3 players, 1 DM [Archive] - Wizards Community

3 players, 1 DM [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Tygs
05-08-06, 12:14 PM I apologize in advance if this has been handled before, but I don't have the time to go searching for this topic.

On to the topic at hand: I am a DM with a limited number of players. Three to be exact. I would like any advice on how to handle the low number of players. Gestalting is NOT an option.

Thanks.
Witch
05-08-06, 12:17 PM A) Lower the CRs and balance out the party so that they have the required roles for your campaign
B) Go Gestalt ;)
C) Use a DMPC
D) Have each player use 2 characters.
E) Send your players to the Character Optimisation forum first.
Whim
05-08-06, 12:26 PM Just scale the adventure down to something they can handle and give them good opportunities to escape when the going gets tough.

If it gets too easy for them, scale it up a bit. If it gets too hard, scale it back down.
Lincoln Hills
05-08-06, 12:28 PM I don't think you really have a problem. It's your players' responsibility to cover their own... bases. Just be a little more cautions about presenting higher-CR monsters and opponents. (And be aware that a party of 4+ NPCs will be more dangerous than normal to the group.)
TokTok
05-08-06, 12:30 PM 3 players? That isn't limited. It's plenty. At least, if they don't do immature or annoying things.
Tygs
05-08-06, 12:34 PM I'm just used to running a game for about 6 or 7, so 3 is half of my usual gaming group.
KJW
05-08-06, 12:35 PM Yeah, three is no big deal, really not that much different from four, additionally if they want to hire a NPC or two to round out the group then let them, but otherwise just run the game normally.
Whim
05-08-06, 12:38 PM Something I like to do sometimes is offer major encounters--such as a dragon, perhaps--to a smaller, weaker party, but I create the environment to include things that the players can use to tip the odds in their favor.

You need clever players to do this, because players who aren't used to improvising and careful strategy won't think to use the environment and will just get splatted.
Cthulhu3125
05-08-06, 12:39 PM My group was recently cut down to 2 players.

The solution I intend to implement is similar to the play mechanism of Baldur's Gate, Planescape, a lot of the D&D PC games - the party will have the opportunity for other NPCs to join the party, but, once they do so, control is handed over to one of the human players during combat, rather than the DM running the party NPC. This solves the problem of DMPCs stealing action from the players. The NPC is run by the DM outside of combat for things like character interaction with the rest of the party.
Milandros
05-08-06, 12:48 PM Indeed. Three players works very well, actually - they all get much more time in the spotlight than six players do. It can be more fun than larger groups,and allows for a lot more character development.

I'd suggest allowing them reasonably generous point buys or rolls - for example, 4d6, drop the lowest, count 1s as 2s (it doesn't change the chance of getting a 15 or higher, but raises the average up a bit and prevents any stat being less than 6). After that, make sure they have some (not complete) access to whatever major element is missing - e.g. healing magic or rogue skills - either through NPCs or items. Finally, don't hit them with scenarios designed expressly to punish them for not having a Mage plus a Fighter plus a Rogue plus a Cleric plus a Druid plus a Paladin plus a Monk. They're going to have to specialise a bit - if they don't have a rogue at all then they're unlikely to want to take a job investigating The Tomb of Obviously Horrendous Terrible Traps and Locks. Make sure the scenarios are fun for them.

Finally, as another option, you can consider asking them if they really want to specialise - you can have a very good game with all roguish-variant skills for example, as either a criminal game, an investigator game or even a commando squad. A group of clerics and paladins could make a fine church strike team / inquisitor team. Mages could make a great group taking on those things that only magic can defeat (maybe one PC as their bodyguard fighter). Druids/Woodland moster races could make a great group for a nature's defenders campaign. A bunch of grunt fighters could be a great mercenary-based campaign. Assassins and Thieves can be a fun game. So can rangers defending the frontier. Sure, there will be things no specialised group can take on, but that's not the sort of opponent they'd be facing anyway. When the wizards meet something immune to magic, they either summon enough creatures to deal with it or run away. Not their job.

Go for it - three players can make for some fine games.
Sereno
05-08-06, 01:11 PM My group was recently cut down to 2 players.

The solution I intend to implement is similar to the play mechanism of Baldur's Gate, Planescape, a lot of the D&D PC games - the party will have the opportunity for other NPCs to join the party, but, once they do so, control is handed over to one of the human players during combat, rather than the DM running the party NPC. This solves the problem of DMPCs stealing action from the players. The NPC is run by the DM outside of combat for things like character interaction with the rest of the party.

The same thing happened with my game ... we're running the missing players PCs as NPCs for now (but most control is in the hands of the players and we generally ask what would they do in this situation, so no taking advantage).

If the two missing players can't make it back, they might be replaced by other NPCs to be run as you've described if the two remaining players want a party with different skills.

To the OP; the D&D challenge ratings are designed for 4 normal PCs, so 3 PCs is probably easier to deal with than 6 or 7 or a 4 optimized PCs. I'd recommend checking all of your encounters with one of the electronic "XP Calculators" most of them will give you better statistics to work with.
aotrscommander
05-08-06, 07:32 PM I'm just used to running a game for about 6 or 7, so 3 is half of my usual gaming group.

