Rpgs for a very small group of players

[nikolamat]

I was wondering if there are any pen and paper rpgs that are good for a very small group of 3/4 people (not sure if one of us is gonna play). Which means we have a DM and 2/3 player characters. We've played Pathfinder And Rouge Trader together. In Rogue trader the DM played 10 full fledged NPCs commandeering the ship and he practically had to argue with himself on some topics and combat was a real hassle because the DM had to play all the enemies and more then half of us. On our Pathfinder campaign we played with only 2 PCs and a DM, so we didn't even have the normal MMO dynamic (Tank, Dps and healer) so we couldn't fight most of the monsters because we would get on 3 hp after just a few encounters with goblins. Are there any rpgs which are built for a small number of players? I was thinking of a Shadowrun campaign in which the players only played soldiers (adepts, magicians, street samurai or Riggers) and the NPCs would play deckers and technomancers or vice versa. That way if the PCs played soldiers it would be a combat heavy campaign and they could do all the combat and i could just roll some dice on whether the deckers succeeded, Or if PCs played deckers I could roll for the soldiers and the deckers would hack things and it would be a more hack focused campaign. Are there any rpgs which are built for 2/3 PCs and would my idea with shadowrun work? Do Deckers and Technomancers really have little to none involvement in regular combat or have i just misinterpreted it.
P.S. We would play practically any genre of RPG we like most of them
P.P.S. Don't tell me to find other people in my country no one else plays RPGs I've tried looking for people before.

[dethkruzer]

I've been running a d&d 3.5 game, started around level eight, now ECL 34-ish, for one player. He had a pair of NPC party members helping out for most of the pre-epic levels, and now is mostly going solo. A smaller party could benefit from starting at a slightly higher level.

[neonchameleon]

3-4 players?

There's troupe play, obviously. Where each of you has more than one PC - this works fairly well for rules light games to a set goal (like oD&D). Or you can go for games that give a lot of character spotlight time. The obvious one here to me would be Fate Core (3-6 players). Although I'm pretty sure that Apocalypse World would work well even with so few players, and GURPS would let you handle it pretty well.

And the other obvious one for only a couple of PCs, of course, is Dr Who: Adventures in Time And Space.

[The Rose Dragon]

I would suggest Anima Prime and Nine Worlds, which actually benefit from smaller groups, being largely based on character development and interaction. Nine Worlds is free on RPGNow.com, while Anima Prime is available, sans art, on its own website.

[The Dark Fiddler]

I think point buy based games will work significantly better than class-based games, first of all, for two major reasons. The first is that it's much easier to tailor the enemies to the skills and abilities of the players that you do have (not that that's impossible in, say, 3.5, but since you're doing that already in point buy systems it's less EXTRA work), and the second is that it's easier to cover all of your bases when it comes to skills.

3.5, Pathfinder, and 4e would probably be bad games to play with small groups. Fate Core was recommended before, Mutants and Masterminds I know can work as well, and games like Don't Rest Your Head are better with smaller groups, actually. Any game can work, though, with the right DM.

[Beleriphon]

Mutants and Masterminds is a good choice. It takes a bit of work on the GM's part to get the fight and balance of the game right with less players but it is entirely doable. As a superhero game it even makes sense, there are plenty of superhero duos or teams of three.

[SethoMarkus]

Every game I've played in for 3.5 has been DM + 2 to 4 players. Generally speaking, it's only a matter of the DM balancing the encounters. A group of 2-3 players will face less encounters total, or the same number of encounters but weaker enemies, than a group of 5-6 players. With ample planning, I don't see why D&D 3.5 would have issue with any number of players.

Then again, most of those games were caster heavy, one group being a warmage, cleric, and druid together... so we may have been slightly better prepared than the "average" adventuring party...

[Jay R]

Any game with henchmen and hirelings, of course.

[Mutazoia]

Star Wars (D6 version)
Gurps
Dr. Who RPG (Any version)
Call of Chulhu

Or, just to throw out some obscure games:

TFOS (Teenagers from Outter Space) (Based loosely on the old cartoon Galaxy High)
BESM (Big Eyes Small Mouth) (anime RPG)
Aliens RPG (based on the movie)
Amber Diceless Roleplay (Based on the books by Roger Zalazney)
Albedo (Furries in Space)
Car Wars (Also by Steve Jackson Games..think Mad Max the RPG)

[nikolamat]

Mutants and Masterminds is a good choice. It takes a bit of work on the GM's part to get the fight and balance of the game right with less players but it is entirely doable. As a superhero game it even makes sense, there are plenty of superhero duos or teams of three.

