Knights & Knaves Alehouse

Thinking about DMing Castle Triskelion, but I know how high mortality is for first level characters. In addition, there are only a few players so the total party # will be low. Has anyone ever let one or more players play more than 1 character? Do you do it all the time?

It seems that it could be helpful if one of the characters dies, then that player will still be able to contribute.

On the other hand, maybe that is what hirelings are for.

It's definitelt what hirelings are for.
It really depends on the style of play you're expecting. Giving players multiple PCs can lead to less identifying with your character. It often ends up with more of a war gaming vibe than a role playing vibe. Which isn't a bad thing, unless you were hoping for more role playing.
Some players can pull it off, but I still prefer to keep it 1:1 with NPCs.

I wouldn't take over hirelings as PCs (though I know alot of guys play this way, I think Foster's mentioned doing this in the past). To me it just seems at odds with the philosophy of the game (its not "you" its someone else) likewise I won't let players transfer PCs. The best bet, IMO, is to Just use multiple PCs you rolled up. Most players that have been playing for a good while, have at least 3 or 4 PCs of about the same level tucked away from previous games, in "retirement" or simply forgotten. I do this pretty often (maybe once a year). Its incredible how often I'll head over to play and someone will forget to bring their PC, or the group just wants to start out new PCs (maybe we switch DMs).

Giving each PC a posse can be an excellent opportunity for the GM to introduce some intra-party conflict and rivalry without actually going the PvP route; effectively the PCs would all be very minor gang leaders in cooperation with other gang leaders for a specific goal.

I'd draw up a fairly simple relationship chart for the various factions (and maybe some of the individuals) and let them go for it, treating the members of their posses as followers with the understanding that the GM may direct their actions as NPCs at any time for dramatic purposes. And, of course, let the players know that their posse is their available pool of backup characters in case of their unfortunate but inevitable grisly demise.

If a player starts using his posse as meat-shields to protect his or her own worthless skin, they may find themselves abandoned as their erstwhile followers transfer their loyalties... kind of a permanent loss of hit-points

I do not usually let players direct the actions of multiple player characters, but associates, henchmen and hirelings for sure. Should a player want to permanently take over the role of one of these in lieu of rolling up another character, I am all for it.

In our game, we have allowed players to run two PCs (plus hirelings and henchmen) and haven't had any problems. We allow it because our group is small, with only 2-3 players, but we still want to enjoy challenges and adventures requiring a larger, more diverse party. Plus, if a PC dies mid-session, it's not a big deal. The player has another already.

I would offer two caveats, though.

First, if your group enjoys the deeply immersive, "become the character" first person style of roleplaying, you may be disappointed. Juggling the acting of multiple personalities probably won't work very well. We run the game a little more like a sport, where the players are like coaches running a team of adventurers who want to get rich and powerful (or die trying). No one's agonizing over whether a PC's interaction with the innkeeper accurately reflected his complex emotional backstory and long-term goals for self-actualization.

Second, you need relatively mature players who will self-regulate intra-party issues and decisions so that the "extra" PCs aren't basically free hirelings/henchmen for the players' favored PCs. My guys are pretty good about this and generally run each of their two PCs according to the PC's best interests.

Hope that helps!

The weird thing about running 2 or more PCs at the same time (or having backups as henchmen or hirelings) is its not described in the PH. When a PC dies, its not the same thing if you have 3 backups waiting at camp (or holding torches or whatnot). If your going to play multiple PCs just do that.

AxeMental wrote: The weird thing about running 2 or more PCs at the same time (or having backups as henchmen or hirelings) is its not described in the PH. When a PC dies, its not the same thing if you have 3 backups waiting at camp (or holding torches or whatnot). If your going to play multiple PCs just do that.

Ah well, it is described in the DMG as an option.

DMG, p. 111 wrote: MULTIPLE CHARACTERS FOR A SINGLE PLAYER

There is no absolute prohibition regarding multiple characters belonging to a single player. Where it is deemed beneficial, the Dungeon Master may allow multiple characters as he or she sees fit. For instance, when the major character of a player is off on some special trip, he or she may be allowed to use a new character, rather than playing the part of one of his or her character's henchmen. In fact, one player can have several characters providing he or she is a good, co-operative campaign participant capable of properly handling such multiple roles.

