Advice For Small Groups [Archive] - Wizards Community

Advice For Small Groups [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
EaterOfTheDead
12-13-07, 01:08 PM A little while back there was a great article giving advice for one-on-one gaming. However I am in a slightly different situation. I have a mere two players at my disposal. One is on again, off again gamer and the other is new.

This isn't a new situation for me and I have learned to deal with it but any advice could be helpful. With D&D there are the four main roles of fighter, rogue, mage and cleric but without multiclassing it is hard for only two characters to cover all the bases. What I end up with is a group of players that are sorely lacking in some regard. There is usually always a fighter and it is technically possible to get by with no healing or in some instances without magic but it becomes problematic to create a well balanced and logical adventure when the party is unable to meet the four types of challenges.

Again, this is not a new situation for me and i have learned to cope but if anyone has advice I would love to hear it.

-Josh
kelvinaw273
12-13-07, 01:12 PM You have two choices:

1) Use gestalt, which is complex but allows you to cover your bases.

2) Preferably, let your players take whatever characters they want (although bard, ranger, and monk are all better than most at being independent) and then tailor the adventures to suit the characters.
EaterOfTheDead
12-13-07, 01:30 PM I usually do the second method but what do you mean by "gestalt"? I know the term but I've never heard it used with RPGs before.

The problem of the small group usually only crops up with D&D. We play other games such as the World of Darkness titles, d20 Modern, Shadowrun and Call of Cthulhu d20 but with the more open character and adventure/story design in those games it works out okay. However, if I take the same approach to adventure design in D&D it ends up lacking the elements that make D&D it's own game. Elements such as the dungeon crawl, even little dungeons, traps, bad ass monsters and so on. With no rogue even a simple series of traps or locks can become quite the problem. With no healing the party will rest VERY frequently.

As an example, the last game I ran was the 3rd edition series of modules tailored for my world. The characters were an Orc (in my world there are no halfbreeds so there are orcs instead of half-orcs) Barbarian and an Elven Rogue. The no healing thing became quite the problem and they were forced to retreat to town frequently and then take refuge with the kobolds in the dungeon during Sunless Citadel. Since there were only two characters the levels skyrocketed at first and then leveled out by the time they were half way through Forge of Fury, like I expected, so healing wasn't as much an issue. But no magic became a serious problem when they hit higher levels and faced off with Gulthias in Nightfang Spire. It just got more extreme after that.

There were quite a few times I had to fudge the rules in order to not totally screw them over and a few times they caught me. To me, that cheapens the game some.
kelcimer
12-13-07, 02:44 PM Healing problem is easy. Give them an Amulet of Healing. It can dispense healing perday as would a X level cleric.

Rogue problem is easy. Usually one of my players picks up a kobald as a sidekick. The kobald functions as comic relief, provides someone for the party to kick, and instantly makes them look better by comparison. Usually the kobald is a rogue and half the level of the player he's tied to. You don't have to use a kobald, but I prefer them as they are humorous.

If you are lacking a fighter, this too is easy. Just scale down the fight scenes as there's no fighter who really needs to shine.

No spell support? Meh. Buy potions for buffing and deal.

editted to add:
Have one of the players roll for the Kobald before the game for searches etc. You can just cruise though those parts. If the kobald failed to detect the trap then the palyers can knock it on the head and tell it to do better next time. Makes for fun on the fly dialogue.
Heros_Backpack
12-13-07, 02:51 PM I usually do the second method but what do you mean by "gestalt"? I know the term but I've never heard it used with RPGs before.

In DnD gestalt characters basically take two classes/level. You can read the gestalt rules here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/gestaltCharacters.htm)
EaterOfTheDead
12-13-07, 03:12 PM Ah, okay, I remeber something like that back in 2nd Edition. It's a good idea and I may well try it next time out. I was also thinking or requiring multiclassing but I don't know about that.

