Small D&D Group Problems & How to Overcome Them

[@theDMLair]

𝗱𝗦𝗰𝗿𝘆𝗯 - Get finely crafted boxed text for your RPG game ▶▶ www.dscryb.com/thedmlair - Use coupon code THEDMLAIR for 10% off! 𝐋𝐚𝐢𝐫 𝐌𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐳𝐢𝐧𝐞 - Reduce prep time and improve your games with this monthly D&D magazine ▶▶ www.patreon.com/thedmlair 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐌 𝐋𝐚𝐢𝐫 𝐒𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐞 - Get back issues of Lair Magazine, map packs, 5e adventures, and other DM resources ▶▶ the-dm-lair.myshopify.com/

[@savnana3605]

I once ran 6 DMPCs in a game I was running. Best game I ever ran! The party perfectly followed the plot and did everything I wanted while I played alone in my room and all my friends had fun doing something else.

[@steamtasticvagabond474]

That’s called writing a book

[@savnana3605]

@@steamtasticvagabond474 Thank you for explaining the joke ^_^ Wasn't sure if everyone would get it.

[@steamtasticvagabond474]

@@savnana3605 you’re welcome :)

[@kylesimone6140]

i was hurt by this

[@kilrkitty0818]

🤣🤣 nice one

[@boloniusmonk6716]

2 characters per player is ok, but I have found that it is hard for players to keep them separate when it comes to character motivations. It ends up with the 2 characters acting as one. The Tasha sidekicks have worked the best for our group. They are simple enough to control in battle and let the players focus on their single character out of combat. I enjoy running games with 2-3 players much more than 5 players.

[@bleddynwolf8463]

agreed, especially for animal sidekicks

[@joe7176]

Once, a player dropped out of a group I played, so until we found a new one, I ran a second PC. It wasnt fun at all for me, because it was too confusing out of combat with two separate characters to concentrate on, but luckily we found a new player soon, so i went back to 1.

[@theDMLair]

Yeah that's a great point.

[@david680]

Yea, I've done this a few times when someone was unable to make it to the game session. So, rather than having the PC vanish, someone picks them up and we move on. It usually ends up with the picked up PC being pretty quiet outside of combat as people tend to focus on one PC over the other.

[@twilightgardenspresentatio6384]

I regularly expect players to be able to play multiple characters with one dominant and the others only resisting something that could unduly harm them but for people who’ve had problems keeping track of things I just run them my selves like one more monster with a desire and ideal to pursue But I often play with people who’ve run games before and are used to running a few npc desires and a few monster stat blocs at once

[@dakgnol9004]

I personally love running smaller groups since I can focus much more on each character when integrating their backstories into the campaign. I also offer a selection of hirelings custom-built to fill in for the party's missing roles so that they can play whatever they want. I also give them each neat backstories, personalities, and motivations (maybe even a sidequest relating to them) so that the party has additional choices for interactions and RP when out in the middle of nowhere. One could think they're borderline-DMPCs, but my group seems to enjoy them quite a bit. It really comes down to how they're run and allowing your players to choose if they want them or not.

[@crimfan]

agree, you can totally have a capable NPC companion, the main thing is that it shouldn't overshadow the PCs in what the PCs choose to be good at.

[@dakgnol9004]

@@crimfan True. I did forget to mention that they should always take a backseat to the PCs. Not gonna lie, I've forgotten the hirelings were present during certain scenes several times simply because I was too focused on the players.

[@crimfan]

@@dakgnol9004 There's a sweet spot. They need to be enough of an entity to be present and valued by the group but not so much that the PCs feel like the story isn't about them.

[@DAEDRICDUKE1]

@@crimfan I would disagree, if the party is paying the NPC for his services then they bloody better be worth every penny.

[@crimfan]

@@DAEDRICDUKE1 That’s why I said there’s a sweet spot. Companions that are too good or simply too complicated to run throw shade on the PCs and overload the DM. Price them according to what they can do, sure, but they shouldn’t be overshadowing the PCs in what the PCs are good at. So if the PCs have a party wizard an NPC wizard probably isn’t a good idea. Complicated to run NPCs like monks are IMO quite bad as companions in any event.

[@benry007]

I have found the sidekick rules in tasha useful. They are noticeably weaker then the PC's so you dont overshadow them. I have found that when the sidekick has a lucky turn and makes a big impact the rest of the party is cheering them on. The fact they are weaker helps them avoid becoming DMPC's. They often do the stuff other PC's dont want to do like spending there whole action giving a downed PC a healing potion.

[@guydude6919]

My solution to the DMPC thing is making the NPC a support character in it's skills and giving them a personality that doesn't seek attention or achievement. This way the NPC can be a cleric with more than just healing in mind but damage being the less likely support option unless to pick off a few weaker mobs to cover the PC's backs. It could also be a bard or wizard or even a fighter with lot's of support skills intended to be a tank depending on what the players need. Another big thing to do that will help prevent overshadowing but can be an interesting or impactful dynamic is making it so most of what the NPC does is neutral or passive. What I mean by this is to wait for prompts from the PCs to take action beyond base necessity or prearranged planning. This will make the social interactions with the NPC more important as the players messing up will cost them their aid or it can make use of their knowledge or skills also giving the DM another way to hint at something if necessary. In both combat or skill based encounters with other non party NPCs the Party NPC can have a very adaptive role based on how they are used by the PCs and it gives the DM a chance to say something witty every once in a while. A good moment or two when the players need some life or humor can be well treated by the amusing words from the mostly quiet NPC. Save up those zingers and wait for the time to strike.

[@Comicsluvr]

We did this once and while the NPC (an Artificer and their Steel Defender) did okay but they weren't over-powered. In one fight, the Artificer did an attack on the Boss (who had been wailed on a LOT) and killed it. Then, in the same turn, the Artificer shot the next bad guy in line and dropped HIM too! The group got together and gave the Artificer bonus loot to upgrade his steel defender to carry more stuff. It was a big help for the party and it was lots of fun.

