Post/Author/DateTime	Post
gratzu 05-21-05, 05:37 PM	At one time or another, every DM has had to face a party that is simply too large to handle. We've all had to deal with a table full of OoC chatter, massive encounters that take up more than one session, and the wonderful experience of having twelve people yelling at you about twelve (or more) different topics in the middle of a battle. I've learned to accept these kinds of situations, and even learned to deal with them after a fashion. But now I have the opposite problem. I am attempting to run a campaign with only 2 PC's, and it's harder than it seems. First of all, I'll be running it for my roommates. The advantage is that we can start a scene whenever we happen to have the time. The disadvantage, I only have 2 roommates. It doesn't sound so bad until you consider the fact that unless the players are talking to each other, they have to be talking to me. In a normal campaign, you can have intra-character dialogue, disagreements, and private plans. That kind of thing is much more difficult with only two players. One solution is for me to play a primary NPC almost as if he/she were a PC. I can do that, but it's an added stress. A few conversations with myself I can handle, but I'm having trouble doing it all the time. Have any of you had this kind of problem before? What did you do about it? If not, what do you think you would do about it? I just want everybody to have fun. Thanx!
Shaken, not Stunned 05-21-05, 07:31 PM	I have run for many sizes of groups. Right now I have four players, but for the longest time I ran a game for two. I had zero problems. You see only that you will have interact with the players more. You fail to see that the players you are interacting with will have characters which are much more fleshed out and are far more entertaining to interact with. Don't worry so much, I think you will find it to be a much more enjoyable experience.
REvil74 05-21-05, 09:10 PM	He's right. Smaller groups actually let you focus more on the two individual players in terms of role-playing, and you never run the risk of having someone not in the action for long. They can vary a bit more from each other and have it be interesting instead of troublesome, like it would be in a bigger party. It's a good idea to make more interesting NPC's than you would for a bigger party, and combat could be enhanced by using a single enemy that they would fight in turns. When all else fails, watch some movies and borrow ideas. There are plenty of movies that have excellent action dealing with 2-character action (Star Wars, Pirates of the Carribean, Gladiator). Just don't forget to add a bit of you own ideas to it.
gratzu 05-22-05, 01:56 AM	Maybe I just worry too much. I've tried it before and have had problems. Three is fine, but two is quite different. I'll just have to see how it goes. More suggestions would be helpful too! Thanks you guys!
snowlynx 05-22-05, 02:07 AM	Is your issue the one of trying to play so much at once? I have this issue with three players...but then again, the group I run with has this really annoying tendency of trying to drag NPCs along on their adventures. I am stuck trying to have conversations as 4 or five people at once. I sort of thought this was part of being the DM, not part of how many players are in the group.
gratzu 05-22-05, 02:10 AM	I like making up NPC's on the spot I guess. Maybe it is part of being a DM. However, I draw most of my ideas from my players themselves. Maybe I need to work harder at it than I thought. -Trish
celtredleg 05-22-05, 02:42 AM	One problem with small groups is that there simply arnt enough PC bodys to cover needed skills. In original D&D I had to many times play with only one player. We all solved this by allowing more than one charicter per player. At first it seems a little strange, but I have found many players who have no problem playing many charicters. Of course not all DMs are comfortable with this idea, but give it some thought.
Jerivar 05-22-05, 06:00 AM	I made 4 NPCs up for an adventure with only one player. Know what I did? Gave him 2 of them, kept 2 for myself. If he can handle another, and I need to offload one because of having so much to do, then I'll give him another, or even both 'player' characters I control. He seems fine with it so far, since his characters are kinda arch-type - a damn glomper anime girl, a quiet monk, and whatever the hell he's playing. He is familiar with Baldur's Gate, so having control of a few characters shouldn't be unfamiliar for him, and 2 of them I came up with personalities for him anyway.
Siduakal 05-22-05, 12:22 PM	Er my two man group kinda went like this Player 1 (Wealthy artificier) Player 2 (Soulknife bodyguard) NPC 1 (Thief bodyguard) NPC 2 + 3 (Hired Assassins to protect against assassins) NPC 4 (Minotaur bodyguard) NPCs that sometimes come: PC 1s sister(Monk), PC 1s personal mage(Wizard), PC 1s girlfriend(Monk)
Andrew_980 05-22-05, 12:54 PM	ya i'm having a simular problem, my 2 players feel no need to RP since its just them and screw around alot. this has been less of a problem with more players
Siduakal 05-22-05, 04:44 PM	Also, I want to add.. The way it works is PC 1 has a very well off business. And he's ALWAYS expanding it. We've no choice BUT to roleplay. In combat, PC 1 controls a few of the NPCs that help us sometimes to help out. The DM, though, has a lot of interesting NPCs that we are friends with that we talk with. (Mostly PC 1.. I'm more strong and silent.. he's more chat your head off) My roleplaying comes in when our airship is out in dangerous areas, with how my character carries himself in risky situations. (He's dove off an airship 100 ft off the ground because someone was falling, he's taken AoOs to shove NPCs out of the way and take a blow for them, etc..) But PC 1 is more the social sort.. You kinda gotta cater to'em.. It's tough for our DM cause she has myself (More in favor of combat) and PC 1 (More in favor of social) We're both fine with the other aspect, but we prefer seperate things.