Playing Solo

[Xilo]

i have a bit of a delema. i play in a campaign which is always small. but all the other players are leaving/ or already left the country. so its looking a lot like the DM and I are the only ones left. so i'm going to be playing solo for a while. i was just wondering what people thought of this.

good idea or bad?

I'll be playing a hafling rogue/bard and i start on a large island... just thought i'd see what any one who had played on their own thought of it.

 

[darkbard]

xilo, i've been dming with one player since the advent of 3rd edition and have the following comments to offer. this edition of d&d (more than any other, imo) is balanced for 4 players who roughly represent the 4 spheres of classes (combat-oriented, skill-oriented, divine caster, and arcane caster). as such, it is very difficult to design an interesting array of encounters to challenge a party that doesn't include at least most of these class types. i've tried letting my player run 3 or 4 characters simultaneously but this significantly reduces the verismilitude of roleplaying, as you might imagine.

another option is to let the player run only 1 character and then have the dm run several npc's to round out the party. this becomes an overwhelming task for the dm, i find, as s/he is already burdened with playing all other npc's, maintaining continuity, providing evocative description, etc.

of the two, i'd lean towards the former option. though roleplaying is greatly reduced to rollplaying in this option, there is more similarity in the breakdown of duties in such a game (the player rolls all the dice and makes decisions for the heroes, the dm does so for the villains and monsters as well as designing the storyline).

another option i'm considering is letting the player create several characters, running each of them on solo adventures to develop personality, etc. and running all of the characters for occasional more challenging sessions.

drop a line and let us know how things work out!

 

[Xilo]

thanks for your comments. i'm hoping that i woun't be playing solo for too long. one of the things i like the most is the interaction with other players and their characters.

 

[Furn_Darkside]

another option is to let the player run only 1 character and then have the dm run several npc's to round out the party. this becomes an overwhelming task for the dm, i find, as s/he is already burdened with playing all other npc's, maintaining continuity, providing evocative description, etc.

Salutations,

Ugh, I know the feeling Xilo- I have almost always had small groups. I am down to two players with me as the dm now.

In high school, we even had stretchs with one player/one dm.

I think darkbard's advice above is on the right track, but to make it easier for the dm- the player can take control of the npc's in battle. The dm always holds the ability to stop the player from having the npc do something they would not normally do in the situation.

Battles and challenges can also be easily tuned down to a single player. A thief/bard is perfect- it begs for thief guild like adventures. Missions and robbing jobs that would not be appropriate for a large group in the first place. Tell the dm your char wants to join/start a thief guild

Of course, for all this to work. It really depends on the player- they need to be proactive. If they are usually a laid back person who is not big on roleplaying or communication, then such a game may just not be possible.

Good luck!

Respectfully submitted
FD

 

[Xilo]

A thief/bard is perfect- it begs for thief guild like adventures. Missions and robbing jobs that would not be appropriate for a large group in the first place. Tell the dm your char wants to join/start a thief guild

Of course, for all this to work. It really depends on the player- they need to be proactive. If they are usually a laid back person who is not big on roleplaying or communication, then such a game may just not be possible.

Good luck!

Respectfully submitted
FD [/B]

i like this idea.. i'll mention it to him. i'm also big on roleplaying, but sometimes the others i play with aren't, so it might be good to let me play with that aspect of dn'd for awhile.

 

[DSC-EricPrice]

I think 3rd edition is perfect for solo adventurers, more so than any other version before it. It takes a lot of work for the DM though. Determining how much monster to put in is always risky, and crippling the monsters is sometimes necessary to make things work out. Still, at least 3E gives us a place to start in how dangerous our monsters are. Its obviously more difficult to take a class with limited skills (like the fighter) and make any adventure more than just hack and slash. Finding diverse ways of using skills is paramount to keeping the storyline interesting. In my opinion, rogues and bards make are the easiest classes to go solo as they can, in a pinch, do everything they need (assuming they take the right skills). They also have the widest variety of skills to pick from when the DM is cooking up storylines and challenges.

 

[kreynolds]

good idea or bad?

Man, I absolutely love running solo games. I have 7 solo games under my belt, though currently, only 4 of them are active. I find them interesting because I can breathe so much life into the world, largely due to the fact that I have so much more time to dedicate to the game. Also, it's because I only have one player to worry about, which means that you get all the attention (which could be good or bad for you ).

In my solo games. Every NPC has a unique name. Every NPC has a unique personality, and their personalities are evolved to the point that you know what their favorite color, food, hobby, etc, without me needing to actually tell you.

There's a lot I could say about running a solo campaign, but I won't waste everyone's time. Suffice it to say, if all you've got available to you is a solo game, it's most certainly not a bad thing.

 

[Harlock]

OT humor/hijack, but only for a sec.

You'll go blind! (see thread title)

Umm, I want an avatar!

 

[Shadowdancer]

There is another option everyone is forgetting about that is now possible under 3E rules: You could play a character with levels in all of the four basic areas. A fighter/rogue/sorcerer/cleric, for instance. Could be interesting.

But your idea of the thief/bard is a good one. That type of solo campaign can work out really well. I once ran a solo campaign in which the character was a thief/acrobat posing as a bard.

Another solo campaign I ran was a wilderness campaign. A ranger with a druid NPC were the only regular members of the party. It was sort of a Robin Hood/fighting invading forces of evil in the deep forest campaign. Now you could do it with one character taking levels in ranger and druid.

 

[Kibo]

Solo: Good, Mario van Peebles: Bad

Solo gaming is cool for both you and the GM. You can do things you can't normally do in a campaign with more people. You can colaborate on story ideas that might make neat adventures. You can do things like play books. (I did this with DL Chronicals, actually with two people). You can do more story focused things without other people getting board, or needing attention, or whatever it is they might need. You can experiment with new ideas in your current game, new game systems (I'd always do a few small solo adventures with new game systems, a couple of those ended up being brilliant stories, and some of my best adventures).

There are a lot of advantages with the mano y mano game. The games get extreamly fast, cause you and your player are always on the same page. This actually makes it a little harder on the GM when more people join the game as that subtext just isn't there with the other person and you really notice how much you rely on that. I constantly worried that I might be short changing the new guy, and although, it definately turned out ok (on occasion great). I still can't help but think maybe it could have been better. But with some of the solo ones, we should have transcribed it, found backers, shot it, and split the 100 million in back end box office profits 50/50 and moved to Aruba.

The only thing that's really difficult to do, as others have mentioned, is an ensamble cast. And most good movies, they center on one or two individuals. This is a great opportunity to have a different kind of role playing fun. Take advantage of it.