[@curtisfranzen986]

I had an NPC named Sly the Henchlizard. Now Sly was a Ranger/Rogue. The thing about Sly is that he was the luckiest NPC I've ever ran. He needs a crit to save another party member, nat 20. He needs at least a 17 for a save, 18, etc.

[@GrimGoblinLives]

There is another option - play modules for lower-level parties. A two-people party of level 5 may not be ready for Red Hand of Doom but may take Lost Mine of Phandelver and survive.

[@destroyerinazuma96]

I finished Lost Mines in a party of three. It was manageable. We players played a Fighter, a Paladin and a Cleric.

[@falkfire389]

2:45 you ever just have one of those sessions where you're just so stressed that you forget how to describe a goat? I have.

[@mikegould6590]

I've run small groups (2-3 players) as well as one-on-one games. I've found adding quirky NPCs, familiars, pets, and sentient magic items helps. Magic items do not need to be powerful even if sentient - they're just another voice. Familiars can be unlocked even for non-wizards and warlocks just by reading the boxed texts in the Monster Manual and Volo's. They can also be summoned via Feats (Magic Adept, Ritual Caster, etc). Familiars have a sliding scale when it comes to loyalty depending on the creature, it's goals, and if it joined willingly or by summoning. They can and will "interpret" commands. Quirky NPCs should be imperfect and flawed, but add either muscle, healing or magic. They should need extra input from the PCs to keep them on track. Pets will act like beasts or monsters, and will require the most PC input to keep them on track. Why so much work? Busy PCs are happy PCs, and will brag at length about the weird and wonderful companions they meet along the way. They're also a source for story hooks as they wander off target, get into trouble, become the envy or target of monsters and NPCs and so on. A sentient shield that talks constantly and complains about being "hit in the face" will spoil Stealth checks in all likelihood, but will also be a source of lore for the PCs. And humour. (and of course, more AC) All of these oddball companions can also help with night watches, as many familiars may not sleep, and magic items are always awake. Unless they're not. Which could be fun too. ;) Just my two copper.

[@goliathcleric]

The best sidekicks/hirelings are the ones who value their lives and hide when they're in danger :D

[@twilightgardenspresentatio6384]

To fight another day

[@arronmackinnon6027]

I love running for small parties, it is so easy to keep the players engaged, give each of them a chance to shine, and play some stories that just don't work with 4 or 5 PCs (Say an Indiana Jones or murder mystery type of campaign).

[@steamtasticvagabond474]

Plus, it’s really easy to raise the stakes because if one character drops, that’s half the party out of commission. So every person matters that much more, and it shows during the role playing

[@steven6986]

That one player: brain almost melts choosing the spell for their turn, just to go with fireball again... The DM: is running 2 shaman, 10 goblins, a bugbear chieftain, environmental effects, initiative, tracking HP, choosing appropriate music, narrating, rebalancing the encounter halfway through, and doing voices!

[@DGNMSTR9]

As requested... *KZbin!!! the DM Lair does not suck!* This video has some great advice (most of your videos have great advice) for small groups. I've made a few notes from this one :-) Keep doing what you do.

[@theDMLair]

Thank you so much! I'm always happy to be able to help.

[@endorb]

Rather than having 2 PCs a player, I prefer to use Gestalt characters; it's a fun mechanic, and makes them feel powerful. It also helps cover their lack of coverage for being half-sized

[@TheSarcasticModerate]

Care to elaborate on Gestalt characters? Asking for a friend.

[@endorb]

@@TheSarcasticModerate There are specifics I don't have, but basically you take 2 classes at once; you level up in them together. You take the higher hit die, you only get the proficiencies of one (your choice), etc. This gives you a lot of power for each character without completely alienating them to the balance that is used in material

[@headstone6723]

Some of my best session involve PCs trying to make skill checks for their least used skills. It usually evolves into a hysterical burst of misses or a raucous amount of cheers with superior rolls. Never send a thief to do a barbarians job... All that and Luke continues to always be entertaining and not suck.

[@achimsinn6189]

For balancing combat and action economy it is also a good idea to have enemies apear in waves. That way you can add more enemies to a battle without having them outnumber and overwheml the players by all attacking at once - plus if it turns out that the encounter was just fine without that last wave of additional goblins, just leave that wave out and nobody would ever know.

[@NickTheCat_DieGoettlichenZehn]

Without even starting the video, this is how I do it. I'm DM and my group consists of only two players. That's my wife and that's my brother. It works absolutely fine. She is a mage, he is a fighter/ranger, and I let them find an artifact with low healing ability somewhen early in the game so I overcame their lack of a healer. In addition, they found themselves each an animal which I counted as group members and I also created a barbarian to play by myself as well who shows up once in a while to join them. It sounds complicated, but it isn't and it works so well!

[@michaelturner2806]

Lacking a 'necessary' role, at least outside of combat, can lead to interesting challenges, as long as it's not designed to be a pass/fail scenario with a single way to overcome it. I've played in groups with no rogue, but I was an excellent trapfinder - my secret was a dwarf with high AC, high con, and a near addiction to healing potions. Locked door? Sledgehammer. Need to fast-talk your way past an NPC impeding your progress? Sack of coins or axe to the face. Need to stealthily infiltrate a dragon's lair? Forget it and go carouse at the nearest tavern instead.

[@michaelturner2806]

One little thing that can keep playing several NPCs from being boring is occasionally make an encounter just for the real PCs, and a shadow encounter for the NPCs. Like the real party confronts the bandit warlord and her lackey (real stats) while the hirelings fend off minions trying to reinforce (pure narration). This might not apply though if the players are particularly attached to the NPCs and are excited to see them in action. Otherwise you're practically just rolling a lot of dice by yourself.

