One thing I've noticed in many roleplaying games is the number of people who are expected to be involved. D&D is four to five. World of Darkness encourages five. Dread has rules to make the game harder if there are less than five. Other games don't seem to have a set limit, but the idea of the 'group' has settled in on that number of five people around a table.
Why is this the magical number? I know I'm always fighting to fill that last slot as a game master, or trying to pare my group down to fit it better. Why not design a different way? A game designed for 'dynamic duos' could be interesting, and with the right scaling, could easily accept the industry standard.
With two players, you only have to wait for two people before you're in the action again. You have less chance of a player getting lost in the hustle and bustle you get so often in a five man group. You also have the option to pull out a smaller game for a smaller group.
I may have to do this with Velocity. While the idea of four man teams is cool; it's hard to figure out a way to make it make sense thematically without making some of the group sit out, which I won't do, or take forever resolving things.
So, what about you, readers, is three a company worth having?