roguerouge
First Post
I'd love to see you guys do an adventure path for one PC, actually. Right now, those modules are useful as side quests or one-off adventures or fill-ins for a 1 PC campaign.
Tips for DMing a solo game
jgbrowning
Hero
roguerouge said:
How long would you want something to be to be an adventure path? We've got three sequential modules #2 (Star of Olindor), #6 (Shroud of Olindor), and #10 (Vengeance of Olindor, not out yet, but soon) that covers a rogue from levels of around 6th to 10th levels. They're designed to be interconnected but not "pathed" I suppose.
I guess, I'm not sure what the nut-n-bolts definition of an adventure path is.
joe b.
FireLance
Legend
I think most people use the same definition I do, which is a campaign that takes a party (or in this case, a single character) from 1st level to 20th level. Paizo (which originated the term) has mentioned plans for adventure paths that do not do this, but their first three (Shacked City, Age of Worms, Savage Tide) did, and I think that's what most people take the term to mean.jgbrowning said:I guess, I'm not sure what the nut-n-bolts definition of an adventure path is.
Griffith Dragonlake
First Post
I've played in five solo campaigns and two one-shot adventures and have DMed two solo campaigns and un uncountable number of solo side adventures. It's an intense experience for both the DM and the player and frankly outside the skillset and capabilities of most players and a lot of DMs. Things to keep in mind:
- Follow the literary (or film/TV) model: The PC is the hero and the center of the story. The story plays to both their strengths and their weaknesses. When it plays to their strengths, the hero can seriously kick butt and show off their abilities. When it plays to the weaknesses, the stakes are high and the player really sweats it out but success is all the more sweeter.
- As a hero, the PC is a cut above the typical D&D adventurer. I recommend at 32 point buy, beginning play at 2nd level, giving the leadership feat for free, and giving maximum wealth allowed for 2nd level PCs, plus NPC wealth for the cohort and followers. Then have the PC outfit themselves, their cohort, and their followers.
- Don't let the PC play the cohort. Have the DM play the cohort and keep the character sheet a secret. This allows the DM to “cheat” on the PC’s behalf to advance the story.
- As others have said, tailor the campaign to the player but don't go overboard. It has to be fun for the DM also.
- The DM must play to their own strengths as well. One DM I played solo for, hated designing worlds, NPCs, etc. So he ran me through a series of modules tweaking them here and there to keep the right challenge. Another DM loved all things Tolkein and so we played in Middle Earth using the MERP modules but used the D&D rules. My strength as a DM is spontaneous storytelling. So I avoided modules but fleshed out the world in my spare time. The solo players knew that neither I nor them knew what threats lurked around the corner but that I would keep the story interesting. One solo player was great at helping the story by saying things like “Man, I got a bad feeling about that sarcophagus. I'm know there must be some kind of big bad undead in there!”
- Call it quits when it's just not working out. As I mentioned at the top, not every player nor DM is able to run solo effectively and that's OK. If it's not fun for either or you or if one of you are really struggling (usually the same thing) then stop the show. No harm, no foul.
- And finally, there must be an environment of high trust. The Player must trust the DM enough to keep the story going so that it's fun for both. And the DM must trust the Player that they will take the story seriously and try to be as self-reliant as possible. Being good friends goes a very long way towards establishing the high trust environment (HTE).
Scurvy_Platypus
Explorer
I've run a solo game for my wife for quite a while, and here's what I've noticed...
1. It's a _lot_ more tiring. You as the GM are _always_ on. The more players you have, the more opportunities you have to take a break and shift gears to do this or that. Additionally, the other players can keep each other amused while you try to figure out something or another. Often I find that I can keep things going easier with multiple people, because I can split my attention and file away what I hear other people talking/speculating about, and incorporate it. I'm _very_ aware of pauses in the game, even when running a rules-lighter game than d20.
2. While you can slow down and focus on this or that scene, overall you can expect to move through things a lot faster than with a group.
3. An outgrowth of #2 is that you're going to have to improvise a lot more, if you want to have a decent flow to things. Because your player can potentially move through _much_ more stuff, it's going to be hard to run something like a module, except in a broader sense. All sorts of details and bits are going to be forgotten or changed, in the course of trying to keep up with the player. If you try and follow a module "as is" it's most likely going to very stilted.