Which edition is best and why? Also are there any pre-published adventures for villains and can you really play a villains/anti-heroes?

[The Rose Dragon]

I prefer 3rd Edition, personally, as the lockdown powers such as Transform or Stun have been streamlined to work closer to the damage system, which makes them slightly more balanced. But 2nd Edition is closer to its d20 System roots, and has more support due to being around for much longer, including extensive mecha rules (which can be ported over to 3rd Edition, but it takes a bit of effort).

[Kaun]

3 or 4 players is right in the sweet spot i thought?!?

[Grod_The_Giant]

Which edition is best and why? Also are there any pre-published adventures for villains and can you really play a villains/anti-heroes?

A lot of people on the Green Ronin forums still like 2e. It has the advantage of having been out for a long time, and it has lots of sourcebooks and such.

3e, the current version, is probably my favorite RPG, and has a free SRD that has (I think) literally the entire contents of the core rulebook, which is, honestly, everything you'll ever need to play, due to the way character creation works. Speaking of which, I think that's an area that changed significantly since 2e, and is-- in my opinion-- the coolest part of the game.

I dunno about published content for villains, but you can certainly play as one. I ran a one-shot along those lines, and it worked just fine. You might want to use the wealth system in the GM's Guide or make something up to have loot, but you should be fine.

[Terraoblivion]

Legends of the Wulin is generally easier to run with smaller groups as there's less entanglement to keep track of and it's easier to do things like tournaments and similar when you don't need to come up with a ton of teams of like six people. It is also quite awesome if you feel like doing kung-fu in some form. Both the narrative mechanics and the combat ones work perfectly to emulate the genre and create fast-flowing narrative that's interesting both as story and in terms of pure tactics. Also, playing a villain or antihero is so simple as to be trivial, you just decide that you're one and behave accordingly.

No prepublished adventures, though, because that's mostly something various forms of D&D has, so you probably shouldn't expect to see them for most systems.

[The Rose Dragon]

Speaking of which, I'm going to suggest Weapons of the Gods, the predecessor to Legends of the Wulin. It is both easier to obtain, and less streamlined, which is strangely to its benefit, as Legends of the Wulin loses a lot of detail and setting-specific charm in an attempt to be more streamlined.

[Mordar]

Shadowrun is a great choice, but don't feel you have to limit the PCs to "soldier" types unless you want to. Though pure deckers are often a potential issue as PCs, as long as they are built with some traditional combat skill they can be fine. In fact, I think Shadowrun offers a clue to other game types that are good for small groups:

Infiltration/Stealth/Thievery/Investigation

Some other systems that fit this paradigm nicely include several Savage Worlds settings, Call of Cthulhu, Gumshoe, Dark Heresy and so on.

In fact, I think it would be reasonable to play "traditional" fantasy RPGs like D&D 3.x or Pathfinder in this mode fairly easily (don't forget about multiclass characters or hybrid characters), and even 4e would be fine (particularly with hybrid characters like Paladins, for instance).

So long as the GM/DM recognizes the gaps that exist because of limited characters and doesn't intentionally "push" against those gaps, you don't have to worry about playing multiple characters or niche games. The GM shouldn't send hordes of minions after a pair of adventurers without area-of-effect support in 4e...or design adventures that require heavy stealth if your players are not infiltrators...that sort of thing.

Good luck!

- M

[neonchameleon]

For Supers I'd recommend Marvel Heroic Roleplaying over Mutants and Masterminds. Much more evocative in many ways - and once you've grasped it (learning can be awkward) it's a lot less fiddly. Also works for three players and a Watcher, and there's even a system by which some characters are better off solo, some as buddies, and some on a larger team.

[Devils_Advocate]

Based on my admittedly limited knowledge of the game, Dead Inside seems most naturally suited to a single player. Of course, if even two players is indeed more than ideal, then it's not a great fit for your group, but I thought that perhaps it bore mentioning.

[Thrawn4]

I used to play most games with 3 players and a DM, and I don't think 2 players should be any more difficult. It actually allows for a lot of screen time for every player which is good imho.
You just need the DM to adapt the scene. Obviously you can't take on a tribe of goblins, but how about the evil wizard or the corrupt mayor? If it has to be the goblin tribe, the players could be the ones who have to organize a war party. Or you could go a completely different way and play some thieves (think Ocean's eleven), some fighters (think three musketeers) or any other theme that you would like.
Really, it's not a matter of the system.