The weak sidekick is also a good idea as a sort of more useful animal companion. I hate running NPC with the party so I tend to steer away from that option.

Good advice all around guys, thanks. New ideas are always nice.

-Josh
kelcimer
12-13-07, 04:02 PM Having a weak NPC in the party is always useful. You always have the option of talking to characters in character. EX: If the party is dithering you can throw in sarcastic comments. Instead of asking what each player is doing say incharacter "hey, I goin' with the barbarian. We should get into a fight. Wanna come?" The palyer will then answer in character. And the party does feel good being able to kick something. They know that the character can't do anything in a fight (except throw a few achemist fires) and that he is (mostly) trustworthy to keep track of thehorses.
CryoSilver
12-13-07, 04:06 PM Many classes can fill two ormore roles. Druid comes to mind, as being a decent divine caster and fighter. Scouts (CAdv) can be fighters and rogues at the same time. Duskblades are decent gishes.

It's my opinion that party can lose the rogue most eaily, then the divine caster.
T_Baggins
12-13-07, 07:01 PM The perfect 2 person group would be a fighter type and a CoD. Zilla optional. The CoD could go more offensive because he would have less healing to do. And everyone wants to play one because they rule, right?;)
EaterOfTheDead
12-13-07, 11:45 PM T Bag, huh? Nice name. :D

Everything usually works out in the end but I like the ideas I've heard so far. I think I'll try out is the ineffectual NPC, maybe a Kobold Bard or something (Deekin anyone?) only vaguely useful. He'd follow the party around being a pain in the ass but just useful enough to keep around.

I like this idea more and more now that I think of it.
lifeblender
12-14-07, 01:14 AM There's nothing absolutely forbidden about allowing a player to play more than one character. My best campaign had four players, three with one character each and one with three to himself.

If your players want to take on a more "complete" campaign, rather than tailoring the campaign to a small number of characters, you can let them player additional ones. An interesting alternative is to let them take the Leadership feat and let the cohorts fill secondary rolls.

For instance, here is a good two person party that fills a lot of rolls:

Sorcerer 6 w/ Leadership (high CHA, party face, offensive caster)
Cohort: Rogue 4 (high INT, Educated feat, skill monkey and knowledgable)

Cleric 6 w/ Leadership (high WIS, secondary tank and protector/healer)
Cohort: Barbarian 4 (high CON, Stand Still feat, tank)

To keep things simple, you can skip the followers. Let the players assume they have a small support staff in a home town that takes care of some useful things. If someone else joins for a short time, they can play one of the cohorts until either they make their own character or a different campaign starts.
kelcimer
12-14-07, 10:12 AM I like this idea more and more now that I think of it.

The way that the kobald starts following a particular NPC involves the PC(s) clearing a den of kobalds for whatever reason. They leave one alive for questioning and somehow it becomes attatched. All my PCs have heard about the original one of these and so they have to try it out themselves. An important part of this is that this is the players want this character along. I advocate using a squeeky voice for the kobald. Famous kobald lines "I'm not like other people...I HATE pain!" "Who's gonna FEED ME? You ain't got no job skills!"

I wish you luck and hope you tell us how this turns out.
Ebonarc
12-14-07, 12:42 PM It's my opinion that party can lose the rogue most eaily, then the divine caster.

I agree. I've never played in or DMed a campaign that had more than two players. In one campaign, the party consisted of a fighter and sorcerer, and in another, the party is a ranger/paladin and a sorcerer.
EaterOfTheDead
12-14-07, 09:08 PM I've been running small groups for a while now but I was looking for some ideas.

I've found it works best without the healer. The party rests more frequently and pays more for potions and such but it works out well. With the rouge missing they blunder into every damned trap there is. They're lucky like that.

I like the kobold idea *cough*Deekin*cough* and will be putting one in the upcoming game. He'll be a bard that can't fight but he can notice traps sometimes and try to unlock doors as well as cast healing spells after a few levels.

