TheRPGSite

Hey 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)?

I would just expect there to be NPCs as needed/wanted in the adventuring party. There almost always have been in games I've run, even when I have a large number of players. Some of or all of them can be potential PCs if a PC dies or leaves play for some reason (temporarily or permanently).

It's always worked fine for me. I enjoy running small groups or single players.

However I also generally don't play D&D or other games that expect a mix of player classes (or have character classes at all), or that expect a certain size of player group, or that make a huge distinction between PCs and NPCs.

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?

If those are the options, go with a mix of DCC and ACKS, it's the best option among the above:). Basically, I'd use DCC, and just add in the rules for hiring specialists from ACKS, but that would be about it.
Then let them think out of the box, and use henchmen and mercenaries.

QuoteI 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.

Tell them that not all roles will be covered. And tell them it's their job to deal with it.
Whatever they're going to do, the result shall be up to their actions. If they don't have a wizard, and need one, it's their job how to unearth occult knowledge. If they're going without an Warrior, it's their job again to deal with any combats - not yours. You just present them with the obstacles.

QuoteAlso how would YOU go about it (no need to stay within the parameters I set system etc)?

I frequently play with two players. But then I don't, as a general rule, use anything D&D-related (OSR titles excluded, and even those, I don't use much - especially lately).
What this means is that the players can cover more than one of those roles, but it's still unlikely they'd have a specialist for every occasion.
And when they need a specialist for a specific situation, they know that I don't care how they're going to deal with it. They also know that failure is explicitly an option, too;)!
So they're doing their best to prevent it. And it tends to work...or they rebound from the failures, and try to minimize their consequences, or to turn them into an advantage, if at all possible.

That's about it.

So either hirelings or just deal with it! Seem both viable ways to go about it.

AsenRG do you change the encounters at all? For example if I use a dcc adventure should I change the enemies etc?

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)?

Here's my suggestions:
Multi-class. IIRC Pathfinder multiclassing is simple. Start the characters at 2nd level, and let them take a level in two classes, so they have each main role covered. (Fighter, cleric, mage, rogue) DCC doesn't have muticlassing, but Elves are hybrid fighter/mages. If ACKS uses the 1st edition multi-class rules, then there may be a few more requirement to follow.

Give the characters some extra goodies at first level to cover what roles they lack. If they don't have a cleric/healer type, let them start with a potion of healing each, and put a few healing resources as treasure in the adventure.

Adjust the adventure to allow for any lack in the party roles. If they don't have a rogue type, then don't go overboard with locks and traps.

Allow each player to run two characters. 2 characters isn't difficult for experienced players to handle. If they're new(er) you might want to spread the load by having the GM and players as a group run the extra characters. (Hey, Bork is the thief, he should detect traps!)

Well I would probably advise against trying to run published Pathfinder adventures with 2 PCs. With 5e, ACKS etc you can either run lower level stuff, or let them hire hirelings & recruit henchmen (in 5e I have henchmen can be PC class, 1 level per PC Tier at recruitment, whereas hirelings are NPCs from the MM etc).

If you are running your own stuff it should be fine, just start them off easy while you get a feel for it.

Quote from: Malfi;1029996So either hirelings or just deal with it! Seem both viable ways to go about it.

AsenRG do you change the encounters at all? For example if I use a dcc adventure should I change the enemies etc?

You're the Judge, so it's up to you, really:). But I don't, personally, and wouldn't advise it.

You want to rob the self-professed richest merchant in the land? Be my guests, but he's still got 40 guards with him, not 20 because you're half the usual number of a PC group - he's not protecting against PCs, he's protecting himself against the possibility of "a score of highwaymen".
Of course, they're taking turns sleeping during travel, but they can be woken up in a couple combat rounds...
So frontal assault is likely out, but if you want to try, be my guests. What are you doing?

And while I was talking about the guards that we all knew they'd try to avoid, I've also made up my mind on how the shifts are distributed, how the perimeter is set-up during travel and during a stay, and how the valuables are guarded (including what's preventing the 40 mercenaries from stealing them).
Can they deal with what I came up with? If they can't, it's on their PCs. If they can, it's going to reflect on the PCs again, just in a more positive manner;).

I'd go the opposite from AsenRG and use either Pathfinder or 5E because the jack-of-all-trades character class is already baked in to the rules and that is the Bard.

Old school or ACKS assume and recommend henchmen and hirelings anyway.  So in those rulesets I would have a pool already generated to recruit from, and tell the players out of the gate that's a thing they should consider.

