Greetings,
I'm about to start a new campaign but will probably only have two players to start (a third may join at a later date). I don't mind playing in a smaller group, but obviously they could easily get outgunned.
Has anyone else run a group or two?
Has it been successful?
What kinds of changes did you make to adventures or to your own NPC's to balance it out?
Thanks in advance guys!
Full Version: Advice on GMing a small group?
I would probably give them some extra bp to help broaden their skills and abilities. With only 2 or 3 people you're oing to be lacking more than one area. Have you players build their characters togeather so that they can have the least amount of overlap as possible.
Also keep a stable of NPC Runners that the characters can 'sub-contract' out when they need some help in an area where they aren't well versed. Just be careful not to fall into the GMPC trap(s) that can suck the very soul out of your campaign.
Well, considering the game and number of players, I'd say this is one of those times when I'd seriously consider the "GMPC", an NPC buddy to hang around with them all the time and cover whatever gap they've left in their team's abilities. I generally try to avoid them, but it's worth considering in this case, I think.
(edit: Come on now, Ravor, GMPCs aren't inherently soul-sucking, they just turn out that way 90% of the time because new GMs use them as Mary Sues)
In the past I've been surprised a few times by teams who I thought were deficient in one area or another. The thing is, they'll look at what they CAN do and make plans based on that.
Of course, a lot of the advice you'll get on this will vary depending on what they're going to play. If they're both playing characters that can adequately fill 2-3 roles on the team, then maybe they're fine, but if they're playing a duo of combat monster samurai then the situation will be vastly different.
Overall, I'd say probably up to the BPs from 400 to 450 (maaaaybe even 500), and encourage them to use those extra points to pick up a few skills to broaden their abilities. Such as using those 50 points to add 5 dice between their Charisma and Influence group. Or to grab some hacking skills, a commlink, and programs. Alltogether, they may not be able to tackle quite the same difficulty of missions as another team, so they'll probably make less as a team, but they're splitting it less ways so as long as they're doing challenging runs and making a good amount of money they should still feel tough-enough, even if you're not giving them the exact same run you'd give to a team of 8.
(edit: Come on now, Ravor, GMPCs aren't inherently soul-sucking, they just turn out that way 90% of the time because new GMs use them as Mary Sues)
In the past I've been surprised a few times by teams who I thought were deficient in one area or another. The thing is, they'll look at what they CAN do and make plans based on that.
Of course, a lot of the advice you'll get on this will vary depending on what they're going to play. If they're both playing characters that can adequately fill 2-3 roles on the team, then maybe they're fine, but if they're playing a duo of combat monster samurai then the situation will be vastly different.
Overall, I'd say probably up to the BPs from 400 to 450 (maaaaybe even 500), and encourage them to use those extra points to pick up a few skills to broaden their abilities. Such as using those 50 points to add 5 dice between their Charisma and Influence group. Or to grab some hacking skills, a commlink, and programs. Alltogether, they may not be able to tackle quite the same difficulty of missions as another team, so they'll probably make less as a team, but they're splitting it less ways so as long as they're doing challenging runs and making a good amount of money they should still feel tough-enough, even if you're not giving them the exact same run you'd give to a team of 8.
Yeah I know, I use them all of the time without any problems, but I feel that it's important to understand that it is very easy to fall into one of the 'Soul Sucking Traps' that comes along with them. 
I should have been more clear in my wording though.
I should have been more clear in my wording though.
I actually do some one player games on forums these days.
For example
http://www.neoaxial.com/cgi-bin/yabb2//YaB...?num=1167166474
The setting was largely because this person was totally new to shadowrun. And this way they weren't overloaded. Something like that might be good for you too.
Be very careful with GMPCs.
Personally I'd suggest you have you players pick classes that cover the bases (one hacker and one magic user). And have them not just play firefight a minute games. They can pick up NPCs to add muscle if they need to, but it'd be clear they're the core of the team.
For example
http://www.neoaxial.com/cgi-bin/yabb2//YaB...?num=1167166474
The setting was largely because this person was totally new to shadowrun. And this way they weren't overloaded. Something like that might be good for you too.
Be very careful with GMPCs.
Personally I'd suggest you have you players pick classes that cover the bases (one hacker and one magic user). And have them not just play firefight a minute games. They can pick up NPCs to add muscle if they need to, but it'd be clear they're the core of the team.
One idea is to bring them into larger missions where they play a smaller part, the part where the twist happens is a good spot.
For example, Mr.J needs 2 outside joes to run the security at an private party at his estate. The runners will command a team of 6-8 other security personell. Little does the team know a rival exec plans to crash the party with his own team of assassins...
Or, Scientist X is defecting and Mr. J needs 2 runners to oversee site security for when the defector arrives via ultralight and drops into their lap. Little does the team know Aztec knows about the defection and is planning an ambush...
My groups are typically 2-3 players so I'll often toss in NPC chars to round the group or adjust my missions accordingly.