In general the multiple characters belonging to a single player should not be associates. One should not "know" information, or be able to communicate knowledge which is peculiar to him or her to the other. One such character should not automatically regard another controlled by the same player as a friend. Money and/or valuable items cannot be freely interchanged. In short, each such character must be played as an individual. As DM, you must be prepared to step in and take the part of one such character if the player is abusing the privilege of having multiple characters. Do so quickly and firmly, and the player will be likely to understand that you will brook no foolishness - particularly if the character you take the persona of becomes hostile and aggressive to demands from the other.

In campaigns where there are only a few players, or where only a few of the many players are really good players, it is likely that each (good) player will have several characters. Over the course of many games, some will be on reasonable, if not friendly, terms with others, some will avoid others, and some will actually be enemies. Explain to your players that you don't object to them having multiple characters if they are willing to play each as a separate and distinct individual, and that should be sufficient advice to any player capable of handling two or more characters.

Obviously, that is not the same thing as running two characters at the same time, but certainly having multiple characters in a single campaign has precedent both in the written rules and in what the Lake Geneva folks were up to at the time. Of course, players are permitted to play their henchmen, and even after death it would presumably be possible to play one in order to resurrect the main character. That said, when henchmen equal or exceed the level of their liege they will leave his service, which provides a precedent for them being promoted to "associate" status.

While the characters are unlikely to have henchmen at low level, I suppose I could just promote a hireling to PC status. Similar to when Gygax made Robilar's orc friend into an exceptional orc.

Matthew wrote:

AxeMental wrote: The weird thing about running 2 or more PCs at the same time (or having backups as henchmen or hirelings) is its not described in the PH. When a PC dies, its not the same thing if you have 3 backups waiting at camp (or holding torches or whatnot). If your going to play multiple PCs just do that.

Ah well, it is described in the DMG as an option.

DMG, p. 111 wrote: MULTIPLE CHARACTERS FOR A SINGLE PLAYER

There is no absolute prohibition regarding multiple characters belonging to a single player. Where it is deemed beneficial, the Dungeon Master may allow multiple characters as he or she sees fit. For instance, when the major character of a player is off on some special trip, he or she may be allowed to use a new character, rather than playing the part of one of his or her character's henchmen. In fact, one player can have several characters providing he or she is a good, co-operative campaign participant capable of properly handling such multiple roles.

In general the multiple characters belonging to a single player should not be associates. One should not "know" information, or be able to communicate knowledge which is peculiar to him or her to the other. One such character should not automatically regard another controlled by the same player as a friend. Money and/or valuable items cannot be freely interchanged. In short, each such character must be played as an individual. As DM, you must be prepared to step in and take the part of one such character if the player is abusing the privilege of having multiple characters. Do so quickly and firmly, and the player will be likely to understand that you will brook no foolishness - particularly if the character you take the persona of becomes hostile and aggressive to demands from the other.

In campaigns where there are only a few players, or where only a few of the many players are really good players, it is likely that each (good) player will have several characters. Over the course of many games, some will be on reasonable, if not friendly, terms with others, some will avoid others, and some will actually be enemies. Explain to your players that you don't object to them having multiple characters if they are willing to play each as a separate and distinct individual, and that should be sufficient advice to any player capable of handling two or more characters.

Obviously, that is not the same thing as running two characters at the same time, but certainly having multiple characters in a single campaign has precedent both in the written rules and in what the Lake Geneva folks were up to at the time. Of course, players are permitted to play their henchmen, and even after death it would presumably be possible to play one in order to resurrect the main character. That said, when henchmen equal or exceed the level of their liege they will leave his service, which provides a precedent for them being promoted to "associate" status.

Well, thats what I said, rather then play henchmen and hirelings if your main PC dies, simply have new PCs enter the fray (backups wonder into camp, with some backstory provided by the DM) or start the module with multiple PCs ("I control Zax the MU, Phil the fighter, Briggs the Paladin and Shire the assassin") as Gygax states, each is played as an individual (some in opposition to one another) you take turns seeing threw the eyes of each (on some level). There's no need to have them all go into the dungeon, the three lower level guys might stay out to guard the horses, its up to you.

