Tips for running a 3 man low op game

[Albions_Angel]

Hi all.

After going round literally everyone I know, I have only been able to get 3 players for a game. They are all super keen. I have never run a 3 man before. Ive never even run a 4 man. The smallest I have run was a 5 man. Aside from toning down some encounters, what tips are there? They are all new to 3.5e, and 2 are new to D&D. Id rather not run a DMPC if I can avoid it, but I can tweak the story to make healing available from the get go, and hirelings accessible at a discount.

[BerronBrightaxe]

stuff like: consider scaling down the numbers of enemies: 140 trash goblins. Give the BBEG 10 less hp. Also consider giving them a downpayment partially in items: 2 potions of CLW or a mw sword instead of gold

if they need something ever specific (a Ranger with track), you can have him/her come along as a 'guide'.

most importantly, just wing it: if things go well and easy, throw in some extra. If it is hard, the mooks can have some unlucky rolls (just don't tell them :smallcool:)

[The Kool]

Alright there's a few things you need to know. Firstly, these three players are hopefully all willing to engage and you don't have any background players. Not much to be done about that but fingers crossed, eh? But what can you all do to help the situation?

Party design: Cover your bases. Don't leave a role wide open. You don't need a dedicated healer but you want someone who can use a wand of CLW. (A 20-charge wand of it is only 300gp.) The party needs to make sure they work well together, and it's a good idea to have someone capable of tanking in some fashion, someone capable of handling social situations, someone capable of handling traps, and someone who can put out respectable damage. A caster in the group is a good thing, of course, but none of these aspects are strictly required. You can work around what they choose a fair bit, but if the party is a Rogue, a Bard, and a multiclass Sorcerer/Monk then you're going to have to be well aware they will have trouble with a lot of scenarios.

Encounter design: Aside from keeping in mind what your party is missing, there's a good rule to follow: Stronger party needs stronger enemies, bigger party needs more enemies. If you have an encounter that was fine with 5 PCs and tone down their numbers, it may still prove a challenge if it's the same number of opponents. (That said, being overwhelmed like that may be an interesting Bad Situation to get out of.)

Ultimately 3 PCs will work fine if they all engage and communicate and work together.

[Elkad]

I played with DM+3 players for many years in 1st and 2nd edition.

Our solution, instead of DMPCs and henchmen, was to simply run 2 characters each.

I think 6 is the optimal party size anyway, so I'm happy with that.

[The Kool]

I played with DM+3 players for many years in 1st and 2nd edition.

Our solution, instead of DMPCs and henchmen, was to simply run 2 characters each.

I think 6 is the optimal party size anyway, so I'm happy with that.

I do not recommend this, especially not for new players. If you find that one each doesn't work, you can give it a try, but consider this a very strong suggestion that you get used to D&D playing only one character each before you even consider this. If you're playing it as a wargame/tactical combat game, then it doesn't make much difference, but unless you're talented it will hamper the roleplaying portion of the game.

[Mike Miller]

The biggest thing in my experience with different sized groups becomes action economy. The DM can change the power level of the enemies to match the party, but even weaker enemies will be deadly if there are too many. Start small and work things up to where it seems appropriate.

[heavyfuel]

Personally, I think DM+3 is the absolutely best game setup. You're in luck.

There should really be no problems with party composition, but multiclassing is to be expected, especially dips. Since they are all new, I honestly suggest you building competent characters and letting them pick from a roster of ~6 pre-built characters.

Unless you're planning to do away with traps altogether, two things that are almost required are Trapfinding and Lesser Vigor spell to use Wands. Make sure they have access to these things. Now the party can deal with traps and Healing is no longer a problem.

Like I said, this doesn't mean you need a Cleric and a Rogue. Cloistered Cleric dips are pretty common as are Rogue and Factotum dips. (Though Rogues and Clerics are staple archetypes, and I recommend you having them in the roster)

New players shouldn't start high level, but I'm very against them starting at Lv 1, since lv 1 characters are so squishy and have no fun abilities. For me, lv 3 is the perfect level to start at.

[Mars Ultor]

Big fights should be limited, they should be sneaking or role-playing their way around obstacles. Make sure they can avoid group combat. They can't get through the Hobgoblins at the main gate, but maybe there's just one guy at the side door.

Make them use their skills and be generous with common knowledge. They should be able to gather some helpful information and have somewhat easy opportunities to climb things or even search around for clues.

Give them places to hole up. If they've invaded a dungeon, let them find places where the can rest and/or discuss things where no one is going to try to stomp them.

Encourage role-playing. The campaign should require them to negotiate and haggle and just talk to people. Not everything has to be a fight.

An NPC may be helpful early on, just as a guide or to provide hints. "Do you think we should look for a secret door?" or "Maybe the people gossiping at the well know something." If he's going to participate in combat, he needs to know what they want him to do. He'll just stand there and use his bow, if they want him to help, or flank, or do something specifically, they've got to tell him, he's not going to act on his own.

[The Kool]

On the topic of involving NPCs: Make sure any NPC brought along has a distinct role and reason to be there. Guides, merchants, quest-sponsors and the like almost never get involved in a fight. The best option is to ignore them and assume they stay out of the way, but protecting them might be an interesting scenario. Guards and footmen brought along aren't good for much other than getting between the players and the foes, but that can be the difference for survival in some situations. Generally these guys will be ignored until a fight breaks out.

