The case for players playing multiple characters.

Should a TTRPG be run as one character per player, or can players have multiple characters? I’ve done it both ways over 30 years of gaming, but I now have my players use multiple characters.

When I first began running game regularly during AD&D 2nd edition, I only had three players and to have a full group they each had 2-3 characters each, plus I used an NPC or two. Our adventuring groups were roughly 10 characters (keep in mind that many older D&D adventures were designed for 6-9 characters). There were multiples of rogues, clerics, mages, warriors, etc. We had a lot of fun. Once 3E appeared and all the way up through my time with 5E, there was one character per player, and our groups were down to 4-5 characters. This worked to some degree since modern D&D characters are substantially more powerful than older versions of D&D (everyone has more hit points, it is incredibly easy to heal, you rarely run out of spells, and character death is rare). I now run Castles & Crusades and have returned in part to the multiple characters approach of the past, but with some modifications. Below I will lay out my reasons for doing so and why I enjoy it so much.

What if everyone here were all part of one adventuring group? (art from Gameloft “March of Empires”)

Reason 1: Old-school gaming – dangerous and less complicated
The Barrowmaze campaign I run on Tuesday’s is particularly challenging and you need as many people skilled in arms, spells, and problem solving as you can get. Being an old school game, I think using an extra character is more fun than just making use of henchmen, hirelings, or retainers, to accompany the group. In old-school games spellcasters run out of spells, hit points are lower, and healing is slower. In my days playing AD&D 1st edition, my magic-user had one or two spells per day. He used them for one or two encounters and the rest of the time he sat in the back of the party (or the middle, whichever was safer), and used his intelligence to solve puzzles that might arise. If you just use one character, that player could get bored. Whereas, if they were to have a wizard and a fighter, for example, they will always have someone they can use in most situations.

Old-school characters are also less complicated than modern D&D characters (there are a lot less special class abilities to manage in most old-school games), so it is much easier to manage them. Finally, whereas modern D&D and Pathfinder focuses on cramming a lot into one round (move action, attack action, bonus action, reaction), which necessitates the need for players to feel that their characters must always do something. Old-school games shift the focus from doing up to four things in a single round, to (sometimes) doing four things in an entire combat. This leaves plenty of room for players to have multiple characters with multiple things to do and not feel overburdened.

Reason 2: Expanded options allows players get more done
Each of my players are urged to create up to four characters and then swap them in and out based on:
1) What they are interested in playing that session.
2) Meeting the needs of the adventuring party for that session.
3) Some characters may be out training for new abilities (see this post for more information on that).

In my C&C games I encourage my players to bring up to two of their four characters on an adventure, or to have 10 characters go on any given adventure. So on days when five players show up to game, they usually bring two characters each, and if seven players are available to play, then only three of them will bring an extra character.

I like this because every player is not just invested in one character, they are far more involved with the adventuring company overall. In my Tuesday Barrowmaze campaign, there are 7 players with roughly 4 characters each, giving us 28 characters (and keep in mind that some characters are dual-classed, so there are actually well over 30 character classes represented). In the town where they reside – Ironguard Motte – they have their own building the size of a multistory tavern. At any given time when 10 characters are out adventuring, the other 18 are making or repairing weapons and armor, creating scrolls or potions, learning spells, identifying magic items, practicing their trade or profession, training lower level characters, connecting with local people of importance, and keeping the long-term interests of the adventuring company going on in the background. On any given four hour game session with the adventurers fighting their way through the Barrowmaze, I sometimes – in a lull or slow spot – throw in a 5-10 minute interlude when we return to Ironguard Motte for someone to knock on the door of their establishment and in a brief conversation set the stage for a future adventure. I think it is quite successful in conveying the feeling that there is always something going on in the world.

Reason 3: A Total Party Kill (TPK) is not the end of a campaign
In most D&D-type games, if everyone dies in an encounter, the campaign may be over. I ran Dragon Mountain in 1993-94 and there was a TPK. After two years of committed adventuring everyone died. It was a letdown. I also ran a Tomb of Horrors campaign over the period of a year. Everyone died in an encounter. But the way I run games now, if there were to ever be a TPK, the campaign would not end, since the other adventurers could avenge their friend’s deaths, and may even retrieve their bodies and equipment. It could add renewed vigor and more passion for the campaign (although obviously one does not want that to happen).

Summary thoughts:
Games like D&D 5E focus on one character. Many players will purchase a new set of dice to represent their new character. There is an array cool material on Kickstarter and Etsy for players wanting to purchase a journal for their character, or a unique token or miniature to represent the character. That is perfectly fine if that is the style of game you are aiming for. But my games are more dangerous and I aim for more group flexibility, and rather than focus on the beliefs and goals of a single individual, I’d rather focus on a family group dynamic, both a small family group that a player will have if they rotate four characters in and out of adventures, and a larger family dynamic which encompasses all the other player’s characters combined. This can also work more positively in keeping the focus on the overall arc of the campaign instead of on a particular character (although obviously individual characters will shine and stand out. That has happened in my Barrowmaze campaign, where the highest level characters have taken on leadership roles, and the younger, lower level adventurers, view them more as veterans, or parental figures and seek them out for their experiences and insights).

There are other ways in which this could be done. D&D 5E recently introduced the idea of a side kick. Older editions of D&D encouraged the use of hirelings, henchmen, and retainers. The game Ars Magica makes use of a “troupe system” style of play. And Dungeon Crawl Classics has the 0-level funnel where a player uses four characters in an adventure and whoever survives by the end makes it to 1st level. The approach I take seems to be a bit different.