Cheers.
For example, Mr.J needs 2 outside joes to run the security at an private party at his estate. The runners will command a team of 6-8 other security personell. Little does the team know a rival exec plans to crash the party with his own team of assassins...
Or, Scientist X is defecting and Mr. J needs 2 runners to oversee site security for when the defector arrives via ultralight and drops into their lap. Little does the team know Aztec knows about the defection and is planning an ambush...
My groups are typically 2-3 players so I'll often toss in NPC chars to round the group or adjust my missions accordingly.
Cheers.
The biggest thing about GMPCs is, if you try to make them "cool", then you've made a hideous Mary Sue. No no, you have. If you try to make them proactively helpful, then it's "woo woo! All aboard the plot train! The GM's takin' us for a ride!" Not fun. If they're completely not cool, totally passive, then they might as well be a gun or other "magic" device that does whatever it is that they do. You need to give them just a little bit of personality, just a little, but to still be largely passive and let the PCs call ALL the shots. They need to be just powerful enough to be useful to the PCs, but overall you probably want them to be a bit less powerful.
GMPCs are dangerous fun-suckers, we know this well, but the fine line between Mary Sue and dull crap can be walked carefully.
We're all just horribly emotionally scarred from GMPCs in the past, so forgive us if we're a bit jumpy. However, for the 2 person group, I still think it's worth considering.
GMPCs are dangerous fun-suckers, we know this well, but the fine line between Mary Sue and dull crap can be walked carefully.
We're all just horribly emotionally scarred from GMPCs in the past, so forgive us if we're a bit jumpy. However, for the 2 person group, I still think it's worth considering.
I'd ask the players how they want to handle it. They may want to do the whole Dynamic Duo bit.
After having GMed for many years now, and with groups of several sizes, I have to say 2 to 3 players is by far the best.
But 2 players is a partnership. 3 is a group. So with only 2 players, it's best to have a setup where they are in it together, for some reason, and not just 2 professionals that always seem to take on runs together. Make sure their backstories mesh together, and the campaign is focused on them being partners in some way.
Making them part of team of with large ensemble of NPCs is a bad, bad idea. No fun for the players. It's best to reduce the scope and build it for 2 players from the start.
But 2 players is a partnership. 3 is a group. So with only 2 players, it's best to have a setup where they are in it together, for some reason, and not just 2 professionals that always seem to take on runs together. Make sure their backstories mesh together, and the campaign is focused on them being partners in some way.
Making them part of team of with large ensemble of NPCs is a bad, bad idea. No fun for the players. It's best to reduce the scope and build it for 2 players from the start.
Thanks for the awesome response, guys.
I do like the idea of upping the BP at the start. May go with 450 since I'm fairly certain a third PC will join in a couple months. I'll also shoot for having them spread their disciplines out a bit, too.
I don't think I want to do the GMPC. That's actually one of the reasons we settled on using 4e (I MUCH prefered 3e) since no one wanted to play a decker and I didn't want to GMPC it or simply make up how an NPC decker would have done. Having a stable of hired guns would probably be more appealing. I'll let them roll for em.
So it's doable, just probably not the most immediately convenient. That's alright. Of course, I have a fourth friend who wants to play via Xbox Live Video Chat. I was surprised to find it feasible so long as Time Warner Cable doesn't drop the connection in the middle of a tense battle.
Good times!
I do like the idea of upping the BP at the start. May go with 450 since I'm fairly certain a third PC will join in a couple months. I'll also shoot for having them spread their disciplines out a bit, too.
I don't think I want to do the GMPC. That's actually one of the reasons we settled on using 4e (I MUCH prefered 3e) since no one wanted to play a decker and I didn't want to GMPC it or simply make up how an NPC decker would have done. Having a stable of hired guns would probably be more appealing. I'll let them roll for em.
So it's doable, just probably not the most immediately convenient. That's alright. Of course, I have a fourth friend who wants to play via Xbox Live Video Chat. I was surprised to find it feasible so long as Time Warner Cable doesn't drop the connection in the middle of a tense battle.
Good times!
You could have the characters be the extras required for a run. They are the support called when another team needs some extra firepower.
Another thing which I've done before on a small group is have each player run 2 characters.
This really depends on the experience level of the players though. Making sure metagaming doesn't happen can be a challenge, though in the world of Shadowrun where instant communication is everywhere this isn't AS much of a hassle.
If the players are familiar with Shadowrun, then I'd definitely consider having them play two characters each.
This really depends on the experience level of the players though. Making sure metagaming doesn't happen can be a challenge, though in the world of Shadowrun where instant communication is everywhere this isn't AS much of a hassle.