Each PC should have a history of its own you created during game play (preferably played from level 1), or it should have no history at all (starting at 5th level say) there should be no taking over torch holder number 3 (who's been working for his master all along). If you carefully read Gygax's advise above, you see he agrees. Remember, During the game that hireling has been in control of itself (ie. the DM has been playing that NPC). Your taking it over would be like a "walk in", the personality is going to change. Simply start the game with a handful of low level PCs along with your main PC(s) that are along to guard the horses, carry shit etc. If your main PC dies you pull out one of your already established (albeit lower level) PCs at camp.

As for how they did stuff in Lake Geneva, I don't think it matters (some of that was playtesting, and obviously it never made the cut). If assuming the personalities and characters of hirelings (thinking as a team rather then an individual) was the point of 1E it would have been included. Hirelings should be treated as DM controlled characters. You never see out of their eyes. If you start out with PCs (each having been played in the past by you preferably) hired by other PCs (PC Jim hires PC Fred) thats fine IMO (though obviously not for players without alot of experience, you want it to feel a little like you personally die when that dragon torches you, not just a hand of the body of a single team (the only team is supposed to be the players sitting around the table). The glory of the game is best felt as if you are there -all or nothing life and death. If you know in the back of your mind you have henchmen x and y ready to take over, you might not even care if your PC bought the farm.

darnizhaan wrote:While the characters are unlikely to have henchmen at low level, I suppose I could just promote a hireling to PC status. Similar to when Gygax made Robilar's orc friend into an exceptional orc.

Just to clarify, I think its fine to use house rules (and what is stated above is a house rule by Gygax not BtB...infact its contrary to BtB). If I did allow such a thing as DM, I'd probably only do it as a last resort, and for guys that were used to playing that way (asking for it as a one time thing), but yeah, I'd never suggest it as an option as DM.

AxeMental wrote: Well, thats what I said, rather then play henchmen and hirelings if your main PC dies, simply have new PCs enter the fray (backups wonder into camp, with some backstory provided by the DM) or start the module with multiple PCs ("I control Zax the MU, Phil the fighter, Briggs the Paladin and Shire the assassin") as Gygax states, each is played as an individual (some in opposition to one another) you take turns seeing threw the eyes of each (on some level). There's no need to have them all go into the dungeon, the three lower level guys might stay out to guard the horses, its up to you.

To me, that undoes part of the point of henchmen, which is that if a player character irrecoverably dies there is a chance (assuming they were not all killed along with him) to have one of his followers step up and come into his own, if the player wants it. It means the investment the player made in acquiring henchmen pays off to the extent that not all his holdings are completely lost and a character he has already been playing at a level not dissimilar to the other players smoothly transitions into the first rank.

AxeMental wrote: Each PC should have a history of its own you created during game play (preferably played from level 1), or it should have no history at all (starting at 5th level say) there should be no taking over torch holder number 3 (who's been working for his master all along). If you carefully read Gygax's advise above, you see he agrees. Remember, During the game that hireling has been in control of itself (ie. the DM has been playing that NPC). Your taking it over would be like a "walk in", the personality is going to change. Simply start the game with a handful of low level PCs along with your main PC(s) that are along to guard the horses, carry shit etc. If your main PC dies you pull out one of your already established (albeit lower level) PCs at camp.

To be honest, I think if you carefully read what Gygax has to say about henchmen then all the above criteria are filled in terms of the player's relationship with his henchmen. Indeed, henchmen are "reserve" PCs, participating and rewarded to a lesser extent, and they share the goals of the primary character.

AxeMental wrote: As for how they did stuff in Lake Geneva, I don't think it matters (some of that was playtesting, and obviously it never made the cut). If assuming the personalities and characters of hirelings (thinking as a team rather then an individual) was the point of 1E it would have been included. Hirelings should be treated as DM controlled characters. You never see out of their eyes. If you start out with PCs (each having been played in the past by you preferably) hired by other PCs (PC Jim hires PC Fred) thats fine IMO (though obviously not for players without alot of experience, you want it to feel a little like you personally die when that dragon torches you, not just a hand of the body of a single team (the only team is supposed to be the players sitting around the table).