4. D&D is based around a 4 person group engaged in a _lot_ of combat. You _can_ use D&D for a solo game, but understand that the assumptions are going to have to be tweaked. With a group of people you can toss out a couple of combats, and "pad out" the adventure. People get some combat and dice rolling, XP and treasure rolls in, and life is good. With a solo player though, there's a limited amount of combat padding that's possible. If you try and run a combat heavy game (like a lot of D&D is) you're very likely going to wind up with a bored player.
5. Let the character be competent from the start. Everybody seems obsessed with this "zero-to-hero" thing. "Just look at Star Wars!!! Luke...." Whatever. They always seem to miss that Han and Chewbacca started out kicking ass, and didn't really change in terms of their ass kicking. It's annoying enough to have to worry about having your face eaten off by a rat or a cat, when there's a group of you. When it's just one person, you really have to wonder what the point of it is. Don't just give "4 extra skill points a level to help your character out." Let them be able to open locks easily if they're thief types. The dice roll doesn't reflect _if_ they can open the lock, but how long it's going to take.
If they're a fighter type, let 'em kick in a door or find a key or something. It's pretty easy to hamstring players because they're only playing one class in a game that's expecting 3 others along with them.
5. I see a number of people suggesting having an NPC along. I personally disagree. I'm not a fan of NPCs being in the party to begin with. I see almost no point to it. Almost everything that an NPC can provide, can be given to the players without actually having an NPC along. This relates to point #4.
As far as I'm concerned, the point in a game is _always_ for the player to be awesome. I expect to be awesome in a game when I play, and I make it so that other people can be awesome when I run a game. Having an NPC along to help out just reduces the awesome. If the _player_ explicitly looks to bring along an NPC, then you should go ahead and let them have one. But make sure that while the NPC is useful, the player still rocks. Have the NPC ask questions, seek direction and so forth. Always try and reinforce that the player is in control, and that will help avoid the impulse to "steer" the player through the NPC. It'll also help avoid having the player wonder if the GM is just steering them through the NPC, or even worse simply relying on the NPC to fix things.
You want the player (and character) on the spot, making decisions, kicking ass, and being a hero. One advantage to one on one play is you _can_ let the character and player be awesome, and never worry about the thunder being stolen from anyone else. The character _can_ become the next king of Aquilonia, and the only thing to think about is whether you've tried to script the play so much that it can't happen.
6. One-on-one play is much more "intimate". With a couple of other people around the table, things wind up be a bit more neutral. There's more people to take into consideration. A typical "because I'm the GM" sledgehammer doesn't work in one on one play. You've got to be willing to negotiate and explain yourself.
7. Change your perception. You're not playing D&D, with just one person. You're running the Vlad Taltos books, and happen to be using the D&D rules to pull it off. Or you're running the Hawk & Fisher novels using D&D. Or you're running 300 and focusing on King Leonidas, and happen to be using D&D. It's sort of like shifting your thinking from "half empty" to "half full".
If you focus on just the game aspect, you're running a _strong_ chance of dissatisfying play for both the GM and the player. Massage the rules and use them to get the sort of thing the two of you are looking for. For example, I noticed someone mentioned using Action Points.
If you follow the strict rules of Action Points, you're missing some potential awesome. The Action Points should renew each session, not per level. Let them do more than just the minimum stuff they've listed. Let an AP be spent for a lucky coincidence, or some sort of power-up. You don't have to let the player stomp all over the game and challenge aspect of things, just recognize that usually in one on one play, it's about a lot more than just the game.
8. I think it's a pointless argument whether or not D&D is "appropriate" or "the best" or whatever in terms of running a one on one game. I'm a huge believer that system matters. I'm also a huge believer that if something doesn't work, toss the rule. You can definitely run a kickass one on one game using D&D. If you want to run a one on one game using D&D/d20, go for it.
The suggestions about Trollbabe or Burning Wheel (yuck) or some other small press game... if you've got one, sure go for it. If you're interested in spending money and learning a new rule system, I've got a number to recommend and some free ones too. But don't buy into the idea that D&D is only for group play or zero-to-hero crap, or any of that other stuff.
As long as you're willing to be flexible, you can make D&D/d20 do just fine. Sure, it might take a bit more work, but then again if you're both already knowledgeable about the D&D/d20 rules, you're going to have more work switching over to a new system and learning its quirks and problems. There's no such thing as a perfect game system, no matter what some system freak might claim.
