Quote from: Greentongue;1125370So basically you need a single character to be your In Game Avatar and any others you don't have direct control over are NPCs?
I assume that to mean if there is a moral mechanic, any character that is effected by it is a NPC?

Few people are interested in playing with intra-group dynamics, I'm guessing.

As GM I like having NPCs with the party. As player I want a single avatar yes - npc henchmen are great though.

Not a big fan of morale rules for PCs.

I usually play with relatively large groups of players.  Sometimes the power levels don't match.  This somewhat mirrors the early D&D PCs and henchmen, except all the henchmen have a dedicated player.  So as you might imagine, there isn't much scope for a player running more than one character.  However, it's come up a few times:

- Player is late or has to leave early.  Someone else runs their character for them for the interval.
- Temporary NPCs for part of the scenario, usually divided among the players to control.
- Huge groups of monsters.  I'll run the important ones, but have the players run the minions.  They are expected to do a good job of it, too, sort of a mini-GM thing.  (Some players enjoy this more than others. )

Then there was that one memorable adventure where the party ran afoul of a magical curse that caused "souls and personalities to switch bodies" semi-randomly.  I had full character sheets for the NPCs.  Every time the switch happened, the player was handed the appropriate character sheet.  Was billed as a roleplaying challenge, where the player was supposed to play the character in front of them with what was established so far in the campaign, but also with a hint of their old personality trying to get out.  It was great fun for me, especially when two PCs switched players.  The players said it was a fun exercise, but they'd just as soon not do it again soon. Anyway, something you might try in a regular game if you want to see how well the players handle switching roles back and forth.

Quote from: Greentongue;1125370So basically you need a single character to be your In Game Avatar and any others you don't have direct control over are NPCs?
I assume that to mean if there is a moral mechanic, any character that is effected by it is a NPC?

Few people are interested in playing with intra-group dynamics, I'm guessing.

1: Id have to say... No. It really depends on the player. As noted above ones going to be able to multitask characters and the next cant. And not just players. Some DMs cant multitask NPCs and tend to focus on one at a time. Moral mechanics do not necessarily shunt a character to NPC. But depending on the system and/or players it can very easily drift there if the system is running the character really and not the player.

A good example might be Mythic's system. You can allow it to pretty much run extra PCs and they can and likely will end up doing unexpected things. They are a little, or alot not under the players control. This too is really up to the player and how much they allow the oracle to run the other characters for them.

2: Depends on the intragroup dynamics? If you cant compartmentalize the characters then either you need some system to NPC them for you, or learn how to multi-task them.

But personally my view is that the minute you give up control of the character and let the system run them then they stop being PCs and become NPCs. Possibly no different from actual NPCs.

YMMV as with all things.

I've seen a number of folks talking about moral mechanics and I confess I'm baffled. What are moral mechanics and how do they differ from mechanics for morale?

Quote from: Bren;1125480I've seen a number of folks talking about moral mechanics and I confess I'm baffled. What are moral mechanics and how do they differ from mechanics for morale?

A moral mechanic tells you the truth about what's wrong with your car and charges you the exact amount of labor it took.

Quote from: Bren;1125480I've seen a number of folks talking about moral mechanics and I confess I'm baffled. What are moral mechanics and how do they differ from mechanics for morale?

Depends on the game. In some it can NPC a PC till its resolved, if ever. Fantasy Wargaming had that. If the players werent fucking eachother over enough to satisfy the DM then the DM was told to take over the PC and make them do wretched things. Part of why I so despise the game and its designers.

In others its social mechanics. Essentially resolving stuff with lots rolls instead of just talking and maybee one roll. If NPCs can use it on PCs then you can end up losing control of the character.

In yet other games its mostly a system for giving NPCs personalities and quirks. 5e for example has this with an optional system no one seems to use which is a sort of convoluted BX reaction table. Or Mythic which can cause NPCs/side PCs to do unexpected things.

And all sorts of other variations and approaches.

I guess moral mechanics would be like the Passions in Pendragon?

"It's what my character would do" only due to a roll not just from being a jerk.

(At least when it's not a misspelling.)

Quote from: S'mon;1125505I guess moral mechanics would be like the Passions in Pendragon?

As one take on the concept if I recall that system right.

Or its like how Alignments in D&D can be used as a sort of override of the character rather than a guide or totally ignored.

Quote from: Greentongue;1125213Is this a common thing to do or are 90% of games played with the player having a single character and the GM controlling the rest?

Is this more a "Chainmail" or miniatures type of thing instead of a Role Playing game?

At what point / how many is it no longer a RPG and is just a miniatures game?

Would it be considered a Braunstein?

What is "wrong" with investing less in a single character and more in the "Team"?

In my Dark Albion campaigns, players would always have two characters, but they'd only play one each session.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1126504In my Dark Albion campaigns, players would always have two characters, but they'd only play one each session.

Is that because of the death rate or for different adventure requirements?

Dark sun and Sanguine's Albedo both have that as a part of chargen suggestion due to the lethality of the settings. Though in Sanguin'es case that was a bit laughable as their system is far far more PC frrendly than original Albedo's ever was.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1126504In my Dark Albion campaigns, players would always have two characters, but they'd only play one each session.

Quote from: Greentongue;1126512Is that because of the death rate or for different adventure requirements?

I tend to encourage players to have multiple characters and switch off between them, too.

For me, it's not so much "death rate" per se, but I generally have very-little-to-no magical healing in my games, so badly-injured characters may be out of action for weeks or months as they recuperate.

Also, I like players having the ability to swap characters in and out to fit the task at hand.  If you're going to be infiltrating a monastery to steal a holy artifact, then not only will it be more useful to bring your thief instead of having your heavy armor paladin clanking all over the place, it also avoids having to come up with a thin rationalization for why the paladin would participate in robbing a church in the first place.

Quote from: Greentongue;1126512Is that because of the death rate or for different adventure requirements?

It was a bit of both. Having two characters (typically of different social classes and character classes) lets a player pick a character more suitable for the type of adventure, but it also means that if one of the characters dies, they'll still have one of (presumably) higher than 0 level to play while the other (new) one starts back from beginner rank.  Of course, a few players took their chances and only played one of their two characters all the time.

One thing my system includes are boons gained from your background that can grant you one or more companions intended to support your main PC and are generally controlled by the PCs player as they're essentially extensions of the character.

The ultimate example would be an Aristocrat's ability to take a bodyguard, three men-at-arms and three attendants via three boons... the default for a warrior being that the bodyguard is your squire, the men-at-arms are a lance of yeoman warriors (those you'd be required to bring in service to your lord) and the attendants serve you as a valet, a page and a porter. All these serve loyally, requiring no payment beyond provision of food, shelter and proper equipment for their jobs.

They're balanced relative to other boons mainly by their generally being of average competence (so it makes sense to select companions that cover weaknesses) while other boons boost your competence (making you even better at what you're already good at).

Larger forces can be hired with coin (or equivalent goods... household knights are generally hired by granting them land from which they can collect rents equivalent to the coin a mercenary would demand), but are generally under the GM's control unless they decide otherwise (ex. the GM intends to run a large battle where they'll have many enemy forces to control so lets the players control their hired troops directly in the battle).

Generally, my experience is that multiple characters works best when one is clearly "in charge" and the rest exist primarily as servants of the main PC. That way if the player forgets to roleplay distinctive personalities for their servants it's not that big a deal. They might grumble about the main PCs choices, but their key trait is their loyalty to the PC so they'll follow regardless.