[@LordPiddlington1912]

5:56 I don't know whether its because I've DM'ed before, but I make a point of making my turns in combat as speedy as possible. Whilst I get that picking the right spell in combat can be a painful choice, you have plenty of time to nail down what you want to do on your turn whilst the other players and the DM are taking their actions - you shouldn't start deciding when the DM calls you up!

[@Ajsweetkilgore]

Have yet to ever run a game and this was wonderful for notes.

[@ryanthomasjones]

Dear algorithm, Luke doesn't suck.

[@ghostmaestro1721]

Thanks for doing this Luc, I've been needing this for a while. I run a group with 2 other players as PCs, and have tried different ways to balance them out (even used gestalts for a time), so this is the video for me.

[@goofyghost4794]

I have done a long campaign with two players and I just slowly make them demi-gods. It's great because it really makes them feel like they are the main characters of a show. It's great to play and it somehow works!

[@juliakarczewski8875]

I'm digging the barbarian's dice hoard

[@AristeidisKypriotis]

Having faced that problem a few times, our DM allow the players to pick for free one of the Skilled, or Magic Initiate feats, so to at least cover some roles the PC's wouldn't be able to do otherwise.

[@Mr_GoR_]

As always, appreciate the tips and advice. Also I just noticed the Into the Fey poster! Looks great. Can't wait for fulfillment! super excited!

[@theDMLair]

You are very welcome. Yes I'm excited to fulfill that bad boy as well. :-)

[@godofmisfortune992]

I have a small group just me, the dm, and one other player. However I chose to be a necromancer so we really don't need help at all.

[@jillianh7565]

When my group started our Curse of Strahd campaign we only had 2 players: Ethan, a Dragonborn fighter and me, a half elf cleric. This made things especially horrifying because we started at level 1 as opposed to 3 or 5 like most people recommend. For this reason, we skipped death house and tried to play smart until we found other players. A month into the game we got Daniel to join as a human fighter which definitely helped and recently my friend Maya joined as a vampire rouge named Anthony. This definitely leveled the playing field but Ravenloft is still meant for more than 3-4 players.

[@crimfan]

I have run and played A LOT of small group (2-3 players) D&D in 2E, 3.5, and a bit in 5. In a lot of ways it's my favorite. Having interesting companion characters around helps a ton. Even in a larger group a companion character can help keep the game going if a player misses or if you need to remind the players of something or you need to add something to the world. Here are some things I find helpful: -In general it's the PCs that make the rolls, whereas companions Help. This is particularly true for a party that lacks a face character and is benefitting from a companion. The DM talking to himself is dumb; instead what I do is let a face support character always Help the PC; the player crafts the argument and the PC makes the roll. They can also be tasked to handle things off-screen, such as haggling or buying, because I can resolve that using a few basic rolls without the problem of talking to myself. -Use companions to cover roles the players don't want to play. For example, if the PCs are a Wizard and a Fighter, it makes sense for companions to cover aspects like healing, support, or skill monkey. A Bard might be good for this but spec for utility. -I do not give companions treasure (generally). However, if they loan the PCs they certainly expect to be paid back! -Sidekick rules would work OK in 5E. Even if you don't use them, build the character in a way that makes them simple to run. A Champion fighter or a straightforwardly built Celestial Tomelock (good healer, support, with a bit of blasting) is likely fine; nearly any Monk or Sorcerer is likely not fine due to the number of moving parts. You can often simplify characters, though, to make them faster, for example by looking for "monster" versions and just using those. -Use average damage for hits and max damage for crits. It's not exact but it's close enough and avoids grindy arithmetic. -Don't get so attached to companions that you're afraid to kill them! -If you know the group will be small, you may want to overclock the PCs a bit by giving them a few extra stat points and maybe a bonus Feat from an approved list of feats (e.g., Resilient or Skilled is OK but not Great Weapon Master or Sentinel). -The DM should be generous with Inspiration, consumables, and other things that help keep the PCs going.

[@twilightgardenspresentatio6384]

Tailoring a battle to your party is a skill to be practiced. Once you’ve got the hang of adjusting stats to fit your party’s desires, ideals and abilities, it becomes kind of second nature. I often first think of the emotion I want the characters and thusly the players to feel during an encounter and adjust the fight to elicit that reaction. Their investment and tendencies are my cues. Wether it’s fear of loss, utter helplessness, encroaching mortality or fear of divine contempt, a big battle should make them feel something. Those are the stat adjustments that take a bit of work- and really not the stats but the change in decisions and behaviors of the foe and the information that they get or that changes due to an action in combat. If I’m putting work into adjusting the stats for a fight, I expect more than a number crunch and a d20 roll off. It’s work, but it’s pretty worth it.

[@schylerfontenot7358]

As someone currently running curse of strahd for two players, this is all great advice!

[@aarondavidson4093]

Talking 5e, I found that the usual lacklustre difficulty of some settings/modules meant that with 2-3 players: they levelled up quicker and had better access to magic items which felt good at the low-mid level play.

[@mke3053]

Always did that on computer dnd games

[@deedumdim]

I've run with a party of 3 for 2 years now. My players usually seek out what we affectionately refer to as Companions, a la Fallout/Elder Scrolls. They find an NPC they like, convince them to come with them, and eventually if they interact with their NPC often enough and show true interest they'll get a player stat block and level at half the speed of the players until level 10, then they'll level alongside them. We ended up with a Bandit who got converted to a Sun Soul monk who accompanied our fire Genasi forge cleric, an Ogre who became an Eldritch Knight with our Paladin, and now in this game they have a Vampire who is now a Paladin in a campaign against an empire of Vampires. It's been fun for us, and it's done a lot to balance things out since it seems to happen naturally. My players have tried to ask me for specific companions and I've told them "just let it happen man, don't plan for it. Once you get them you can make them whatever class and subclass you want, but you can't just plan to meet Andrew Garfield With Muscles because you think that'll match your character well. You gotta find someone and build that chemistry."

