D&D 5E Running 5E for two players?

[The Green Hermit]

As I said, it does limit combat significantly (especially at low levels), but the increase of RP is enhanced. I'm a bit confused by your comment about the bold section, however. Are you referring to one player bullying over the other in order to maximize efficiency or allowing each player to run more than one character? In the first case, this is an issue regardless of number of players, and should definitely be addressed immediately!

If it's the second case, that's not what I was referring to, but I have done it. When I've done so I tell the player to pick which is the Primary and which is the Henchman, as they'll only roleplay the Primary unless I specifically force the Henchmen to roleplay (rare). When I've done this I've allowed them to switch between the two between adventures in order to maximize the enjoyment for each adventure (e.g. a priest is going to be more vested in an adventure near a holy site than a ranger might be).

My daughter just flat out told me, "Unless I say otherwise, I'm only talking as Del." Makes it easier, even if I encourage her to flesh out both characters.

 

[DND_Reborn]

As I said, it does limit combat significantly (especially at low levels), but the increase of RP is enhanced. I'm a bit confused by your comment about the bold section, however. Are you referring to one player bullying over the other in order to maximize efficiency or allowing each player to run more than one character? In the first case, this is an issue regardless of number of players, and should definitely be addressed immediately!

If it's the second case, that's not what I was referring to, but I have done it. When I've done so I tell the player to pick which is the Primary and which is the Henchman, as they'll only roleplay the Primary unless I specifically force the Henchmen to roleplay (rare). When I've done this I've allowed them to switch between the two between adventures in order to maximize the enjoyment for each adventure (e.g. a priest is going to be more vested in an adventure near a holy site than a ranger might be).

Each player plays more than one character. Bullying is never allowed, of course.

As far as the second, having two PCs for one player--I don't want them to have a Primary (as you say). If you are playing two PCs, I expect you to play both PCs, not have one serving as a support for other. Now a player can have a henchmen, but that is an NPC, not a PC in my book, anyway.

 

[Rune]

I’m running a 5e game for 2 that’s still low-level. Sidekicks are available to them, but they choose not to pick any up. The bugbear luchador barbarian (a hugbear) did acquire a mimic pet, but it doesn’t always help in combat. And it’s always hungry.

Neither is a healer, though, so things can get pretty hairy (so to speak). Because I don’t balance encounters, I did have to do something to reduce the likelihood of a tpk. Especially since the random encounters in this campaign are pretty frequent.

My chosen method of handling this was to have both characters begin play with a house-ruled version of the Lucky rule.

Each character has two uses (could have been more or less, depending on starting ability scores) but they don’t recharge daily. Instead, they recharge at the beginning of a session (so, no book-keeping) and one use (per character) is recharged whenever anyone rolls a 1 or 20. I also allow lucky to be used multiple times per roll, if possible, and that includes rolls that recharge luck points.

This encourages frequent use, lends a slightly wahoo feel to the game, and prevents the characters from getting killed by critical hits, which is the main danger early on. It also puts the tools for their survival pretty directly (although not completely) into their hands. Their survival becomes another resource that needs to be managed.

Of course, I also rewarded their very first mini-adventure with a monkey’s paw wearing an inseparable ring of two wishes, but that was just for fun. Those wishes are long gone, now. One was used for survival; the other made friends with the mimic.

Oh, and another thing I do that is slightly helpful is, after engaging in the DMG & Xanathar’s Guide’s downtime activities (the luchador loves those pit fights/wrestling matches; we call it “bugbear baiting”), the characters begin their next journey with 1 temporary hp per 2 days spent in such activity. These temp hp persist until they are lost.

The players are thus incentivized to spend a little less time in the wild, but they still do, anyway.

 

[Li Shenron]

So my newbie group is going strong, but by secondary group faltered after a handful of sessions when real life schedules meant we lost 3 players in as many weeks. I made an effort to find some replacements and the remaining players were even willing to start over if necessary, but really liked their current characters (a half-elf bard and a human paladin who have just recently hit 2nd level). Well, the search for players sputtered and I decided that these are two of my oldest friends and I just want to play some D&D with them like the old days (and incorporating them into the newbie group wasn't gonna work), so I decided to continue the game with just the two of them. Hopefully, it will allow for a more freeform and intimate game, as all our playstyles and expectations are similar, so there will be no need for balancing the tastes of different folks.

But still it is D&D and combat is a big part of the game. Short of running a DMPC (which I do not want to do - may occasionally run a guide or ally that comes along but not a regular character), what should I remain aware of? What advice do folks have? How do I keep them challenged but not overwhelmed? Anyone run a game for a pair before? 5e experiences preferred, but any general D&D advice for a small group is also welcome.

