small group

[Aulirophile]

Playing pre-written adventures might be OK actually, if you are two levels ahead of the suggested curve for said adventures (i.e., start Scales of War at level 3 if starting from the beginning).

There are a lot of good combos that can work for a three person group. Two tough melee strikers, one ranged leader. Defender/Leader/Striker. Three controllers. Stunningly effective, though you might be dazed trying to keep track of all the status effects, which can really slow combat down. Generally controllers can switch between range and close burst/blast so being immobilized or in close quarters isn't a big deal for them. With strong builds that coordinate it can be a real dominating party.

 

[fba827]

lots of ideas that i was going to say have already been said, but also, how about if each PC also has a companion. (thus taking you from 3 to 6)

(making things up here)
The paladin has a squire... the mage has a brother ... the cleric has a conjoined twin... err.. well you get the idea.

the DM makes them up and they are simplified characters (not full fledged PCs, using the rules in DMG2 if you have access to that... or else just make it like an NPC and give these companions one atwill, one encounter, one daily, one utility) that way the focus stays on the true PCs but they have the help that each player can control in actual combat.

Of course, this goes with the caveat that your -players- would all be comfortable at running a companion in addition to their PC (and not blur the line and think of them as just mindless NPCs for canon fodder, steal loot from, and such).

 

[frankthedm]

Have each player run two full characters. Accounting for one extra PC is much easier than reworking things for just 3 warm bodies. Plus it allows for the players to enjoy the diversity of character options 4E has. To say nothing of the fact that even if a character is incapacitated, the player does not have to sit out an encounter.

 

[weem]

I absolutely LOVE smaller groups.

I ran a very long 2e campaign with 3 players. My current and previous 4e campaigns have 4 players, but I could easily do 3 (assuming a balanced group).

3 players is actually my favorite number, followed closely by 4 - you can put even more focus into their stories and give them much more spotlight time, and it's really easy to tone it down for balance.

Anywho - no advice from me on how to do it - just wanted to say, have fun with it

 

[LightPhoenix]

I played in a small group (3 players) and currently DM the same.

My biggest recommendation is to read Stalker0's excellent guide to grind here. A lot of the issues that three players have with economy of actions can be (IMO) ameliorated simply by eliminating Soldiers.

If you have a Leader, healing will never be a problem, since it only needs to be spread out among three characters. This is especially true if one of the other characters has access to some self-healing.

Companion characters are up to the players; personally I'm less than thrilled with them myself. Your mileage may vary.

Out first group was Fighter/Wizard/Cleric. Both the Wizard (me) and the Cleric were built fairly defensively, and the Fighter was fairly Striker-y. The biggest problem with the group was we had a really tough time dealing large amounts of damage, especially the longer a fight lasted. The good thing was that we were very hard to drop - the only time we had a PC fall unconscious was fighting Irontooth in KotS.

The group I DM is Ranger/Avenger/Bard. Obviously this was a reaction to the last group - they have no problems killing enemies. They're highly mobile and making lots of attacks. After all, a good offense is the best defense. Their biggest weakness is that they're brittle; when I do manage to land a hit, it's pretty bad. The Avenger gets the worst of it having to be in melee. It's especially bad if they're in close quarters and can't move around.

 

[babinro]

With exception of curious people wanting to try out 4E, I've always had small groups to DM with. 2 players plus myself as DM. After playing in this fashion for almost two years it is highly recommended each player takes up two fully built PC's.

Having a smaller party greatly limits the games PC synergies and strategies. It limits creative combo's of monsters within encounters as well. A party of 4 shouldn't feel like that have to cover all roles in the game for it to run properly. I've seen games without a controller, and other games without a defender role. Both ran perfectly fine without my needing to adjust monsters in the least bit. The only role I'd consider essential is some kind of Leader to prevent really easy character deaths.

Feel free to ease the players into their characters as running two at a time can be overwhelming based on their experience with 4E. For example, start the campaign by running a very short adventure with each PC playing one of their characters. Another very short adventure with the other characters. Then see to it they meet up and the game will run quite smoothly.

I highly recommend condensing character sheets to one page for quick reference of powers/magical item uses/racial powers...while at the same time having a proper sheet on hand in case you need to reference exact wording for rulings. Players running two characters will take longer to take turns in general, materials to speed up the game are highly beneficial.

Examples: At-Wills: EomNT= End of my Next Turn
Ardent Strike: Melee: +7 vs AC: 1d10+5 and sanctioned till EomNT <can charge>
Thunderwave: Close Blast 3: Creatures: +5 vs Fort: 1d6+4 thunder, push 2.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Well, with two players and a DM for my pen and pencil game, it is a problem for us. There is not a lot, especially when one is about a half character because the DM is busy running all the other people.

Three people has caused numerous TPKS in my group, as well as other problems, but it is fun.

We have partially compensated by running 4E gestalt (our own rules)and he has helped immensely. I would suggest doing something like that for other people with small groups.

I am not a fan of people running multiple characters. My group stays away form that,

 

[OnlineDM]

In the online game that I run, I have a party of three PCs. We originally had five, but two of them have had schedule conflicts and we've moved on with three. These are new players (and I'm a new DM), and we've been running through the Keep on the Shadowfell. I've actually detailed our sessions on my blog (links below), so you can see in detail the changes I've made to the adventure and the experiences my party has had.

The party is made up of a druid, a rogue and a swordmage. This means that we have no leader, and really no healing at all (one of the two players who had schedule conflicts was our cleric). Knowing that this would be a problem, I gave the druid the cleric's Healing Word power twice per encounter (same as the Cleric would have had), though without the Healer's Lore bonus. So, twice per encounter, the druid can use a minor action to let herself or a nearby ally spend a surge to get their surge value of hit points plus 1d6. Yes, it's overpowered for a druid, but that's okay - it makes the game more fun for the group and gives her something to do with her minor actions aside from switching in and out of beast form (which she rarely does).

I've scaled down the number of enemies in the encounters to try to make what would have been, say, a third-level encounter for five players (750 XP) into a third-level encounter for three players (450 XP). So, I'm removing 40% of the XP worth of monsters and traps. I've noticed lately that, as the players have gotten used to their characters, they're mowing down even-level and level+1 encounters without any trouble (partly thanks to some creative thinking on their part, which I like to reward). This is probably because they're slightly higher-level than it would look on the character sheet thanks to the free Healing Word. So, I'm starting to add a little more XP to the encounters, just to make them a bit more interesting.

I also remembered somewhat belatedly that I would need to scale down the amount of treasure that I grant, since the published adventure spreads it among five PCs and I'm only spreading it among three. This didn't get too out of hand or anything, but as the party graduated to second level, I started paying more attention to it.

Overall, it's been a fun game so far. The lessons I would share are:

• Don't be afraid to house rule an extra power to fill whatever gap exists in your three-PC party - it's technically overpowered, but it makes the game more fun for everyone
• Use the XP totals as a guideline to start with, and adjust as needed to tailor the challenge level to your party
• Remember to adjust treasure downward if you're using a published adventure that assumes a bigger party

Links to blog posts about the three-PC delve into the Keep on the Shadowfell so far:

• First session (kobold encounters outdoors)
• Second session (the Irontooth battle)
• Third session (first two goblin areas of the Keep)
• Fourth session (Balgron the Fat and the goblin excavators)