Hey guys! I am thinking of starting a campaign with only two players (and me the DM). I am at a slight loss on how to go about it. The systems I am considering are Pathfinder, dnd 5e, DCC and basic-classic dnd/adventurer conqueror king. Do you have any advice on the matter?
I am kinda worried that with two people the partys classic dnd roles wont be covered and it will be hard for them to deal with enemies and stuff. Then again if I allow multiple npc's per player roleplay may suffer.
Am I thinking about this too much? Maybe anything I do will work, but hey then we lose on the fun of discussing it in the forum.
Also how would YOU go about it (no need to stay within the parameters I set system etc)?

I would just expect there to be NPCs as needed/wanted in the adventuring party. There almost always have been in games I've run, even when I have a large number of players. Some of or all of them can be potential PCs if a PC dies or leaves play for some reason (temporarily or permanently).

It's always worked fine for me. I enjoy running small groups or single players.

However I also generally don't play D&D or other games that expect a mix of player classes (or have character classes at all), or that expect a certain size of player group, or that make a huge distinction between PCs and NPCs.

Quote from: Malfi;1029987Hey guys! I am thinking of starting a campaign with only two players (and me the DM). I am at a slight loss on how to go about it. The systems I am considering are Pathfinder, dnd 5e, DCC and basic-classic dnd/adventurer conqueror king. Do you have any advice on the matter?

If those are the options, go with a mix of DCC and ACKS, it's the best option among the above:). Basically, I'd use DCC, and just add in the rules for hiring specialists from ACKS, but that would be about it.
Then let them think out of the box, and use henchmen and mercenaries.

QuoteI am kinda worried that with two people the partys classic dnd roles wont be covered and it will be hard for them to deal with enemies and stuff. Then again if I allow multiple npc's per player roleplay may suffer.

Tell them that not all roles will be covered. And tell them it's their job to deal with it.
Whatever they're going to do, the result shall be up to their actions. If they don't have a wizard, and need one, it's their job how to unearth occult knowledge. If they're going without an Warrior, it's their job again to deal with any combats - not yours. You just present them with the obstacles.

QuoteAlso how would YOU go about it (no need to stay within the parameters I set system etc)?

I frequently play with two players. But then I don't, as a general rule, use anything D&D-related (OSR titles excluded, and even those, I don't use much - especially lately).
What this means is that the players can cover more than one of those roles, but it's still unlikely they'd have a specialist for every occasion.
And when they need a specialist for a specific situation, they know that I don't care how they're going to deal with it. They also know that failure is explicitly an option, too;)!
So they're doing their best to prevent it. And it tends to work...or they rebound from the failures, and try to minimize their consequences, or to turn them into an advantage, if at all possible.

That's about it.

So either hirelings or just deal with it! Seem both viable ways to go about it.

AsenRG do you change the encounters at all? For example if I use a dcc adventure should I change the enemies etc?

Quote from: Malfi;1029987Hey guys! I am thinking of starting a campaign with only two players (and me the DM). I am at a slight loss on how to go about it. The systems I am considering are Pathfinder, dnd 5e, DCC and basic-classic dnd/adventurer conqueror king. Do you have any advice on the matter?
I am kinda worried that with two people the partys classic dnd roles wont be covered and it will be hard for them to deal with enemies and stuff. Then again if I allow multiple npc's per player roleplay may suffer.
Am I thinking about this too much? Maybe anything I do will work, but hey then we lose on the fun of discussing it in the forum.
Also how would YOU go about it (no need to stay within the parameters I set system etc)?

Here's my suggestions:
Multi-class. IIRC Pathfinder multiclassing is simple. Start the characters at 2nd level, and let them take a level in two classes, so they have each main role covered. (Fighter, cleric, mage, rogue) DCC doesn't have muticlassing, but Elves are hybrid fighter/mages. If ACKS uses the 1st edition multi-class rules, then there may be a few more requirement to follow.

Give the characters some extra goodies at first level to cover what roles they lack. If they don't have a cleric/healer type, let them start with a potion of healing each, and put a few healing resources as treasure in the adventure.

Adjust the adventure to allow for any lack in the party roles. If they don't have a rogue type, then don't go overboard with locks and traps.

Allow each player to run two characters. 2 characters isn't difficult for experienced players to handle. If they're new(er) you might want to spread the load by having the GM and players as a group run the extra characters. (Hey, Bork is the thief, he should detect traps!)

Well I would probably advise against trying to run published Pathfinder adventures with 2 PCs. With 5e, ACKS etc you can either run lower level stuff, or let them hire hirelings & recruit henchmen (in 5e I have henchmen can be PC class, 1 level per PC Tier at recruitment, whereas hirelings are NPCs from the MM etc).

If you are running your own stuff it should be fine, just start them off easy while you get a feel for it.

Quote from: Malfi;1029996So either hirelings or just deal with it! Seem both viable ways to go about it.

AsenRG do you change the encounters at all? For example if I use a dcc adventure should I change the enemies etc?

You're the Judge, so it's up to you, really:). But I don't, personally, and wouldn't advise it.

