Ideal group size, is two PCs enough?

[HawaiiSteveO]

Used to bigger groups, got a little skittish when the possibility came up that I would only have 2 PCs for Deadlands Reloaded adventure this coming weekend.

GM + 1 PC seems really lame, 2 ok, 3-5 ideal. After 5 starts to slow game down quite a bit, 7 is a bit of gong show!

Any tips / suggestions for small groups (2)?

For those familiar with Savage Worlds, little concerned about 2 PCs burning though 4 hour adventure in 2 hours. We haven't played SW that much, although I've found things really clip along.

 

[innerdude]

Used to bigger groups, got a little skittish when the possibility came up that I would only have 2 PCs for Deadlands Reloaded adventure this coming weekend.

GM + 1 PC seems really lame, 2 ok, 3-5 ideal. After 5 starts to slow game down quite a bit, 7 is a bit of gong show!

Any tips / suggestions for small groups (2)?

For those familiar with Savage Worlds, little concerned about 2 PCs burning though 4 hour adventure in 2 hours. We haven't played SW that much, although I've found things really clip along.

For Savage Worlds, running with fewer PCs is generally not a problem in my experience. Adding "extras" to your PC's party is pretty much a given; with fewer PCs, just make sure you plan to include them by default. Use the "extras" character sheet and let the players run 'em; it doesn't take much to run them on top of their PCs. Also, Savage Worlds' combat scaling is usually pretty straightforward---- 4-5 "mooks" = 1 wild card, in most circumstances, and wild card NPCs/foes are pretty easy to match to the party's capabilities.

As far as pacing, if there's "downtime" between encounters, have some additional non-combat encounters ready, or puzzles, or heck, introduce a new complication along the way. One of the things I absolutely love about GM-ing Savage Worlds is that the party can switch goals or move to a new location on a dime, and I don't worry about having an inappropriate encounter ready, or whatever, because you can easily create something on the fly that's plausible, challenging, and fun.

All in all, my response is not to worry too much. Even if it's a "problem," it's one that generally seems to take care of itself, at least in my experience with SW.

 

[HawaiiSteveO]

For Savage Worlds, running with fewer PCs is generally not a problem in my experience. Adding "extras" to your PC's party is pretty much a given; with fewer PCs, just make sure you plan to include them by default. Use the "extras" character sheet and let the players run 'em; it doesn't take much to run them on top of their PCs. Also, Savage Worlds' combat scaling is usually pretty straightforward---- 4-5 "mooks" = 1 wild card, in most circumstances, and wild card NPCs/foes are pretty easy to match to the party's capabilities.

As far as pacing, if there's "downtime" between encounters, have some additional non-combat encounters ready, or puzzles, or heck, introduce a new complication along the way. One of the things I absolutely love about GM-ing Savage Worlds is that the party can switch goals or move to a new location on a dime, and I don't worry about having an inappropriate encounter ready, or whatever, because you can easily create something on the fly that's plausible, challenging, and fun.

All in all, my response is not to worry too much. Even if it's a "problem," it's one that generally seems to take care of itself, at least in my experience with SW.

Great thoughts, thanks! As a fellow Savage, sure miss the boards there as I gear up to start The Flood (DLR if you are familiar with it).

Mechanics aside, also interested to see how it works with just plain fewer bodies at the table. On the plus side, each player will get more time to shine and actually do stuff. The story will definitely clip along with less yapping and distractions.

I guess the downside for me is missing out on the fun of a big loud table. Still, it's summer so you gotta make due with who shows up!

 

[MNblockhead]

I find 2-player games work very well for heist-style adventures. Given them a goal of recovering macguffin from some secure complex. Something that requires planning and stealth. These kinds of adventures are hard to do well with larger groups and I find my players enjoy these kinds of challenges when they get the chance to play as part of a 2-3 member party. If I were doing a campaign, I would look at something focused on an urban area, a thieves guild, and the occasional adventure out of town.

A campaign setting like Lankhmar: City of Adventure (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1409961192/dcc-lankhmar) would be excellent for this style. The Fafhrd and Grey Mouser books are one of the classic sword and sorcery books that influenced Gary Gygax and other early fantasy TTRPG creaters and they are all written around two adventurers.

Same with the Conan books. Nearly all his adventures are solo or him and a companion.

Those books alone should provide plenty of ideas for a two-member-party campaign.

 

[aramis erak]

Used to bigger groups, got a little skittish when the possibility came up that I would only have 2 PCs for Deadlands Reloaded adventure this coming weekend.

GM + 1 PC seems really lame, 2 ok, 3-5 ideal. After 5 starts to slow game down quite a bit, 7 is a bit of gong show!

Any tips / suggestions for small groups (2)?

For those familiar with Savage Worlds, little concerned about 2 PCs burning though 4 hour adventure in 2 hours. We haven't played SW that much, although I've found things really clip along.

For me, GM+2P is the flat absolute minimum. I've found very few games work at all at 1P, and most work poorly at 2P.

The exceptions being Burning Wheel, Mouse Guard, and Car Wars.

Car Wars only works well with 2 because it's right on that border between RPG and boardgame.

My ideal is 4-6 players.

 

[Lylandra]

I actually enjoy our reduced group size (2P + GM). It allows for so much slower paced, "intimate" campaigns.
And yes, the stealth-approach is totally valid, especially as your chances of being found by someone rolling low decreases the lesser die-rollers you have.

 

[discosoc]

With SW, specifically, I've found a few things worth noting when playing with 2 other people:

1. It's harder for the player's to run overly-specialized characters in the beginning. They don't have to be jack-of-all-trades people, but they don't want to be depending on the wild die and bennies for all but two or three types of challenge.
2. Giving them extras can help, but most players would rather the bulk of their victories be on the back of their own characters rather than only possible because they brought 4 other Red Shirts with them.

The first point is really the biggest one that has caused problems for me in the past. My first small group had one guy go all-in on a shooting and intimidation, and the other person was a ship pilot. Both would have worked out great in larger groups, but it was hard to challenge them fairly (and with variety) when a single melee combatant or basically any knowledge-based tests would ruin their day. Sometimes they'd have an extra or two to help "tank" but it was always clear that the extras were the key to victory.

 

[Sunseeker]

In Deadlands? Heck yea. Gives it more of a Wild West feel too IMO. When I played I had 3 people.

 

[Thondor]

I have often found that for Superhero gaming, 2 players works great.
You can spend more time exploring the people they know (the supporting cast of characters). The intrigue and nuance of having friends or family who turn out to be villains, and in general exploring what makes your heroes tick -- their motives etc.

Haven't ever played savage worlds, so can't offer specific comments on that.

 

[Jhaelen]

One player is tricky, because once the player runs out of ideas, that's it.
Two players is way better because they can give each other ideas.

We've run an Earthdawn campaign with (most of the time) just two players. It was mostly fine. It gave us an opportunity to explore things we'd normally skip over in larger groups. It only got tricky when we wanted to tackle encounters with the 'Horrors', because these normally assume a full complement of characters. But it also gave us a good reason to explore other avenues than a direct confrontation. I really liked the cotrast to our combat-heavy D&D campaign with groups of up to 8 players at a time.