe the enemy has an agenda and threatens, geasses, or otherwise forces the characters to do its bidding in exchange for their lives- instant plot hook! (One of the most memorable campaigns I've played in more or less began with that kind of scenario.)
I agree with this, sometimes the party can't beat that inraged deity, in their own temple, on a mountaing piercing the cloud tops, floating in the sky. But there are other options, so many other options, so many possibilities to change or twist the plot. Hell maybe they even do die, but it doesn't have to end there. There are few narative limitations in DnD. 👍
I always felt like I wasn't missing out by not watching "the big" D&D podcasts and this kind of confirms it, its a game I have been wanting to play since I was a teenager, and only in adulthood finally realized I could recruit friends into playing(its been just over a year now and still going strong). When I started a player did ask if she could run multiple characters, but in the interest of keeping things simple for myself, and fair for other new players who struggled with one character and I didn't want to feel pressured to take on a second, I told them no. Honestly though after hearing your reasoning, even from an in-game perspective(knights with their squires etc), its a topic I'm definitely revisiting with my group.
On splitting the party: I've only had a problem with this once, when a new player WOULD NOT join the party on an adventure, despite agreeing to play, agreeing to join, and given multiple invitations and chances by both myself and the party to join. We're talking "you go to the Inn's dining room and see a group of adventurers discussing requiring help to bring down a deadly foe" level, served on a silver platter invitations responded to with "I'll go outside and play my instrument for money, after that I'll spend the next 6 hours fishing", all this despite multiple talks, I just cut the player loose. Other than that when a player decides to run off and fail on their own the rest of the party enjoys chance to dig into the snacks and laugh at said player's misfortune.
I will never understand those non-interactive players... why are they even at a game session when they behave like they are playing skyrim on their own? It's just silly, and kind of sad.
@@AJPickett For this particular player I know his ideas going into the game was informed largely by games like Runescape, but he's always been weird about social situations(I've known the guy almost 20 years now) so I just chalked it up to the anxiety of sitting in a room full of strangers.
I might have to do this I organizing a session for a party that consists of my Mother and two neices Brianna and Cassandra and after Phandelver were going into Storm Kings Thunder wich garantees the deaths of two characters easily. Also on a separate note I was watching your Spelljammer videos and got inspired to make a coffin shaped Spelljammer ship controlled by a Demilich and crewed by it's undead entourage that uses passengers for treasure hunting because It has a pact with the Archdevil that wants treasure more than souls.(I forgot his name and even if I remembered it I probably wouldn't be able to spell it unless I was looking at it. Blasted Latin names!)
I remember everyone at the table playing 2 characters.
Players of the old is far different than the newer players I don't know if it's because a different company runs it or the changes they have made but what I say is if it ain't broke don't fix it
AJ confirmed to be a hater of Critical Role, and other shows like it. Let's bust out the pitchforks and torches everyone!
*courier rides frantically on horse back carrying a scroll, with the seal of an inquisition on it. Only to pass it on to some official in terror, ridding away just as fast. The official then having received the scroll, proforms serveral religious gestures of purity, silently weaping for deaths they are now powerless to avoid, kneeling with the scroll for an hour in incoherant frightfull and agencyless prayer. They then rise, and turn around in an imperial city square, to walk with the scroll down a marble pathway inlayed in a white stone pathway with the guilded structures of a vast city sized temple all around them. Only to walk through the open scerent entrance to the main building, the pathway now flanked by gold dragons uttering lines of a rhymic poem in draconic as the official passes the massive heads of the ultimate palladins only to pass the scroll into the awaiting hand of an avatar, who's back is turned to them, bearly able to contain their glee. At which point the official breaks down, moping at the heels of divinity, groveling for impossible mercys and restraints only to be met with* "See! I told you mortals this day would come! Herecy, blasphemy is wonderfully impossible to ignore! The inquisition has been summoned! And the inquisitiors will awaken inside their mortal hosts! Ofcourse multi character role play was a stapple of D&D, but you little prostraters were lucky untill now... Oh yes my humble servant, i shall be restored in full. In such fury that even dragons shall terror to behold, i mean look at those old busy bodies, they're possitively quacking." 🔥🏛🔥
I know there isn't really an objective answer to many of these questions, but you have a lot of experience with D&D and I was hoping to get your advice.
1.) Do you have any suggestions on the number of characters for a player to control at once?
2.) Would you suggest keeping players at roughly equal number of characters and levels to prevent one player from dominating, or just let things happen as they many?
3.) Dose it matter whether you have more than one equal character, one character with a sidekick, or one with a few minions (ie. two knights vs. a knight and his squire vs. a noble knight and his three servants)? Would those change anything since some will get more focus (and possibly more power) than others?
4.) Do you have any advice on staying in character with multiple characters without messing up to often, let alone interacting each other?
