Campaigns with 2-3 playes only

[CanadienneBacon]

I'm running Paizo's Rise of the Runelords adventure path for a group of two players who each have gestalt characters built using a 28-point buy. The module is running quite nicely. The opening fight scenes with the goblins in the town square were easy on the players but later goblin sequences have become tougher, though not overly so. The players have stated they are having a blast and I'm enjoying running the module for them.

 

[GreyWizard77]

If you are running modules I would make sure they aren't too diffiuclt. One designer's
"for a party of 3rd level" can be vastly different than anothers. Some writers, and companies, seem to assume 5+ party members rather than just 4. Others seem to want to be "ol' skool" even if they don't say so. Just read through them careful.

Any idea which designers or companies or better suited to lower PC numbers? Can someone recommed specific modules that would work with a minimum amount of work for a new DM?

Thanks for the advice. Keep it coming.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

I'd go with gestalt characters as well. I think they work extremely well to help balance out a fewer number of players.

Plus, they have the effect of making players a little more imaginative in terms of their character creation!

 

[S'mon]

I wouldn't recommend multiple PCs...

Gestalt works fine with a lower number of players, but they are not that much tougher, so fights are still a possible problem. They will have the means to deal with most situations otherwise, though, which is good.

An NPC ally might also help.

Bye
Thanee

I agree with Thanee - rather than multiple PCs, add an NPC companion or two. NPCs should be slightly less powerful than the PCs.

I recommend running adventures for PCs 2-3 levels below their actual level. Smaller groups can work really well, with more opportunity for roleplay and for each PC to have a starring role. You may need to adjust XP awards slightly.

Edit: For starting out, you could start PCs at 2nd level with maximum hp, that should make them tough enough to survive a published 1st level adventure. Alternatively start at 1st but give them double hp at 1st level, eg a Ftr -1 with CON 13 gets 11x2= 22 hp.

 

[Herobizkit]

Gestalt rules are excellent IF your players are already familiar with the various powers and abilities of their chosen character classes. Never give a Wood Elf [Druid/Ranger]-3 to a n00b... too much reading.

I'd run a Gestalt character alongside the two PCs as long as you make it clear that a) s/he is to be considered as much a part of the team as a regular PC would be (ie. she's not an expendabel resource) and b) there is an agreement that this DM-run PC will have plot points but none that overshadow the PC's spotlight time.

Optionally, you could let them run two regular PC's and assign a friend/chum/ally NPC to each. The PC would control the actions of their respective NPC in battle, but the DM runs the dialogue and can fiat the actions of an NPC when necessary to the plot and/or effects the PCs can't control (such as Charm, Confusion, or Geas). This option puts more work on the PCs, but at least they'll have their 4-man party.

 

[Klaus]

My only 3.0-3.5 campaign had only 3 players. The characters started/ended as:

female half-elf wizard 1 -> wizard 5/rogue 3/battledancer 3
female human cleric (Pelor) 1 -> cleric (Pelor) 11
male human ranger 1 -> ranger 11

Here's my advice:

1) Bump up their abilities. If you're using point-buy, isntead of 25 or 28, let them have as much as 40 points to distribute (still enforce a maximum of 18 at creation).

2) Run them against encounters that have ELs 2 or 3 below the average party level.

3) Don't include things their classes don't cover. If you don't have a rogue, go easy on traps. If you don't have druids or rangers, gloss over survival/tracking issues.

4) If you don't have a cleric, use the Reserve Points rules from the SRD/Unearthed Arcana.

 

[Aeric]

The best games I've ever played were with two players and a GM. One of them was even (A)D&D. The GM in question was a master at breathing life into his NPCs, so it never really felt like a small-party game. It actually felt more like two solo campaigns being run concurrently with occassional crossover; the two PCs never spent a lot of time together. We were always switching scenes between the two of us. It never got boring, though, at least for me. I enjoyed watching what was going on with the other PC as much as I enjoyed dealing with the stuff the GM threw at me when it was my turn.

With a game like 3.5, however, it could get a little tricky. Even with a lot of players, certain roles need to be covered or the game breaks down. Everyone else seems to have good suggestions for dealing with that, so nothing to add on that point. Story-driven games and opponents/challenges that don't rely on powers and abilities your PCs don't have are the best way to go for such a game, I think.

 

[Robert Ranting]

Initially I was skeptical about running games with the gestalt rules or with fewer than four players, but a couple months back my next door neighbor bought Gamesmastery D1: Crown of the Kobold King and offered to run it for myself and his roomate. We had a high pointbuy to work with, gestalt rules, and action points (since this was being set in Eberron), and we went through the adventure with only moderate difficulty. So long as you have the ability to disable traps, inflict damage reliably, and heal between combats (even with a wand) a pair of gestalted characters can do well for themselves. Since you have fewer actions, combats tend to last longer, which means that both players and monsters get more opportunities to show off their various tricks and use more creative tactics.

My only concern with small gestalt parties in the long run is that loot may become an issue. Giving out half the loot for half as many PCs might be a bit too stingy, but giving two PCs the loot expected for a four man party could be excessive after a couple adventures, expecially if your PCs are the types to take everything that isn't nailed down.

Robert "Overpowered on Paper, but Awesome in Practice" Ranting

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

I would second pretty much everything said in this thread, particularly about focussing more on story telling and roleplay than combat and ability-using.

 

[Klaus]

You might find it useful to look at my notes on Party Roles, so you can gaguge what aspects of the game aren't covered by your party and should be minimized in your campaign:

Fighter: Primary Combat

Cleric: Healing, Support Magic, Undead-dealing, Secondary Combat

Wizard: Magic Artillery, Support Magic

Rogue: Reconaissance, Opportunistic Combat, Trap-dealing

9 roles.

Primary Combat: High BAB, High AC, High hp, High damage output
Secondary Combat: Helps Primary Combat
Opportunistic Combat: Archery or mobility oriented, but low staying power
Magic Artillery: Big BOOM spells
Support Magic: Buffs, counterspells, divination, transport
Reconaissance: Sneaks around and/or asks questions, wilderness survival, avoids party being surprised
Healing: Cure wounds, removes poison, dispels adverse effects
Trap-dealing: Finds and disarms traps, mundane and magical
Undead-dealing: Turns undead and/or protects party from undead abilities

Artificer: Support Magic, Magic Artillery, Trap-dealing

Barbarian: Primary/Secondary Combat, Reconaissance

Bard: Support Magic, Opportunistic Combat, Reconaissance

Druid: Support Magic, Healing, Reconaissance, Secondary Combat

Monk: Reconaissance, Opportunistic Combat

Paladin: Primary Combat, Undead-dealing, Healing

Ranger: Secondary Combat, Reconaissance, Healing

Sorcerer: Magic Artillery

Soulknife: Secondary Combat, Reconaissance