If the players are familiar with Shadowrun, then I'd definitely consider having them play two characters each.
| QUOTE (Crusufix) |
| Another thing which I've done before on a small group is have each player run 2 characters. This really depends on the experience level of the players though. Making sure metagaming doesn't happen can be a challenge, though in the world of Shadowrun where instant communication is everywhere this isn't AS much of a hassle. If the players are familiar with Shadowrun, then I'd definitely consider having them play two characters each. |
I agree with letting two players (who are very consistent about playing and this is the core group) play two characters each. I haven't done this with SR because I run 3-4 players a session anymore (but have GM'ed SR groups as large as 10
), but I used to do it in D&D without too much of a headache. And I basically disagree with the players needing to be skilled SR players. What is needed is a skilled GM. Basically anyone can play a RPG... they simply tell the GM what they want to do and the GM tells them what to roll. They quickly learn what all those little numbers mean on their character sheets. I'd even hazard to say that two characters apiece for newbies will encourage their returning to play. Odds are that neither will ever be bored. If they are true newbies to role playing in general, then start them up with one character apiece (and do an easy run or two) and after a session or two, add the supplemental characters and toughen things up some. One way to handle it is to get a basic idea of what kind of character they want added to the group and then do the basic designs of it as the GM and have the player flesh it out.
There can be a problem if you pick up other players who want to play the game.
One solution would be to start a different campaign with all new characters. Another would be to require the players to quit playing one of their two PC's whenever the extra people show up. The nice thing about SR (all editions) is that new characters can join in with veteran characters without being too wimpy.
The biggest thing in all of this is to be fair to the players. Be willing to compromise in small areas but refuse to in anything you think will upset game balance. Really, that rule of thumb applies to all of SR, not just multiple characters being played by the same player. Remember, you are the GM and are in charge of the game. If you let the players get more powerful than you can deal with, it's your fault. And you can always correct that. Toughen the adventures up. Let the PC's mistakes start catching up with them. They always have mistakes in their pasts. Take away their toys, take away their nuyen, hurt them, force them to go underground. And yes, sometimes characters die.
But always be fair. It's one thing to make adjustments in the game and take away possessions. It's another to be perpetually oppressive and never let them win. The characters should always feel like they have a chance. And if you get the expectation to the point that a "win" is staying alive and "maybe" getting the job done, and maybe scoring a few nuyen to pay the rent and buy the ammo and replace that car they sacrificed, then you have Shadowrun down to it's true core.
GM run PC Assistants
I frequently have NPC's that step in to fill "gaps." The key thing to remember is to play them like an NPC in attitude. They have a motive for doing what they do. If they are helping sort things out along with the PC's, use LOGIC tests to see how well they provide info, etc. And remember most of all, they are a GM tool. Don't be afraid to use them, break them, rip them to shreds. Having an NPC companion who's been around for several runs and has a personality that buys the farm while saving the hoops of the PC's can be almost as sobering and emotionally powerful as if a PC kicks it.
Vlad
I just posted this in another thread, but I love small groups for Shadowrun. Just keep the challenges within a scope that they can handle, unless they do something stupid. One or two guys breaking into a facility and remaining unnoticed seems a lot more realistic to me than a group of five or six doing so. It's all about the character concepts, though. The characters need to play off of each other, and work with the concept of a small group campaign.
If you really want to send them on a run that requires a lot more muscle, let them hire some less seasoned (pregenerated) shadowrunners. Give each of them one or two of those shadowrunners to control for the campaign and let them have a little fun playing something different.
If you really want to send them on a run that requires a lot more muscle, let them hire some less seasoned (pregenerated) shadowrunners. Give each of them one or two of those shadowrunners to control for the campaign and let them have a little fun playing something different.
I very much agree that with only two players it's best to run it as a partnership: make sure their backstories mesh (at least in recent history) and give them runs designed for two people with their chosen expertise to do.
fiction is rife with examples of partnerships like this (especially private-eye type setups)
fiction is rife with examples of partnerships like this (especially private-eye type setups)
Here are some examples. 
Hey guys, just to fill you in:
They're both playing elves, one a mage, one a technomancer. I gave them 450 build points to start (make em live a little longer
). They're a bit weak in the combat department, but then again, I'm more of a fan of stealth and con and things that require more finesse than brute force so if they keep running from combat I won't complain.
This would make for a good opportunity in Seattle right now no? It sounds a bit like things are tense with the Salish and Tir Tairngire, right? And them being elves, there's something I could do with that, yea? haha I'm so rusty as a GM, poor players.
Btw, funny link, Moon-Hawk.
They're both playing elves, one a mage, one a technomancer. I gave them 450 build points to start (make em live a little longer
). They're a bit weak in the combat department, but then again, I'm more of a fan of stealth and con and things that require more finesse than brute force so if they keep running from combat I won't complain.This would make for a good opportunity in Seattle right now no? It sounds a bit like things are tense with the Salish and Tir Tairngire, right? And them being elves, there's something I could do with that, yea? haha I'm so rusty as a GM, poor players.
Btw, funny link, Moon-Hawk.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.