5.) How do you feel about gestalt characters (2e style multiclassing) and (assuming you didn't say to stay away from it) do you think they would take up one "character slot" or one per class? Also, do you think it would be okay if only part of the party did it, or would it need to be an all or nothing thing?
6.)Would the gm take over characters at times or would they be entirely in the control of the player (at least as much as one character would be), and again, dose it effect the answer if they are two or more equal adventurers or one main one and an apprentices, or henchmen?
7.) When would pets/mounts count towards the number of characters?
8.) This isn't really a question as much as to say that I don't think splitting the party is mostly about people getting bored waiting. I have always heard people say don't split the party in the same way people say to not split up in a horror movie: it increases the possibility of everybody dying (though I suppose multiple characters would help with that too).
9.) On a slight tangent, how do you handle death in your game? I imagine you do not make it easy, but if they don't have a spell to bring them back are they out of luck, or can they go on a quest or something to get what they need to do it? If they make a new character, do they start out at the same level as the rest of the party?
My answer to 90% of this is "Try it and find out"
I was introduced to D&D through 5e, and this video has given me an idea. I have been toying with the idea (not necessarily for an rpg) about a group of people known by the masks they wear, with each mask being past from one generation to the next. I think I'll take that idea with this style of play and take that into the next time I (hopefully) get to be a player: rather than the character being the one that becomes more powerful, the mask becomes a magic item that grants a commoner its strength while worn.
Nice 👍
Well, duh? But, the one thing that you didn't touch on is that some times, a person has enough trouble playing just 1 character & mentally can not handle multiple pcs. Its not easy thing to do at least not as individual pcs and not as main and retainers/follwers/npcs.
Also, for a DM, you also need to be aware of character knowledge versus player knowledge. Unscrupulous players would use knowledge from one of for another, or situation knowledge from a different part of the location.
Multiple pcs does allow for a fuller, more rounded party where physical bodies are limited. Its just a fine line between good role playing and party dominance
Come to think of it, I almost killed a level 2 Ranger after this player's very first boss fight. I craft it all ahead of time, and just happened to roll that one of the loot chests from the boss fight was a mimic. It was a cleric npc they hired who saved him from that near death
Step 1. Be the DM, you get to run so many characters.
The only problem with multiple characters is combat, if all those characters are involved in one combat, things can get really bogged down. Less so if you have a really small group of PC's, but if you have a medium or large group it can get hectic/mid bendingly slow.
Now, having a sort of...revolving door thing makes sense. Letting the cast get bigger, and people decide who they want to control in the session, or at different points, makes sense. It really depends on your players though, a lot of mine would struggle to keep all the different abilities coherent (it's been years and they still forget about saving throws, and some ask which dice to roll for ability checks...Sigh.)
One of my fellow party members gets to run both a paladin and a cleric, who are in love with each other. The paladin started as an npc.
this is my favorite video of yours, everybody interested in dnd (and anything remotely similar) should see this.
one thing you mentioned on stream that you implied here but didnt explicitly state: running multiple characters also encourages retiring characters at appropriate points in their stories; losing a character can be a 'win' if they didnt die but simply left, stopped adventuring, having completed their story. then, as you stated, you can find them later as npcs or npcs that have since interacted with them.
edit: I would love to watch games run like this (bewarethecarpenter, or anyone else) /edit
thanks for sharing this knowledge so it is not lost, this was the first place ive heard of such a thing, but it has been something i've thought of from the very beginning (each player running a small 'squad').
p.s. that also goes in line with the bit of info you shared, about how dnd evolved from roleplaying as scouts in a wargame to gain advantage ahead of time: you were the first place ive heard of such a thing, but that is actually the reason i became interested in dnd in the first place, to have rules to roleplay scouts for a wargame; without even realizing the connection.
2:14 RIP Molly
As someone who can only get two consistent players, this appeals to me a lot. It's not the worst but certainly can take effort not to add one too many monsters to a fight and kill them with simple action economy.
Excellent and pivotal vid, sir! Oh, the lonely evenings that were made more bearable by taking my multiple characters through a random dungeon generator from the appendix of the 1st edition DMG... yes, I was THAT SAD in true nerdish idiom. Thus did I lunch out a portion of my secondary education by being too knackered to show up for class the next day, yet my creative imagination burgeoned as a result. Breaking down the soap opera format of online Dnd vids is a good thing - and we shall discover many more ways to do this...
One thing, I do DM a bit me and my frainds play and one of the other people aslo dms a different game where I play a pc. I do run a character with the players to fill out the party and let me just say, its hard enough to run a cleric and the monsters they are fighting. In addition to potentally any further NPC alies such as another fighter or cleric, it gets to become a lot at once and can slow things down.
4:58 Multiple takes of a line made it into the video.