Funnily enough one of our gaming groups is in the exact same position.

First, be aware that if, like us, you are used to a larger party, the difference in PC numbers is dramatic. The lost of that player from the base 4 make more than a 25% difference in both ability to inflict and recieve damage in combat (and as you are used to a larger party, it will seem even greater). Our current party is evil, consisting of a Fighter/Cleric going Blackgaurd, a Rogue and Psychic Warrior (me). Being an evil party to boot, at the start of the campaign we were really hurting for healing capability and aparty from me, everyone's AC was very poor. Otherwise, the lack of an arcane caster smarts; we have to rely on Tanavark's awesome Knowledge (Arcana) of +5 whenever we encounter something magical!

So, I would start off your PC at low-to mid level (3-4 ish), rather than 1st. This will increase survivalbilty while you readjust your DMing to match the current group. Secondly, the party will require some access to healing; if you've got a druid of good-neutral cleric, you'll probably b okay, but investing in wands of CLW and other disposable items is a very good idea, even if normally (like us) you practically never use them.

Be cuatious with what you send out at the group to start with until both you and your players have got a better idea of combat balance. Remember the biggest problem with a small group is that when it goes wrong, things gravitate from bad to lethal in very short order. With a party of 6, if someone goes down, there's usually someone to hand to pull them out, heal them or whack a potion down their throat. With only three characters, changes are they are going to be in trouble.

Point out to the party's tank that they will need to be able to absorb significant amounts of punishment is the healer needs to break out of line to patch somebody up.

I recommend that the party's tank is not a barbarian; with a small party, the group will need to fight smart, not hard, and rage doesn't help too much in this respect; unless barbarian has a lot of hits, he's likely to get hammered as the AC is low.

(I am aware their may be lots of players out there who think this last paragraph is a load of rubbish, but I am calling it as I see it from the perspective of our games (which tend to be rather tactical).)

On the other hand, combats will fly past!

Hope that helps some.
Nom
05-08-06, 09:19 PM IMO, you're better to slightly under-EL the encounters than power-up the PCs. Powering up the PCs will increase the pace of advancement in the game, which since it is quite fast already is usually not that great an idea. Further, powering up PCs rather than powering down encounters increases the "damage rate" which increases the likelihood of an unlucky event causing PC death (or even TPK).

