PCs: How many are too many? [Archive] - Wizards Community

PCs: How many are too many? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Pistilpeach
01-10-06, 09:35 PM The title of this thread is actually semi-deceptive. What it should really say (but what is too cumbersome a phrase for a topic title) is: "NPCs fleshing out a party: How many are too many?" The problem stems from the fact that I only have one player. I'm about to start running the Age of Worms campaign from Dungeon magazine (this will be my first full length campaign) and I have a party worked out that I'm sure has too many members in it, but they all seem cool.

Right now the PC is going to be a Medani rogue, and the party includes a kalashtar bard, a kalashtar monk, an evil warforged fighter, a Ghallanda barbarian, and a khoravar cleric of the silver flame. The question is, how many should I cut down to? I know four is supposed to be the ideal party size, but I've already come up with backstories for all of them and they're hard to let go. Thanks in advance for your help.
nastynate
01-11-06, 01:03 AM Yowza, only one PC! You've got to find at least one more. Solo adventuring is O.K. at higher levels, but even then it can be a pain in the neck. What happens if there is some puzzle to solve, and the lonely PC cannot figure it out? He's got nobody to brainstorm with, or help make decisions, so the NPCs have to do it.

It's a terrible idea to have more NPCs than PCs. The PC seems completely unimportant when more than 50% of the action is done by others. Perhaps you could let the player run two characters, if you have no way of finding another. It's not ideal, but it works.

You could get by with two PCs and one NPC, especially if one of the PCs has an animal companion or a cohort. When the party is stripped down to the bare essentials you're really going to want some powerful characters; rather than suggest gestalt which is completely broken and terrible, I'd suggest you encourage a very efficient party with a druid, a barbarian, and a wizard. It's a pretty good combo, because the druid can hang back and heal while his animal companion fights. The barbarian just gives and takes better then anyone, and the wizard...well he's a wizard, what else is there to say?

Good luck with your game. :D
LazarusX
01-11-06, 03:51 AM Have your player run 2, and you run 2. Party of 4 is usually the standard for a game(or 5).

Make sure the player plays each character differently. Preferably, have him write up complete background stories for each, so that he knows them like the back of his head, and can roleplay each separately. Also, if his two characters end up having a conversation, decide firstof--which character you will always "take verbal control of".

It can be very hectic as a DM playing NPC's as well as all the monsters and social NPC's you will meet...but it can become very rewarding; and you'll gain alot of experience doing it. ;)
Save-vs-DM
01-11-06, 04:35 AM With only one player who is planning to play a rogue, I might actually hold off on the age of wyrms path if at all possible.

I'd start looking at different video games. If he's a rogue a campaign more like Thief might just be the thing here.

In my experience the minute DMPC's (because that is what you have now) outnumber actual PC's things start to get hairy. The PC can quickly feel like part of the background as all of the DMPC's start taking over in combat and in other situations.

I would really try to recruit at least one other player if at all possible. If you cannot recruit another player simply run a single DMPC and cut most encounters in half. If he's playing a rogue I'd recommend a cleric to serve as healing and magical backup.

If your character is playing a rogue of house Medani it sounds like he's going for a master inquisitive type character. If that's the case perhaps the Age of Wyrms might not be the best campaign for him. I'd run more mystery inclined games where combat is less of an issue and quick wits and inquisitive skills are more of an issue.

On interesting twist might be giving him an NPC type of cohort, the Watson to his Holmes. A sort of strong arm bodyguard type.

If you're stuck for inspiration I'd check out the adventures of Sherlock Holmes, Magnum P.I., C.S.I., Johnny Staccato, or other similar t.v. shows and books.

Cheers and good luck!
Save vs DM
Kid SixXx
01-11-06, 05:59 AM The magic number for me is usually five or six & I try to have as few NPC's or henchmen in the party as possible.

Advertising is sometimes a good way to get bodies to your gaming table. If I'm running short of new people, I leave a "new game forming" note on the corkboard of my FLGS.

After a bit of interviewing (Yep, I interview & don't invite folks that I don't think will contribute to the team. Nothing kills gaming sessions like folks that are disruptive) I assemble the players, have them draft their PC's, talk amongst themselves to organize a bit, and then we get started after the preliminaries are done.
Sieylianna
01-11-06, 07:34 AM With only one player who is planning to play a rogue, I might actually hold off on the age of wyrms path if at all possible.