With 5e, the big thing to be aware of is the encounter builder budget starts to break down for a 2 or 3 character party.  Also characters are more fragile the first couple levels, almost like old school D&D.  But once you're past the training wheels levels, in a weird way you could call it a fairly forgiving system, between the abilities PCs can bring to bear and the way rests work.

System aside, it's also an opportunity to play a more focused game.  Instead of trying to cover all class roles, a group might run with, say, a thief and assassin, or a thief and bard, for a more heist-focused game.  Or a cleric and paladin for a witch-hunting, demon-slaying campaign.  Or two fighter-types for a swashbuckling game.  Most of these would rely more on urban and roleplaying adventures than on dungeon crawls.  Obviously this depends on a group discussion before characters are even rolled.

I've done this successfully before. Go with something simpler than you think you need. 5th edition, Pathfinder, and anything of that nature is just too slow and bloated for two players. Don't even think about 4th edition. You need to go to B/X or a clone and use the hireling rules. Try to have one of your players choose a leader type to make use of the charisma stuff. Also, make sure to use the morale rules in combat.

I would personally recommend Basic Fantasy or Labyrinth Lord. They have everything you need and they both have options for rule expansions as you learn the pace of small group D&D.

Quote from: Malfi;1029987I 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)?

1: D&D in general has never needed every class present in a group. some can be helpful in certain situations. But you have never needed to have a class present. All you have to to is scale back or rethink the encounters a little to accomodate. And they players may find creative ways around problems too.

2: Yes you are overthinking it. Just go at it and keep in mind that the PCs can handle about half what the standard group of four can. But that is only for combat. Outside combat they can take on about anything within obvious limits. Negotiate, trade, intrigue, sneak, whatever.

3: I've been playing about a year and a half now in a 2-PC party and a couple of years now in a 3 person party. It really boils down to the players and no number matters thate. 1 player, 10 players. If they dont work together to survive then it can end in a TPK pretty fast.

But as noted above the main thing is to keep in mind that the party is at lower potential combat power and adjust encounters accordingly. One of the bigger problems will be that they have a harder time defending the more fragile classes. In fact it can be nearly impossible in some cases. Good news is that at least 5e D&D classes are a little hardier long as they think things through. And some classes synergize really well. A fighter and thief team can be devastating.

One player means one character with hirelings. The player just has to be smarter than they would if they were in a group. So they'll get smart, or they'll be rolling up a new character. Once the PC levels up they can seek out henchmen.

5e is for commie mutant traitors. Use 1e, it works well - again, if the player plays smart. But who wants to play with someone playing dumb?

I just have each player run 2 PCs. It's not rocket science.

Or I let them run 1 PC with some retainers and they control the retainers with some inputs from me.

Or I run a game where 2 heroes do just fine.

System doesn't matter much.

BTW, have you looked at Kevin Crawford (Sine Nomine) games like Godbound or Scarlet Heroes?

Here's his free PDF for Exemplars & Eidolons which is D&D for 1-2 players.
http://www.rpgnow.com/product/144651/Exemplars--Eidolons

I have found E&E to be great with a couple players.

I use Henchmen in my 5e games, the system is not so complicated that it can't handle the kind of 9 character, 6 PC & 3 henchmen type groups typical in 1e AD&D. Hirelings using the simple NPC stats even moreso. Also, 5e has an advantage for solo or duo play over 1e in that the saving throw system is vastly more forgiving. I've seen high level 1e PCs go solo and get taken down by a single failed save; this hardly ever happens in 5e.

Quote from: jeff37923;1030033I'd go the opposite from AsenRG and use either Pathfinder or 5E

Unsurprisingly;).
Of course, just using a D&D-derived system is still "going the opposite way from AsenRG".

Quotebecause the jack-of-all-trades character class is already baked in to the rules and that is the Bard.

You mean the Wizard, right:D?

Anything with an "encounter budget" is a poor fit for a game with one or two players, IME.

Quote from: Beldar;1030060I've done this successfully before. Go with something simpler than you think you need. 5th edition, Pathfinder, and anything of that nature is just too slow and bloated for two players. Don't even think about 4th edition. You need to go to B/X or a clone and use the hireling rules. Try to have one of your players choose a leader type to make use of the charisma stuff. Also, make sure to use the morale rules in combat.

I would personally recommend Basic Fantasy or Labyrinth Lord. They have everything you need and they both have options for rule expansions as you learn the pace of small group D&D.

Heh! I would think with fewer people its easier to run a more bloated game. I had run a successful exalted campaign for 2-3 players, but the system just doesn't do it for me anymore.
I always thought that game like vampire, exalted and gurps worked better for fewer players while dndish osr stuff for lots of players.
I propably wont be using pathfinder because the players have very little experience with rpg's so sth simpler would work better.

