Games that work best with a small group

[scalydemon]

It's getting harder and harder to get a large group together for face to face gaming.

If you only have 3 or 4 people total (including DM/GM) - what are some good old RPGs that seem to shine with less people.

I am thinking CoC for one. Any thoughts? Retro-clonish games would work or old games

Thanks

[tkdco2]

I usually run for 2 players. D&D works fairly well; just let the players have 2-3 characters each. I once ran a MERP game and let the characters take up to 5 characters each.

[Finarvyn]

I agree that D&D is great with small groups, but instead of multiple characters per player I prefer to let the players have higher level characters. And I'm loose with multi-class rules so that the duo can have a variety of skills. (Sort of like Fafhrd & Grey Mouser where each is a fighter-thief, but Mouser also has a level of magic-user.)

CoC could also work well because of the feeling of isolation. Again, I'd boost the character level a little so that the total party power matches the suggested total for the module.

[Deleted]

¨Beyond the Wall¨ might be worth a look, as well. Not really high-concept roleplaying, but a very intimate form of collaborative storytelling, as the group is so intensely involved with the building of their joint backstory.

[foxroe]

CoC is a great option (when I played as a youngster, our group consisted of only three people, including the Ref - it was awesome fun).

Traveller (classic edition) is always a winner!

Also, I haven't tried it yet (my son has it), but the Dragon Age RPG (Green Ronin) has super simple rules (roll 3d6 to beat target number) and looks like a lot of fun.

[Vanquishing Leviathan]

Games like Basic or Advanced D&D can be played with only 2-3 players. With AD&D, just have everyone play demi-human multi-classed PCs with generous ability scores & hp. A 1st level human ranger with max CON and hp has 24hp! A two person party in BX, elf and cleric, with high ability scores and hp would be decent, too. Besides pumping up ability and hp rolls, you'd probably need to allow PCs to cast spells in combat.

My very own Swords & Six-Siders was designed with today's reality of smaller parties, and you can download it for free if you haven't checked it out.

The game I am currently working on is a space opera RPG called Laser-Swords & Six-Siders, or possibly Laser-Swords & Planet-Killers (I hope to have a playtest version available soonish). It is designed to work well with a small group of heroes. Some of the rules I'll list here, as I think they'd make good house-rules for other classic RPGs for when you're limited to 1-3 total PCs:

Since space opera is a "heroic" genre, every PC is considered a "hero," even at level 1. Therefore, for starting hp, instead of rolling a single die, you roll hp as if they were 3rd level. (When you gain a level, you reroll. If the new roll is higher, take that, if not, take the old hp and add 1.) Once you get to 4th level and beyond, you add hp in the usual way.

After a combat is over, if the PC's hp are above half, the hp return to max hp. If the PC's hp are reduced below half, the PC is considered wounded (after combat, if the PC survives, the hp only returns to half of max hp).

[vladtolenkov]

Pendragon works well with a small group. I started the GPC in 2015 and ran it for over a year with a small group of 2-3 players. We've also been playing Call of Cthulhu which works I think BETTER with a small group than an large one. I am considering running either an an Amber Diceless game for my small group right now as I feel it would facilitate either small group or even single player and one gm play quite well (and could toggle back and forth quite easily).

[scalydemon]

I sort of dislike or like less D&D with people playing multiple characters. Sabres & Witchery is another one I have found well suited to a small table.

[Deleted]

Well, almost from the beginning the highest prize was solo play with Gary.

Also, two or three players are all we ever had. THAT IS WHY WE HAD HENCHMEN! I will say that again. THAT IS WHY WE HAD HENCHMEN!

Crom's hairy nutsack, why do people think all those rules are IN the books in the first place?

[tkdco2]

The groups I played in weren't much into henchmen, for some reason. We occasionally had hirelings, which usually lasted as long as our horses did, ie, not very long.

[makofan]

D&D, Traveller, Pendragon, Top Secret were all good low-player games

[Keps]

Top Secret for sure or any of the Pulp genre including CoC. Judge Dredd, Strontium Dog or Dark Champions all work well with small groups. You could always run a D&D variant like Masque of the Red Death or Red Steel(Flashing Blades/Musketeer/Pirate style) or Bushido/Oriental Adventure. If you end up with CoC, since the party is small and ideas/checks will be limited, let them shoot their way out. Let them find a case of dynamite and see what they do with it.

