A 2-player D&D Campaign?

[Rhanta]

Yeah, err...I seriously can't find friends in the neighborhood to play with me, so my friend and I decided to play D&D as is (2 people..)

Each of us will be playing two characters each (to fill in the 4 roles), and I'll be Dungeon Master. Do you have any tips for my friend to feel as if he's still in a 4-player game, even if we're controlling two characters at once?

 

[Rune]

Heh. Growing up (back in the 2e days), my brother and I would play with one person on the porch DMing while the other player did yard-work (big yard). Then, we'd switch. It was very free-formed and any dice rolling was done (naturally) by the DM. Great fun--and productive!

But, as for feeling as if he's in a four-player game, I don't think you can reproduce spontaneous aspect that a social multitude will bring to the table, as it were. So, my best tip would be...don't worry about it. Focus on character development (or, let the player do so) and just have fun with it. Embrace it for what it is, which will be a different feel of game.

As a DM, be prepared to roll with anything the player wants to come up with, because less players generally means less ideas to come up with for any given situation, even if he's very creative.

 

[amerigoV]

If you are playing 4e - you could try your friend having one primary character and give him some Minions* to fill out the skill set. Less bookwork and your friend can focus on his main character and you can focus on the adventure

* Didn't 4e come out with a henchman type concept? I am out of the 4e loop for such things

 

[Gilladian]

I would suggest if you are running 4e that he play 1 character and the others all be henchmen. don't try to run 4 full characters.

If playing 3e then use two gestalt characters, but let him play both of them. As time goes by, let the secondary character drop back by on level.

Don't try to pretend it is a 4 person campaign. Instead, focus on smaller stories, things that a whole group can't do. Spying, undercover missions, solo exploration, romance (no, I don't mean sex; I mean developing a relationship with an NPC that has real depth), or things like tournaments where the main character can really shine without taking "face time" away from the other PCs.

However, go light on things that are hard for single pcs or small groups to solve; puzzles and riddles are harder when there is only one brain solving them. Mass battles with 20 foes become really scary and tedious. And make sure they don't get caught somewhere with no access to healing/the ability to rest. No LONG gauntlet adventures, nothing really deep in the dungeon/wilderness far from home and help.

In town adventures are perfect for this kind of game; keep a temple handy, explore the people as much as the place, and have lots of fun!

 

[SoulsFury]

Me and my friend game with just the two of us. We each have a character that we always use. Depending on who DMs, the other character is more of a battle tank for combat. Currently, I use an avenger, he uses a swordmage. Whoever is not DMing also runs the wizard. We keep an extra character with us so we can have more diversity in combat, and just in case one of our other friends decides to show up, there is a character waiting.

 

[Cerebral Paladin]

I agree with Gilladian. I a one-player, one-GM campaign can work fine, but I also think that building a full party is usually a mistake in this case, as is having the GM play half of the PCs. Play to the strengths of the set-up, not the weaknesses.

However... to the extent that you and your friend prioritize tactical combat, advancement, and getting of loot, the sorts of urban, intrigue, role-playing and plot style games that Gilladian talks about may not be your cup of tea. If what you want is more in the dungeon-crawl, tactical combat style, then accept that's what you want and build the game around it. I would suggest for this purpose having the player play one character that's a full character (the party leader in terms of story, but not necessarily a "leader" class in 4e terminology), and then have the rest of the party be fairly simple. In 4e, that might mean using some of the simpler Essentials classes, or using the supporting character rules from DMG2, or building some non-PC class characters with basic attacks and maybe encounter powers that fill the role of additional people in the party, without the complexity. And then have at it. You'll have more of the feeling of a two-player tactical wargame, but that can be fun, too. It's not my preference, and I would rather use a one-player game to focus on a single character, but your preference may be different.

 

[Rune]

Also, to borrow a standard from older editions...hirelings. Lots of them. Someone to hold the lantern. Someone to hold the loot. Someone to hold the ten-foot pole. Someone to hold the mule. Someone to heal, etc. These used to be so important to the game that they had their own minis.

 

[lamia]

I ran a solo campaign for my boyfriend when we were having trouble finding a group. Everyone has given lovely advice, I will just add a couple of things I ran into.
1. Focus more on NPC development. For my normal game with five players I only write out a little two or three sentence description and it works fine. But for his game, I tried to really flesh them out and make them interesting since he didn't have a party to interact with.
2. Make every puzzle/skill challenge solvable multiple ways. If there is anything hinging on one successful skill check and they roll poorly it breaks the game! I ended up settling on 3 as the magic number of solutions to each problem.
Oh, and one other thing I did differently for a solo game was to bathe them in skill points. This was 3.5, so I don't know how much that matters if you are playing 4e; but I gave him extra skill points so that he could be more of a jack of all trades. Just enough that he could have decent social skills in addition to spot, hide, etc.
Good luck! Hope you have fun.

 

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

I ran a campaign a number of years ago with my best friend, which was probably my favorite campaign of all time. He played two characters (one a wizard/necromancer and the other a big dumb barbarian meat-shield). It worked out great, I did the same thing Lamia is suggesting you do as far as fleshing out NPCs more to make the storyline more intriguing. My friend used his wizard the main character to make all the decisions with and the barbarian was just the muscle, he'd go along with whatever the wizard wanted or said. He was in it for blood and glory where the wizard was in it for the power, prestige, wealth, etc.

It can be done and be done with both of you having fun. I had a lot of fun and never even ran an NPC with him or his characters.

 

[arscott]

I'd make an effort to find a game system that works better with fewer players. 4th edition D&D is very focused on teamwork and character specialization--You'll either wind up with only half a team, or you'll need to be running way to many characters and monsters at the same time.

3e with the gestalt options from unearthed arcana can work well--specialization isn't quite as deep in 3e, and gestalt characters can bring to bear the abilities of two different classes.

Beyond that, there are a lot of RPGs that lack the same kind of character specificity you see in D&D, and will probably make for a better play experience. FATE, Savage Worlds, and Warhammer FRP all come to mind.