To summarize:
Hirelings, hirelings and hirelings! I had totally forgotten hirelings can have class levels and in ack has a price for their service up to level 14! In dcc in kinda gives you the impression that its impossible to find hirelings higher than level 1 (It isn't I just got that impression from reading the short section).
Also encounters need to be changed or maybe not. Obviously if I am not using an adventure I use common sense for what exists in my world.
I had forgotten about Godbound maybe this is a good opportunity to check it out and I will see what exemplars&eidolons.
Also anything beyond basic and 0e dnd is HERESY and heretics must burn. But I like what S'mon said about 5e and so i am tempted.

To summarize:
Hirelings, hirelings and hirelings! I had totally forgotten hirelings can have class levels and in ack has a price for their service up to level 14! In dcc in kinda gives you the impression that its impossible to find hirelings higher than level 1 (It isn't I just got that impression from reading the short section).
Also encounters need to be changed or maybe not. Obviously if I am not using an adventure I use common sense for what exists in my world.
I had forgotten about Godbound maybe this is a good opportunity to check it out and I will see what exemplars&eidolons is about.
Also anything beyond basic and 0e dnd is HERESY and heretics must burn. But I like what S'mon said about 5e and so i am tempted.

Quote from: AsenRG;1030135Anything with an "encounter budget" is a poor fit for a game with one or two players, IME.

I'd agree, but I think we are looking for fantasy gaming here, otherwise I would recommend d6 Star Wars or Traveller for solo gaming.

(solo gaming = 1 player and 1 GM, solitaire gaming = only 1 player/GM)

Quote from: Malfi;1030264To summarize:
Hirelings, hirelings and hirelings!

Mind you, in 5e I've done a fair number of solo games, the Barbarian class in particular is very well suited to this due to his great resilience.

Quote from: Skarg;1029992I would just expect there to be NPCs as needed/wanted in the adventuring party. There almost always have been in games I've run, even when I have a large number of players. Some of or all of them can be potential PCs if a PC dies or leaves play for some reason (temporarily or permanently).

It's always worked fine for me. I enjoy running small groups or single players.

However I also generally don't play D&D or other games that expect a mix of player classes (or have character classes at all), or that expect a certain size of player group, or that make a huge distinction between PCs and NPCs.

What Skarg said.

I played in a long-running game of 1e AD&D in which we had three players, each running two characters.  It was great fun and I see no reason why it wouldn't work for two players.  We did RP in 3rd person, but that's how we played back then, even with one character each.

Quote from: jeff37923;1030286I'd agree, but I think we are looking for fantasy gaming here, otherwise I would recommend d6 Star Wars or Traveller for solo gaming.

(solo gaming = 1 player and 1 GM, solitaire gaming = only 1 player/GM)

Well, then why did you recommend them? Don't 5e and PF include encounter budgets, meaning "encounter levels with a given number of encounters of a given difficulty before resting":)?
Last I checked, that notion was part of the rules in both. And frankly, the less players there are, the more the idea sucks:D!

As for fantasy, it's much easier to recommend decent fantasy systems than to pull the level-appropriate encounters out of PF or 5e, IMO;). For example, the Fabled Lands RPG, Barbarians of Lemuria, or any version of Runequest should be a good fit for a 2-players game, IME.

Quote from: AsenRG;1030643As for fantasy, it's much easier to recommend decent fantasy systems than to pull the level-appropriate encounters out of PF or 5e, IMO;)

I've GM'd hundreds of sessions of 5e and 3e/PF. I have certainly never built a 5e encounter to a budget, I doubt I ever built a 3e/PF one either. It's not necessary at all.

Quote from: S'mon;1030646I've GM'd hundreds of sessions of 5e and 3e/PF. I have certainly never built a 5e encounter to a budget, I doubt I ever built a 3e/PF one either. It's not necessary at all.

Well, then the DMG lied to me:). But my experience with both systems is that most Referees that I've seen running either systems actually try to provide "balanced encounters".
And, as stated before, that sucks even harder with less players;).

Quote from: AsenRG;1030798Well, then the DMG lied to me:). But my experience with both systems is that most Referees that I've seen running either systems actually try to provide "balanced encounters".
And, as stated before, that sucks even harder with less players;).

The 5e build system is so broken and yet so unnecessary that I'd say it was guilty of misrepresentation, yes. :) But Challenge/XPV as a vague measure of threat level is somewhat useful, much like 1e I-X Monster Level.

