Scaling the challenge for the group or scaling the group for the challenge?

[atomn]

I'm going to be starting a Midnight campaign, based on a store bought module for 4-6 players, for my local gaming group. Due to one player having a new baby and others away from college for winter break, our group is down to three players. For a new GM (I've only GMed 2nd Ed. D&D about 5 years ago), would it be easier to scale the challenge of the module to fit the small number of players (less monsters per encounter, NPCs to round out the group, etc.) or scale the PCs to fit the challenge level (gestalt, etc.)? What other ways are there to scale besides the ones I've mentioned? Thanks for the insights!!

 

[Thanee]

I don't think there is a common recipe here, it depends on what you are good at.

I would do what you feel most comfortable with. If you think, that making the challenges fit your group won't be much of a problem, then do so. If not, it's probably better to use the guidelines given in the beginning of the adventure and make a group, that falls within these parameters, then just run the challenges as is.

If you create a new group, anyways, making the group fit the adventure makes the most sense to me.

Gestalt can be nice. Just be sure, that you keep the players within some limits, since Gestalt builds can become pretty crazy. I have been using this option myself with only two or three players, but greatly reduced multiclassing. Each player could choose 2 base classes and the only option for multiclassing in the later career is, that they can become a member of a PrC, but have to give up the Gestalt progression from that point on (the PrC replaces BOTH sides of the Gestalt, not just one). This is simple, the characters are more capable, especially more versatile, and it works great (IMHO).

Bye
Thanee

 

[Li Shenron]

If you're starting from zero, and the player characters yet have to be designed, then I think it's easier to adjust them and keep the adventure the same, it should be much easier.

I would not suggest gestalt as a good way, unless everyone already has some experience with the normal way to play, since they will have to manage more class abilities / spells / etc at the same time for the same character, and perhaps even cover two roles at the same time. Also, if the character level is very low, the gestalt rules will not be much of a boost in terms of survivability IMO.

What is the suggested party level of the adventure?

Generally speaking, you could boost the characters in at least the following ways (even more of these at once):

- use point-buy with a lot of points (e.g. 32+) -> makes them more efficient
- give max hit points at any level -> makes them harder to kill
- give more regular feats (like 1 every 2 levels or even 1 every level, instead of 1 every 3) -> makes them either more powerful or more versatile

Or even better, since it's not even a change of rules:

- start them at 1 or 2 level higher -> gives all benefits above

Another option:

- give them one template -> usually either more efficient or versatile, but not harder to kill

 

[Parlan]

Why can't you do both?

I think Li Shenron has some good thoughts. I would go for the easiest route and advance them a couple of levels. That way all the info is in the book and you don't have to worry about picking out an appropriate template or anything.

I would also have some houserule for HPs: either max at every level or no less than half max or something. With fewer PCs that's more NPCs pounding of each of them, so more dmaage per round. And since there's fewer ppl in the group they won't be able to kill NPCs and reduce the damage per round as quickly.

In addition, I would reduce the number of opponents in the first couple of fights to get a handle for how the group is doing. Instead of 6 goblins, make it 4 or something. If they are blowing through the fights then you can always put it back to what the module says.

Good luck!

 

[delericho]

If you're starting from zero, and the player characters yet have to be designed, then I think it's easier to adjust them and keep the adventure the same, it should be much easier.

I agree with this, especially if you're going to be using lots of pre-gen adventures. My favoured option would be to have some players run two characters - that way if you have new players join you can reshuffle the group without much difficulty and maintain the same power level (either the new players take over the 'spare' characters, or the 'spare' characters are written out and new ones brought in).

Alternatively, if you have three players, Gestalt characters might be the way to go - 3 Gestalts are probably equal to four 'normal' characters of the same level. (They would be more powerful, but only having one set of actions a round is a real cap on power levels.)

 

[mathogre]

Let's take it a step further. How do you adjust from game-to-game with people who are unable to attend?

Assume you have 6 regular players who have a probability of attending a given game of P = .9. The corresponding probabilities of getting n PCs to play is shown below. Only 53% of the time can you expect to have all 6 play.

1 0.999
2 0.999
3 0.999
4 0.984
5 0.886
6 0.531

With the OP's situation though, she's got probably 3 people who will be attending much of the time.

1 0.999
2 0.972
3 0.729

One out of every four games will have only two players available.

Hers is worse yet. For alot of the time she'll have 3 regular players. Occasionally she might have 6. It would seem to be fairly dynamic.

I'm not a GM, but hope to run a game in the not-too-distant future. I don't think atomn's situation is rare.

 

[delericho]

Assume you have 6 regular players who have a probability of attending a given game of P = .9. The corresponding probabilities of getting n PCs to play is shown below. Only 53% of the time can you expect to have all 6 play.

Simple: If a player can't make it, the character is controlled by the DM or another player for the session. Likewise if two players can't make it. If three players can't make it, cancel.

For a group of four, the same applies, except that we cancel if two people can't make it. (Basically, if player attendence is 50% or less, we cancel. Obviously, if DM attendance is less than 100%, we cancel.

Hers is worse yet. For alot of the time she'll have 3 regular players. Occasionally she might have 6. It would seem to be fairly dynamic.

In that situation, I would suggest one of two things:

1) Have each of the three players run two characters, with the caveat that one of those characters is 'theirs', and the other is held for another. If one of the three 'irregulars' is present, that player controls their character, and the corresponding 'regular' has only one character that night.

or

2) Structure the game as a series of one-shots lasting a single session each. Have each player control a portfolio of characters, and assemble the team at the start of each session for that night's game. I've found that this approach feels best with a d20 Modern or Shadowrun game, rather than D&D, but it can work here in the right campaign.

This structure does have the massive weakness that it requires every adventure to last exactly one session, which is a lot to ask, and does cut down on the available adventure options a great deal. It also probably works best with less-frequent but longer sessions rather than a few hours on a weekly basis.

 

[howandwhy99]

What other ways are there to scale besides the ones I've mentioned? Thanks for the insights!!

Stop adjusting your adventure levels for your players' average group level. Give them the power to choose their own adventures in character. This gives them both control of and responsibility for their own fun (and survival).

It should also make your players better. Instead of blaming you for facing foes too challenging for them, they actually have to determine for themselves what they can defeat and what they can't. It takes skill and practice, but eventually they may become such great players as to succeed in encounters seemingly far too difficult for their level. Isn't that something all heroes want? Being able to beat a dragon single-handed without (essentially) needing to be buffer than the dragon.

 

[atomn]

The adventure is a 4-6 person one from 1-5 levels. It sounds like the general consensus is that it'd be easier to make the group fit the module than the other way around. That definitely seems easier to me since I've never really dealt with CR before. I looks like we'll have at least three players in about a month or so, which helps a bunch. I'm thinking of doing sort of what you suggested, Delericho. But instead of having the players control two character, run two others as NPCs or something. Howandwhy99: while I think it's awesome to let the players choose their own adventure path, I need to stear away from that until I get more confidence in GMing. I'm thinking that if this module goes well, to continue on with a quest that I write or that the heroes direct. Thanks for the tips everyone, they certainly were helpful!