Also, if you later add an extra PC then XP, CR and player power is still balanced if you've been lowering encounter ELs. If you've been tweaking with the PCs power instead then you now need to recalibrate the party.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Tygs 05-08-06, 12:14 PM	I apologize in advance if this has been handled before, but I don't have the time to go searching for this topic. On to the topic at hand: I am a DM with a limited number of players. Three to be exact. I would like any advice on how to handle the low number of players. Gestalting is NOT an option. Thanks.
Witch 05-08-06, 12:17 PM	A) Lower the CRs and balance out the party so that they have the required roles for your campaign B) Go Gestalt ;) C) Use a DMPC D) Have each player use 2 characters. E) Send your players to the Character Optimisation forum first.
Whim 05-08-06, 12:26 PM	Just scale the adventure down to something they can handle and give them good opportunities to escape when the going gets tough. If it gets too easy for them, scale it up a bit. If it gets too hard, scale it back down.
Lincoln Hills 05-08-06, 12:28 PM	I don't think you really have a problem. It's your players' responsibility to cover their own... bases. Just be a little more cautions about presenting higher-CR monsters and opponents. (And be aware that a party of 4+ NPCs will be more dangerous than normal to the group.)
TokTok 05-08-06, 12:30 PM	3 players? That isn't limited. It's plenty. At least, if they don't do immature or annoying things.
Tygs 05-08-06, 12:34 PM	I'm just used to running a game for about 6 or 7, so 3 is half of my usual gaming group.
KJW 05-08-06, 12:35 PM	Yeah, three is no big deal, really not that much different from four, additionally if they want to hire a NPC or two to round out the group then let them, but otherwise just run the game normally.
Whim 05-08-06, 12:38 PM	Something I like to do sometimes is offer major encounters--such as a dragon, perhaps--to a smaller, weaker party, but I create the environment to include things that the players can use to tip the odds in their favor. You need clever players to do this, because players who aren't used to improvising and careful strategy won't think to use the environment and will just get splatted.
Cthulhu3125 05-08-06, 12:39 PM	My group was recently cut down to 2 players. The solution I intend to implement is similar to the play mechanism of Baldur's Gate, Planescape, a lot of the D&D PC games - the party will have the opportunity for other NPCs to join the party, but, once they do so, control is handed over to one of the human players during combat, rather than the DM running the party NPC. This solves the problem of DMPCs stealing action from the players. The NPC is run by the DM outside of combat for things like character interaction with the rest of the party.
Milandros 05-08-06, 12:48 PM	Indeed. Three players works very well, actually - they all get much more time in the spotlight than six players do. It can be more fun than larger groups,and allows for a lot more character development. I'd suggest allowing them reasonably generous point buys or rolls - for example, 4d6, drop the lowest, count 1s as 2s (it doesn't change the chance of getting a 15 or higher, but raises the average up a bit and prevents any stat being less than 6). After that, make sure they have some (not complete) access to whatever major element is missing - e.g. healing magic or rogue skills - either through NPCs or items. Finally, don't hit them with scenarios designed expressly to punish them for not having a Mage plus a Fighter plus a Rogue plus a Cleric plus a Druid plus a Paladin plus a Monk. They're going to have to specialise a bit - if they don't have a rogue at all then they're unlikely to want to take a job investigating The Tomb of Obviously Horrendous Terrible Traps and Locks. Make sure the scenarios are fun for them. Finally, as another option, you can consider asking them if they really want to specialise - you can have a very good game with all roguish-variant skills for example, as either a criminal game, an investigator game or even a commando squad. A group of clerics and paladins could make a fine church strike team / inquisitor team. Mages could make a great group taking on those things that only magic can defeat (maybe one PC as their bodyguard fighter). Druids/Woodland moster races could make a great group for a nature's defenders campaign. A bunch of grunt fighters could be a great mercenary-based campaign. Assassins and Thieves can be a fun game. So can rangers defending the frontier. Sure, there will be things no specialised group can take on, but that's not the sort of opponent they'd be facing anyway. When the wizards meet something immune to magic, they either summon enough creatures to deal with it or run away. Not their job. Go for it - three players can make for some fine games.
Sereno 05-08-06, 01:11 PM	My group was recently cut down to 2 players. The solution I intend to implement is similar to the play mechanism of Baldur's Gate, Planescape, a lot of the D&D PC games - the party will have the opportunity for other NPCs to join the party, but, once they do so, control is handed over to one of the human players during combat, rather than the DM running the party NPC. This solves the problem of DMPCs stealing action from the players. The NPC is run by the DM outside of combat for things like character interaction with the rest of the party. The same thing happened with my game ... we're running the missing players PCs as NPCs for now (but most control is in the hands of the players and we generally ask what would they do in this situation, so no taking advantage). If the two missing players can't make it back, they might be replaced by other NPCs to be run as you've described if the two remaining players want a party with different skills. To the OP; the D&D challenge ratings are designed for 4 normal PCs, so 3 PCs is probably easier to deal with than 6 or 7 or a 4 optimized PCs. I'd recommend checking all of your encounters with one of the electronic "XP Calculators" most of them will give you better statistics to work with.
aotrscommander 05-08-06, 07:32 PM	I'm just used to running a game for about 6 or 7, so 3 is half of my usual gaming group. Funnily enough one of our gaming groups is in the exact same position. First, be aware that if, like us, you are used to a larger party, the difference in PC numbers is dramatic. The lost of that player from the base 4 make more than a 25% difference in both ability to inflict and recieve damage in combat (and as you are used to a larger party, it will seem even greater). Our current party is evil, consisting of a Fighter/Cleric going Blackgaurd, a Rogue and Psychic Warrior (me). Being an evil party to boot, at the start of the campaign we were really hurting for healing capability and aparty from me, everyone's AC was very poor. Otherwise, the lack of an arcane caster smarts; we have to rely on Tanavark's awesome Knowledge (Arcana) of +5 whenever we encounter something magical! So, I would start off your PC at low-to mid level (3-4 ish), rather than 1st. This will increase survivalbilty while you readjust your DMing to match the current group. Secondly, the party will require some access to healing; if you've got a druid of good-neutral cleric, you'll probably b okay, but investing in wands of CLW and other disposable items is a very good idea, even if normally (like us) you practically never use them. Be cuatious with what you send out at the group to start with until both you and your players have got a better idea of combat balance. Remember the biggest problem with a small group is that when it goes wrong, things gravitate from bad to lethal in very short order. With a party of 6, if someone goes down, there's usually someone to hand to pull them out, heal them or whack a potion down their throat. With only three characters, changes are they are going to be in trouble. Point out to the party's tank that they will need to be able to absorb significant amounts of punishment is the healer needs to break out of line to patch somebody up. I recommend that the party's tank is not a barbarian; with a small party, the group will need to fight smart, not hard, and rage doesn't help too much in this respect; unless barbarian has a lot of hits, he's likely to get hammered as the AC is low. (I am aware their may be lots of players out there who think this last paragraph is a load of rubbish, but I am calling it as I see it from the perspective of our games (which tend to be rather tactical).) On the other hand, combats will fly past! Hope that helps some.
Nom 05-08-06, 09:19 PM	IMO, you're better to slightly under-EL the encounters than power-up the PCs. Powering up the PCs will increase the pace of advancement in the game, which since it is quite fast already is usually not that great an idea. Further, powering up PCs rather than powering down encounters increases the "damage rate" which increases the likelihood of an unlucky event causing PC death (or even TPK). Also, if you later add an extra PC then XP, CR and player power is still balanced if you've been lowering encounter ELs. If you've been tweaking with the PCs power instead then you now need to recalibrate the party.