So a conversation came up after a recent session when we were reliving our childhoods and remeniscing about a TV show we had here in the UK back in the late 1980's called "Knightmare", it had awesome opening theme music and animated opening titles, featured really ropey special effects/green screen and involved one "player" being guided through a dungeon by three friends. It looks like the series is on YouTube so go check it out if you have the time/inclination and they have their own website as well.
Anyway, this prompted the conversation of "If you had many more players than you were able to cope with for DND (or indeed any rpg) could you use a committee approach to run a character?"
So in essence one person decides on movement, one on phycisal attacks, one magic, another charisma/rpg elements etc. It could be a good team building exercise but would probably be quite a slow session if you did it but could it work?
Its something to think about but feel free to add comments, thoughts, suggestions etc and opine if you feel inclined.
So a conversation came up after a recent session when we were reliving our childhoods and remeniscing about a TV show we had here in the UK back in the late 1980's called "Knightmare", it had awesome opening theme music and animated opening titles, featured really ropey special effects/green screen and involved one "player" being guided through a dungeon by three friends. It looks like the series is on YouTube so go check it out if you have the time/inclination and they have their own website as well.
Anyway, this prompted the conversation of "If you had many more players than you were able to cope with for DND (or indeed any rpg) could you use a committee approach to run a character?"
So in essence one person decides on movement, one on phycisal attacks, one magic, another charisma/rpg elements etc. It could be a good team building exercise but would probably be quite a slow session if you did it but could it work?
Its something to think about but feel free to add comments, thoughts, suggestions etc and opine if you feel inclined.
I mean yeah, for a whole campaign it would be a nightmare (ahem), but for a one-shot I can kind of see it. Have a group of small or tiny characters Voltron a giant-sized body, something like that
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Playing Super Mario Odyssey, you had two characters, Mario and Cappy. Cappy could be controlled by a second player. However, since it was primarily a single player game, they had to make Cappy fully usable by a single player...which made playing them with two players (when one of you wasn't a youngish child) pretty boring. I gave up and just let my wife play by herself.
This seems to be along the same kind of lines. The entire character in 5e has been simplified down to make it relatively easy for a single person to control...which means dividing it various parts up a bit basic for each player. "Oh, we're in reach! I decide that we attack!" would get pretty old pretty quickly, especially since attention will probably drift, especially if you're in charge of a combat aspect and the character is in RP or vice versa. I think it would be novel...for the first five minutes, then reality would set in and people would be bored.
You could potentially make it fun by doing the committee aspect - the two of you work together to discuss and agree on a course of action - and could lead to interesting debates and could be really interesting. I think it would also lean into D&D's weaknesses and really drag things out. Still, depending on tastes, it could work.
I've avoided discussing the likelihood of conflict and its consequences - I think that goes without saying.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Ok disclaimer time...i know its a bad idea.
"Welcome Watchers of Illusion and Enter Stranger"
So a conversation came up after a recent session when we were reliving our childhoods and remeniscing about a TV show we had here in the UK back in the late 1980's called "Knightmare", it had awesome opening theme music and animated opening titles, featured really ropey special effects/green screen and involved one "player" being guided through a dungeon by three friends. It looks like the series is on YouTube so go check it out if you have the time/inclination and they have their own website as well.
Anyway, this prompted the conversation of "If you had many more players than you were able to cope with for DND (or indeed any rpg) could you use a committee approach to run a character?"
So in essence one person decides on movement, one on phycisal attacks, one magic, another charisma/rpg elements etc. It could be a good team building exercise but would probably be quite a slow session if you did it but could it work?
Its something to think about but feel free to add comments, thoughts, suggestions etc and opine if you feel inclined.
I mean yeah, for a whole campaign it would be a nightmare (ahem), but for a one-shot I can kind of see it. Have a group of small or tiny characters Voltron a giant-sized body, something like that
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Honestly, I kinda feel like this wouldn't be fun.
Playing Super Mario Odyssey, you had two characters, Mario and Cappy. Cappy could be controlled by a second player. However, since it was primarily a single player game, they had to make Cappy fully usable by a single player...which made playing them with two players (when one of you wasn't a youngish child) pretty boring. I gave up and just let my wife play by herself.
This seems to be along the same kind of lines. The entire character in 5e has been simplified down to make it relatively easy for a single person to control...which means dividing it various parts up a bit basic for each player. "Oh, we're in reach! I decide that we attack!" would get pretty old pretty quickly, especially since attention will probably drift, especially if you're in charge of a combat aspect and the character is in RP or vice versa. I think it would be novel...for the first five minutes, then reality would set in and people would be bored.
You could potentially make it fun by doing the committee aspect - the two of you work together to discuss and agree on a course of action - and could lead to interesting debates and could be really interesting. I think it would also lean into D&D's weaknesses and really drag things out. Still, depending on tastes, it could work.
I've avoided discussing the likelihood of conflict and its consequences - I think that goes without saying.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.