10 thoughts on “Anyone know of any playbooks that involve playing multiple individuals?”

  1. Sounds cool. Wouldn’t be that hard to do. Maybe use the early dual class rules by Johnstone Metzger ger or Class Warfare specialties as inspiration.

  2. More specifics:  I keep swirling on the druid/nature magic/wise one archetype for #Stonetop (DW centered around a small town, with relatively low/subtle magic). 

    One radical idea is to have a single playbook for “The Three,” a maiden, matron, and crone dedicated to the goddess Danu.  One player would play all three, but each would be a different individual resident of town with their own personality, abilities, etc.

    I’m not sure it has legs, though. The Macaluso makes the idea interesting with the notion of a shared consciousness, the sinister feeling of its individuals being integrated into society, and the fact that the player gets to choose from number of possible archetypes. 

    With “The Three,” the archetypes would always be the same, the individuals would ostensibly have their own identities/personalities, and DW doesn’t really thrive on PvP intrigue the way AW does. 

    Plus, I really dislike the idea of making the only explicitly gendered playbook split screen time & interest between three individual women who are defined primarily by their age.

    So… yeah, we’ll file this one under “not a good idea.”  But this conceit might still turn up with something else.

  3. I think the main problem with playing multiple characters at the same time is when you just end up rping with yourself instead of with other people. The Ranger already sort of has 2 characters, but one can’t talk, and the Macaluso avoids it with the shared consciousness. I think a “magical trio” would work fine as a character concept, but as you noted above, just don’t nail it down so tight. Let the player decide whether they are women or if they represent different ages or whatever. There are plenty of dude trios to take as influence.

  4. There’s also the horde playbook, which lets you play as a group of small to tiny creatures ranging from kobold/goblins, to swarms of rats, mice, or even wierder creatures.

  5. Andrea Parducci looks to have had a similar “take a look at AW” train of thought to what I was having (though, I hadn’t looked at the Macaluso). There’s several others in there (the Hardholder and the Chopper come to mind) based around the idea of “A character and their {followers/gang/citizens/weird cult}” that might be able to give some ideas for a starting point to work from. 

  6. I had a player request this once, wanting to play someone with multiple personalities.

    I had her choose a starting class like everyone else, and figure out the stats for that class. Then I put a bunch of classes in front of her and had her blind draw three more.

    they all had the exact same stats as the main class.

    In times of stress as a move I could have her defy danger vs CHA to avoid slipping into another personality (On a 7-9 flip a coin, Heads player choice-GM chooses personality, tails, GM choice-PC chooses personality, On a 10+ Player chooses both, On a 6- GM chooses both in addition to what ever else GM says). and as a Hard Move I reserved the control to do it automatically.

    I would also talk to her in her head as the other characters at times.

  7. I explored this for Beyond (sci-fi) and Steampunk World (settings where characters can have intelligent robots/mechanoids/etc), and found that treating multi-part characters as a ‘single character with extensions’ worked best.

Comments are closed.