Gamemastery For Two

My last two sessions running Mythras Classic Fantasy have been for two players. That almost didn’t happen because one of my players felt that it was not possible to have a meaningful roleplaying session with just two. I’m glad to say that we are proving this assumption wrong.

My table has, for the last 16 years, generally had between three and six players. The most common group size has been three or four players. Usually the reasons players give for not attending all reflect the fact that they are working adults with families and careers – the usual responsibilities that accrue with age. Although my paranoid and cynical inner voice tries to convince me that the real reason is I’m crap at game-mastering, I try not to listen to it: people have lives and gaming is a low priority for most.

For me, roleplaying games are a hobby… but it’s more akin to an obsession than some minor time-filler. Not getting a game is quite psychologically painful to me because I blow off a lot of steam when people come around my table and play. On top of that, without the creative outlet I believe that I would likely go nuts when left with the stark futility of a life just filled with paying work. For these reasons I rather insisted that we played those last two sessions, even with “just” two players.

Here’s what I learned so far…

Roleplaying Doesn’t Really Have A Player Limit

Neither upwards nor downwards, roleplaying games have no player limit beyond the practicalities of fitting folk into a reasonable space. Back in the 1970s and 1980s, people were game-mastering for groups upward of 20 players (see the Rifts Adventure Guide for how Kevin Siembieda handled such games). I’ve played good games solo. LARPers have long been playing in groups numbering dozens.

Any limit we place upon the game is largely psychological. If you believe that you stop having fun at the table when there are fewer than X players, you’re wrong… unless you don’t really try. Recent experiences with groups of 12-15 young teens at a table have shown me how much fun can be had with a large party; the last two games have shown me how a game with two other folk is simply just a different flavour of fun.

My advice: turn up ready to be Game Master on your regular slot. If no-one comes, play solo and have your own fun anyway. No matter who else comes, roll with it. The play’s the thing!

Less Is More, If You Want Character Time

Character time is the period spent by each player roleplaying and making decisions for your hero, as opposed to time spent listening to the roleplay and decisions of others. Fewer players means more time per player. As a Game Master, this means higher levels of player engagement.

With the aforementioned game with 12-15 young teens, character time was limited – perhaps six to ten short bursts of activity per hour of play. With two players the character time alternates at a much higher rate. Additionally, as there are fewer parties to convince of a course of action, decision-making is faster. Fewer times around the table in a combat further gives you more time to explore the adventure because each of those fights is faster.

So what? Well, all of that gives more power to the individual player. It also means the players will progress more quickly through encounters and challenges. Any downsides? Not enough to make it a major problem: sometimes fewer players can lead to those few getting stuck. Because there are fewer brains at the table, puzzles and mysteries can potentially be stalled. That said, a Game Master worth their salt can easily compensate, just as when any group gets stalled.

Combat Adjustments

There are two strands on the subject of combat:

1. You may feel that you need to make some fights easier.
2. You don’t need to make most fights easier.

Clearly, assuming you stick with one character per player, you have fewer characters with which to engage in combat. The natural thing to do is to make some of the fights easier, perhaps by reducing the number of opponents or by selecting less challenging beasts. Maybe.

On the other hand, and in my experience so far, not changing the fights forces your players to adjust their style of play. In my action-orientated group, where the style has tended to be attack first and ask questions later, this new situation has led to a more thoughtful and improved style of play. It’s not that they don’t engage in fights, because they still do; in the last game the heroes opted for “stealth mode” instead of “assault mode”. The game was much more interesting as a result.

Of course, if you still want big fights then you have some options:

1. Offer your players the chance to run two characters at a time (this can work, but is not my personal favourite).
2. Provide the players with useful allies, such as henchmen and hirelings (an approach in line with Old School assumptions).

Yes, you need to make some adjustments on the fly. No, you don’t need to stop play and re-write your whole game plan.

On Reflection…

I’ve enjoyed the games with fewer players more than the games with lots of players. Both styles have their charms… but it’s more satisfying to spend greater time with some characters and allowing the players increased freedom to play.

I don’t know how the two players felt about the games, of course, but the post-game feedback seemed positive. And they both came back.

For me, I’ve stopped worrying about how many players show up. Instead, I’m going to focus on preparing a cool adventure and then being ready to run it with whoever shows up.

Game on!