I would agree with this. I'm currently playing the "Shackled City" adventure path and it is quite difficult with a group of five. I doubt the "Age of Wyrms" is any easier.

Ed
Pistilpeach
01-11-06, 09:38 AM In my experience the minute DMPC's (because that is what you have now) outnumber actual PC's things start to get hairy. The PC can quickly feel like part of the background as all of the DMPC's start taking over in combat and in other situations.

I actually have firsthand experience of this, I just played in a mini-campaign (as the only PC) where my current player was the DM, and we did the Forgotten Forge/SotLW/WotVB/GotEC series. I did feel alot of the time that my PC was being overshadowed (didn't help that I was a cleric who self-relegated himself to party healer), which made the game less fun. But there were several factors causing the problems which I got a chance to examine in boring detail as the campaign went on.

First, combat was a bore because I only controlled one character, and a healer at that. While I'm sure I could have controlled more than one PC and kept them seperate easily enough, I think it might have been a better idea to just let me control the whole party in combat. Then you get the vicarious fun of being a fighter, ranger, or whatever during a fight, but when not in immediate danger your PC is still the skilled rogue (or whatever).

As for cutting down the DMPCs, it's hard for me to accept. On the one hand, that would indeed make it clear that the PC is the center of attention; on the other hand, the cast of DMPCs when I was the player were very enjoyable and entertaining, even if they did do all the work.

As for running a mystery campaign, I don't know. I'm sure my player would be more than happy to play as a Medani agent and get mired in the politics of the house and so forth, but he also picked the Age of Worms when I gave him a line-up of potential campaign options. This is probably because he feels that there's some security in a string of published adventures versus the more free-from, less dungeon-o-centric ones that I've done in the past.