Have them play 2 PCs each, it's not too difficult at 2nd level, and you can let them start the 2nd PC at 1st level and they will play well enough together.

Sidekick rules suck, have them play REAL characters which is better.

 

[Rune]

Have them play 2 PCs each, it's not too difficult at 2nd level, and you can let them start the 2nd PC at 1st level and they will play well enough together.

Sidekick rules suck, have them play REAL characters which is better.

Unless, of course, they don’t want to play 2 characters each. The players I referenced previously won’t even take on sidekicks (and not because they suck – which they don’t; sidekicks do exactly what they need to do, and not a bit more).

It’s for the best, really, as one of the players is prone to falling into analysis paralysis. Constantly having to switch focus between two characters is not helpful in that regard. Of course, I could run sidekicks for them, but...well, I don’t wanna.

 

[el-remmen]

Yeah, two characters each is not gonna happen, but I have thought about a "sidekick" (though I have not seen the rules and we are explicitly playing core rules only) that the PCs can take turns controlling in combat (they are die-hard role-players, so they won't cheese it and use the NPC as a pawn - in fact, they are more likely to sacrifice their PCs to save them! - one of them is a paladin, after all, and the bard is deeply religious and is considering multi-classing to barcleric d later).

We had our first session of just two PCs last night and it went well. I stuck to local intrigue and politics for the time being (plus the hunt for the mysterious turkey-lizards that have been rooting through garbage and eating pets around town (actually immature velociraptors)) and a lot of fun was had.

Edit: multi-class to CLERIC, obvi.

 

[Oofta]

Personally? I'd just run them as is. Run a few more social encounters, lean more towards the RP/investigation/exploration side of things. Maybe change drinking a healing potion to be a bonus action and make sure they get lots of them, possibly as part of payment.

If you do an NPC support person the sidekick rules are decent, or just pick something relatively simple to run*. When I do it I have a player run the NPC mechanically and virtually always make in-combat decisions for them. I do the RP for the NPC and make major decisions for them.

*EDIT: Since you don't have Tasha's I'd just make them a simple life cleric, possibly even a pacifist that just goes full defensive unless buffing or healing.

 

[Rune]

Yeah, two characters each is not gonna happen, but I have thought about a "sidekick" (though I have not seen the rules and we are explicitly playing core rules only) that the PCs can take turns controlling in combat (they are die-hard role-players, so they won't cheese it and use the NPC as a pawn - in fact, they are more likely to sacrifice their PCs to save them! - one of them is a paladin, after all, and the bard is deeply religious and is considering multi-classing to bard later).

We had our first session of just two PCs last night and it went well. I stuck to local intrigue and politics for the time being (plus the hunt for the mysterious turkey-lizards that have been rooting through garbage and eating pets around town (actually immature velociraptors)) and a lot of fun was had.

Sidekicks are just leveled NPCs with the options stripped out. Very similar to a champion fighter. They are still, theoretically, able to hang with the PCs, power-wise (although that might break down at high-levels, where much of the party’s power comes from their expanded variety of abilities and magic).

At any rate, even if your players are sticking to core rules, sidekicks can still fit in fine; they’re not so much a player option as they are a DM tool (an alternate NPC format, specifically).

 

[cmad1977]

Yeah, two characters each is not gonna happen, but I have thought about a "sidekick" (though I have not seen the rules and we are explicitly playing core rules only) that the PCs can take turns controlling in combat (they are die-hard role-players, so they won't cheese it and use the NPC as a pawn - in fact, they are more likely to sacrifice their PCs to save them! - one of them is a paladin, after all, and the bard is deeply religious and is considering multi-classing to barcleric d later).

We had our first session of just two PCs last night and it went well. I stuck to local intrigue and politics for the time being (plus the hunt for the mysterious turkey-lizards that have been rooting through garbage and eating pets around town (actually immature velociraptors)) and a lot of fun was had.

Edit: multi-class to CLERIC, obvi.

For fast sidekicks, I think Volos Guide has some “classed” NPCs. Statewise it makes it easy to say...
Here’s your pal the.... illusionist!

Also, don’t don’t don’t do 2 characters per player. Just no.

 

[Umbran]

Agreed! While you can't do more epic things due to combat limitations, the roleplay is much more relevant with only a few players.

Yes. But note how "relevant" and "fulfilling" are not the same thing.

My observation is that, on long average, the best roleplaying that happens at a table is between the players, not with the GM. Each player has only one character to focus on, the GM has everything else to deal with - generally speaking, the players can do more and better in the RP-department, for that reason.

The GM has a long row to hoe to match the RP potential of a full group of PCs.