Well, it does and does not. The thing about the books is that they are rather haphazard in terms of what they include and assume a lot of prior knowledge. In other words some thing are omitted accidentally and others just assumed to be self evident. To the best of my recollection, the books never really discuss what the game master should do when player characters are irretrievably slain.

AxeMental wrote: The glory of the game is best felt as if you are there -all or nothing life and death. If you know in the back of your mind you have henchmen x and y ready to take over, you might not even care if your PC bought the farm.

I do not think a player is ever going to "not care" that a character he brought from level one to level whatever has been killed, but yeah I do think that henchmen somewhat mitigate the damage in that the player has the potential to take control of a character he is already familiar with, has shared the victories and defeats of the party, and who had a relationship with his fallen player character. The way I see it, that is part of the point of henchmen and why they are worth investing as contrasted with having multiple independent characters.

So, what your saying is, the henchmen or hireling is always in your control (from the very beginning) rather then in the control of the DM only. So effectively your playing multiple PCs in a way. From my perspective, thats just odd. The way I was brought into the game was that Henchmen and hirelings were under the DMs control (and a way for him to play almost).

I think the "fall back" should always be whats written in the three core books of 1E (I don't assume Gygax thought new 1E players had a knowledge of 0E, Lake Geneva or customs with other long standing groups, and certainly not at his personal table). That was one of the problems with trying to understand the 1E rules many here (and other places) had (assuming the 0E rules were being ported over to 1E, for instance, how Casting Time for spells was supposed to work). If you only played 1E (and had never heard of 0E or known anyone who played it) you don't make assumptions you seem to be making (which seemed to be based outside of the rules). You'd walk away with the idea that your supposed to play 1 PC at a time (especially players reading only the PH). If you die, the assumption is, you simply leave (watch) or bring in (or assume for pre-gens) another PC (of about the appropriate level). Most of the time TPKs solved the problem of having to go home early.

AxeMental wrote: So, what your saying is, the henchmen or hireling is always in your control (from the very beginning) rather then in the control of the DM only. So effectively your playing multiple PCs in a way. From my perspective, thats just odd. The way I was brought into the game was that Henchmen and hirelings were under the DMs control (and a way for him to play almost).

I think the "fall back" should always be whats written in the three core books of 1E (I don't assume Gygax thought new 1E players had a knowledge of 0E, Lake Geneva or customs with other long standing groups, and certainly not at his personal table). That was one of the problems with trying to understand the 1E rules many here (and other places) had (assuming the 0E rules were being ported over to 1E, for instance, how Casting Time for spells was supposed to work). If you only played 1E (and had never heard of 0E or known anyone who played it) you don't make assumptions you seem to be making (which seemed to be based outside of the rules). You'd walk away with the idea that your supposed to play 1 PC at a time (especially players reading only the PH). If you die, the assumption is, you simply leave (watch) or bring in (or assume for pre-gens) another PC (of about the appropriate level). Most of the time TPKs solved the problem of having to go home early.

Hirelings, no, and I am not advocating hirelings should be in player control, but like multiple characters henchmen are under player control if the player is good, and according to the DMG (see page 103); what matters is the ability of the player to distinguish between characters. I can only shake my head in wonderment at this stuff about the game master playing characters in his own adventures, it is just pure conflict of interest. He can only play those characters to the same extent that he can play any other NPC, which is to say in a very limited way. The thing is there is a lot of stuff in the books that simply does not make sense without some sort of prior or assumed knowledge, and that is why we ended up with an increasing failure on the part of the audience to comprehend the spirit of the game.

Matt: "I can only shake my head in wonderment at this stuff about the game master playing characters in his own adventures, it is just pure conflict of interest."

I didn't mean to say the DM plays the NPC as a PC, but rather an independent person with his own interests and assumptions (almost like a friendly monster). They can make the NPC role play, steal, run up and help a PC thats unconscious and bleeding out, mutiny (if miss-treated, or simply get greedy) etc. but thats usually done with dice and morale checks. Henchmen were simply guys you could trust to stand with you and be loyal (but still they are not you).