The real secret of success to the smaller press games and why they tend to "work better" for this sort of thing? They're got less rules to start with, and they explicitly say that not all solutions to getting through stuff is just "kill it and take its stuff".
Less rules means that the player and GM automatically have to engage in dialog and power-sharing, instead of simply relying on the rules as a substitute. And it's pretty easy to figure out (and allow) ways of gaining XP (and treasure) other than the usual kill-n-loot.
1. It's a _lot_ more tiring. You as the GM are _always_ on. The more players you have, the more opportunities you have to take a break and shift gears to do this or that. Additionally, the other players can keep each other amused while you try to figure out something or another. Often I find that I can keep things going easier with multiple people, because I can split my attention and file away what I hear other people talking/speculating about, and incorporate it. I'm _very_ aware of pauses in the game, even when running a rules-lighter game than d20.
2. While you can slow down and focus on this or that scene, overall you can expect to move through things a lot faster than with a group.
3. An outgrowth of #2 is that you're going to have to improvise a lot more, if you want to have a decent flow to things. Because your player can potentially move through _much_ more stuff, it's going to be hard to run something like a module, except in a broader sense. All sorts of details and bits are going to be forgotten or changed, in the course of trying to keep up with the player. If you try and follow a module "as is" it's most likely going to very stilted.
4. D&D is based around a 4 person group engaged in a _lot_ of combat. You _can_ use D&D for a solo game, but understand that the assumptions are going to have to be tweaked. With a group of people you can toss out a couple of combats, and "pad out" the adventure. People get some combat and dice rolling, XP and treasure rolls in, and life is good. With a solo player though, there's a limited amount of combat padding that's possible. If you try and run a combat heavy game (like a lot of D&D is) you're very likely going to wind up with a bored player.
5. Let the character be competent from the start. Everybody seems obsessed with this "zero-to-hero" thing. "Just look at Star Wars!!! Luke...." Whatever. They always seem to miss that Han and Chewbacca started out kicking ass, and didn't really change in terms of their ass kicking. It's annoying enough to have to worry about having your face eaten off by a rat or a cat, when there's a group of you. When it's just one person, you really have to wonder what the point of it is. Don't just give "4 extra skill points a level to help your character out." Let them be able to open locks easily if they're thief types. The dice roll doesn't reflect _if_ they can open the lock, but how long it's going to take.
If they're a fighter type, let 'em kick in a door or find a key or something. It's pretty easy to hamstring players because they're only playing one class in a game that's expecting 3 others along with them.
5. I see a number of people suggesting having an NPC along. I personally disagree. I'm not a fan of NPCs being in the party to begin with. I see almost no point to it. Almost everything that an NPC can provide, can be given to the players without actually having an NPC along. This relates to point #4.
As far as I'm concerned, the point in a game is _always_ for the player to be awesome. I expect to be awesome in a game when I play, and I make it so that other people can be awesome when I run a game. Having an NPC along to help out just reduces the awesome. If the _player_ explicitly looks to bring along an NPC, then you should go ahead and let them have one. But make sure that while the NPC is useful, the player still rocks. Have the NPC ask questions, seek direction and so forth. Always try and reinforce that the player is in control, and that will help avoid the impulse to "steer" the player through the NPC. It'll also help avoid having the player wonder if the GM is just steering them through the NPC, or even worse simply relying on the NPC to fix things.
You want the player (and character) on the spot, making decisions, kicking ass, and being a hero. One advantage to one on one play is you _can_ let the character and player be awesome, and never worry about the thunder being stolen from anyone else. The character _can_ become the next king of Aquilonia, and the only thing to think about is whether you've tried to script the play so much that it can't happen.
6. One-on-one play is much more "intimate". With a couple of other people around the table, things wind up be a bit more neutral. There's more people to take into consideration. A typical "because I'm the GM" sledgehammer doesn't work in one on one play. You've got to be willing to negotiate and explain yourself.
7. Change your perception. You're not playing D&D, with just one person. You're running the Vlad Taltos books, and happen to be using the D&D rules to pull it off. Or you're running the Hawk & Fisher novels using D&D. Or you're running 300 and focusing on King Leonidas, and happen to be using D&D. It's sort of like shifting your thinking from "half empty" to "half full".