[@pjirp]

When I ran a game with few players, I gave them a DM PC that filled the "spellcaster" role. The caveat I ran with, and make clear to my players, was that this character would never offer a solution to a problem, even if it had a low level spell that could solve it. The players would need to ask the NPC to solve the problem in a way that it could accomplish. When not given direction, it would use cantrips to attack the nearest target in combat. In RP situations, the NPC was essentially not present except when being specifically queried, such as asking for a knowledge check.

[@seanbissett-powell5916]

On occasions where I've dropped down to just a couple of players for a session or two, I've found it a great chance to make a side-quest for them. Kind of like splitting the party but without half the players sitting around bored scrolling through Facebook. Then I make the side quest something which is really RP-heavy with either no combat, or just a little combat tailoreed to who I've got. It's a fabulous way for players to explore their characters personalities and motivations in a situation where they're not all franticalyl competing for the limelight :)

[@Dunston205]

Very timely information. I am running The Lost Mine of Phandelver today. I have 3 players and all spell caster. I was going to do DM NPCs but, now we are going to hire 2 Front Line hirelings. Thanks

[@Ambers128]

I think the barbarian has a hidden 16 intelligence.

[@vickieden1973]

We ran a two-person game in Pathfinder, but used the Mythic rules so that my magus and the other player's paladin were basically superheroes. The DM provided us with a number of (lower-level) potential companions/sidekicks whom we gained the loyalty of over time, so eventually we could pick and choose our extra party members. There was never really an issue with the "DMPC" thing because we - the players - decided who we wanted around, and this could change depending on the scenario. For example, the rogue Elena was geared toward urban scenarios and provided immense support and utility when in town, but we rarely took her into the radioactive wasteland when we went exploring/salvaging because it really just wasn't her thing. Also, having a supporting cast of NPCs that the players could choose to team up with on adventures provided a variety of opportunities for roleplay (and occasionally drama). It doesn't suit every player - some people just don't like having NPCs around at all, and that's fine - but it worked for our game.

[@TractGildart]

The only time I've ever successfully done the DMPC: we were running a wilderness game, with the PCs going out to explore and coming back to town virtually each session. I had a stable of DMPCs that they could choose to hire (one), who would gain their share of the xp and share of the treasure. The trick was that the DMPC was not involved in any of the decision making, and most especially, all the treasure was rolled on the random tables from the DMG, so I literally had no ability to favor "my" character. But that is a very specific situation, and is not something I normally recommend! Side note: at one point in that campaign, two characters (one PC and one DMPC) got captured, and the party went to rescue them, and I let them hire two DMPCs for that one outing. Well they rescued the captured characters, and suddenly not only was I running all the bad guys, but I also had THREE DMPCs in the combat. Many jokes were made about me playing by myself that night.

[@elgatochurro]

Big group problem: don't don't make it Small group problem: feels small but everyone attends

[@EilonwyG]

My friend and I have been playing one on one since we stopped playing with our other two friends due to some issues. We each play about 5 or 6 characters (not unusual for our group) and switch DM from time to time. I'd worried how well things would go only having one player, but we've been playing this way for nearly 2 and a half years and it's been working so much better than I thought it would!

[@zendikarisparkmage2938]

Thanks! I sometimes find myself running games for small groups, especially now that so many people are busy with school, so this advice is really helpful! Also, just in case the algorithm is listening, I want it to know that you, Luke Hart, don't suck.

[@indiana47]

I dm'd a party of 3 from level 1-17 in the starter set and dungeon of the mad mage. It worked out well since I used xp so they got the same amount of xp that a 4 person party would get, but divided among 3 people. That worked pretty well in balancing out the campaign. They still had about 10 floors left at level 17. We also made sure to have our bases covered always having a mage, a frontliner, and healer who was also often the dps too.

[@kliblovescake]

I've been a PC in a gestalt game for PF1e. There was only 3 of us available, so that was the balance introduced. The power climb is dramatic, especially at mid level, so be prepared to throw challenging encounters at the party regularly to keep it interesting. At level 10, we were routinely chewing through CR 15 encounters without too much difficulty

[@CaseyWilkesmusic]

Small party campaign idea: PCs are level 5ish and start their own adventuring guild. They have to find and recruit hirelings, pay them accordingly, perhaps compete with other guilds (ie: factions) who are outbidding them etc. Sounds like an Acq Inc campaign is well suited for this type of work.

[@Wolfphototech]

*[ Opening skit ] But you guys still have Fat Cat the unstoppable fluffy one .*

[@christoferS64]

Some of my most enjoyable sessions have been with 2 or 3 enthusiastic and invested players. I'm currently facing a dwindling group because life happens. They have all been awesome players with a great dynamic, so my biggest concern right now is the shift in group dynamic if we don't find some new folks (or even if we do find some new folks for that matter.)

[@danjbundrick]

Give the PCs a pet with its own action. Way easier than a whole new pc. Plus you get a bear.

Dude, I just started a campaign for two players and this was extremely useful!

[@castorj.b.1257]

I've been trying out the sidekick rules for the first time in my party-of-two group. They are a roguelock and a druid, so I gave them a warrior sidekick starting out to cover more frontline. They also have encounters in places where other npcs (town guards etc) can be dragged in. Kind of expecting that npcs/sidekicks will have to pop in and out as the campaign goes on but as long as the players remain the main characters I'm happy with that.

[@thamiordragonheart8682]

having played in a campaign with 3 players including me, our DM used hirelings to help balance the action economy, but one of the most powerful things was my character taking the healer feat. It heals for a lot of hitpoints without using spell slots and lets you get people back up off the ground in combat without a dedicated healer, especially the couple of times we had a big fight without any backup, the healer feat was the only thing between us and a TPK.

