So I'm DMing a game of only two people. I've never done a group that small and I'm actually quite used to haveing groups of 5-7 people (I did 10 once because I'm a moron).
So is there any tips that you could give me for a group that small. It's a dark/high fantasy setting that's a (mostly) serious campaign.
The most interesting way I've found to run a game for two players is for their characters to be at odds while still having reasons to work together. Give them opportunities to get one up on the other and push them to create conflict and drama between each other while using external forces to keep them working together as well. Samurai Champloo might be a good example of what I'm talking about here with two characters at odds while still working together, but I only saw a couple episodes.
I'm in the same boat, it's just me, and two other guys. First time playing for me and one other guy and my first time GMing. Fun.
Main thing is just make sure they are both 100% comfortable roleplaying with each other, and actually get on IRL
I prefer playing with two people. Makes it really easy to DM.
Best advice I can give is make sure to spread the attention evenly. It's too easy to get caught up in one thing with a player and to forget to include the other, so make sure you catch yourself and don't leave the other player out for too long.
>running a game with two players
>both are rogues (kinda)
>mary sue assassin
>con artist
fights are gonna be interesting
>>48170318
I'm running a two man party as well. They're my two flatmates and we'd all already lived together before the campaign so I know we can sort out arguments without too much trouble.
With a party that small you can really tailor the story arc specifically to their playing style. The flow of the the game is much nicer, less interruptions, and everyone can keep track of what's going on. You can really build a believable relationship between the two characters.
I like smaller parties.
>>48174062
2 is 2 small for me. I like 4 man groups for a number of reasons.
The group dynamic is more interesting and varied
Most games are balanced for this many players
At this number players aren't likely to step on the other's niche
someone going down doesn't weaken the group disasterously
4 players feel like a social game
2 players feels like intimate improv session
1 feels like a weird date;
I'll stick to 4
>>48174062
Same here.
I used to GM for 2-3 people. Back then I could focus on flexible story and player's personal involvement in it.
When I finally took on a group of 4+ players, it quickly turned into a clusterfuck and I had to drop story for the sake of stiff, preplanned group encounters.
>>48174130
>When I finally took on a group of 4+ players, it quickly turned into a clusterfuck and I had to drop story for the sake of stiff, preplanned group encounters.
Groups can get distracted and unruly unless you are skillful enough as a GM to maintain some table etiquette and weave a story that requires a group's cooperation.
>>48174155
That said, 5 makes things difficult, and 6 or more is better for super casual board games
>>48170318
Right now I'm running a campaign with two players, with which one using two characters since I gave them the option to do it. It's not hard, the only problem is that if they only have one character, they must be compatible with each other. Otherwise it can be a bad experience since only arguments and fights will come between the character, because it doedn't have others to stop it.
>>48174155
>groups can get distracted and unruly
Never had any issue like that with my players.
My problem was that I had to drop GM'ing style that I was used to, treating players as individual beings and forging storyline with them.
In large groups of 4+ players, I couldn't treat them as individuals, but as a whole group, which cut off a lot from what story could present before them.
>>48174206
Players with multiple characters is inevitably Rollplay, no thanks.
>>48174212
My four players have incredibly elaborate backstories that cover their childhood til start, and the current story weaves elements from those backstories that didn't seem necessarily important at the time. We spent the first two sessions doing a sort of "this pivotal thing happens at age 8, how do you respond to it?" with no dice rolling.
Now 14 sessions past all that they are very engaged, feel a part of the story, and work as a team. It also helps that 2 of them are married to each other, one is a school buddy, and the other is a co-worker of myself and the married guy.
