My opinion, don't change a thing, don't bother rebalancing encounters unless they are definitely going to result in a fight, let the players use their intelligence and cunning to get around problems rather than relying on what's written on a character sheet.

One pc per player, minimal hirelings available unless it is for a really specific task (I do like players to be the protagonists of my games, I get rather peeved when they hide behind hirelings).

Quote from: jeff37923;1030855Because there is already a shitload of single player and single DM adventures already out on the market for PF and 3.5/X to mine ideas from. Traveller has Solo by Zozer Games from the Cepheus Engine. d6 Star Wars is in the same boat.

Yeah, but you don't need them:). In fact, you're basically always better off going from the characters' personalities, because then the results would fit the PCs in your campaign.
Besides, you don't need adventures to match the system or even the setting and genre, in order to be mined for ideas;).

Quote from: AsenRG;1031232Yeah, but you don't need them:). In fact, you're basically always better off going from the characters' personalities, because then the results would fit the PCs in your campaign.
Besides, you don't need adventures to match the system or even the setting and genre, in order to be mined for ideas;).

By that same logic, then it really doesn't matter which game system is used to run a 2 player game. So why are you being so adamantly against certain game system choices?

Quote from: jeff37923;1031239By that same logic, then it really doesn't matter which game system is used to run a 2 player game.

That's NOT the same logic:). Ideas are less work to transfer than a good system.

QuoteSo why are you being so adamantly against certain game system choices?

Because it's not the same logic;).

Quote from: Malfi;1029987Hey guys! I am thinking of starting a campaign with only two players (and me the DM). I am at a slight loss on how to go about it. The systems I am considering are Pathfinder, dnd 5e, DCC and basic-classic dnd/adventurer conqueror king. Do you have any advice on the matter?
I am kinda worried that with two people the partys classic dnd roles wont be covered and it will be hard for them to deal with enemies and stuff. Then again if I allow multiple npc's per player roleplay may suffer.
Am I thinking about this too much? Maybe anything I do will work, but hey then we lose on the fun of discussing it in the forum.
Also how would YOU go about it (no need to stay within the parameters I set system etc)?

Beyond the game, there's logistical difficulties with having only 2 players.
If you have a group of 6 people, 3 can miss a session and it's still possible to run it. If you have 5, you can miss 2. With 4, you can miss one.

With 3 or less, everyone has to be able to make it all of the time.  So I hope your two players are very dedicated.

I'm assuming here you've tried to find other players?  If not, that would be where I'd say you should start.

Beyond that, in terms of the game itself, having only two players means you should have a lot of NPCs, and let your players figure out who among those NPCs they might want joining them on adventures.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1031558Beyond the game, there's logistical difficulties with having only 2 players.
If you have a group of 6 people, 3 can miss a session and it's still possible to run it. If you have 5, you can miss 2. With 4, you can miss one.

With 3 or less, everyone has to be able to make it all of the time.  So I hope your two players are very dedicated.

I'm assuming here you've tried to find other players?  If not, that would be where I'd say you should start.

Beyond that, in terms of the game itself, having only two players means you should have a lot of NPCs, and let your players figure out who among those NPCs they might want joining them on adventures.

Playing with only one player is a tradition that predates the publication of OD&D, so I'd say your concerns are ill-founded. He only needs a minimum of 50% of all players to attend;).

I did a two player campaign with a married couple for a while; that took care of the "availability" problems mentioned above.

We actually got pretty good results out of 4E actually. The encounter math still works for it with two PC's and if one has the leader role you can actually even go a bit harder on them than normal since their healing only needs to spread across two PC's instead of the usual 4-5 and they don't generally have to sacrifice their own attacks to use it. 3-4 standards, 2 standards and 4-8 minions or an elite with 1-2 standards or a standard and 4 minions around their level range were all pretty good fights and the occasional solo was a really tough fight, even if it was couple levels beneath them.

That said, just to get some bigger fights we did expand to two PC's per player after a bit, but kept it from getting too complex by using the Essentials martial classes who just made basic attacks, whose only encounter attacks were "I hit it harder" and had no daily powers to track. Those came in as henchmen/bodyguards of the main PCs who faded into the background outside of combat. That also worked pretty well.

I know 4E gets a lot of flak here for its focus on storytelling elements, but from practical experience those only come into play to the degree the GM and players allow them to. The main difference of note is that you have to abandon the idea of hit points = meat points (except for the last couple its all morale, endurance and luck) and that even losing half your hit points means just minor cuts and bruises at most (which is why half hit points is called bloodied... as in you don't even draw first blood until then) and it all hangs together pretty well.

We further avoided a lot of the versimultude issues with Martials that many complained about by using only the Knight and Slayer* (at-will stances, X power attacks regained after a short rest, only utility powers that were at-will or once per battle so they had no dailies at all) and Skald (who got X uses/day from their list of encounter-long bardic music buffs and could use any they knew each time instead of each one only useable once per day) with the mage being the only one with powers useable only 1/short rest or 1/day (and also had a spellbook so they could prepare different spells each day).