[@GiblixStudio]

For Hirelings I like using the setup from MCDM's Warfare. Where you have an NPC half the level of the PC's. And with 1 basic attack and a special flavorfull attack. At lvl 3-5-7-10 they get an additional cool thematic attack. So you end up with basically a monster statblock that is very to the point. At my table getting NPC's to follow the group around for carrying goods, hound masters to guard the camp at night etc is pretty standard already. Meaning they can setup a "forward camp" with some of their NPC hirelings/followers to join them. Easy peasy. Creating encounters is tricky and requires a lot of experience from the DM and knowing his group of players. Everything needs to be adjusted anyway to account for the PC's playstyle and party setup. If you got a mostly ranged party... good luck with regular warriors thrown at them. They're dead before they get close to the PC's. So I just give them more hp as well as Multi Attack's way to early. Action Economy is a better way to handle things. However you also need to take the map into consideration. By standard I make sure the enemies are 10-20% advantaged in Action Economy at the start of pretty much any encounter. Then give leading figures an ability to get fallen enemies back on their foot, but at only 1hp.... creating a more eb-flow to combat. Its funny how most players can't handle 2 PC's and roleplay them. While we as DM run hundreds, if not thousands. Switching between them as if its nothing. Players are so cognitively weak in comparison ;)

[@amandawhittemore5078]

You'll never know how much I watch your channel and soak up information. I'm running as DM for the first time and I'm new to the game. I've played only 4 games and didn't like how the Dm screwed us over and other bad DM stuff. I love your take on the game. I agree with almost all your advice. I've gamed for my group 5 times already. Going strong 💪

[@emessar]

I think 5E is a lot more forgiving than some of the previous editions with "filling roles" ... notably healing full HP with a long rest. You could take that a step further and let PC's heal half or full HP with a short rest as well. One more idea might be to give the PC's a legendary action each, max HP, and let them bank more inspiration. That can make them more survivable and adaptable. Traditionally, I always used to use DM-run NPC's to fill in the gaps. While I don't have a problem with the PC's controlling an NPC these days, I think most players would rather not have to mess with it. I think DM-run NPC's are fine as long as they are there to follow orders and not give input. Making sure they follow orders means that the players are still in control of them ... just without the burden of running it.

[@brunoethier896]

I found that a Bard makes a good NPC to reinforce a party of 2 or 3, because he will not outshine the more specialised roles, yet will be able to fill in for a missing spellcaster, healer or skill monkey. Plus it's the easiest way to get the party into trouble, point them in a direction or to supply lore.

[@Shalloworldmx]

I'm part of a party of 6 adventurers plus DM. We rarely play all together, most of the sessions I play with my character and the PC of the person who didn't show up. It is SUPER fun :D

[@garrettlaturski6703]

I had a game that was just my dad(DM), my brother and I. My dad ran a DMPC Rawr, the Kenku Cleric. Due to the curse of the kenku, and his fairly poor stats, Rawr wasn't much use out of combat, besides healing. Which was really a good thing.

[@Isheian]

I’ve run a DMPC for a small group. It was 4E and he was a Dragonborn cleric, he fought well, used spells intelligently, and was often drunk and useless otherwise. Or doing work for the church. So there to keep the party alive and nothing else. Not gonna say it’s perfect but it worked.

[@johntodd6413]

I would add that when balancing encounters, always assume at least one crit. If I'm test running the encounter I always assume that everyone crits on the first round on the biggest threat closest to them. This has saved enough of my villians for them to at least have a round 2 and saved some of my players from being instantly downed.

[@Moorudel]

For low player campaing which is the one im running lately, i use the tashas sidekick to create party companions for tasks or elements they lack when a player is missing, however i make them choose which of their companions they bring on their missions. However in order to avoid my players using the sidekicks as scapegoats for dangerous situations i combine having an emotional attachment to the player with the promise of rewards if they manage to bring them back alive. This also is good to allow my player to try other classes that wouldn't normally use, for example the barbarian in my group i make her use the companion rogue or wizard they have, when the monk or the bard are missing form the session.

[@blackdragoness21]

I enjoy your content! Please don't stop making videos!

[@ancientdarkmagic1409]

Running game for a small group is a lot more smoother than a big group. Also you can do a lot of things in a session with a small group.

[@wills8611]

I’ve run DM pc’s before, but they’re more support characters. I only learned this from a previous group back in 2nd edition where we were fortunate enough to have all four players take turns DMing in our four person gaming group.

[@bakuiel1901]

I haven't commented in awhile but this is great advice. I am trying to figure out running a game with a single player and I think hirelings/NPCs he can control in combat is the way to go. He's running a game where I play 4 PCs and I think it reduces the roleplaying since I have nobody to play off of.

[@theldun1]

KZbin TheDMLair doesn't suck!

[@RiptornRory]

I am currently running a campaign that only has two players in it, and simply adding one NPC to the group and giving them the basics to run the NPC has helped a lot to get beyond what would've been more roleplaying focused when my players enjoy combat. Having each of them control an NPC, could be fun but would still be a bit of work to make it function when a single NPC joining the group is much easier to run the roleplaying of the character myself but letting the players make the decisions in combat. In the past I have played in a game where it was just the DM and I, who allowed me to run 3 PCs, and I had a lot of fun despite the drain of thinking of everyone in the party versus just yourself.

[@SakraIgor0qNomoko]

My main problem with small groups is that they give up on the session if one of them is missing. When I'm a DM, the players don't want to play when there's still 2-3 around. When I'm a player, sometimes the DM will call it with 4 players ready to go. "Guess we'll have to call off the session now" No, you don't have to call anything. Just 1 player is enough.

