2 player pen & paper RPG

Floppertje

New member
Nov 9, 2009
1,056
0
0
Hey guys,

I am interested in playing a pen and paper rpg with my girlfriend. Is it possible to play with 2 people?
I am asking because usually when I hear about them they're played in groups of 4-8 people, and I know she'd be more comfortable just playing with me at first. I myself have almost no experience in pen and paper rpg's (although I do play warhammer so I understand the dice thing and most character sheets.)
Can you recommend me something to play? She loves lord of the rings, so any system that can be played with lotr would be great :)
 

pookie101

New member
Jul 5, 2015
1,162
0
0
Floppertje said:
Hey guys,

I am interested in playing a pen and paper rpg with my girlfriend. Is it possible to play with 2 people?
I am asking because usually when I hear about them they're played in groups of 4-8 people, and I know she'd be more comfortable just playing with me at first. I myself have almost no experience in pen and paper rpg's (although I do play warhammer so I understand the dice thing and most character sheets.)
Can you recommend me something to play? She loves lord of the rings, so any system that can be played with lotr would be great :)
actually in many cases the less people the better. in your case you will be able to craft a campaign and adventure specifically catering to her interests and personality.

as for system, well there are as many different systems as there are interests, you mentioned lord of the rings.. there is a rpg in that world that has won some awards its called the one ring. another system worth checking out is GURPS.. its more universal. learn the core rules and then pick up what ever world expansions you are interested in.

in the end rules are only a guide and you can just as easily role play without them

the one ring : http://cubicle7.co.uk/our-games/the-one-ring/
 

Saelune

Trump put kids in cages!
Legacy
Mar 8, 2011
8,411
16
23
I do them with my brother all the time.

As for system, I recommend the classic, DnD. Especially if you want Lord of the Rings since well, it is one of DnD's primary inspirations (halflings were directly based on hobbits). Go 5th edition, the current one. It is simple enough without being limiting.

And a key rule of all tabletop RPGs...the rules are just to help you play. Breaking them is all up to the people involved.
 

Mister K

This is our story.
Apr 25, 2011
1,703
0
0
I never actually PLAYED tabletop RPG's (though I want to), but from what I understand from other posts/stories/whatever, as long as there is one player and one good GM, who can create an adventure for a single player, it is perfectly possible. OR, if you can manage it, you can make your own PC while also GM-ing. Though I don't know if it will work storywise. Maybe you should play supporting role?

As for LotR question: I think you can use either DnD or Pathfinder systems and just create a setting that, maybe, resembles the one in LotR.
 

The Jovian

New member
Dec 21, 2012
215
0
0
It is possible to play with only one Game Master and one Player but it does require some skill to make sure it doesn't get too hard, Like everybody else here, I'd recommend Dungeons and Dragons 5th Edition, it's very easy to learn and the fantasy flavoring of the game, and it taking massive inspiration from LotR, will make it very conductive to a game set in the LotR universe (albeit with a few tweaks).

If you're going to play DnD, firstly I'd recommend you get the Dungeon Master's Guide so you know how to properly make encounters of appropriate difficulty and since you only have one player make sure to take detailed notes of her character's strengths and weaknesses in order to ensure she doesn't end up metaphorically learning how to waltz only to get stuck in a disco club and expected to win in a dance-off.

Still I would recommend getting more players to join the game once you've got the hang of it. Player dynamics are at least %40 the fun of this game.
 

Asita

Answer Hazy, Ask Again Later
Legacy
Jun 15, 2011
3,198
1,038
118
Country
USA
Gender
Male
Mister K said:
I never actually PLAYED tabletop RPG's (though I want to), but from what I understand from other posts/stories/whatever, as long as there is one player and one good GM, who can create an adventure for a single player, it is perfectly possible. OR, if you can manage it, you can make your own PC while also GM-ing. Though I don't know if it will work storywise. Maybe you should play supporting role?
It's possible, but those are dangerous waters best avoided by inexperienced GMs. The long and short of it is that the term "GMPC" has negative connotations for a reason. That's not to say that it can't be done well, but it's a comparatively advanced skill, a few steps up from playing an effective Evil-aligned character.
 

