Do you create personal side quests for PCs?

[Oryan77]

Is that the kind of thing that you mean, or like... solo sessions / actually solo quests?

Both. Your example is what I'm talking about and if it involved a solo quest that maybe you ran on another day with that player without the other players around, even better.

We used to do that all the time when I was younger. I love gaming like that. It's great when you are playing a group game, then between sessions you play a solo session, and then at the next group game you get to explain what you did or it may even impact the group game in some way.

Is this the sort of thing you mean? Everyone helps with the discovery of info for the first two, but the others were definitely loner jobs.

Yeah, that's the kind of stuff I'm talking about. I try not to make the loner jobs take up time in the group game. I'd rather run it as a solo session but I haven't done that in years. But if the loner job can be done fast and allow me to still run something for the other players simultaneously, I don't mind. I'm pretty good at juggling face time when the group splits up.

I frequently create adventures that are geared toward a specific PC. Almost always, it's an adventure for the whole party that merely has special meaning for one PC, and I try to rotate it around so everybody gets a "spotlight on them" adventure in turn.

This is exactly what I like to do. I found out though that I can't do that much as an adult nowadays. Numerous times I have given a PC his turn in the spotlight and then real life causes him to drop from the game. Then I'm stuck figuring out a way to put the spotlight on another PC so it makes sense for them to continue. Or I have to just dump the whole scenario and go back to the group adventure.

 

[Incenjucar]

Nah. D&D is a group activity for me. An adventure might focus on a character, but everyone's involved. If I'm spending 5 hours roleplaying with a single person, we'd better be "role-playing."

 

[Ahnehnois]

I create main quests for specific PCs.

 

[Gilladian]

I think the best mix is when the main quest absorbs and interests each PC individually at various points, and also holds the group's attention as a fun joint enterprise.

I would run small side adventures outside game sessions if PCs were interested, but my players are busy folks who are not going to use up another evening a week for gaming; another issue to consider is that if you cannot give "equal bonus time" to every player at some point, you are giving one player extra experience, resources, etc... that may cause other players to become jealous or frustrated.

 

[Lwaxy]

Yes, lots of times. They are often not solo though, more for a smaller group of PCs following the same goal (2 or 3 people as opposed to the likely group of 8-9 PCs). But I also do quite a few solos.

They are always side quests as such, I often tie them into the story arch. Sometimes the players only realize this later.

 

[UselessTriviaMan]

In a recent long campaign (2+ years), I tossed side quests at most of my players over the course of the campaign. I specifically targeted the neophyte players who hadn't (yet) really seemed to immerse themselves, and almost all were successful.

- While (briefly) in jail, the barbarian was approached by a thief who "knew where to get a great treasure, but he needed the help of someone strong." We actually did that entire side-quest via email during a break between games sessions.

- The fighter had a romantic fling with a somewhat important NPC. We didn't really dwell on it, but when the NPC's daughter was later abducted, it helped draw the player into the story.

- The druid was by far the most fun. This player knew NOTHING of D&D before this campaign, and struggled with creating a backstory. I asked if she'd allow me to help her... She was the amnesiac daughter of one of the main BBEGs, and as the campaign progressed she slowly began to remember bits and pieces. I totally cliched it, but with a new player it was awesome. Getting to tell her (via side-quest) that "Izzanthriel... *I* am your mother!" was a whole lotta fun!

- But then there was the one guy who - even though I tried to spoon-feed him the opportunity - simply would not act in character. Period. (He's kinda not involved in our gaming group anymore.)

 

[DMKastmaria]

Well... on the one hand I like to be very responsive to player interests - if a player says "Let's do X!" and they decide to go do X, I prep and run X. What does it matter what I had planned? I'm just the DM - the PCs are the stars.

OTOH, as a wise fellow said: You are responsible for your own orgasm!

I am not all keen - in fact I am getting extremely averse - to the idea that it is my job to give the players adventures, while they sit back passively to receive what I provide. And that goes double for side quests. If a player wants their PC to go on a side quest, brilliant, let me know. I'm not so keen on "here's your side quest where you can get that maguffin you've been telling me about" - if a player wants a maguffin, go do something to get it in-game. At least tell me you're rolling a streetwise check!

While I largely agree with noisms, I do provide the occasional "reach-around."

I use a series of tables, which Al from Beyond the Black Gate wrote up, one for each class, which provide side-quests, interesting events, etc., for specific PC's.

Beyond the Black Gate: Random Chart: PC Events

 

[kitsune9]

I avoid side quests for players. I do like to take elements of their backgrounds and introduce them into the players' lives and make it part of the campaign or have it central to the campaign, but I don't give special treatment.

Current example of a player getting the central attention in the campaign, but everyone gets to participate is that one of my players has a scoundrel cousin who shows up and enlists the party to go explore a ruined library for him.

 

[pemerton]

Do you create scenarios specifically for a PC to do as a side quest or do you just stick to running an adventure that involves the entire group?

Back when sessions were long and frequent, I would often divide my attention as GM between the different players, as each PC went off and did some thing of his/her own.

These days, with sessions being fewer and shorter and hence gaming time more precious, I like to try and have everyone at the table as much as possible. And I've also come to better appreciate the virtues of players-as-audience - so that these days we generally don't both with notes or GM-player secrets anymore, instead letting the metagame dynamics (including the balance between playing your PC regardless, or playing your PC to achieve some metagaem-determined purpose) be part of the fun.

All that said, I think that incorporating story elements introduced by the players, whether via backgrounds, choice of feats or paragon paths, or just things that come out in the course of play, are crucial. It's just that these aren't sidequests - they're the game. The tricky bit for me, as GM, is to create and sustain a coherent campaign backstory that keeps all the relevant balls in play over the course of the game. It helps that my players are fairly proactive in this respect, and will actively look for ways to produce synergies or conflicts between story elements that keep the whole party involved in the action.

 

[Sunseeker]

If they show interest in it and it's not supremely outside the scope of the campaign, yes. I don't try to push my players into doing things on the basis on what I think they should be.