So I'm in a bit of a jam and figured posting to this could help. I am a new Gm/player and I'm Gming over new players. The problem is I only have two players. Is there a way to really cater games to two players? Since we are all new might be a little much for them to try to control two characters at once.
Any tips are appreciated.
Seems to me that having fewer players is easier to deal with than having more players. The individual players get to be in the spotlight more, and building encounters for them will be easier since you can cater to their characters.
Are you worried about overwhelming them with difficult encounters? Just make the encounters less difficult. Use fewer enemies, or weaker enemies. If they don't have something like an arcane caster or a trap finder, don't put in obstacles that require arcane spells or trapfinding to overcome.
Use a lower CR, and don't use a lot of enemies. If you would use 4 goblins, only use 2 as an example.
A campaign with only two characters is going to have two main problems. The first is going to be in combat where the lack of numbers reduces their action economy. The second is going to be out of combat diversity and utility. Neither of these problems are unsurmountable, but should be recognized and dealt with.
Since the action economy problem is mainly about having enough creatures on their side the solution is to make sure they have extra creatures available to them. Classes that have pets are one way to solve the problem. Just make sure that the pets are full pets not limited. A druid’s animal companion is fine, but a ranger is probably too weak. If the feat boon companion is used a rangers pet would be ok.
The second way to improve the action economy is if the characters have the ability to summon creatures to aid them in combat. Most full casting classes have some sort of summoning spell on their spell list. Both druids and hunters are always able to summon creatures. The druid can convert any spell to a summon nature’s ally, and the hunter always has those spells on his list of known spells. While the summon natures ally line is probably weaker than the summon monster line it still gets the job done.
As to the diversity and utility problems this is just a matter of choosing the right classes. Avoid overly specialized classes in favor of more rounded classes. Wizards are very powerful, but are week on defense, and often require a few rounds to get going. In a normal party where the other players are buying them time this is not a problem. Fighters are great at combat, but other than that don’t really do much. A magus or ranger would probably be better in the smaller party. Any class that is not INT based should probably have at least 4 skill points per level. Magic is a big part of the game so both characters should have at least some magical ability.
The last thing that will help is if the characters are optimized for the campaign you are running. If the campaign is focusing on certain types of monsters the characters can be built for it which will reduce the imbalance of having fewer characters. A ranger with maxed out favored enemy undead will be a lot more useful in a undead heavy campaign than in a normal campaign.
You could also let them have pets (either as druid or some other class with an animal friend) or as trained dogs.
If (at least) one of them is some kind of summoning-focused class, this should work out fine.
Don't overwhelm them with action economy and they will be fine. Also try to avoid using save or suck as smaller parties roll low together more often(dam sleep turtles). More versatile characters are nice but not necessary as per usual. They are going to need healing but you can just give them items if neither of them want to heal. I've done this several times and quite enjoy the extra spotlight. Interestingly playing with 2 people brings back the viability to single enemy bosses(which is nice for dms).
Give them access to the Summoner class or (weaker in comparison) Drake Archetype. Encourage them yo grab an animal companion or combat familiar, and give the companions 1 for 1 hd instead of the 3/4ths they normally get. Give them the Leadership Feat for strong allies, essentially giving each person 2 characters to play as instead of 1.
I have two groups and we run three games between them - each with two players consistently, with me as GM in one and as one of the players in two...
The right synergy for us was one player runs two characters, and one of those two PC's is a more "utility" vice specialist PC... Slayer, Bard, Rogue, Druid, etc.
Unlike some people, I'm not in favor of the multiple characters run by one person option. It works fine for the tactical aspects of the game, running a battle, but it is pretty hard for most people to get into character and role-play more than a single person, for me anyway, that is a lot of what I enjoy about playing a game. This can be mitigated to a degree by designating one Character the primary PC, the one that the player will focus on playing, with the second one being more like a cohort and just following the primaries lead, but I think just having a single PC is still a more rewarding experience.