Saelune

Trump put kids in cages!
Legacy
Mar 8, 2011
8,411
16
23
Asita said:
Mister K said:
I never actually PLAYED tabletop RPG's (though I want to), but from what I understand from other posts/stories/whatever, as long as there is one player and one good GM, who can create an adventure for a single player, it is perfectly possible. OR, if you can manage it, you can make your own PC while also GM-ing. Though I don't know if it will work storywise. Maybe you should play supporting role?
It's possible, but those are dangerous waters best avoided by inexperienced GMs. The long and short of it is that the term "GMPC" has negative connotations for a reason. That's not to say that it can't be done well, but it's a comparatively advanced skill, a few steps up from playing an effective Evil-aligned character.
Well, if you have DM controlled "players" to buff a single player group, keep them guides and sidekicks. I usually do have my own character in a 1 on 1 game, but they are just there as sidekick to aid in combat. They almost never decide anything for the player. My last 1 on 1 the player technically had 2 sidekicks, one was a motivating character, since she was the daughter of the villain who disagreed with her father. She didn't really fight though and was the damsel in distress a few times. The other was more to aid in fights. In the actual final fight he just "held off" enemies so the final battle could just be the hero confronting the main villain.
 

Silverbeard

New member
Jul 9, 2013
312
0
0
I suppose the biggest hurdle you'll encounter while playing a 2-person game would arise if/when you try to add new players to the game. A new arrival will feel quite alienated if you've got a campaign going that's specifically designed around the two of you. Hard for a new fellow to break into such a tight circle, you see.
Mind you that's only an issue if you do intend to add a new player later on. If you do, I'd recommend adding two or more players at the same time. That way both of the (potential) new players won't feel as separate from the remainder of the group.

In the case of a 2 player group... why not? Take on the role of GM yourself and design an adventure that your girlfriend can play through. It needn't be long, just a few encounters until you can get comfortable with the process of chaperoning games and she can get comfortable with the mechanics of the game you choose (I second the D&D vote Saelune made). Then you can work on designing a more lengthier game with a more meaty storyline.
 

Floppertje

New member
Nov 9, 2009
1,056
0
0
I actually do already own a d&d starter set. I guess I forgot to mention that in the original post. I think it's the 5th edition starter. (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/tabletop/reviews/11897-Dungeons-Dragons-Starter-Set-Review-Dice-Dice-Baby that one).

So from your posts I think I should try to GM and play a supportive character, letting her make the decisions.
As far as creating settings goes... I think I'd like to start off with pre-made campaigns. (those are a thing, right?)
 

Asita

Answer Hazy, Ask Again Later
Legacy
Jun 15, 2011
3,198
1,038
118
Country
USA
Gender
Male
Saelune said:
Asita said:
Mister K said:
I never actually PLAYED tabletop RPG's (though I want to), but from what I understand from other posts/stories/whatever, as long as there is one player and one good GM, who can create an adventure for a single player, it is perfectly possible. OR, if you can manage it, you can make your own PC while also GM-ing. Though I don't know if it will work storywise. Maybe you should play supporting role?
It's possible, but those are dangerous waters best avoided by inexperienced GMs. The long and short of it is that the term "GMPC" has negative connotations for a reason. That's not to say that it can't be done well, but it's a comparatively advanced skill, a few steps up from playing an effective Evil-aligned character.
Well, if you have DM controlled "players" to buff a single player group, keep them guides and sidekicks. I usually do have my own character in a 1 on 1 game, but they are just there as sidekick to aid in combat. They almost never decide anything for the player. My last 1 on 1 the player technically had 2 sidekicks, one was a motivating character, since she was the daughter of the villain who disagreed with her father. She didn't really fight though and was the damsel in distress a few times. The other was more to aid in fights. In the actual final fight he just "held off" enemies so the final battle could just be the hero confronting the main villain.
Pretty good guideline, especially for those newer to the concept, but even the "guide" one runs the risk of making it a bit too easy to try and railroad the other players. Again, it's far from impossible, but it's not something I'd recommend to newer GMs, and the OP has expressed a general lack of experience with pen and paper RPGs.
 

Saelune

Trump put kids in cages!
Legacy
Mar 8, 2011
8,411
16
23
Asita said:
Saelune said:
Asita said:
Mister K said:
I never actually PLAYED tabletop RPG's (though I want to), but from what I understand from other posts/stories/whatever, as long as there is one player and one good GM, who can create an adventure for a single player, it is perfectly possible. OR, if you can manage it, you can make your own PC while also GM-ing. Though I don't know if it will work storywise. Maybe you should play supporting role?
It's possible, but those are dangerous waters best avoided by inexperienced GMs. The long and short of it is that the term "GMPC" has negative connotations for a reason. That's not to say that it can't be done well, but it's a comparatively advanced skill, a few steps up from playing an effective Evil-aligned character.
Well, if you have DM controlled "players" to buff a single player group, keep them guides and sidekicks. I usually do have my own character in a 1 on 1 game, but they are just there as sidekick to aid in combat. They almost never decide anything for the player. My last 1 on 1 the player technically had 2 sidekicks, one was a motivating character, since she was the daughter of the villain who disagreed with her father. She didn't really fight though and was the damsel in distress a few times. The other was more to aid in fights. In the actual final fight he just "held off" enemies so the final battle could just be the hero confronting the main villain.
Pretty good guideline, especially for those newer to the concept, but even the "guide" one runs the risk of making it a bit too easy to try and railroad the other players. Again, it's far from impossible, but it's not something I'd recommend to newer GMs, and the OP seems to be implying a lack of familiarity playing tabletops, much less running them.
I think for entirely new people its fine. New players may not be sure what to do, new DMs may not know how to otherwise steer the game. I think the main thing to keep in mind is providing feedback to eachother. Some people may prefer a more linear game and even prefer a guide to well, guide them. Others may want more freedom or decision power.