[nikolamat]

Is DC adventures basically M&M third edition set in the DC Universe? are the rules the same?

[The Rose Dragon]

The rules are the same, but I seem to recall the editing in Hero's Handbook being better.

[nikolamat]

The rules are the same, but I seem to recall the editing in Hero's Handbook being better.

so i could in theory read the free srd on m&m 3rd edition and buy dc and just read the stats on all the heroes/villains there right?

[The Rose Dragon]

If you want to run a game set in the DC universe, I guess you could do that. But that'd be a waste of money that you could instead spend on the Gamemaster's Guide or another game, since it's not difficult to write your own stats for NPCs.

[nikolamat]

If you want to run a game set in the DC universe, I guess you could do that. But that'd be a waste of money that you could instead spend on the Gamemaster's Guide or another game, since it's not difficult to write your own stats for NPCs.

Well my groups DM gave up because of our bitching so ill have to be a first time DM and knowing me ill make them either under or over powered, although ill probably buy the gamemasters guide too. Anyway thanks for the advice.
P.S Is there anything new in the deluxe edition of M&M and if so is that available in the SRD

[Totally Guy]

I don't think that gaming with just two players and a GM is at all unsual. I played a monster like Shadowrun that way and it seemed fine.

Some of the indie games work quite well with just a few players. Jared Sorensen's games, Inspectres, Lacuna and FreeMarket are all good for it.

In a Wicked Age plays with a low number, I've run that for two players.

Mouse Guard is another good one.

Have you considered GMless games? You get an extra person in the player role like that.

[The Rose Dragon]

Well, while they are not "official", the Atomic Think Tank forums have many, many variations of popular characters statted for your perusal. You can always us those.

[nikolamat]

I don't think that gaming with just two players and a GM is at all unsual. I played a monster like Shadowrun that way and it seemed fine.

Some of the indie games work quite well with just a few players. Jared Sorensen's games, Inspectres, Lacuna and FreeMarket are all good for it.

In a Wicked Age plays with a low number, I've run that for two players.

Mouse Guard is another good one.

Have you considered GMless games? You get an extra person in the player role like that.

How the F%$@ do GMless games work?

[nikolamat]

Well, while they are not "official", the Atomic Think Tank forums have many, many variations of popular characters statted for your perusal. You can always us those.

Is there any info there for the minor characters personalities and backstory in the forums or the DC adventures Heroes and Villains? I have some heavy DC geeks in my group and I dont think there will be info on wikipedia or comicvine for some of the minor characters which will inevitably appear.

[Terraoblivion]

Speaking of which, I'm going to suggest Weapons of the Gods, the predecessor to Legends of the Wulin. It is both easier to obtain, and less streamlined, which is strangely to its benefit, as Legends of the Wulin loses a lot of detail and setting-specific charm in an attempt to be more streamlined.

I'm pretty sure that being able to buy the pdf relatively cheaply on drivethru RPG is considerably easier than having to hunt for used books.

As for the flavor...Do you mean the loss of Jenna Moran's stories for the loresheets or do you mean the art and random bits of references to the original comic? Because there really wasn't a whole lot of setting specific material in WotG and most of what was there was devoid of any context to make it make coherent sense and in total probably wasn't more than the setting specific loresheets in LotW. However, Jenna Moran's stories were entertaining like most she's written, but they weren't really terribly setting specific. Not just that, most of the factions, locations and mythology wasn't from the original comics, they were just stuff that Jenna Moran and the other developer of the book came up with in order to have a full game and they didn't necessarily mesh well with the bits from the actual Weapons of the Gods comic. Really, LotW is both more capable of running varied settings and has a more coherent default one than WotG, which is one of its strengths.

Also, Legends of the Wulin is a far more solid system in terms of mechanical rigor, less prone to weird mechanical hiccups, horrible brokenness or gross imbalances. The system is also far more confident in its own mechanical innovations than Weapons of the Gods, making it less held back by trying to stick to conventions that are a poor fit for what it's trying to do and integrating its various aspects more closely with each other. It's also generally considered far clearer and easier to read.

So really, other than losing Jenna Moran's writing, which is a genuine loss, I can't really see what your problem with Legends of the Wulin compared to Weapons of the Gods is.

[Totally Guy]

How the F%$@ do GMless games work?

Wil Wheaton did a Tabletop episode on YouTube in which they all play the GMless RPG Fiasco. It's a good episode.