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

[Weiley31]

Your DMPC must be a rival character they must overcome.

 

[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.

 

[commandercrud]

You can certainly run the game with just two PCs, but I find this limits the story more than anything...

I find the exact opposite to be the case.

 

[Rune]

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.

More directly related with your particular situation, I’d be pretty liberal with handing out healing potions and scrolls with bard or paladin spells on them. Especially crowd-control, healing, and escape spells.

Two characters are going to have a rough time keeping up in the action economy, so they’re going to need to be able to retreat when things go south. It might not make sense for their enemies to always let them, but it kinda needs to happen somehow.

 

[Older Beholder]

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.

Side kicks is a good option, a paladin could have a squire and the bard an apprentice/ band member

If you have the Theros book, you could give the players some of the supernatural gifts as blessings from the gods to give them a boost.

Or perhaps offer to give them a free multi-classed level to pad out their options?

 

[Shiroiken]

It depends on the level you start at. Low levels (mostly 1-2) are dangerous already due to the swing factor of combat, and lacking backup to keep a downed PC alive the probability of death is high. In addition, with only 2 PCs you'll have a hard time creating balanced encounters to start with, since the standard CR 1/8 monster is still pretty compartivly. Once they get to level 3 it goes better, as you can design easier encounters to factor the swing factor. Add a sidekick who works for the PCs is a good option, having them defer to the PCs in all cases except when they demand his opinion (in which case I'd flip a coin). If you don't have Tasha's, I'd give them a guard to start with, and then as they level either allow him to upgrade or let him die off naturally.

You can certainly run the game with just two PCs, but I find this limits the story more than anything,

I find the exact opposite to be the case.

Agreed! While you can't do more epic things due to combat limitations, the roleplay is much more relevant with only a few players. I had a small group of three for a different RPG, and the RP was amazing. Once we added a new player, I found that one of the original players was regaled more to a watcher roll, being overshadowed by the more dominate personalities. I talked to her afterwards, and she simply shrugged and said that the three usually just talked over her during discussion. I made sure to periodically give her character a bit more of specific spotlight to make up for this, which allowed her to speak first (and thus be heard).

 

[DND_Reborn]

I find the exact opposite to be the case.

Agreed! While you can't do more epic things due to combat limitations, the roleplay is much more relevant with only a few players. I had a small group of three for a different RPG, and the RP was amazing. Once we added a new player, I found that one of the original players was regaled more to a watcher roll, being overshadowed by the more dominate personalities. I talked to her afterwards, and she simply shrugged and said that the three usually just talked over her during discussion. I made sure to periodically give her character a bit more of specific spotlight to make up for this, which allowed her to speak first (and thus be heard).

YMMV of course. shrug

I find it limiting and forces me as the DM to adjust situations, especially combat, which 5E is geared for with a 4-5 PC group.

I find the roleplay is good because it is only two players, so their PCs can take turns sharing the spotlight. Admittedly the one trap you want to emphasize avoiding is when one of the two PCs controlled by the same player becomes truly secondary to the other. I stress trying to keep each PC for a player equally important, but it isn't always easy.

 

[Shiroiken]

YMMV of course. shrug

I find it limiting and forces me as the DM to adjust situations, especially combat, which 5E is geared for with a 4-5 PC group.

I find the roleplay is good because it is only two players, so their PCs can take turns sharing the spotlight. Admittedly the one trap you want to emphasize avoiding is when one of the two PCs controlled by the same player becomes truly secondary to the other. I stress trying to keep each PC for a player equally important, but it isn't always easy.

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).

 

[zarionofarabel]

I can't give advice for 5e specifically but I have run older (deadlier) editions of D&D with only two players. In fact one of my favorite campaigns of all time was with a single PC.

My advice, don't give them two PCs, let them concentrate on their single PC as normal. Running multiple characters is a DM job, players should concentrate on their PC and only their PC. Most of the fun of being a player is just that, playing their character, not a troup.

Tone down combat, and create combat situations that the smaller party can handle. This should be easy as you are the DM and you create everything that's happening in the world. If you have smart players they should realize they are at a disadvantage having just the two of them so, hopefully, they will act accordingly and fight smart. Maybe mention it to them anytime it seems they may be biting off more than they can chew.

Bonus Fact! The less players you have the more time you get to give them the spotlight. If the players have invested any time or thought into their background, use it! Focus the story on them rather than the adventure. Having a small group can really lead to a great experience that you cannot find with larger groups.

 

[The Green Hermit]

This happens frequently in my game, since I mainly run for my kids and my husband is unreliable and reluctant at best -- not his type of game.

I do run a player myself, but what I also do is have at least one of the players run two characters. If one of those characters dies and they want to try survival with only one, they are welcome to try. If they decide to retire one of their characters, I have them do so in a way that the character can be brought back later if it is decided that they really are needed.