You want to rob the self-professed richest merchant in the land? Be my guests, but he's still got 40 guards with him, not 20 because you're half the usual number of a PC group - he's not protecting against PCs, he's protecting himself against the possibility of "a score of highwaymen".
Of course, they're taking turns sleeping during travel, but they can be woken up in a couple combat rounds...
So frontal assault is likely out, but if you want to try, be my guests. What are you doing?

And while I was talking about the guards that we all knew they'd try to avoid, I've also made up my mind on how the shifts are distributed, how the perimeter is set-up during travel and during a stay, and how the valuables are guarded (including what's preventing the 40 mercenaries from stealing them).
Can they deal with what I came up with? If they can't, it's on their PCs. If they can, it's going to reflect on the PCs again, just in a more positive manner;).

I'd go the opposite from AsenRG and use either Pathfinder or 5E because the jack-of-all-trades character class is already baked in to the rules and that is the Bard.

Old school or ACKS assume and recommend henchmen and hirelings anyway.  So in those rulesets I would have a pool already generated to recruit from, and tell the players out of the gate that's a thing they should consider.

With 5e, the big thing to be aware of is the encounter builder budget starts to break down for a 2 or 3 character party.  Also characters are more fragile the first couple levels, almost like old school D&D.  But once you're past the training wheels levels, in a weird way you could call it a fairly forgiving system, between the abilities PCs can bring to bear and the way rests work.

System aside, it's also an opportunity to play a more focused game.  Instead of trying to cover all class roles, a group might run with, say, a thief and assassin, or a thief and bard, for a more heist-focused game.  Or a cleric and paladin for a witch-hunting, demon-slaying campaign.  Or two fighter-types for a swashbuckling game.  Most of these would rely more on urban and roleplaying adventures than on dungeon crawls.  Obviously this depends on a group discussion before characters are even rolled.

I've done this successfully before. Go with something simpler than you think you need. 5th edition, Pathfinder, and anything of that nature is just too slow and bloated for two players. Don't even think about 4th edition. You need to go to B/X or a clone and use the hireling rules. Try to have one of your players choose a leader type to make use of the charisma stuff. Also, make sure to use the morale rules in combat.

I would personally recommend Basic Fantasy or Labyrinth Lord. They have everything you need and they both have options for rule expansions as you learn the pace of small group D&D.

Quote from: Malfi;1029987I am kinda worried that with two people the partys classic dnd roles wont be covered and it will be hard for them to deal with enemies and stuff. Then again if I allow multiple npc's per player roleplay may suffer.

Am I thinking about this too much? Maybe anything I do will work, but hey then we lose on the fun of discussing it in the forum.

Also how would YOU go about it (no need to stay within the parameters I set system etc)?

1: D&D in general has never needed every class present in a group. some can be helpful in certain situations. But you have never needed to have a class present. All you have to to is scale back or rethink the encounters a little to accomodate. And they players may find creative ways around problems too.

2: Yes you are overthinking it. Just go at it and keep in mind that the PCs can handle about half what the standard group of four can. But that is only for combat. Outside combat they can take on about anything within obvious limits. Negotiate, trade, intrigue, sneak, whatever.

3: I've been playing about a year and a half now in a 2-PC party and a couple of years now in a 3 person party. It really boils down to the players and no number matters thate. 1 player, 10 players. If they dont work together to survive then it can end in a TPK pretty fast.

But as noted above the main thing is to keep in mind that the party is at lower potential combat power and adjust encounters accordingly. One of the bigger problems will be that they have a harder time defending the more fragile classes. In fact it can be nearly impossible in some cases. Good news is that at least 5e D&D classes are a little hardier long as they think things through. And some classes synergize really well. A fighter and thief team can be devastating.

One player means one character with hirelings. The player just has to be smarter than they would if they were in a group. So they'll get smart, or they'll be rolling up a new character. Once the PC levels up they can seek out henchmen.

5e is for commie mutant traitors. Use 1e, it works well - again, if the player plays smart. But who wants to play with someone playing dumb?

I just have each player run 2 PCs. It's not rocket science.

Or I let them run 1 PC with some retainers and they control the retainers with some inputs from me.

Or I run a game where 2 heroes do just fine.

System doesn't matter much.

BTW, have you looked at Kevin Crawford (Sine Nomine) games like Godbound or Scarlet Heroes?

Here's his free PDF for Exemplars & Eidolons which is D&D for 1-2 players.
http://www.rpgnow.com/product/144651/Exemplars--Eidolons

I have found E&E to be great with a couple players.

I use Henchmen in my 5e games, the system is not so complicated that it can't handle the kind of 9 character, 6 PC & 3 henchmen type groups typical in 1e AD&D. Hirelings using the simple NPC stats even moreso. Also, 5e has an advantage for solo or duo play over 1e in that the saving throw system is vastly more forgiving. I've seen high level 1e PCs go solo and get taken down by a single failed save; this hardly ever happens in 5e.

Quote from: jeff37923;1030033I'd go the opposite from AsenRG and use either Pathfinder or 5E

Unsurprisingly;).
Of course, just using a D&D-derived system is still "going the opposite way from AsenRG".

Quotebecause the jack-of-all-trades character class is already baked in to the rules and that is the Bard.

You mean the Wizard, right:D?

Anything with an "encounter budget" is a poor fit for a game with one or two players, IME.