Solo Campaign: Awkward or Awesome?

GMMichael

Guide of Modos

• Nov 14, 2018

• #1

Some of the games I've been wanting to run lately are based on a one-player or solo-protagonist type of story, specifically, Metroid and Skyrim. However, I've never run a solo game/campaign, and the idea just seems awkward to me. Am I being unfair to the solo-campaign? Is it an acceptable RPG experience, or does it resemble, well, this:
[video=youtube;Yb-sCNfE0bM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yb-sCNfE0bM[/video]

 

log in or register to remove this ad

Ralif Redhammer

Legend

• Nov 14, 2018

• #2

Oh gods, that guy’s dragon t-shirt; I've seen it on so many hardcore gamers!

For my part, I think there’s some essential alchemy to D&D that gets lost when you have fewer than three players. It’s a collaborative game, and as the amount of collaboration dwindles, so does the game.

That being said, I’m a twin, and growing up my brother and I would often run games with just one player and one GM. Heck, sometimes our gaming group was just the two of us plus another friend. Neither scenario stopped us from having fun.

 

L

Lord Crimson

Explorer

• Nov 14, 2018

• #3

My experience has been that it can be fun in many ways (focus on NPC interaction, exploring PC backstory and connections, less decision-paralysis since there's only one person making decisions). That said unless the GM is willing to end the whole thing due to a few bad rolls or bad decisions by the player, it is pretty minimal in the way of tension. Killing valued NPCs gets old after a while.

 

J

Jhaelen

First Post

• Nov 15, 2018

• #4

I think it's okay for standalone sessions, but I'm not sure I'd care for it for a whole campaign. I used to do solo sessions sometimes to play through events that involved the backstory of a single character.

Having said that, I'm quite intrigued by Pelgrane Press' Cthulhu Confidential. Since it's an RPG system that's been designed to be played as a solo campaign, it could be really good. Also, the system borrows heavily from the Gumshoe system and is thus close to RPGs like 'Trail of Cthulhu' and 'Night's Black Agents'.

 

Gilladian

Adventurer

• Nov 15, 2018

• #5

Ive done it before, but never had a campaign last very long. I liked it well enough.

 

Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal

• Nov 15, 2018

• #6

If I was running a solo game, I'd make sure to pick a rule system that doesn't mechanically assume team dynamics, like D&D with it's niche protection. FATE immediately jumps to mind, but there are a lot of options. Heck, there are even systems specifically designed around one player + one GM, like Gumshoe One-2-One.

Just to disclose biases in my answer, I like more between the social aspects but also the creativity (and chaos) of multiples. But that's just a personal preference, not anything against the concept. I've done short one-on-ones, but usually as an aside in a campaign with more players that aren't more than a session or two worth.

 

GMMichael

Guide of Modos

• Nov 17, 2018

• #7

Lord Crimson said:

less decision-paralysis since there's only one person making decisions

Click to expand...

This alone should be a deciding factor for many GMs. Granted, party argument is sometimes a valued chance to collect your thoughts, but I think it's often when the GM thinks "ugh, I could be playing WoW right now."

I'm not so concerned with the RPG's rules/systems as I am with the social contract of the thing. The GM's role is to do all the work, while the player generally shows up and rolls dice. In a sense, each player is a customer, and if there's just one player, the GM can't even cover his "expenses." With a full group, the GM gets more profit.

Or, (I'm no social scientist, by the way) there's a behavioral dynamic involved. As the video in the OP shows to some degree, people act differently when they're interacting with one person or a group (more than one person). If that's good or bad for the game, I'd like to hear about it.

 

A

AndromedaRPG

Explorer

• Nov 17, 2018

• #8

I find that I do like solo (one person and one GM) games. I find that they a) expand in-character interactions, b) allow you to go in depth in the story, and c) offer more flexibility with the character. Basically, by focusing on one person, the spot light can always be on them, and the GM does not have to juggle tying in multiple back stories/ensure the spot light is on everyone equally. Of course, the enjoyment of solo games depends on the person you are gaming with (but that is the case with any game).

I have actually found I have more fun with a solo game than I do with a group games; there are less distractions, less side discussions, less rabbit trails, etc.

 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules

• Nov 17, 2018

• #9

DMMike said:

This alone should be a deciding factor for many GMs. Granted, party argument is sometimes a valued chance to collect your thoughts, but I think it's often when the GM thinks "ugh, I could be playing WoW right now."

Click to expand...

From the player side, I find solo gaming leads to more decision paralysis as I've nobody to bounce ideas off of other than the DM. That said, I also don't have anyone telling me what to do or how to do it....

From the DM side, I find myself constantly wanting to provide ideas and help. Doesn't work well.

For a one-off - say, when someone's got separated from the party, or when we're working out a PC's back history - I'm fine with it. But for an entire campaign? It'd probably end up being a much more co-operative venture between the DM and player - in some ways almost a co-DM situation - than the usual DM-players dynamic at a typical table.

In-party arguments are just fine with me as DM - that's what beer is for. And I'm still being entertained.

 

G

Guest 6801328

Guest

• Nov 17, 2018

• #10

So maybe a follow-up question should be "What sorts of challenges or adventure structure lend themselves particular well to a duet game?"