From level 0 to level 1: more than one PC per player?

[Skyscraper]

Hi everyone,

We're set to start a new DCC campaign in August. Looking forward to it.

I have a question: players each have a few level 0 PCs that they run through the level 0 funnel adventure. If more than one PC survives for a given player, do you let him carry on with all his PCs to level 1 where he'll continue to play more than one PC as long as they survive? Or do you have each player choose one PC among those level 0 that survived?

I acknowledge that both options are feasible, I'm curious as to what you have done.

I've had multiple PCs per player games before in other systems, and they're not always as interesting as each player having a single PC. Role-play gets a bit wonky, for one thing, as players switch from one PC to the next in a same conversation, sometimes upholding opposing points of view.

[Devil Swine]

I leave it up to the player or in the case of a player who can't deal with more than one PC,let them choose between them and the rest stand in waiting till needed.

[Flexi]

Had no problem with a player who has more than one character surviving to 1st level playing more than one PC. Due to the high rate of attrition it has been a maximum of two characters so far but playing a pair has been an interesting experience.
Given the subterranean fantasy Vietnam of DCC, it has not happened very often!

[TheNobleDrake]

I let the players keep all their survivors and level them up - for so long as they shall continue to survive, the player gets the benefit of having more than the one character as a "reward" for playing the funnel and getting past it with more than one character...

Once everyone has levels though, characters beyond one per player that do end up dying in the course of the campaign are not replaced.

[finarvyn]

I let the players keep all their survivors and level them up - for so long as they shall continue to survive, the player gets the benefit of having more than the one character as a "reward" for playing the funnel and getting past it with more than one character...

This is the way I did it as well, but I wonder if it rewards the timid player too much.

In one of my initial playtests, one player ran through all four of her starting zeroes then ended up rolling out another four and lost three of those before the adventure was done. She had a blast and wasn't afraid to try things, even though she knew she was likely to die a horrible death. Over and over.

Another player basically sat there and didn't do anything remotely daring. I tried to engage his characters but he did his best to avoid action and be passive. He ended up with two of his four characters remaining.

So he gets a second character because he was cautious? It just felt wrong to me somehow.

[TheNobleDrake]

I let the players keep all their survivors and level them up - for so long as they shall continue to survive, the player gets the benefit of having more than the one character as a "reward" for playing the funnel and getting past it with more than one character...

This is the way I did it as well, but I wonder if it rewards the timid player too much.

In one of my initial playtests, one player ran through all four of her starting zeroes then ended up rolling out another four and lost three of those before the adventure was done. She had a blast and wasn't afraid to try things, even though she knew she was likely to die a horrible death. Over and over.

Another player basically sat there and didn't do anything remotely daring. I tried to engage his characters but he did his best to avoid action and be passive. He ended up with two of his four characters remaining.

So he gets a second character because he was cautious? It just felt wrong to me somehow.

I agree that it feels kind of wrong, but then I also do a lot to avoid any player from ending up with 2 characters for any reason other than actively participating in the funnel adventure and doing well.

First, I make sure that caution isn't always the safest choice - shoddily built traps with an accidental delay so they are triggered by the lead character but lay waste to someone following a bit further behind, monsters that attack "at random" going after the less lucky characters first, attacks from behind, and so on so that it feels like you have to actively participate if you want a chance of being anything but fodder.

Then, I don't have anyone roll new characters unless the total number of PCs is less than the number of players - they take a "spare" given to them from whoever still has more than one character.

Those two things pretty much solve the whole wrongness of the situation, at least for me they do.

[Skyscraper]

Are we discussing players being too cautious, or players being passive as in not participating?

Because playing cautiously seems as "right" as playing with temerity to me. I tend to have the story engage players that are more active because things will happen to them (not bad things, just things). Which means that active players are more likely to have special treatment to some extent: special powers that are discovered, NPCs that tie up to them, etc... However, if a player is happy with a more passive approach, unless it's detrimental to the game for me and the others, I'll let him play that way.

If I feel he's too passive as in not participating, I'll talk to him about whether he feels he's engaged enough and see where or why he's holding back.

[Skyscraper]

By the way, thanks for the feedback to those who have answered

Question for you, since most seem to allow multiple PCs per player: don't you think it's more difficult for players to role-play with multiple PCs per player?

[beermotor]

Paradoxically, I think it might actually be easier. With a single character, the player is much more likely to just play as the player. With multiple characters, there's more of a distinct personality possibility. You have to guard against one character railroading subordinates, of course, but that's what morale checks are for. And abused henchmen might disappear in the middle of the night when you ordered them to stay on watch... haha. You awaken to the sound of a zombie eating the wizard's face off, where's Bob?!

[TheNobleDrake]

I agree with beermotor that a player having more than just the one character is actually more likely to invest effort into portraying any of their characters in a unique way.

I have one caution, however - watch out for players that are too focused on making sure their characters are different. I have one player that basically goes overboard on the issue, and the other players feel like they are "waiting it out" until his characters die off to one during the funnel.