If you go with only 2 players a in combat it is fairly easy to adjust the challenge to make it a proper challenge for 2 characters, the biggest issue is it will inherently be more 'swingy.' In a 4 person group, if someone fails a critical save or get hit really hard by a single attack your party can instantly lost 25% of its resources, rough, but often still surmountable. With a 2 person group when that happens you can lose half your group right off, probably something that the party won't recover from. Hero points or a similar mechanic can do a lot to help out with this though.
Finally as others have noted, it is hard for 2 characters to have the same coverage of skills and out of combat utility that a party of 4 has. To overcome this I would narrow the scope of the campaign and let the players know what sort of skills and abilities will be needed, and what can be ignored (or most likely work with the players to figure out what they want to focus on, and tailor the campaign to that.) For example, a regular campaign might have a mix of urban and wilderness adventures so all of the varied skills have some time in the spotlight, for a 2 player I would tend to have it almost exclusively be one or the other, if you are going to spend all your time in the city, you don't really need survival, riding and things like that.
2 players can indeed be challenging, but with a little care it can work and be quite fun.
Download the one-on-one adventures (either the compendium or individual modules) that you can find through the adventure finder link to the left. They have guides for scaling for additional PCs. I ran my son through the first rogue adventure and he liked it a lot. They are relatively easy to handle as a GM, too.
|
Have them each run two characters, personally as a player I get bored running a single character anyways. Typically one fighter type and one utility character is pretty easy to run as a player. Since it will likely be one of the two characters that specializes in any given social skill, you shouldn't run into too many problems of your players talking to themselves.
The less creatures (PCs, pets, summons etc.) the players control overall, the higher is the impact of taking out one creature - by grapple, paralysis, stun, sleep etc.. So apply these conditions very sparingly.
At roleplay you only have two players to interact with, (nearly) no matter what amount of creatures they use. So make sure you engage them with topics and conversations they both enjoy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I run for one player a lot and play one a friend gms for me and only one other player. I actually prefer this way a LOT.
It gives the player/s much more time which leads to things that usually pass for "downtime" on groups of 4+ to actually being a big part in the game while the player actually forms deeper relations to multiple NPCs.
I do two things:
1) I usually form a NPC "party", usually much bigger than your average party actually. This provides for multiple options depending on chars that might join the PC with extra muscle and "brains".
Like in bigger fights or just doing things outside the scope of skills/magic the PC has. Personally i wouldnt give the players more than one PC. Ever. If there is need for extra power, NPCs provide it.
2) I do ofc change the CR of fights to fit the player and whatever NPCs he has with him at the time. This is an ever changing thing since what NPCs are there at a given time can change a lot.
It is a much more personal experience. Remember this. The kind of game you can run given having less players is what makes it all awesome, dont try to run just the same adventure but now with weaker monsters.
For new players I would start them off as part of a larger group filled with NPCs like a merchant caravan, town watch, gold prospectors, pathfinder explorers, pirate ship crew etc. As the campaign unfolds give them plenty of chances to lead the NPCs in tricky situations. When they are ready, grant them the leadership feat for free and let them run an NPC each as a cohort. I would probably recommend they don't take summoner-like classes because that would likely be too confusing for a starting player, especially in combat.
For more experienced players I would recommend they take summoner-like classes and or take leadership when they reach level 7.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've got a few suggestions, but you'll probably have to feel out what will work the best for your group.
- Keep the Designing Encounters section in mind. Since they are a party of two (instead of four), modify their APL by subtracting 2. You can adjust this as you need to, but an easy encounter keeps the game running longer than a TPK encounter.
- Let them initiate. I've been in a lot of games that have omniscient monsters who auto-surprise the group. Let the players have a chance to scout, sneak, and even launch a surprise round. Let them watch NPCs and figure out how to pick them off instead of confront them head-on. Let them cause distractions and capitalize on them. A stealth-based game can be a lot of fun.
- Let them circumvent fights. It can be easier for two players to stealth, disguise, bluff, or diplomacy their way out of things. Keep in mind that not every NPC wants to fight to the death. Some of them want to act like everything's normal and then raise an alarm when the murderhobo is safely away.
