Are 4 players really necessary??? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Are 4 players really necessary??? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Adlar Hodge
08-10-05, 12:53 AM Hello again.

I was adding all the possible XP from the first 3 adventures the PCs will be going through. The first 3 adventures are pretty much building blocks as far as both XP and plot are concerned so the possibility of the PCs missing any XP is really low.

So when adding up the totals and dividing amongst possible PCs I was wondering if the group really needs 4 players.

I'd like to think so. At the end of the 3 adventures...if the 3 PCs survive...they should each have 7200 XP. That's based on adventures built for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd level PCs.

If I had 4 PCs then the XP would be 5480.

Granted there is something at the end of the 2nd level adventure that the PCs can completely run from and not effect anything in the grand scheme of things which could cut back on XP a bit. These adventures happen near the city (or metropolis) they are starting in...in case anyone needed to know.

Is this ok?
Is this that big of a deal...one PC??

thanks
weasel fierce
08-10-05, 12:57 AM Why would you require 4 players ? You can roleplay with anywhere from one guy, to as many as the DM can handle.
loaba
08-10-05, 01:26 AM As long as you adjust the CR of encounters 3 players should be fine.
questionc
08-10-05, 01:48 AM 3 should be fine as long as you don't kill them.
shadowfox628
08-10-05, 01:57 AM Any amount, really. Just because the book recommends 4 doesn't mean you need 4.
lonesoldier
08-10-05, 02:15 AM The CRs of monsters are meant for a balanced four person party. The more people you have in a party the lower the EL of your encounter.
Pyritefoolsgold
08-10-05, 04:47 AM The less people in a party, even if you scale down encounters, the less they can accomplish and the more vulnerable they are. Also, as it is a smaller group, maybe starting at higher level would be good, so that the players don't too much feel that they are "crusading for kobolds"

You can play with just two players, though their characters need to compliment each other pretty well for it to work, or with one player (called "Soloing")
You could even play with yourself... but you'd just be playing with yourself.
Siduakal
08-10-05, 04:49 AM erm..

My groups are..

DM with 2 Players
DM with 3 Players
I DM with 2 Players
DM with 4 players (On Hiatus.. going to start back up with Mage and be ST with 3 players)
shadowelf
08-10-05, 07:29 AM You don't have to have 4 players or 4 PCs. But a smaller party puts pressure on the players. We all have some days when we are not very creative. If there's only you and you are having one of those days, it can be tough. With 4 people it's likely that someone will be on form and sufficiently inspired, so they can cover for the one on a bad day.

And many players is more sociable.
AramilWindwalker
08-10-05, 09:18 AM they recommend 4 people so you can have an iconic party
Fighter-type(fighter, Barbarian, swahbuckler, druid(?))
Rogue-type(rogue, ninja, ranger, monk(?))
Cleric-type(cleric, favored soul, healer, druid)
Wizard-type(wizard, sorceror, warmage, warlock)

this is so each can focus on their abilities instead of trying to cover 2 or even 3 of these abilities at once.

You can do that with less, you just have to make sure, for example, if they are rogueless, that every door is not trapped, or if there is no cleric, then accomadate with reasonable healing services in town and more healing potions in treasure.
LCD2YOU
08-10-05, 09:25 AM the amount the DM is comfortable with and the amount of time the players have to sit around and do nothing.

There is no set amount. Just do what you think works best for you and your group.
scott644
08-10-05, 11:55 AM Everybody's right so far. The four-person party is what the game is built around, thus the number game balance is geared for. That doesn't mean you have to have exclusively four PC's; more or fewer both happen very frequently.

The only thing a DM needs to consider is balance. With fewer players, unless somebody's playing the munchkin route, the party will be weaker. With more, unless somebody's utterly incompetant, the party will be stronger. The DM simply has to adjust the game to suit.

After that, it's just a matter of preference and/or availability.
VirgilCaine
08-10-05, 12:17 PM 4 players help, but it is really annoying when you have only 2 players and they can't make it for five weeks.

With fewer players you just have to balance things for a weaker party.
Orcboss
08-10-05, 12:21 PM Having DMed for larger and smaller groups, I'd say 4 is a recommendation than a requirement. Smaller groups have a harder time in combat and having all the skills/abilities a group might need. Larger groups are just harder to manage and harder to challange.
lonesoldier
08-10-05, 03:55 PM If I only have two players, I tend to play allow Gestalt(sp?) characters, as defined in UA.
Ravenseye
08-10-05, 04:01 PM With fewer players you just have to balance things for a weaker party.

What I do, because we have 3 players currently, is that I take their respective levels and add them up and then divide by 4, to tell what level a party they are.

