3 players: scale down or double up?

[tomtill]

I DM a group with 3 players.

They just scaled down from 2 characters each to 1 character each last year, to concentrate on character immersion. With two characters each, there was definitely a star character and a supporting character for each player. The supporting actors essentially served as a repository of special abilities. As DM, I felt they were one-dimensional and distracting, so I replaced them with magic items.

Now, with the emphasis on teamwork and player roles in 4e, I am concerned that the game will not flow properly when scaled down to 3 characters, even if I do things like give them magic items or allow them an action point every encounter, etc.

Currently, it seems that all three want to play strikers: a melee (two-weapon) ranger, an archer ranger and a rogue.

So, sub-optimal party size, only one role covered…

Can any with 4e play experience offer me their assessment of whether I'd be better off encouraging 1 character each (good immersion, but "weird" dynamics) or 2 characters each (perfect dynamics, assuming I insist the second characters perform needed roles, but more challenging character immersion(s)).

(And, please, do not use this as an opportunity to bash 4e as not supporting character immersion. I have every confidence that while 4e introduced increased tactical elements to battle, 4e continues to encourage role-playing as well as 3e ever did. By "every confidence" I mean I simply won't hear anything to the contrary. My mind is closed on this subject. Don't bother.)

As an aside, I was surprised to learn how much my players miss their supporting actors, even a year later. Apparently those characters had more dimension than I believed. When something bad happened to them (temporarily) as NPCs in a recent game, I almost had a player rebellion on my hands.

However, all agree that battle (3e battle) flowed more smoothly without them, because the players concentrated more on their one character, and because they were fighting less foes.

With 4e battle being structured the way it is, I'm thinking that battle might flow more smoothly given a well-rounded party of six vs. 3 strikers. In the latter case, I'm afraid that the battles will be long and tedious, or devastatingly quick. It might be hard for me, the DM, to find something sufficiently challenging that is not TPK. I think even the recommended scale-downs are assuming a well rounded party.

I'm also thinking that with the limited list of powers, it might be easier and less of a bog-down in battle for a player to handle a supporting actor.

Still, I'd rather have one character per player if it doesn't mess up the math too much. Comments?

 

[keterys]

Huh. Only 3 characters, all strikers. That's something.

I think that if they're running multiple characters each, they'll play each character worse and they'll likely have less fun with their characters. If they actually _miss_ their characters, perhaps it would work out however.

Not sure what advice to offer you, but I think a party of 3 strikers is in serious glass cannon territory and they'd likely have days like - awesome, great, ohmygodfail as when the tide turns on them they fall down like a house of cards, but when things go right, stuff will be dying very very very fast.

 

[Asmor]

I think the biggest problem is that they're all playing strikers. A party of 3 with a striker, defender and leader should work pretty well, I think. You're missing a controller, which can hurt, but controllers specialize in large combats. With only 3 characters, your XP budget per encounter is going to be 60% of a 5-character group, so combats won't be terribly large.

Run it with just 3 characters, and encourage them to balance themselves a bit better. Try that for a while, then if you don't like the way it works out add in the supporting characters. It's a lot easier to write characters in than it is to write them out.

 

[Evenglare]

Okay , first off this isnt an MMO . Just because they dont have blank, they will fail. A good reason behind this is that the DM does the encounters, not a programmed game. Hell i ran a game last night with ONE wizard. Catered to him , he made it through all right. Id stop treating this as an MMO though.

 

[Rechan]

I'm in a situation with a party of two, with two strikers.

Honestly? Just emphasize their strikey-nature. Send them on infiltration missions, hunting missions. I'd say they sound like a special forces team, based on their party makeup.

Then hit them with a ton of minions and watch them sweat.

If someone dies, he has to make a new character who isn't a striker.

Your real problem comes from the fact they have no one to let them use their healing surges. So, let them use a free healing surge if they drop below 0 points after having used a Second Wind. Because of this lethal potential, the players will either be forced to play smart, or die.

 

[Harr]

I'd definitely double it up. Make a theme out of it; have them play maybe married couples, with the secondary characters being the primary character's wife/girlfriend (being that you already know they like the idea of secondaries).

Or if that's weird for you guys, maybe have them be apprentices, sidekicks, twin brothers, a guy whose life they saved and now owes them their life, or whatever... just something that there's actually a reason why their primary has this secondary following them around. Maybe just straight up ask them to each come up with a reason oftheir own.

I think you could have fun with it!

 

[Timeboxer]

Our party was three with no striker, so the GM halved the HP of the enemies (but kept numbers pretty much the same), and that seemed to work out.

In your case, you might want to halve the amount of damage enemies do, and possibly up their HP. Strikers take a lot of damage in my experience.

 

[Festivus]

I suggest having someone double up to cover the needed roles. Yes, it isn't a MMO but the game is designed with the presumption that the base roles would be covered.

 

[Ander00]

Our party consists of 3 PCs (warlord, fighter, wizard). It works, but the missing striker is quite apparent and the warlord would like there to be more than one other melee type. A lot of the time so far he could as well have just made melee basic attacks, with the flow of battle not allowing him and the fighter to do their thing together. We're going to try having two of us doubling up for a while and depending on the results, either stick with it or go back to only having the 3 PCs.


cheers

 

[Rechan]

A lot of the time so far he could as well have just made melee basic attacks, with the flow of battle not allowing him and the fighter to do their thing together.

Can you give an example of why this is?