Yeah, good spotting :)
In AL its expected you have more then 1 character after a few sessions. Also If some1 can't play it normal 4 a sibling or friend to keep their character alive & up to speed w maintaining XP
I did NOT watch this on accident.
I watch a live Stream of a homebrew Digimon RPG one shot and was very confused why the DM was controlling the player's Digimon and not letting the players control both the Kid characters and their Digimon they are kind of the same unit. So yeah people thinking they can't play multiple characters seem to big issue in all of Table top gaming.
I agree, it is a big issue.
OMG Dungeon Master! I remember him!
Ive run as many as six characters in a campaign and with 6 players thats a lot of PCs 😎 EDIT----As a Dungeon Master it really helps when you've memorized most of the core rule books including spells without having to constantly bog the game down looking up stats 😎
while i have no problem with that playstyle, i personally dont like it.
i like my players to be immersed in their characters and that is easier to do when they have 1 character that they can focus their energy on. and then when they do die, its that much more heart-wrenching because they cared about their character instead of having 3 throw away characters in case one dies. and it makes rp so much easier because characters dont have to talk to themselves ever or other players dont get confused with who is talking to them or anything like that.
i prefer a more rp and story based game instead of a strategy based game that having multiple players would be build for.
I hear you, but a lot of your assessments don't line up with what actually happens at the table from my experience. Give your players more credit.
Cool idea. Keep up the amazing content 👌
I love the sidekicks, I'll take three!
you edxplained the leadership feat that they removed and many dms dont allow because its "too powerful"
Great Vid. I think PC deaths are the taboo, Losing is fun if you let it. Death of a PC in the DM's world can make legacy's or lore. Other players can use the death it to shape their PC's actions, to mourn or swear vengeance. and for the Player milk it for all worth. Dying words, a last attack like uncorking an alchemist flask or tackling an enemy off the edge of a cliff. I think DM's would bend rules if its going to be awesome.
That’s good advice but another option is for the DM to say, “Good news, a peasant found you half dead, took you back to his hut, and nursed you back to health. The bad news is that all of your gear and money is gone. Good luck with all of that.” That’s going to be a challenge for any character and absolutely devastating to certain classes like the Wizard. Although, I probably wouldn’t give a player more than one out like that. Next time he or she dies, the player would have to die for real or else the game would get silly and be low stakes.
Grognard approved!
I may just be a newbie here, I started in 5e just a couple years ago after all, but I really don't mind some leniency so long as everyone is on the same page. There's a balance to be had. I do think death should always be a possible outcome. At the same time, I've seen plenty of D&D horror stories about people on the other extreme. There are toxic DMs out there who purposefully try to undermine their players and kill them off in their own attempt at "winning" D&D. There are also some old-school players who pride themselves on playing D&D "back when it was hard", and wind up being very gatekeeping against potential new players.
Maybe I'm rambling here, but I guess the point I'm trying to make is it always seems futile to me whenever people argue what D&D is "supposed" to be. It seems to me the game is meant to be malleable, varying from group to group. There's no "correct" way to play. So long as everyone is having a good time, the game is serving its purpose.
some players like to play campaigns with little or no fear of PC death. Some don't. They're both right as long as they are having a good time. There is no wrong way to play D&D. THERE IS NO WRONG WAY TO PLAY D&D
When the player turns to the DM and says "No, that doesn't happen to my character". That is the wrong way to play D&D.
@@AJPickett if everyone at the table enjoys it, then, yes even then, they are playing D&D the right way.
@@FoamingPipeSnakes So playing D&D in a manner that the other players at the table do not enjoy it is the Wrong Way to play D&D. Gotcha.
Do you have any rule suggestions for doing this? Should the players start with two characters or should they gain a lower level follower after they've gained a few levels? What do you recommend?
If they have a lower level character, it will just end up being used as cannon fodder, sent down trapped corridors, used to carry items and forgotten the rest of the time, so, I strongly suggest you keep the characters the same level, also, it makes it easier to keep track of the paperwork.
@@AJPickett Thanks. That makes sense
You should try the Sidekick system showcased in the Essencial's kit. The ruleset was handed out for free by WotC last week on the D&D website. It's pretty good.
Unless you're running straight out of the campaign books, Adventurer's League seems to push for multiple characters due to the spread of tiers and characters leveling out of them or into new ones that prompt lower level players to keep being added to the ones you're handling.
..........maybe like strongholds and followers
My advice, as a player, is to start out with one character, flesh them out, get to understand them.
Then start introducing more, if your game master allows you to do so.
(This statement is made before watching the video. I shall edit in my thoughts after the full video.)
Good video AJ
Agreed.
And then some 👍
I'm currently a player in a high level campaign. I'm a level 18 Wizard. It gets... A little crazy sometimes. Death isn't really a worry at this point because we also have a level 18 Life Cleric.
