First off this is only my second time running an rpg game. This time around my group is only 2 players large. One is built for basically only fighting and not roleplaying and the other for actual roleplaying but not fighting. I have been trying to have an even mix of both in there and so far i think it is going well but it always feels like one of them always takes a backseat. Any suggestions I can do? I kinda fudge my rolls a little for the players when i think theyre in the back seat.

Later on down the road, there will be a third person joining us but no where near the present. Do yall think the third person may upset the balance? Incorperating said person into the game is no problem story wise but to the players im not sure.

If anything, a third player should make a campaign more interesting. Think of it this way. Two points (characters) make a line. A line isn't very interesting, now is it. Add a third point, and you got yourself a full-fledged triangle! I'm not sure about you, but personally, triangle seem just a tad bit more interesting. Definitely make sure your players are comfortable with the new player, but I say that the more (to a certain extent) the merrier!

Nurddude said:

Woah, I like this example :-)

IMO, only two players are rather uninteresting. All groups I have played with, tried to have at least 3 players, for various reaons (one, that is more interesting and second, to solve "ties" in discussions, what to do now (if both players want to take different actions, but can't settle to one action, a third player can solve this with is "vote").

For the other part, with the player, who can only fight, and the player who can "only roleplay": I wouldn't give the "weaker" person a bonus, because it would be unfair against the stronger person. The fighter has an high attack skill, but the "weaker person" hits, because you give him an advantage, it would be rather demotivational for the fighter (vice versa for an "social bonus" for the fighter, because the "social person" don't get this bonus).

One thing, I would do: Don't play nice with them. If the "not-fighter" is showing some "danger potential" in a fight (he has drawn a weapon or shown some supernatural abilities), he will also be attacked, like his comrade. And because of his bad stats, he will get hit and will lose life points and will fear about his characters life. Also, don't let the "social character" make all the social rolls. Perhaps an NPC will hear the opinion of the fighter (because he looks stronger, and the NPC will hear an advice from someone who knows to fight). Also, sometimes seperate the characters. In this case, both can only be using their own skills, and both should have some decent values in some "standard abilities".

This all said: You should allow, that the characters have some distinctions, in which the one character is better and the other is worse. If an character is planed to be a sneaky, lock-picking theft, it wouldn't be okay, to have two such characters, because both thefts would only argue, who should pick this lock. But all characters could have some value in stealth (because if only one character has stealth, he couldn't often use it, because the other characters would ne left behind OR they would make enough noise, to wake everyone).

So long,

Heh on one point I think in 5+ points such like a pentagon or shape with more sides. For me to get from point 1 and point 2 i take the round about way rather than a straight line lol.

Right now I have a "third player" npc to help things along as needed but in the background. This chronicle Ive made has so many different things to do in almost every city, story changing on HOW they go about doing a given task, there is no ending yet so it can always change before its near the end They said they dont feel inferior in any way when they know they cant do anything compared to the other. SO, Im assuming i was worried about nothing originally.

But thanks a lot for you opinions