- Make a plan. If you have designed too tough of an encounter, make sure you have a believable out. Let the characters run. Let the characters surrender. Sure, it can seriously alter the campaign if your characters are taken prisoner or are always running, but it can also play into the plot. Maybe the NPCs and PCs end up having the same goals and can work together. Maybe the PCs are taken to a work-camp and have to incite other prisoners to riot and escape. Maybe the Mond Floyer (generic version of copyrighted material) has something a bit more sinister in mind. Not every encounter will have an out (and it would damage the perceived lethality of the campaign if it did), but it wouldn't hurt if some did. If your players are always getting captured, though, you may want to look into this.
- Up the point buy. More stats makes things just a bit easier or more diverse. You can have more hit points, more skills, more saves, and generally more options.
Wasn't able to access for a few days, but wow thanks for all the advice guys. It will help a ton.
I love small groups :)
There are a number of solutions to help with this, some of which have already been recommended, but just to consolidate:
* Have each player run two characters
- Pros: From a game mechanics standpoint, this is the most balanced approach.
- Cons: As new players, it's already going to be a lot just learning the game, let alone manage multiple characters. This solution could easily overwhelm newbies.
* Utilize pet classes
- Pros: While slightly less powerful than running two full-fledged characters, pet classes still help fill in a similar niche, and a lot of players really enjoy them.
- Cons: Similar to running multiple characters, pet classes require additional management, which may still be a bit overwhelming. Pets also tend to be a bit weaker, and are more susceptible to death in the hands of newbies. There's also the side issue of limiting player choice - they may not *want* to play a pet class or archetype.
* Run a DMPC (your own PC)
- Pros: This adds another PC to the party and gives you the ability to join in a bit more in the roleplaying. Best of all, the best DMPCs tend to be support characters such as bards, oradins, life oracles, etc, which can help new players feel less stressed and just feel more awesome.
- Cons: Horror stories of terrible DMPCs are common, and a lot of players think of it as a dirty word as a result. If you think you can run a character more as an enabler of the players rather than running a character that has to steal the spotlight, this is easily avoided. However, it still puts more responsibility on *you*, and as the GM, you *already* have the most involved role (but I still think it's easy enough to go: "(Bard) starts Inspiring Courage!" "(Bard) moves in to provide flanking!" "(Bard) hits you up with a cure light wounds!" etc.)
* Use optional systems to boost the PCS
-Pros: Whether you're looking at gestalt, hero points, or mythic, there are plenty of optional systems that can really empower the PCs and take the edge off.
-Cons: Many of these systems can be a bit overwhelming for more experienced gamers the first time they use them, and they also create a gaming experience that is not "traditional", which can really muck up a new players expectations of what the game is supposed to be.
Also so you guys have a reference they are wanting to play a witch and a rogue.
I would encourage the witch to be good at stealth so that they can join the rogue while scouting. I would design encounters with plenty of cover so that the stealth skill is actually useful. Lastly I would try to remember that there is a -1 penalty to perception for every 10 foot of distance, so if the PCs are scouting from 100 feet away there is a -10 penalty to spot them (the reverse would not usually apply because the NPCs would typically be in the open and therefore spotted automatically).
I would also consider giving them items that help with stealth like elven cloaks in the first session.
For what it's worth, the Traits that make Stealth a class skill are:
For what it's worth, the Traits that make Stealth a class skill are:
Thanks and looks like that website could be helpful for me as well. Also update for you guys. They made it successfully to level 2. So yeah hopefully we are in good shape here. ^___^
I usually run only 2 players, I can run a dmpc to balance combat, but if you don't like the idea of a dmpc than them just running 1 character is fine
I usually run only 2 players, I can run a dmpc to balance combat, but if you don't like the idea of a dmpc than them just running 1 character is fine
Sorry bit noob here like I said eariler what is dmpc exactly?
I usually run only 2 players, I can run a dmpc to balance combat, but if you don't like the idea of a dmpc than them just running 1 character is fineSorry bit noob here like I said eariler what is dmpc exactly?
When one of the PC's is the DM.
Dungeon Master Player Character
As the name implies, it's a character generated as a PC but played by the DM, generally to bolster a party with insufficient numbers or missing roles.