What do you think? Would having players use multiple characters and rotate others in and out of adventures work in your game?

8 thoughts on “The case for players playing multiple characters.

  1. Pingback: Castles & Crusades Diary: Barrowmaze, Session 53. | The World of PhilosopherZeus

  2. Holy damn, this was super inspiring. I am planning on running a semi-westmarches-mega dungeon crawl-setting for a semi-permanent group, but with room for additional new players joining up, or even competing PC factions. I have basically taken placed the barrowmarshes and Stonehell on the Forbidden Caverns of Archaia-hex map. I imagine having an adventuring guild could be a way to introducing the semi-permanent folks to get used to the idea of rolling up reserve-chars, and even bringing them along (A few PC deaths might leave them considering if they want to share loot with hirelings, or with their own extra people). And new curious players might be thrilled to join the veterans and get their sword bloodied and tried out for the group – both in game and out of game. They might figure that Barrowmaze is too deadly, but that they want to gather a group to check out the abandoned prison and start their own thing on the side, when not being trained by the vets. Proper freelancers I guess. Also, it gives me a good start to the group: Make a name and reputation for yourself, and recruits will come knocking (Or try to copy your business model).

    Sorry for the wall of text, my brain had an idea-high.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I am so glad that you liked it! The place where my system has worked best has been in the Barrowmaze, so using the Forbidden Caverns of Archaia should work just fine as well, since it is another Greg Gillespie adventure. I think the Adventuring Guild idea opens up entirely new and dynamic ways of running a campaign which is a refreshing departure from the normal, small, adventuring group.

      I’d love to hear more if you implement this to see how it works for you.


      • You asked for it; Operation multiple characters part 1:
        I had my group (of 2 people) roll up 6 lvl 0 characters each and ran them through a funnel (Sailors on the Starless Sea). I’ve made a d100 Nickname table, inspired by the Grave hack of Knave. I made them pretty jovial, and it really helped everyone distinguishing all the new faces from each other and remember certain things when the nickname synergized with the background. Ex:”Screamin'”-Diana who carried a lut, and “Smelly”-Thorstein the coffinmaker. I can highly recommend this.

        Anyhow, after the first 6 characters died in the first hour (boulderslide) and only 3 making it out alive after clearing only a couple of rooms, I ended the session with Screaming Diane, Beautifull John and Greta the Pigeared returning to town, hailed as heroes and leveling up. I told my group that more people where rallying to go back to the keep and free the prisoners and that they looked to them as leaders of the new expedition, hinting that they could have another go, with a fresh batch of lvl 0’s alongside their lvl 1’s. They even asked for the price of hirelings, but quickly realized that rolling their own were cheaper and might gain them new powerful characters.

        All in all, using a funnel with fast and fun char generation, limited abilities and gear took a lot of the mental strain off my players when playing multiple chars. I believe it was an important step in the process of using the funnel as a gateway-drug for having multiple characters (My players and I have only played a couple of years). Next session, they are going back to the keep, and we have another player joining with her own set of lvl 0 chars.

        If they finish the funnel (or decide not to press their luck) They should have a couple of characters each, some loot and are ready to start an adventuring guild in my main quest-hub next to the megadungeons I’m using. But most importantly, they’ve gotten used to character deaths, strength in numbers, have a base for continuity through their group of adventurers (and not their individual character) and experience taking both new players and new player-characters back to finish the job and delve deeper.

        On top of everything, I’ve made a fun system for cinematic “Heroic Sacrifices” before PC-deaths, to both give players agency and a sense of meaning when they “Do a Boromir” or “HOLD THE DOOR”! for the rest of the group to escape deadly encounters. I recorded all deaths so far, and I’m making a Hall of the Fallen, complete with Cause of death and jovial nicknames, so we never forget them (And let my players get used to loosing characters).

        I thank you once again for the inspiration, I really feel like it was what I needed to run the type of game that I will enjoy the most, along with my players.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I really liked what you did with your group! I think you approached this subject well with your players and the setup and execution created a great experience for your players and was a joy to read! You’ve now given me ideas to keep in mind for my future games!


    • This is exactly what we typically do. Pretty much no one ever runs just one PC. And we create adventuring parties where characters can be swapped in and out. Plus, in things like Archaia, HighFell, etc., rescued NPCs can become party members. We’ve used this quite a bit to replace deceased PCs and it’s created a great party dynamic.


  3. I absolutely love this! Modern play tends to concentrate (as I have seen it said) on being the character rather than living/acting the character, which leads to people preferring a single avatar to live through.

    Out of interest, how did you end up with multiple character play? How did the players react? Were there any hurdles, dislikes?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Back when I played AD&D and 2nd edition we always had a couple of characters. It was only during 3E and 5E that there was the shift to having – and being – that one precious character, and have everything revolve around that one person (characters from 3E through 5E are also much more powerful – almost a superhero – so there is much less need for multiple characters in that style of game).

      When I left 5E and switched to Castles & Crusades with a sharper old-school vibe, it was a shift of relief for me. My older players who have played since AD&D have had no problem with the shift to multiple characters, and my players who have only played 5E or Pathfinder realize that C&C is a different game and that I am going to emphasize a different playstyle and feel than 5E or PF, and they have come along for the ride. One hurdle I can think of is that the 5E/PF generation of players do take character death a little harder than my AD&D players, but having four+ characters per player cushions that blow.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s