[@robofthewest]

I ran a "guard" NPC for a group with a NO SHOW player. I started with all innocence (really and truly I did), but after saving the day in the final battle and finally "hearing" the PCs cheering the name of our heroic npc yet again (was that sarcasm in the air?) realized the "pit" I had so completely "fall"en into. I resolved that if in that situation again, they would be responsible for running any helper npc. Lesson learned.

[@philipplyanguzov9090]

In my experience running 2 games with 3 players, the biggest thing is that hybrid classes are your friend. A 5e paladin or PF2e magus can easily fill 2-3 roles and an arcane trickster rogue or gunslinger can fill the rest.

[@TheSpiritBolt]

I've ran a DMPC to play with my wife since it's just her and I, my PC is usually passive as far as the story goes and just acts as a familiar face for her to RP with, and to be an extra body in battle. Then i just cut the smaller mob count in half when using premade encounters, since there's only 2 of us. When making encounters I usually try to make the enemies fewer and beefier, then drag fights on until we use up the amount of resources I find adequate, so that we have interesting adventures. By the end of each long rest having used most if not all of our resources adds to the tension and acts as a huge pay off for her when we finish a mission/quest/job.

[@Zahnpuppy]

I've run a DM PC. I think it went pretty well. It was just vicious mockery and haste. All about buffing and cracking jokes. His goal was to do as little work as possible. And to keep out of danger. But he wanted to a good story to write. So he tagged along.

[@thomasford4716]

I appreciate your work good sir. This really helps with my campaign with one PC.

[@theDMLair]

You are very welcome! Always happy to help. :-)

[@wdyd_masterattwitch4956]

Adding to what you said, give the players summons or the ability to cast summon spells. Conjure animals might be a bit much. Give them an item that lets them summon a weaker elemental/beast/plant or whatever. Maybe it also gets stronger with them. I gave my barbarian a headband that allows him to summon a ghost that's trapped inside (just no possession ability and the PC is immune to the horrifying visage ability). You can have it act at the end of the PCs turn (kind of have its own turn), or the PC has to use their bonus action to control them. If you need ideas, look at steel defenders or wild fire druid. Also, the biggest con to summons is that it bogs down combat. That shouldn't be an issue when it comes to small groups.

[@kurtoogle4576]

Good advice, coach! Keep at it!

[@edwardbirdsall6580]

You can also reward the players that showed up with a premium consumable magic item. An extreme example would be a item with a wish spell. Or a tome which enhances an ability score. Or pasties made with rutabaga, meat and potatoes and carrots.

[@murgel2006]

There is also the option of using (or house ruling) a system that is not as strict on skills and abilities as D&D is. D&D is class-based, use a skill-based system. My favourite system gives all characters access to all skills, except magic. At the start, the classes vary widely in the various skill levels but over time the player can develop the skillset he wants for his character. Stuff like spell casting or divine casting is still somewhat restricted but could be acquired with some effort. So "classes" are mostly only a method of determining the starting skill- and value-sets for the character. Such systems make exceptionally good rulesets for small groups.

[@andrewtomlinson5237]

If your group is small and it doesn't look likely its getting bigger any time soon, just plan the sessions accordingly. If you are running a pre-made, just go through and adjust the numbers to balance it to your group. If you are relying on 3rd party NPC's to cover the lack of muscle, you are just creating more work IN game, and stealing the Heroes' thunder. But if you prep it to account for your party, the game runs faster and the players aren't waiting for the DM to play the hirelings. Giving players "hirelings" to control can quickly turn into a procession of cannon fodder meat-shields, who end up sacrificing themselves for the players. (Bad role playing! Naughty player!!!) And nobody wants the Deus Ex DMPC to solve all the problems... apart from those DMs who would rather be playing than DMing. Or those really bad ones who just want to be in control of everything. The whole thing about adjusting encounters to suit smaller parties not being realistic is, frankly, a bit silly. You show me any campaign where the encounters don't increase in difficulty in line with the power creep of the party and 1st to 3rd level characters are fighting Ancient Red Dragons and Fire Giant Hoards because well... that's what happened to be in the place where they went...and I'll say "OK you got me!" there's the "realism" of wandering the lands and "encountering" stuff... The entire premise of the advancement structure of the game has been built on matching the challenge to what is technically achievable by the players. It's your job as DM to make those challenges achievable whilst not becoming too easy. THAT ability to balance what the players meet with their ability to cope with it, is what every good DM strives to achieve. (Or it SHOULD be...) If you find yourself in the situation where you are suddenly down on your normal group size due to external commitments, then be prepared. This WILL happen. Seriously... it WILL happen. Even with very committed groups, that day will come when you suddenly find yourself down to a couple of players. Have something in your back pocket for this. Have a shorter, lighter adventure, or something that doesn't need a lot of combat. Quick example... Some research based quest to find a book, and the guy who owns the book wants item X in exchange... the guy with object X wants object Y in exchange for it, and so on... and they have to role play their way down the chain until they find the NPC who they can deal with because the party has the thing they want. Or have that final item be in a short Crypt type adventure. Maybe the guy with item Y doesn't like the idea of the man who wants it getting his hands on it, so the players might have to persuade him... This can also be an ideal time to run a "Puzzle Quest". Have the players stay overnight in a haunted mansion... lots of creepy atmosphere, and hidden passageways and rooms, and a few jump scares here and there. Uncovering the secrets and laying the spirits to rest become the objectives rather than "KILL THE UNDEAD!!!" These sorts of things actually work better with small groups. Make it a fun side quest rather than a major campaign imperative. While you are sitting here watching KZbin, you could be writing it... right now! Then you have it and its ready to go when the day comes when you are down to a couple of players!!! What the players who couldn't make it to the session won't like is if the smaller party was able to complete some massive campaign objective while they were away. And the last thing they will want to hear is "Well, you should have been here..."