4E can even handle a sandbox pretty well, so long as the players accept that there are many creatures much too powerful for them to handle at first (i.e. not everything the DM lays before them is something you're intended to fight right now), the DM is willing to provide some context in their descriptions that something is beyond their ability (i.e. "the sleeping beast's teeth are bigger than your sword. It looks like it could snap you in half with one bite.") and doesn't engineer encounters where a fight to the death is the only option (i.e. no ambushes by monsters of twice their level whose only goal is to eat them unless there's a way to escape... something they can escape if they just run from it, an ambush by an overwhelming horde of bandits who aim to relieve them of their purses and only get violent if the PCs try to resist, or a dragon demanding tribute for passing through its territory are totally within bounds though). I've found it can even handle hirelings/mercs pretty easily... the DM just has to subtract their XP value from the XP award of any fight they participate in and its a pretty good gauge of how difficult the combat will be for the actual PC's.

* If you limit martial classes in your game to the Knight, Slayer, Hunter, Scout, Thief and Skald (all Essentials with the last in Heroes of the Feywild) just about all 'versimultude' problems with Martial class abilities cease to be part of the game while still having all the roles you'd need for a no magic campaign covered.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1031558Beyond the game, there's logistical difficulties with having only 2 players.
If you have a group of 6 people, 3 can miss a session and it's still possible to run it. If you have 5, you can miss 2. With 4, you can miss one.

With 3 or less, everyone has to be able to make it all of the time.  So I hope your two players are very dedicated.

What logistical difficulties lead to those numbers?

The past few years I've played in numerous sessions with just 2 players in both OD&D and AD&D 2nd Edition. As a player we solved it by having 2 player characters each and having some NPC's tag along. Most groups easily manage a 4 player setup, so by each of us having 2 characters, it's pretty easy.

Quote from: Skarg;1031856What logistical difficulties lead to those numbers?

That below a certain number, the PC party is not sufficiently viable. That on the meta level, having too few players is less enjoyable.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1032226That below a certain number, the PC party is not sufficiently viable. That on the meta level, having too few players is less enjoyable.

Tell that to Gronan, will you? IIRC, "soloing" was seen as a game for advanced players back at Lake Geneva:).

I've also found that sessions only improve with less players, roleplaying-wise, so I can support their observation;). The less people you have to wait for, the more Referee attention each of them gets, the faster the pace, and the more "custom-tailed" each adventure gets (because the PC/s get to chase exactly the goals he, she or they are interested in).

Quote from: AsenRG;1032260I've also found that sessions only improve with less players, roleplaying-wise, so I can support their observation;). The less people you have to wait for, the more Referee attention each of them gets, the faster the pace, and the more "custom-tailed" each adventure gets (because the PC/s get to chase exactly the goals he, she or they are interested in).

I have too. I tend to really enjoy running single players, and having the players fairly often split up and do things on their own and/or in smaller numbers.

However I see how smaller numbers could be "non-viable" for the sorts of challenges I've seen in D&D-type games with the hitpoint-based abstract combat and the need for various magics and resistances and attack types and buff/healing spells and so on. That sort of obstacle doesn't present itself often when most abilities are non-magical, sub-super, and without the need for special abilities or a group of PCs to overpower challenges at a certain level (and/or NPCs are generally brought along for battles).

Yeah, I'm not saying you can't do a session with 2 players. I'm saying that it's very suboptimal for long-term play.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1032757Yeah, I'm not saying you can't do a session with 2 players. I'm saying that it's very suboptimal for long-term play.

And I'm saying that my experience points to the complete opposite conclusion. That is, it's easy to sustain long-term play with 10+ players, it's easy to do it with 3 or less players. What is hard is to keep a long-term game going with 4-6 players.

Quote from: AsenRG;1032846And I'm saying that my experience points to the complete opposite conclusion. That is, it's easy to sustain long-term play with 10+ players, it's easy to do it with 3 or less players. What is hard is to keep a long-term game going with 4-6 players.

That's pretty much my experience too.

The former (10+) worked really well with a modern Urban Arcana style setting where the players had their own agendas and the struggles rarely got lethal for the same reason they don't in the real world (i.e. all the usual problems with murdering a person who's actually a part of the larger community while you also live in that community). A LOT of it ended up being horse trading between the PC's for resources with me only needing to get involved when there was a rules call to be made or they needed to interact with an actual NPC to get something done (which happened a LOT less when it hit 15 players). Thank goodness that one took place in a large university classroom... it gave them enough room to split off into the groups who were currently interacting with each other and I just hopped between groups as needed.

It was exhilarating at the time, players could show up or not and new ones jump in with starting characters and it didn't seriously affect the flow at all... only my graduating actually killed that one. That said, it did take the level of free time and lack of other commitments that university life allowed. I'd be insane to try it at this point in my life.

Conversely, I had a much easier time keeping 2-3 player group's going. Friends don't like to leave out other friends if at all possible and coordinating 3-4 schedules (GM and players) is a LOT easier than trying to coordinate 5-7 schedules. Usually once there where four people they didn't want to get too far if even one person couldn't make it and two would be an absolute cancel. If there were five we'd be able to go with one person skipped, but we'd call it if two or more couldn't make it that night.

But in the three or less size parties one or even two players skipping was less of a big deal... it just meant we switched over to a duo or solo adventure for the night. When there were one or two married couples involved it was even easier to get them all there for a session.