Just asking your player(s) how they felt about the session is a good idea. Adjust accordingly.
 

Saelune

Trump put kids in cages!
Legacy
Mar 8, 2011
8,411
16
23
Floppertje said:
I actually do already own a d&d starter set. I guess I forgot to mention that in the original post. I think it's the 5th edition starter. (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/tabletop/reviews/11897-Dungeons-Dragons-Starter-Set-Review-Dice-Dice-Baby that one).

So from your posts I think I should try to GM and play a supportive character, letting her make the decisions.
As far as creating settings goes... I think I'd like to start off with pre-made campaigns. (those are a thing, right?)
Yes they are a thing. Most of the 5e books are actually pre-made campaigns. I don't know what comes with them though, since I don't do them. They could be better labeled on Amazon though.

Just don't be afraid to change things. Reduce enemy numbers or fudge rolls in her favor, etc. The DM is not the player's enemy. (Something a lot of people don't understand)
 

Asita

Answer Hazy, Ask Again Later
Legacy
Jun 15, 2011
3,198
1,038
118
Country
USA
Gender
Male
Saelune said:
Asita said:
Saelune said:
Well, if you have DM controlled "players" to buff a single player group, keep them guides and sidekicks. I usually do have my own character in a 1 on 1 game, but they are just there as sidekick to aid in combat. They almost never decide anything for the player. My last 1 on 1 the player technically had 2 sidekicks, one was a motivating character, since she was the daughter of the villain who disagreed with her father. She didn't really fight though and was the damsel in distress a few times. The other was more to aid in fights. In the actual final fight he just "held off" enemies so the final battle could just be the hero confronting the main villain.
Pretty good guideline, especially for those newer to the concept, but even the "guide" one runs the risk of making it a bit too easy to try and railroad the other players. Again, it's far from impossible, but it's not something I'd recommend to newer GMs, and the OP seems to be implying a lack of familiarity playing tabletops, much less running them.
I think for entirely new people its fine. New players may not be sure what to do, new DMs may not know how to otherwise steer the game. I think the main thing to keep in mind is providing feedback to eachother. Some people may prefer a more linear game and even prefer a guide to well, guide them. Others may want more freedom or decision power.

Just asking your player(s) how they felt about the session is a good idea. Adjust accordingly.
Fair point. I hadn't considered it from that perspective.
 

Saelune

Trump put kids in cages!
Legacy
Mar 8, 2011
8,411
16
23
Asita said:
Saelune said:
Asita said:
Saelune said:
Well, if you have DM controlled "players" to buff a single player group, keep them guides and sidekicks. I usually do have my own character in a 1 on 1 game, but they are just there as sidekick to aid in combat. They almost never decide anything for the player. My last 1 on 1 the player technically had 2 sidekicks, one was a motivating character, since she was the daughter of the villain who disagreed with her father. She didn't really fight though and was the damsel in distress a few times. The other was more to aid in fights. In the actual final fight he just "held off" enemies so the final battle could just be the hero confronting the main villain.
Pretty good guideline, especially for those newer to the concept, but even the "guide" one runs the risk of making it a bit too easy to try and railroad the other players. Again, it's far from impossible, but it's not something I'd recommend to newer GMs, and the OP seems to be implying a lack of familiarity playing tabletops, much less running them.
I think for entirely new people its fine. New players may not be sure what to do, new DMs may not know how to otherwise steer the game. I think the main thing to keep in mind is providing feedback to eachother. Some people may prefer a more linear game and even prefer a guide to well, guide them. Others may want more freedom or decision power.

Just asking your player(s) how they felt about the session is a good idea. Adjust accordingly.
Fair point. I hadn't considered it from that perspective.
It's just about figuring out what everyone wants and accommodating that. Easier said than done though.