He's already written into the campaign and named Jerkin. That'll be good for some laughs at his expense, I'm sure.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
EaterOfTheDead 12-13-07, 01:08 PM	A little while back there was a great article giving advice for one-on-one gaming. However I am in a slightly different situation. I have a mere two players at my disposal. One is on again, off again gamer and the other is new. This isn't a new situation for me and I have learned to deal with it but any advice could be helpful. With D&D there are the four main roles of fighter, rogue, mage and cleric but without multiclassing it is hard for only two characters to cover all the bases. What I end up with is a group of players that are sorely lacking in some regard. There is usually always a fighter and it is technically possible to get by with no healing or in some instances without magic but it becomes problematic to create a well balanced and logical adventure when the party is unable to meet the four types of challenges. Again, this is not a new situation for me and i have learned to cope but if anyone has advice I would love to hear it. -Josh
kelvinaw273 12-13-07, 01:12 PM	You have two choices: 1) Use gestalt, which is complex but allows you to cover your bases. 2) Preferably, let your players take whatever characters they want (although bard, ranger, and monk are all better than most at being independent) and then tailor the adventures to suit the characters.
EaterOfTheDead 12-13-07, 01:30 PM	I usually do the second method but what do you mean by "gestalt"? I know the term but I've never heard it used with RPGs before. The problem of the small group usually only crops up with D&D. We play other games such as the World of Darkness titles, d20 Modern, Shadowrun and Call of Cthulhu d20 but with the more open character and adventure/story design in those games it works out okay. However, if I take the same approach to adventure design in D&D it ends up lacking the elements that make D&D it's own game. Elements such as the dungeon crawl, even little dungeons, traps, bad ass monsters and so on. With no rogue even a simple series of traps or locks can become quite the problem. With no healing the party will rest VERY frequently. As an example, the last game I ran was the 3rd edition series of modules tailored for my world. The characters were an Orc (in my world there are no halfbreeds so there are orcs instead of half-orcs) Barbarian and an Elven Rogue. The no healing thing became quite the problem and they were forced to retreat to town frequently and then take refuge with the kobolds in the dungeon during Sunless Citadel. Since there were only two characters the levels skyrocketed at first and then leveled out by the time they were half way through Forge of Fury, like I expected, so healing wasn't as much an issue. But no magic became a serious problem when they hit higher levels and faced off with Gulthias in Nightfang Spire. It just got more extreme after that. There were quite a few times I had to fudge the rules in order to not totally screw them over and a few times they caught me. To me, that cheapens the game some.
kelcimer 12-13-07, 02:44 PM	Healing problem is easy. Give them an Amulet of Healing. It can dispense healing perday as would a X level cleric. Rogue problem is easy. Usually one of my players picks up a kobald as a sidekick. The kobald functions as comic relief, provides someone for the party to kick, and instantly makes them look better by comparison. Usually the kobald is a rogue and half the level of the player he's tied to. You don't have to use a kobald, but I prefer them as they are humorous. If you are lacking a fighter, this too is easy. Just scale down the fight scenes as there's no fighter who really needs to shine. No spell support? Meh. Buy potions for buffing and deal. editted to add: Have one of the players roll for the Kobald before the game for searches etc. You can just cruise though those parts. If the kobald failed to detect the trap then the palyers can knock it on the head and tell it to do better next time. Makes for fun on the fly dialogue.
Heros_Backpack 12-13-07, 02:51 PM	I usually do the second method but what do you mean by "gestalt"? I know the term but I've never heard it used with RPGs before. In DnD gestalt characters basically take two classes/level. You can read the gestalt rules here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/gestaltCharacters.htm)