[@MemphiStig]

I find it mostly depends on the DM's goals and how they choose or design scenarios.When I started playing (1e), we always had small groups (DM+2 or 3). Multiple characters per player (usually 2 each) was the norm. (And I always played a cleric.) Some DMs would run a support NPC, but not always, typically of equal or higher level. When we played thru I6 (the OG Ravenloft), 3 players each had 3 characters, and the DM had an NPC, slightly higher level than the group average, but he was also, thru some unfortunate circumstances, the first one to fall to the Big Bad. And we each commonly had a couple of permanent magic items as well as a small number of expendables. (And in those days, wands and other charged items were consumable, none of this auto recharge molly coddle nonsense.) But we also never had hirelings, retainers, or followers. Or animal companions other than the occasional/rare familiar. We played some with one pc each, often in complex games like Rolemaster, Mechwarrior, and Marvel Super-Heroes. But it was a long time before I gamed with more than 3 players with only one each.

[@tscoff]

When I DM I tell my players that they’re going to run into some encounters where combat will take one round because they’re heroes and they’re better than normal town guards. And they’re also going to run into some encounters where they’ll barely survive because they’re heroes and they run towards things that everyone else runs away from.

[@ernesthakey3396]

My players also know that combat doesn't have to be the only way to handle an encounter, and that some encounters cannot be solved through combat...

[@scottwoods9071]

I have a 3 player group that DM for. I recently had them come up against a Frost Giant at level 3. I am glad they chose to run and not fight it.

[@shinjiecary01]

I’ve also gave my players a bonus action to take potions to help survive. The two classes and bonus action potion has helped my players survive a lot of encounter’s.

[@leonkheric]

I found out that using constructs as DMPCs works very well to help the party without stealing the spotlight from the players. Many of my DMPCs for small parties were constructs, programed with an "AI" for combat and programed to receive orders from the PCs. So my construct rogue will not scout the dungeon on his own, but if the players order them to do it, they will. This way I can help the group without giving aswers to puzzles or controlling the path they take.

[@Negeta]

I’ve been using gestalt rules for a small game. I have just one player, so I’ve been running them with a DMPC. The DMPC is pretty much just a “yes man” with occasional insights. In the end, having two gestalt characters is like having three PCs. They have more resources, but that action economy is limiting. I’m order to lighten my DM load of having to alter every encounter in the module, I’m having enemies deal half damage and am currently halving enemy hit points. I might have to find another method of slightly lowering enemy hp rather than completely half, but it’s otherwise going well. Fights can still feel dangerous, but my player often plows through low level monsters and feels powerful doing so. How I adapted the gestalt rules was that you get the proficiency bonus appropriate for your level as normal, and you take the best of the two classes spellcasting options (i.e. a Paladin/sorcerer would have full casting like a sorcerer, but not also have a second set of spell slots for Paladin spells). From there, I gave all the skill, tool, and saving throw proficiencies each class offers. Your PCs will have a lot of skills individually, but it’ll be as many as you might expect to see in a party twice their size. For ASIs, I give a both a stat increase and a feat, but not two of one or the other. Your gestalt characters will end up with good stats because of this, but they need them. An enemy hold person sucks in a group of four PCs, but is decimating in a group of two. From there, use your discretion. As with normal multiclassing, take the best of “Extra Attack” features, not both. I’d follow other multiclassing rules for what things stack. That does mean a warlock/full caster multiclass would get a pact magic spell slots and normal spell slots. It’s a lot of resources, but the players will burn through them pretty quickly. So far, gestalt has worked well for me. I’ll have to hash out enemy hp and damage a bit more to see if I’m satisfied fully. A PC with resistances ends up essentially taking a quarter damage, which might not be threatening enough. Sometimes, it feels like they have immunity, taking maybe 1 damage a hit. If you’ve got a barbarian in the party, maybe try rolling minimum monster damage or perhaps reducing enemy damage dice by a step (an enemy longsword would do a 1d6 damage and a dagger would do a 1d2 or even just 1).

[@altbusto]

Im running a 3 man and they love the 33% time split, versus the 20% or less you get with 5+. I get much more time per character to flesh them out - and I personally enjoy the gaps in their party as a DM. Them not having ways to solve usual puzzles / combat (lockpicking, healing, arcana, languages, etc) leads to them finding more unique solutions or looking towards other npcs for help/guidance. I think not having everything leads to way more opportunities!

[@Robert-bm2jr]

I love the Hero Quest game screen.

[@Damini368]

My response as a player to the “there are only two of you and you can expect enemies to be archers and melee with some casters” dilemma would be to go artificer. Take on the front line role for a few levels and then leave it mostly up to a steel defender after.

[@Jhaiisiin]

I've got 2 small groups I'm DMing for. One is a single player (my son) playing a dwarf barbarian to whom I gave a wolf sidekick and a DMPC nature cleric who pretty much always follows the PC's ideas and orders and acts as a common sense alert to help him learn the game and not make really bad decisions. The 2nd group is 2 PCs playing a bard and a sorcerer who like to avoid combat, so I've tailored all their encounters in ways that they can avoid combat in most cases since they're both reasonably squishy. They've inherited a pseudodragon healer sidekick as well, just in case. So many of Luke's ideas here are entirely valid and useful. Just gotta be creative and careful with what you do. In the early stages when you're trying to figure out what the balance looks like, it's okay to pull your punches against the PCs. They shouldn't die while you're still figuring out how to challenge them without straight murdering them all the time. Eventually, the two groups will likely merge into one, though the DMPC cleric will likely be called to do something else so I can stop running him.