An example of what I mean: He has three characters in the funnel, and invents moments to inject personality if he can't find any (which is a behavior I like). He decides one character is very apprehensive and doesn't want to go anywhere or do anything first. He then decides that another of his characters is overly bold and always berates the first when he expresses his apprehension... but that's not where he stops, this character also (with no provocation, context, or lead up) begins to loudly and constantly declare his worries that animals are breeding themselves larger in order to take over the world.... which is a behavior I don't like because it soon becomes a string of never-ceasing animal sex comments.

His third character, he insists is mute from some throat injury that has left a terrible scar... and plays terrible games of charades to which the rest of the group respond only with blank stares of pure confusion (both at what he is trying to convey and why he decided to cripple a character). The only reason anyone understood anything the character was attempting to "say" was because the player would always end his charade and invalidate all the time he just spent waving his hands and describing behaviors by explaining out-of-character what the character meant by his actions.

The group hated the character, especially once he became a cleric that could not clearly convey his motivation for strange behaviors (like sudden meditations of unmentioned length) - and then, when the character died the player - "expert roleplayer" that he is says "The funny thing is, he could actually talk that whole time."

None of us at the table thought it was funny - and the only reason we had the experience of those three characters grating on us, because having three characters encouraged this guy to try too hard.

[beermotor]

Dorks give the hobby a bad wrap.

I wouldn't have invited someone like that to my game, but that's just me. I'm old, my dork tolerance level is much lower than it used to be.

[Flexi]

I agree with the two chaps above in that it can encourage roleplaying.

I can think of no problems with players playing multiple 0 level characters. Players seem to gleefully use them like experimental lab rats. The one PC with the best stats they wish to retain is generally quite well safeguarded but all the other village idiots are sausage meat for the grinder!
I have generally seen it work very well with someone having two 1st level characters of different class, say a wizard and a warrior, rather than just two thieves. I suppose it can work just as well with the latter case but having PC's of a different class makes them more distinctive. Players trying out a class they have not played before quite enjoy experimenting with two different classes at the same time.

[TheNobleDrake]

Dorks give the hobby a bad wrap.

I wouldn't have invited someone like that to my game, but that's just me. I'm old, my dork tolerance level is much lower than it used to be.

That's the thing though - his "dorkness" was hiding away somewhere: I've had this guy at my table for nearly 6 years, and not once has he had a single character and been that awful to witness at the table... but hand him a trio of 0-levels and, apparently, you awaken some kind of monster.

[Raven_Crowking]

Dorks give the hobby a bad wrap.

I wouldn't have invited someone like that to my game, but that's just me. I'm old, my dork tolerance level is much lower than it used to be.

That's the thing though - his "dorkness" was hiding away somewhere: I've had this guy at my table for nearly 6 years, and not once has he had a single character and been that awful to witness at the table... but hand him a trio of 0-levels and, apparently, you awaken some kind of monster.

If that's the case, a quiet word is probably sufficient to slay this particular dragon.

"Um...differentiate your characters, but remember that no one is significant until they reach level 1. You're inadvertently starting to annoy some of the other players."

[beermotor]

Dorks give the hobby a bad wrap.

I wouldn't have invited someone like that to my game, but that's just me. I'm old, my dork tolerance level is much lower than it used to be.

That's the thing though - his "dorkness" was hiding away somewhere: I've had this guy at my table for nearly 6 years, and not once has he had a single character and been that awful to witness at the table... but hand him a trio of 0-levels and, apparently, you awaken some kind of monster.

Hmm. Maybe he's having some more serious psychological things going on inside his head.

[Raven_Crowking]

Actually, in my group, another player would have asked him to tone it down long before I felt the need to get involved.

If being asked to tone it down does nothing, then consider whether or not there is something more serious going on. IMHO, anyway.

RC

[micahmoore]

I looooove the funnel system, of having to roll up peons and pray one survives.
But once players have made it past level o....I make them pick one to
polish and take to level 1.
They can keep any other level os that survived in their "roster" -
somewhere back in town.
Should their level 1 character die and not be able to be recovered,
they would get their new guy from their roster.

But I'd never let them play more than 1 level characters.
Not only would it be hard for the average player to really get into
more than one in a session, for me I want the simplicity and intensity of
knowing all their names / details....
Maybe its my ADD but its just too much for me with multiple players.

[smathis]

I might be down with players using more than 1 leveled character once the players got really familiar with the DCC classes. As it stands, it would be a bit much to ask of the players with whom I've played.

Especially considering that the players are often managing retainers/followers in addition to their own characters. So it wouldn't be a question of playing 2 Level-1 PCs so much as 2 Level-1 PCs, 2 retainers and maybe a pet or familiar.

Thus far, however, this has not been an issue. While I have had players with more than 1 character that survives the funnel, it all tends to average out to roughly 1 character per player. Because for every player that's had 2 characters survive, there is another player whose had all his characters die.

In the TA/TG playtests, the players divvied up the survivors. At the end of the funnel, they didn't want to ditch any of them. Even still, we didn't have enough survivors to go around.