If the concern is combat with 2 PCs instead of 6 PCs, then I doubly suggest Scarlet Heroes (OSR) or Godbound (OSR Exalted) by Sine Nomine. They are both easily compatible with any TSR (or 5e) product.

Quote from: AsenRG;1030643Well, then why did you recommend them?

Because 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.

Quote from: S'mon;1030802The 5e build system is so broken and yet so unnecessary that I'd say it was guilty of misrepresentation, yes. :) But Challenge/XPV as a vague measure of threat level is somewhat useful, much like 1e I-X Monster Level.

Also CR in 3rd edition/pathfinder has much more impact in combat than Hit die in 1st edition. This is a reason why in 3rd/pathfinder you can't play around with CR too much, that said people who play these editions are still overly stuck on the encounters must balanced paradim.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1030837If the concern is combat with 2 PCs instead of 6 PCs, then I doubly suggest Scarlet Heroes (OSR) or Godbound (OSR Exalted) by Sine Nomine. They are both easily compatible with any TSR (or 5e) product.

Godbound is compatible with OSR adventures?

Quote from: Malfi;1030911Also CR in 3rd edition/pathfinder has much more impact in combat than Hit die in 1st edition. This is a reason why in 3rd/pathfinder you can't play around with CR too much, that said people who play these editions are still overly stuck on the encounters must balanced paradim.

3e/PF's extremely steep power curve encourages balanced encounter building. I find it's not an issue in 5e though.

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? :D

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? :D

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.

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.

Well, I'd say it's exactly the opposite.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1033099Well, I'd say it's exactly the opposite.

Sure, but my experience would lead me to think that either you're objectively wrong...or that, le gasp, mileages vary:D!
In either case, we all recommend what worked for us. But sometimes those would be the exact opposite things, like, say, right in this thread;).

The fact that the more standard RPG group is 4-6 players seems to suggest that there's more likelihood of your experience being the nonconforming one.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1033370The fact that the more standard RPG group is 4-6 players seems to suggest that there's more likelihood of your experience being the nonconforming one.

Said fact is best explained by tradition and people sticking to a model that doesn't help them. Like, the "you need one of each basic classes" model;).

Before the session:
"We need one of each core class to get a balanced party! But three friends want to come together! Oh, woe is us, either we're going to play with a base class down, or one, nay, maybe two classes are going to be overrepresented!"
After the session:
"Well, the three warriors were different enough. Might it be because of the roleplaying?"
"Don't know, but two Fighting Men and a Ranger were cutting through my encounters with barely any difficulty!"
"Yeah! Wasn't it great? And they say they could bring another friend or two!"
"...OK, everybody had fun. But no adding more players!"

(Two sessions later):
"We're down to four players. Two of them were unable to make it, and we had a miserable time, because the encounters were geared for 6 PCs. OTOH, the GM seemed happy. Clearly 4-6 is optimal!"

Yes, I've been there and seen it:D!
Doesn't prove anything, other than Gronan's opinion on "most people";).

I've run successful campaigns with anything from 1 to 7 players, and my current open campaign probably has had 20 or so play at one time or another, as Gygax intended. :) I don't think there is any solid rule about ideal group size, there are too many variables. The longest lasting campaigns all tend to have at least one highly committed 'alpha gamer' who sticks with it, maintains continuity, and is the heart of the game, but around that person(s) can be 0 to 20+ others.

Fully 80 to 90% of my campaigns have been run for 1,player over the years. It's different but very rewarding and in my opinion superior to the typical gang bang in many ways.

Having a low number of players is easy to run for because rather than worrying about people canceling, it usually means you can pick the few players who are dedicated and interested enough to always be ready to go and make the scheduling work.

It's when you have like 10+ people that you will get some flakes in the mix, but if you have that many, you can usually afford to run without a few people. So I agree that a small or large group is easiest to run without interruption.

Filling all the niches can be relatively important, but that's not the only reason why 4-6 is a sweet spot. It is not so many as to stop players from having chances for their characters to get time to shine (and to develop more deeply as characters), but it's also not so few as to miss some of that essential group dynamic.  It's less about in-game stuff as it is about group dynamics.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1033626Filling all the niches can be relatively important, but that's not the only reason why 4-6 is a sweet spot. It is not so many as to stop players from having chances for their characters to get time to shine (and to develop more deeply as characters), but it's also not so few as to miss some of that essential group dynamic.  It's less about in-game stuff as it is about group dynamics.

IME, group dynamics only improve with less players:).

Again, Pundit, your experience obviously differs, and I respect that. However, in a thread about playing with only 2 players, I'm pretty sure the OP would be better off following the example that makes games with less players as viable or more viable than those with 3-6 players;).