If you focus on just the game aspect, you're running a _strong_ chance of dissatisfying play for both the GM and the player. Massage the rules and use them to get the sort of thing the two of you are looking for. For example, I noticed someone mentioned using Action Points.
If you follow the strict rules of Action Points, you're missing some potential awesome. The Action Points should renew each session, not per level. Let them do more than just the minimum stuff they've listed. Let an AP be spent for a lucky coincidence, or some sort of power-up. You don't have to let the player stomp all over the game and challenge aspect of things, just recognize that usually in one on one play, it's about a lot more than just the game.
8. I think it's a pointless argument whether or not D&D is "appropriate" or "the best" or whatever in terms of running a one on one game. I'm a huge believer that system matters. I'm also a huge believer that if something doesn't work, toss the rule. You can definitely run a kickass one on one game using D&D. If you want to run a one on one game using D&D/d20, go for it.
The suggestions about Trollbabe or Burning Wheel (yuck) or some other small press game... if you've got one, sure go for it. If you're interested in spending money and learning a new rule system, I've got a number to recommend and some free ones too. But don't buy into the idea that D&D is only for group play or zero-to-hero crap, or any of that other stuff.
As long as you're willing to be flexible, you can make D&D/d20 do just fine. Sure, it might take a bit more work, but then again if you're both already knowledgeable about the D&D/d20 rules, you're going to have more work switching over to a new system and learning its quirks and problems. There's no such thing as a perfect game system, no matter what some system freak might claim.
The real secret of success to the smaller press games and why they tend to "work better" for this sort of thing? They're got less rules to start with, and they explicitly say that not all solutions to getting through stuff is just "kill it and take its stuff".
Less rules means that the player and GM automatically have to engage in dialog and power-sharing, instead of simply relying on the rules as a substitute. And it's pretty easy to figure out (and allow) ways of gaining XP (and treasure) other than the usual kill-n-loot.
jgbrowning
Hero
FireLance said:
Ok. Wow, that'd be a big commitment.
joe b.
roguerouge
First Post
Scurvy_Platypus said:
QFT.
Quick question, though: what extra things do you use action points for?
kensanata
Explorer
jgbrowning said:
I just asked my wife whether she'd be interested in playing said rogue. She loved the idea and I got us the first module. I'm very interested in seeing how 1-on-1 gaming turns out.
As for "Adventure Path": I've been very happy with mini-campaigns such as Red Hand of Doom and Vault of Larin Karr when it comes to the "length". It doesn't have to be Level 1-20. Levels 4-9 or a similar range are just fine with me, as long as it allows significant character development for a single character. 6 to 10 sounds perfect.
(And you deserve extra love for "All text in this work is Open Game Content.")
Last edited:
I agree with Kensanata - I like Necromancer's mega-module/mini-campaigns in terms of length, eg:
Lost City of Barakus is 1st-5th/6th at 1/2 XP
Vault of Larin Karr is 4th-9th
Caverns of Thracia is 3rd-8th or so
I think 5 or 6 levels, maybe with reduced progression rate as in Barakus, is ideal. 1-20 is a hell of a slog and if it becomes boring at (say) levels 10-12, you're stuck. Plus the game changes hugely mechanically from low levels to very high, and the PCs change likewise - unless the campaign covers at least several years of game time it will strain my credulity. Even an epic 1e adventure path like GDQ1-7 only covered about 5 levels (ca 8th to 12th or so, maybe 14th for Thieves); the Saltmarsh trilogy was 1st to 4th or 5th.
Lost City of Barakus is 1st-5th/6th at 1/2 XP
Vault of Larin Karr is 4th-9th
Caverns of Thracia is 3rd-8th or so
I think 5 or 6 levels, maybe with reduced progression rate as in Barakus, is ideal. 1-20 is a hell of a slog and if it becomes boring at (say) levels 10-12, you're stuck. Plus the game changes hugely mechanically from low levels to very high, and the PCs change likewise - unless the campaign covers at least several years of game time it will strain my credulity. Even an epic 1e adventure path like GDQ1-7 only covered about 5 levels (ca 8th to 12th or so, maybe 14th for Thieves); the Saltmarsh trilogy was 1st to 4th or 5th.
Similar Threads