Hence 3 10th level characters are 30/4 ie a 7 1/2 rounded up to 8th party. That has seemed to work well for balance.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Adlar Hodge 08-10-05, 12:53 AM	Hello again. I was adding all the possible XP from the first 3 adventures the PCs will be going through. The first 3 adventures are pretty much building blocks as far as both XP and plot are concerned so the possibility of the PCs missing any XP is really low. So when adding up the totals and dividing amongst possible PCs I was wondering if the group really needs 4 players. I'd like to think so. At the end of the 3 adventures...if the 3 PCs survive...they should each have 7200 XP. That's based on adventures built for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd level PCs. If I had 4 PCs then the XP would be 5480. Granted there is something at the end of the 2nd level adventure that the PCs can completely run from and not effect anything in the grand scheme of things which could cut back on XP a bit. These adventures happen near the city (or metropolis) they are starting in...in case anyone needed to know. Is this ok? Is this that big of a deal...one PC?? thanks
weasel fierce 08-10-05, 12:57 AM	Why would you require 4 players ? You can roleplay with anywhere from one guy, to as many as the DM can handle.
loaba 08-10-05, 01:26 AM	As long as you adjust the CR of encounters 3 players should be fine.
questionc 08-10-05, 01:48 AM	3 should be fine as long as you don't kill them.
shadowfox628 08-10-05, 01:57 AM	Any amount, really. Just because the book recommends 4 doesn't mean you need 4.
lonesoldier 08-10-05, 02:15 AM	The CRs of monsters are meant for a balanced four person party. The more people you have in a party the lower the EL of your encounter.
Pyritefoolsgold 08-10-05, 04:47 AM	The less people in a party, even if you scale down encounters, the less they can accomplish and the more vulnerable they are. Also, as it is a smaller group, maybe starting at higher level would be good, so that the players don't too much feel that they are "crusading for kobolds" You can play with just two players, though their characters need to compliment each other pretty well for it to work, or with one player (called "Soloing") You could even play with yourself... but you'd just be playing with yourself.
Siduakal 08-10-05, 04:49 AM	erm.. My groups are.. DM with 2 Players DM with 3 Players I DM with 2 Players DM with 4 players (On Hiatus.. going to start back up with Mage and be ST with 3 players)
shadowelf 08-10-05, 07:29 AM	You don't have to have 4 players or 4 PCs. But a smaller party puts pressure on the players. We all have some days when we are not very creative. If there's only you and you are having one of those days, it can be tough. With 4 people it's likely that someone will be on form and sufficiently inspired, so they can cover for the one on a bad day. And many players is more sociable.
AramilWindwalker 08-10-05, 09:18 AM	they recommend 4 people so you can have an iconic party Fighter-type(fighter, Barbarian, swahbuckler, druid(?)) Rogue-type(rogue, ninja, ranger, monk(?)) Cleric-type(cleric, favored soul, healer, druid) Wizard-type(wizard, sorceror, warmage, warlock) this is so each can focus on their abilities instead of trying to cover 2 or even 3 of these abilities at once. You can do that with less, you just have to make sure, for example, if they are rogueless, that every door is not trapped, or if there is no cleric, then accomadate with reasonable healing services in town and more healing potions in treasure.
LCD2YOU 08-10-05, 09:25 AM	the amount the DM is comfortable with and the amount of time the players have to sit around and do nothing. There is no set amount. Just do what you think works best for you and your group.
scott644 08-10-05, 11:55 AM	Everybody's right so far. The four-person party is what the game is built around, thus the number game balance is geared for. That doesn't mean you have to have exclusively four PC's; more or fewer both happen very frequently. The only thing a DM needs to consider is balance. With fewer players, unless somebody's playing the munchkin route, the party will be weaker. With more, unless somebody's utterly incompetant, the party will be stronger. The DM simply has to adjust the game to suit. After that, it's just a matter of preference and/or availability.
VirgilCaine 08-10-05, 12:17 PM	4 players help, but it is really annoying when you have only 2 players and they can't make it for five weeks. With fewer players you just have to balance things for a weaker party.
Orcboss 08-10-05, 12:21 PM	Having DMed for larger and smaller groups, I'd say 4 is a recommendation than a requirement. Smaller groups have a harder time in combat and having all the skills/abilities a group might need. Larger groups are just harder to manage and harder to challange.
lonesoldier 08-10-05, 03:55 PM	If I only have two players, I tend to play allow Gestalt(sp?) characters, as defined in UA.
Ravenseye 08-10-05, 04:01 PM	With fewer players you just have to balance things for a weaker party. What I do, because we have 3 players currently, is that I take their respective levels and add them up and then divide by 4, to tell what level a party they are. Hence 3 10th level characters are 30/4 ie a 7 1/2 rounded up to 8th party. That has seemed to work well for balance.