Although maybe he is looking for mystery. In the past, other characters he's considered playing have been a shifter rogue, a kalashtar monk/atavist, and a Phiarlan elf. In the mini-campaign where I was the player, all the DMPCs had stealth skills (I just realized this, it wasn't too obvious.) But I don't think he has any interest in playing the classic stealth characters, like the straight up theif or the assassin. Maybe I'm wrong, though. At the very least, I'll have to have another campaign planning session in which I'll bring up these issues.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Pistilpeach 01-10-06, 09:35 PM	The title of this thread is actually semi-deceptive. What it should really say (but what is too cumbersome a phrase for a topic title) is: "NPCs fleshing out a party: How many are too many?" The problem stems from the fact that I only have one player. I'm about to start running the Age of Worms campaign from Dungeon magazine (this will be my first full length campaign) and I have a party worked out that I'm sure has too many members in it, but they all seem cool. Right now the PC is going to be a Medani rogue, and the party includes a kalashtar bard, a kalashtar monk, an evil warforged fighter, a Ghallanda barbarian, and a khoravar cleric of the silver flame. The question is, how many should I cut down to? I know four is supposed to be the ideal party size, but I've already come up with backstories for all of them and they're hard to let go. Thanks in advance for your help.
nastynate 01-11-06, 01:03 AM	Yowza, only one PC! You've got to find at least one more. Solo adventuring is O.K. at higher levels, but even then it can be a pain in the neck. What happens if there is some puzzle to solve, and the lonely PC cannot figure it out? He's got nobody to brainstorm with, or help make decisions, so the NPCs have to do it. It's a terrible idea to have more NPCs than PCs. The PC seems completely unimportant when more than 50% of the action is done by others. Perhaps you could let the player run two characters, if you have no way of finding another. It's not ideal, but it works. You could get by with two PCs and one NPC, especially if one of the PCs has an animal companion or a cohort. When the party is stripped down to the bare essentials you're really going to want some powerful characters; rather than suggest gestalt which is completely broken and terrible, I'd suggest you encourage a very efficient party with a druid, a barbarian, and a wizard. It's a pretty good combo, because the druid can hang back and heal while his animal companion fights. The barbarian just gives and takes better then anyone, and the wizard...well he's a wizard, what else is there to say? Good luck with your game. :D
LazarusX 01-11-06, 03:51 AM	Have your player run 2, and you run 2. Party of 4 is usually the standard for a game(or 5). Make sure the player plays each character differently. Preferably, have him write up complete background stories for each, so that he knows them like the back of his head, and can roleplay each separately. Also, if his two characters end up having a conversation, decide firstof--which character you will always "take verbal control of". It can be very hectic as a DM playing NPC's as well as all the monsters and social NPC's you will meet...but it can become very rewarding; and you'll gain alot of experience doing it. ;)
Save-vs-DM 01-11-06, 04:35 AM	With only one player who is planning to play a rogue, I might actually hold off on the age of wyrms path if at all possible. I'd start looking at different video games. If he's a rogue a campaign more like Thief might just be the thing here. In my experience the minute DMPC's (because that is what you have now) outnumber actual PC's things start to get hairy. The PC can quickly feel like part of the background as all of the DMPC's start taking over in combat and in other situations. I would really try to recruit at least one other player if at all possible. If you cannot recruit another player simply run a single DMPC and cut most encounters in half. If he's playing a rogue I'd recommend a cleric to serve as healing and magical backup. If your character is playing a rogue of house Medani it sounds like he's going for a master inquisitive type character. If that's the case perhaps the Age of Wyrms might not be the best campaign for him. I'd run more mystery inclined games where combat is less of an issue and quick wits and inquisitive skills are more of an issue. On interesting twist might be giving him an NPC type of cohort, the Watson to his Holmes. A sort of strong arm bodyguard type. If you're stuck for inspiration I'd check out the adventures of Sherlock Holmes, Magnum P.I., C.S.I., Johnny Staccato, or other similar t.v. shows and books. Cheers and good luck! Save vs DM
Kid SixXx 01-11-06, 05:59 AM	The magic number for me is usually five or six & I try to have as few NPC's or henchmen in the party as possible. Advertising is sometimes a good way to get bodies to your gaming table. If I'm running short of new people, I leave a "new game forming" note on the corkboard of my FLGS. After a bit of interviewing (Yep, I interview & don't invite folks that I don't think will contribute to the team. Nothing kills gaming sessions like folks that are disruptive) I assemble the players, have them draft their PC's, talk amongst themselves to organize a bit, and then we get started after the preliminaries are done.
Sieylianna 01-11-06, 07:34 AM	With only one player who is planning to play a rogue, I might actually hold off on the age of wyrms path if at all possible. I would agree with this. I'm currently playing the "Shackled City" adventure path and it is quite difficult with a group of five. I doubt the "Age of Wyrms" is any easier. Ed
Pistilpeach 01-11-06, 09:38 AM	In my experience the minute DMPC's (because that is what you have now) outnumber actual PC's things start to get hairy. The PC can quickly feel like part of the background as all of the DMPC's start taking over in combat and in other situations. I actually have firsthand experience of this, I just played in a mini-campaign (as the only PC) where my current player was the DM, and we did the Forgotten Forge/SotLW/WotVB/GotEC series. I did feel alot of the time that my PC was being overshadowed (didn't help that I was a cleric who self-relegated himself to party healer), which made the game less fun. But there were several factors causing the problems which I got a chance to examine in boring detail as the campaign went on. First, combat was a bore because I only controlled one character, and a healer at that. While I'm sure I could have controlled more than one PC and kept them seperate easily enough, I think it might have been a better idea to just let me control the whole party in combat. Then you get the vicarious fun of being a fighter, ranger, or whatever during a fight, but when not in immediate danger your PC is still the skilled rogue (or whatever). As for cutting down the DMPCs, it's hard for me to accept. On the one hand, that would indeed make it clear that the PC is the center of attention; on the other hand, the cast of DMPCs when I was the player were very enjoyable and entertaining, even if they did do all the work. As for running a mystery campaign, I don't know. I'm sure my player would be more than happy to play as a Medani agent and get mired in the politics of the house and so forth, but he also picked the Age of Worms when I gave him a line-up of potential campaign options. This is probably because he feels that there's some security in a string of published adventures versus the more free-from, less dungeon-o-centric ones that I've done in the past. Although maybe he is looking for mystery. In the past, other characters he's considered playing have been a shifter rogue, a kalashtar monk/atavist, and a Phiarlan elf. In the mini-campaign where I was the player, all the DMPCs had stealth skills (I just realized this, it wasn't too obvious.) But I don't think he has any interest in playing the classic stealth characters, like the straight up theif or the assassin. Maybe I'm wrong, though. At the very least, I'll have to have another campaign planning session in which I'll bring up these issues.