[scalydemon]

I have played the James Bond RPG from Victory games fairly recently with a guy running it and 2 players and it was a ton of fun, forgot about that one. The folks suggesting Top Secret made me think of that.

[hagbard]

Jan 20, 2017 20:18:34 GMT -6 scalydemon said:

I have played the James Bond RPG from Victory games fairly recently with a guy running it and 2 players and it was a ton of fun, forgot about that one. The folks suggesting Top Secret made me think of that.

Pretty much this^^

A lot of espionage games seem to work better with the smaller the group like top secret.

Times where I found two person play the most successful was when we had a large group and the GM would play solo instances with certain players during the week different than our Sunday afternoon events.

I remember playing a few short cyberpunk 2020 games as a investigative solo outside of our normal 'team' group and it was a lot of fun. Kind of like a one-shot comic book title for a particular member of the x-men.

[The Wanderer]

You can also check out this little book: Solo Heroes It has rules for increasing the strength of D&D characters so you can play with smaller groups.

[jeffb]

Jan 26, 2017 17:23:01 GMT -6 The Wanderer said:

You can also check out this little book: Solo Heroes It has rules for increasing the strength of D&D characters so you can play with smaller groups.

Excellent suggestion. I have used the system derived from this document "Exemplars & Eidolons". Alot of fun and really works great for Conan or John Carter type play where they are mowing down foes left and right...super-hero/demi-god style play.

Also, Dungeon World and 13th Age.

[kenmeister]

Jan 20, 2017 0:31:43 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Well, almost from the beginning the highest prize was solo play with Gary.

Also, two or three players are all we ever had. THAT IS WHY WE HAD HENCHMEN! I will say that again. THAT IS WHY WE HAD HENCHMEN!

Crom's hairy nutsack, why do people think all those rules are IN the books in the first place?

I was just going to say, D&D can even be great with 1 player. The max henchmen stat finally becomes important! I typically start a solo player out at 5001 xp / 500 gp, and they can bring along up to their max henchmen (all 0 xp) but all henchmen must be equipped out of the player's starting funds.

[Sean McCoy]

Jan 6, 2017 6:10:17 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

I agree that D&D is great with small groups, but instead of multiple characters per player I prefer to let the players have higher level characters. And I'm loose with multi-class rules so that the duo can have a variety of skills. (Sort of like Fafhrd & Grey Mouser where each is a fighter-thief, but Mouser also has a level of magic-user.)

CoC could also work well because of the feeling of isolation. Again, I'd boost the character level a little so that the total party power matches the suggested total for the module.

I love this! 

Maybe an off-topic question, but is there a standard party size assumed for OD&D? I know MM mentions 4-50, with at least 1 DM per 20 players. That seems insane to me. Is there a context there that I don't know about? We almost always have between 4-7 players. 

[foxroe]

Mar 2, 2017 17:25:24 GMT -6 Sean McCoy said:

Maybe an off-topic question, but is there a standard party size assumed for OD&D? I know MM mentions 4-50, with at least 1 DM per 20 players. That seems insane to me. Is there a context there that I don't know about? We almost always have between 4-7 players. 

It's likely an artifact of who was playing D&D then. It was introduced to wargamers and the like, who typically congregated in clubs/associations in larger numbers than you would see today (I believe). I'm sure folks were clambering to play, necessitating the 1:20 DM/Player ratio.

I remember when I started playing, it was just exploding on the pop-culture scene. My Junior High School had a "D&D Club" that had dozens of members... every group of ten or so players had a "caller" and the games were insanely chaotic. Not my cup of tea; I prefer small groups, regardless of what I'm playing.

I'm sure Mike, Paul, et al would have better answers. This would actually be a nice topic for a separate thread.

[scottenkainen]

I was reminded of this thread, while prepping to run a James Bond 007 game, when I discovered the game was meant for no more than four players. But, scrolling back up, I see that game was already mentioned.

[arcadayn]

Savage Worlds is my favourite one on one game system. The rules for Allies make it very easy for a single player to control a sizeable force. Bennies and Adventure Cards also make it much more survivable for one or two PCs.

[Gynsburghe]

It is rare that I ever run for more than 4 players... I have, at times however, ran up to a dozen - my preference is 4 to 6 players.

I would however add Lamentations of the Flame Princess to the list of 'good for smaller groups' as it places more emphasis on avoiding confrontation in order to survive and stresses the idea of crafting unique monsters that adventures center around.