Oh, we could still die. Our final fight is going to be with Tiamat. But everything between then is mostly planning and politics. The five headed bitch has basically taken over a whole continent and had the bad luck of it being the continent a very pesky wizard happened to live on.
At this stage of the game, I don't think character death is that important. One way or the other. There are also 6 players in the game. Its not important because we know that its on us to stop a goddess. It doesn't matter if we die because if we do, the world is over. It doesn't matter if we don't die because, if we do, we already know what we have to do.
That may very well be my character sacrificing himself (again) to save everyone. And it won't really matter at all.
I run a moderately lethal campaign, I don’t really think death is as important as you make it out to be. But the issue is, that since death isn’t on the table combat and etc can become less urgent.
I counter this in my game with the risks of failure. Getting the party properly invested in the plot, and subjecting them to failure is just as bad as death.
I’ve run hostage encounters where the enemies killed several captives due to poor diplomacy. I’ve had enemies escape, only to inform the main villains. I’ve had players titles revoked, reputation tarnished, and mistakes called for.
The risk of death, I don’t believe needs to be on the table. Instead wager something else, if you or your players aren’t up for such risks.
"I don't mean to toot my own horn but "
Toot it. Toot it loud man. I agree 100% that when characters do stupid things, they should win stupid prizes.
No live stream last Saturday
Question: Aj I've reciently noticed that summoning as in creating a reverse magic circle and then summoning a creature to Planar Bind is highly under developed in 5e for PCs but in many campaigns antagonist npcs may have some bound creature in servitude. Are there any thoughts you have that may get around this without being game breaking for PCs?
I talk about this specifically in one of my previous live streams.
@@AJPickett Really? I must have missed it. Do you remember which stream it was?
th-cam.com/video/aJLoAgTnJNs/w-d-xo.html there you go!
@@AJPickett thanks Aj.
I have had terrible experiences with these post-Critical Role players. I'm not an old Grognar who takes glee in killing a PC, but holy balls, I have had three players at three different tables with three totally different groups completely bail on the game after their character dies to a terrible decision, one even tearfully calling me an asshole because his rogue was killed... After jumping into a fight against a pack of gnolls, despite warnings from me and one other player, without the rest of the party. Also got chided for, and I quote here, "not doing voices right." I don't do over the top accents during the game, but I do make sure that each NPC has an inflection or change in posture to show that it's not narration. Dunno, maybe it's just the lower average age and I'm sure there are plenty of new folks who are blossoming into fantastic players, but I'm at the point of putting up a notice when I post a game: don't sit down if you started playing after CR.
Speaking only for myself when I DM games, I kill PCS. Not every game but it is a real risk. I only allow my players to have one character at a time, and when that character dies they lose level the next character they make will be one level lower than the previous character they had. I believe it's no fun if there are no consequences.
Yeah, i agree with this on many, many levels. The game shouldn't have pulled punches for your special P.C.s, they should should die like everybody else does. And their inflated conquerous egos should get PTSD from it. The party should live in fear from than ancient vampire that is hunting them with a crossbow. And is a ranger. And their "'forest" is the night... Itself. & they skin the pelts off of their scientent kills. You can even build subcultures in games around the legacies that charachters create. If ascension to god hood is possible then everything underneath that should always be fun for your party to achieve. You shouldn't just be stuck with human fighter for an extensive campaign running on for years, like it's some given law - that cannot be broken. Why not role play as their awakened pet cat, helping the party outside of combat, weaving through the urban and rural environments with events, like the vampires crossbow bolt. Stricking home when that poor, isolated murder hobo goblin expects it the least.
This may not be the place but I was just curious. I have a party of 6 player characters. Should they have multiple characters or is that a good number?? I plan on giving them hirelings once they are stronger, but as of now storyline and the like seem to be progressing fine.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
great vid AJ. Keep up the good work. More coffee for ya ?
Seems like this game turned from an RTS to a chosen one linear story path. Because if you pull the "it's what my character would do" line out and not unanimous with the rest of the party decisions, the player themselves usually gets overruled and they don't get to make that character decision....like it's not a dynamic shifting fantasy world....just a roller coaster in a theme park.
I have to laugh at the use of video game terminology...
Seamus wuz here!
Mikma? Is that you?
There once was a PC named Seamus......and also a DM named Reamus.....Roll the polyhedron again.....soon to be,my dead friend....as Tiamats right here between us! 😨😨😨
Only running one character isn't right or wrong, it's just one way to run a game. If you're playing a game with a focus on story and character development, then you want one character to focus on. If you play a "west marches" game, or just want to take risks and see what happens, then run more. It's not a right-or-wrong debate.
Yeah the kids today and their dammed rap music. Get off my lawn. Lol
Lol, back in my day we played D&D in the snow and had to make our own dice out of lumps of coal!