|
I've been in a few games with only 3 players. In the games the GM let us run a pregen as the 4th NPC player to fill in. Not sure if that's the correct way to do it but it worked without having to make adjustments. The GM was newer and the VC was the player that ran the NPC pregen.
I haven't seen any 2 player games happen yet at an organized play event but the Guide to Organized Play says it's possible in some situations, but there is no way to run a game with just one player.
A long time ago playing D&D our DM used to run solo side quests between our weekly game sessions. These were some of the funniest games I've played in. In a recent conversation on Reddit, someone had brought up the subject of table size, and someone linked to a Matthew Colville video that convinced them that the minimum size should be 1 This got me thinking.
One-on-One D&D, Running The Game.
So what happens if only one player shows up, especially a new player, or if there is a 7th player and the group has 2 people who can GM, or if one player only has a character of the wrong level? Having a new player play a high-level pregen their first game can be too many options to deal with depending on the level.
So what if there was at least 1 or 2 scenarios written for 1 player or 1 or 2 players? One-player games can be fun but have to be carefully balanced which can be hard to do just adjust a normal scenario. Also, a one-player game can be a great way for a GM to teach a new player the game.
I really like the idea of having the tools to never turn someone away because there aren't enough players, Just a thought.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe we did have an update that authorized 2 player tables with 2 pregens for 1E scenarios.
Edit: Link.
|
|
I believe we did have an update that authorized 2 player tables with 2 pregens for 1E scenarios.
Edit: Link.
Thanks, I saw it was possible but didn't know of the source. Adding 2 pregen seems a good way to go without having to adjust the balance.
I still think having a scenario designed for 1 or 2 players only would be fun and a good tool to have if there is only one player or one player left over.
Could be a good tool for training new GMs too as it would be easier to have multiple games going at a time with fewer players needed. But the main goal I had in mind is still never to let having only one player stop a game from happening.
The PF2e math and 3 action economy make 1-player combat really risky It's doable but encounters would need a new set of design guidelines and scenarios that are very story-driven with little combat. The skill check encounter would need to be fail forward not pass-fail or the game would just stop. 1 player being 1 player + a friendly NPC. Having a friendly NPC that can heal, buff and debuff doesn't take away from the Player making the choices, and if the player isn't sure what to do the GM can use the NPC to give some hints to get the game going again.
When the PSF group here stopped playing I got into playing X-wing it's so much easier to find a game when you only need to find one other player. So having one-player scenarios could be great for people living in some places where it's hard to find a group of people to get a chance to play.
It's much easier to grow a group if you are already playing. Would also make for some really fast-playing play-by-post games if you only have to wait for the other person to post.
I think one problem the local PFS group had was it had enough people to fill a table of 6 but not enough to get a second table going which meant someone was usually left out, and with only playing 2 games a month if you missed one it was a long time before you got another chance to play.
For a small group to get started really need to have options designed for 1, 2, or 3 players until the group can get to a normal 4 to 6 table going. Small groups can be a lot of fun too because each player gets more of the game time.
I think I'm all brainstormed out for the day...