EaterOfTheDead 12-13-07, 03:12 PM	Ah, okay, I remeber something like that back in 2nd Edition. It's a good idea and I may well try it next time out. I was also thinking or requiring multiclassing but I don't know about that. The weak sidekick is also a good idea as a sort of more useful animal companion. I hate running NPC with the party so I tend to steer away from that option. Good advice all around guys, thanks. New ideas are always nice. -Josh
kelcimer 12-13-07, 04:02 PM	Having a weak NPC in the party is always useful. You always have the option of talking to characters in character. EX: If the party is dithering you can throw in sarcastic comments. Instead of asking what each player is doing say incharacter "hey, I goin' with the barbarian. We should get into a fight. Wanna come?" The palyer will then answer in character. And the party does feel good being able to kick something. They know that the character can't do anything in a fight (except throw a few achemist fires) and that he is (mostly) trustworthy to keep track of thehorses.
CryoSilver 12-13-07, 04:06 PM	Many classes can fill two ormore roles. Druid comes to mind, as being a decent divine caster and fighter. Scouts (CAdv) can be fighters and rogues at the same time. Duskblades are decent gishes. It's my opinion that party can lose the rogue most eaily, then the divine caster.
T_Baggins 12-13-07, 07:01 PM	The perfect 2 person group would be a fighter type and a CoD. Zilla optional. The CoD could go more offensive because he would have less healing to do. And everyone wants to play one because they rule, right?;)
EaterOfTheDead 12-13-07, 11:45 PM	T Bag, huh? Nice name. :D Everything usually works out in the end but I like the ideas I've heard so far. I think I'll try out is the ineffectual NPC, maybe a Kobold Bard or something (Deekin anyone?) only vaguely useful. He'd follow the party around being a pain in the ass but just useful enough to keep around. I like this idea more and more now that I think of it.
lifeblender 12-14-07, 01:14 AM	There's nothing absolutely forbidden about allowing a player to play more than one character. My best campaign had four players, three with one character each and one with three to himself. If your players want to take on a more "complete" campaign, rather than tailoring the campaign to a small number of characters, you can let them player additional ones. An interesting alternative is to let them take the Leadership feat and let the cohorts fill secondary rolls. For instance, here is a good two person party that fills a lot of rolls: Sorcerer 6 w/ Leadership (high CHA, party face, offensive caster) Cohort: Rogue 4 (high INT, Educated feat, skill monkey and knowledgable) Cleric 6 w/ Leadership (high WIS, secondary tank and protector/healer) Cohort: Barbarian 4 (high CON, Stand Still feat, tank) To keep things simple, you can skip the followers. Let the players assume they have a small support staff in a home town that takes care of some useful things. If someone else joins for a short time, they can play one of the cohorts until either they make their own character or a different campaign starts.
kelcimer 12-14-07, 10:12 AM	I like this idea more and more now that I think of it. The way that the kobald starts following a particular NPC involves the PC(s) clearing a den of kobalds for whatever reason. They leave one alive for questioning and somehow it becomes attatched. All my PCs have heard about the original one of these and so they have to try it out themselves. An important part of this is that this is the players want this character along. I advocate using a squeeky voice for the kobald. Famous kobald lines "I'm not like other people...I HATE pain!" "Who's gonna FEED ME? You ain't got no job skills!" I wish you luck and hope you tell us how this turns out.
Ebonarc 12-14-07, 12:42 PM	It's my opinion that party can lose the rogue most eaily, then the divine caster. I agree. I've never played in or DMed a campaign that had more than two players. In one campaign, the party consisted of a fighter and sorcerer, and in another, the party is a ranger/paladin and a sorcerer.
EaterOfTheDead 12-14-07, 09:08 PM	I've been running small groups for a while now but I was looking for some ideas. I've found it works best without the healer. The party rests more frequently and pays more for potions and such but it works out well. With the rouge missing they blunder into every damned trap there is. They're lucky like that. I like the kobold idea coughDeekincough and will be putting one in the upcoming game. He'll be a bard that can't fight but he can notice traps sometimes and try to unlock doors as well as cast healing spells after a few levels. He's already written into the campaign and named Jerkin. That'll be good for some laughs at his expense, I'm sure.