[@BigCowProductions]

I let my players have a floating npc slot, in which they can hire/request one of the NPCs they know and have cultivated relationships with to adventure with them. They prefer I play them in battle as well, but I wouldn't mind them controlling them. When doing so, I always make sure to do a lower end kinda autopilot version of their play, based on how that npc would act, and then let the players guide them in-character for planning for more. In addition, I'm letting the players also have a sidekick type slot. They each get an animal companion, using Dungeon Coach's Rules. One of the two players wanted a story one, but the other wants a bear. So that'll be fun. They could hire, then, up to one more (to fill the sidekick slot for player 1) person to come with that they would have to control. The thing with the npc party slot, is I make sure that the NPC has their own life, so that they can't just keep the same npc the whole time and have to make more friends to bring with on things. Currently, they have a Ranger/Warlock, Wizard, and Psion/Wizard. Technically also a Paladin/Fighter, too, but she is specific to the story since she is the boss of one of the players and is stationed at a city (like the ranger/lock).

[@skylarwilson9680]

I'm my first campaign we started with 3 players, one player dropped out around 4th level. So to keep action economy up, I ended up playing 2 PCs, and it is really fun. My original character was a Dragonborn Light Cleric, and I played him as a total outlander and prude. So when I had to make another I made a Human, War Cleric (same class for ease, i was still new to the game but they had very different play styles) but I made that PC a girl, towngaurd, and sexually active to make sure that there was a definite split and easy to tell them apart. We play RP heavy in our game, and the other player came back when we were around 9th, and everyone loves both my characters. So advice to anyone looking to play two characters, keeping the personality of your characters on opposite ends of the spectrum makes separating them easy and both the players and DM know who's talking and doing what and helps the flow of conversation. And sometimes you have to narrativly set one character aside. At times my Dragonborn goes out to get food, (outlander background) so I can focus on my Human. Sometimes my Human goes on gaurd duty so I can focus on the Dragonborn. There are several other ways and times I did this, just depending on what was happening in the story and it works out well and sometimes better then 'the whole group stays together no matter what, because plot/gameplay'.

[@Shadowkitty360]

Honestly I'm prone to making weak encounters as a dm so usually running a group of two or three players is perfect for me 😂

[@charemchavrutah]

I came upon this video looking for tips for a small group I’m planning to run Dragon of Icespire Peak. How very curious that your top suggestions of NPC helpers and easier access to consumable magic items are pretty much exactly what this module does.

[@jonathanschmitt5762]

13:58 Uncle Sam x The DM Lair. Edit: 16:05 it also allows them to min-max a lot, since this sounds a lot like upgraded multiclassing.

[@AngryJ0KER]

I just gave my party of two level 8s each an epic boon. They were pretty excited

[@illyon1092]

even taking action economy and other power balance into account, there is another grave issue with running combat for two PCs. It's dropping to 0 hit points. In a party of four, one PC falling unconscious means there are still three other adventurers that can protect their ally, stabilise him or get him back into the fight while they fend off their enemies. In a party of two, you don't have that luxury. When either of them falls, all combat capability is immediately cut down to half. Save for _healing word_ (if you even have access to the spell, which really isn't a given here), you need an entire action to remedy that; but an action is not something you can easily spare when you're literally the last man standing against your foes. I run for two players. In my games, dropping to 0 hit points is a significant matter. I don't need house rules to make it more meaningful, or bear severe consequences. When either one of the two PCs drops, a TPK immediately starts looming ahead; and the tension of the combat encounter skyrockets.

[@theDMLair]

That is an excellent point. Dang. That's a total spiral a death in that situation.

[@theDMLair]

Stupid voice to text translated a non swear word into a swear word. Does Google not know who I am by now?

[@illyon1092]

maybe Google already associates your use of the abbreviation "VTT" with swearing. It may know you better than you'd like. Atrocious puns aside though, I'll definitely incorporate your advice into my games. I hadn't considered handing out more magic items, but it's going to be an excellent way of both giving more tools to the under-equipped party and ensuring they have some resources to spare at will if they need extra power in combat.

[@morrigankasa570]

I simply refuse to play with TPK or even individual player death being possible except in the most extreme circumstances. If the player character happens to be knocked out, they lose half the experience from the encounter and pop back up with a new permanent scar/marking (basically similar to Fable series).

[@andrewhalmo656]

In the famous words of Monty Python, “RUN AWAY!!!”

[@andrewhalmo656]

Even though it doesn’t work for every encounter, having something like a tabaxi rogue that can use a bonus action to disengage or dash and use its ability to quadruple its speed is very useful. Also in addition, if you have time, you can set up your own traps to slow them down or even possibly kill some of them.

[@theDMLair]

Of course if you're running away from every encounter... LOL

[@nxla6836]

I have the joy of running a game for 3 players. While combat and such are not a problem, my issue is when one (sometimes two) of the players can't make it. Losing the tank just before a battle is not such a good thing. Or the ranger when tracking an important NPC or monster through the wilderness. So usually when one drops, the whole group drops. It can be really frustrating when I've spent a few hours getting things ready to find out we won't be playing twenty minutes before start.

[@thecrow4461]

I run a game for two players so to help I use npc’s and The closest thing I have to dm pc’s is a tiny dragon that is cursed and can’t speak. She acts like a puppy that breaths cold death from above. It is fun and gives the player a tiny boost in power

[@Comicsluvr]

One of the best games I was ever in was a REALLY basic party. We had a Cleric (who was very much a 'preaching' type, always praising his deity), A Fighter (who believed in a different deity), and a Rogue (who was Agnostic in that he understood that there really WERE gods but none of them created everything). The RP alone was worth it.

[@michaelramon2411]

A small group is the best circumstances to deploy a GMPC in, because it is clearly to the players' benefit. This is especially true if the GMPC covers skills or abilities that the PCs need. As long as the GM has the GMPC be relatively passive and follow the PCs' lead, things should be fine. (If the GM can handle the extra work, of course - though handing over the GMPC's sheet during combat or asking the group "Okay, what does Monsi do this round?" helps with that while also increasing player investment.)

[@MarquisangelodeSade]

Hey KZbin, this guys channel doesn't suck.