[Elkad]

I do not recommend this, especially not for new players.


I did miss the "new players" bit. So I'll retract in that case.

[Eldariel]

You can check the campaign journal in my signature. The party has two characters plus a DMPC, who kind of takes the backseat for combat anyways, but they do just fine. It's a no-magic game but the VP/WP system means healing is not needed. If that's not the case in your case, you can just supply them with Wands of Cure Light Wounds and someone who can use them (lest the party has one).

[Ken Murikumo]

You said you would rather not have DMPC, but using a very low maintenance one is usually ok.

I've done it before, mostly for a small DPR boost and something to give the enemies just one more target. For me, i usually make a fighter or monk and even sometimes make them a level below the party if the party seems to be doing alright.

If you make one, make them sort of good at only one thing, like melee combat, but never better than anyone in the party at that ONE thing. If you need a healer, make a Healer (as per the minis-handbook). Give them a likable and (mostly) helpful personality and only help the players with plot/roleplay stuff if directly asked.

If one of more of your players gets really comfortable with the system and wants to try a new character, allow them to try making another character and let them run both.

[radthemad4]

How about a DMPC that isn't sapient? Like a Hippogriff (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/hippogriff.htm) or something. Have the players decide its actions. If a hippogriff advances hit die, it can someday become huge sized and carry the three party members around.

[The Kool]

Well that gets into the distinction of DMPC vs NPC. An NPC is someone that just tags along and helps, is primarily reactive, and 9 times out of 10 will not overshadow the PCs. A DMPC is designed to be equal to the PCs, on their level, and it can strain party dynamics when that PCs input may be needed on something but that would essentially being asking the DM to solve the problem they put forward. It's awkward and can lead to resentment far too easily, to include a DMPC. Having an NPC like a hippogriff is a different matter.

[Max Zoren]

What Mike Miller said about the action economy is spot on. My recommendation is to scale down the encounters rather than adding NPCs as this keeps the focus on the players. Keeping the number of enemies manageable is key, if you need to out number the PCs have the enemy in groups that are a little split up. 6 goblins could swarm 3 PCs in melee but 3 goblins in melee and 3 shooting short bows is more manageable.

A lot depends on what the characters are and in particular which of the roles of fighter, mage, healer and sneak are missing from the party.

Look at the party's healing, all parties should have at least 2 people capable of healing and the smaller the party the more important this is as there are less people to protect the healer. Healing belts are ideal as anyone can use them and they are limited to 3 uses per day. This is good because the party doesn't have the massive healing a charged item can give in a day but it never runs out and can be used by anyone, on anyone.

If the party is heavy on casters point them towards summoning so they can have a disposable meat shield, this can also help with action the economy.

[The Kool]

If the party is heavy on casters point them towards summoning so they can have a disposable meat shield, this can also help with action the economy.

Animal companions can also serve this purpose, as a sidenote.

[Biguds]

What about just DMing as the books say? Calculate the average party level, throw encounters with ND as appropriate, don't try to chance monsters to much. Just don't make they fight a bunch of classed enemies every time, use taticts as expect for creatures of the Type they are (Like, what wild animals will fight to dead? Which bandit will still fight after seeing his partner burning to dead?).

But, also, remember that the system expect a party with arcane magic, divine magic, social skills, surviving skills and combat skills. How they do it doesn't matter, really.

[rel]

The thing that always catches me in these situations is 'you must have this much cleric to play' monsters. Things with really nasty debuffs that can only be cured by a cleric of level X with spell Y prepared.

Examples include green hags, chaos beasts, alips, cockatrices, mummies and things with potent poison or disease.

Not only can these types of creatures flat out TPK parties (especially small parties) with a few poor saving throws but they can cripple a character long term or cause auto failure of a time sensitive mission by imposing a difficult to remove condition.

Scan the stat block of any monster you plan to use for problem effects and modify or remove them or use a different monster.


Linked to that, consider removing any 'roll well to keep playing' ability or effect. Debuffs that remove a player entirely from participating like paralysis, stunning, unbreakable sleep or the like.
Being told 'Sorry but you rolled badly. You cannot participate in the game for the next hour while we wrap up this fight and cure your character. Just go buy the pizza.' Is no fun.


Your players are new so don't hesitate to make things easier. Come up with a few ways to get past each obstacle and if the players come up with something clever don't shut it down automatically.

Throw in extra clues. You might know casting detect magic and searching for secret doors is common practice but your players don't. And finding 3 or 4 in world clues that all point the players to search corridor 3a for secret passages is a lot more satisfying than having the GM turn to the players and say 'You missed something. Maybe your should roll for secret doors some more.'


Keep the stakes low. The players should feel comfortable failing a quest. To facilitate this the results of failure should not be too dire. 'The bandit chief and his gang got away with the barons taxes and the baron isn't inviting you to the grand ball' is good. 'The bandit chief burnt your starting village to the ground, all the friendly NPC's introduced last session are now dead' is not good.


Setting things up to keep the game going in the event of the unforseen is also helpfull. 'Ming the Merciless captured you. You all dead.' Is a bad end.
'Ming's rebellious daughter is so impressed by your heroism she opens your cells. The next session will be a dramatic prison escape.' Is a good continuation.
The difference between these two scenarios is including the rebellious daughter eager to help heroes to spite her dad when world building.


That's probably enough rambling from me. Good luck.