Forked Thread: Games that are good for lone wolves (Was 4E Consequences: )
- Thread starter maddman75
- Start date
Fallen Seraph
First Post
Hmm... Cthulhutech where the player is a Engel pilot would work well. It would fit well with lots of genre tropes where the one biggest, baddest mecha takes on lots of foes.
Remathilis
Legend
WEG's d6 Star Wars was good for solo games, esp if you were a Jedi. I'm not sure about later editions and soloing though (Saga is nicely balanced between classes, RCR's vit/wnd means every attack is a potential TPK).
Definitely though, a Jedi would be the best class/build for a solo SW game.
Definitely though, a Jedi would be the best class/build for a solo SW game.
The Highway Man
First Post
This is the concept of team work implied by the Dungeon set up that really makes D&D not particularly appropriate for lone wolves games. The more the particular edition's design rests on the notion that character classes are complementary in a dungeon environment, the less convenient LW games are to play with such an edition (unless you depart completely from the dungeon environment, or use DM PCs or multiple PCs per player, but you basically have to step away from the game's assumptions in some way or another to make it work).
If a particular RPG isn't built on the concept of dungeoneering, the LW games can work better. In Fantasy, games like Warhammer or RuneQuest for instance, or Vampire: Dark Ages (since Vampire is pretty much based on the concept of 'lone wolves' and player-player conflicts). Games like Pendragon and Ars Magica too, in other play styles.
I think jdrakeh got it right basically: pretty much any tabletop game would work better than D&D in this instance.
If a particular RPG isn't built on the concept of dungeoneering, the LW games can work better. In Fantasy, games like Warhammer or RuneQuest for instance, or Vampire: Dark Ages (since Vampire is pretty much based on the concept of 'lone wolves' and player-player conflicts). Games like Pendragon and Ars Magica too, in other play styles.
I think jdrakeh got it right basically: pretty much any tabletop game would work better than D&D in this instance.
Last edited:
Pbartender
First Post
That reminds me a lot of Spycraft... Often you have a group of characters who are ostensibly a team, but who each have their own area of expertise. While combat is almost always a cooperative effort simply by dint of everyone being involved, most non-combat challenges will falls into one or another character's specialization (infiltration, socialization, computer hacking, technical gadgets, driving/piloting, etc...). Usually, outside of combat, the characters seem to take turns being the spotlighted lone wolf, while the are just along for the ride, waiting for their turn.
As long as the players are willing to take their turns, and then wait for their next turn, it's a good way to satisfy the lone wolf itch.
Also, I reject Kamikaze's premise.
From the parent thread, no one is claiming that solo games, in and of themselves, are bad. No one is saying 4e is "too good" for that, and that lone wolves are "badwrongfun". Yes, 4e does not actively facilitate lone-wolf style. That is not a value judgement.
The issue, however, comes down to this: conflicting playstyles at odds, and differing expectations about what the campaign should be.
A "lone wolf" playstyle and a "team effort" playstyle do not work very well in the same room together. And a group of lone wolves do not work well, without a lot of work, or a different system (see: Shadowrun).
It puts a strain on the DM to accommodate both playstyles, and puts a strain on the social dynamics of the players at the table. Not to mention on the game itself. If the Lone Wolf just walks off, and winds up in an encounter, he could drag the monsters back to the first group, or set off an alarm. The DM is also working hard to rope the lone wolf back into the group, to give him incentives to continue with what the rest of the group is doing.
It would be like being at a table where a Hackmaster group wants to play hack'n'slash monte haul, and one player wants serious intrigue and extensive roleplaying. He's in the wrong game, not because intrigue and extensive RP are bad, but because 1) his group doesn't want that, and 2) the game he's playing is counter-intuitive to that.
If you have a group that wants a campaign of player-vs-player conflict, and one guy who wants everyone to get along so they can save the world, someone's going to wind up unhappy.
Now, over in the parent thread, this is compounded by hostility towards Lone Wolves in general. Lone wolf players in a group-play campaign can be a major disruption to the game because they are trying to play their way, and everyone else is playing the other. This is my experience, so I have a bias against lone wolves in campaigns/groups/games not suited for their playstyle. Many DMs have a bias against evil characters, because people use "playing evil" as an excuse to be a disruption. Same situation.
A lone wolf playstyle, a lone wolf character, a group of lone wolves can work just fine if everyone is on the same page from day one. Case in point, "The Usual Suspects". All the characters work together because they have to. If one said, "Forget you guys, I'm going home", then either he leaves the story, or 1/5th of the movie is about that guy at his house, doing things unrelated to the rest of the story. The latter is what happens in an RPG, because you have 4-5 people writing the story as it happens.
From the parent thread, no one is claiming that solo games, in and of themselves, are bad. No one is saying 4e is "too good" for that, and that lone wolves are "badwrongfun". Yes, 4e does not actively facilitate lone-wolf style. That is not a value judgement.
The issue, however, comes down to this: conflicting playstyles at odds, and differing expectations about what the campaign should be.
A "lone wolf" playstyle and a "team effort" playstyle do not work very well in the same room together. And a group of lone wolves do not work well, without a lot of work, or a different system (see: Shadowrun).
It puts a strain on the DM to accommodate both playstyles, and puts a strain on the social dynamics of the players at the table. Not to mention on the game itself. If the Lone Wolf just walks off, and winds up in an encounter, he could drag the monsters back to the first group, or set off an alarm. The DM is also working hard to rope the lone wolf back into the group, to give him incentives to continue with what the rest of the group is doing.
It would be like being at a table where a Hackmaster group wants to play hack'n'slash monte haul, and one player wants serious intrigue and extensive roleplaying. He's in the wrong game, not because intrigue and extensive RP are bad, but because 1) his group doesn't want that, and 2) the game he's playing is counter-intuitive to that.
If you have a group that wants a campaign of player-vs-player conflict, and one guy who wants everyone to get along so they can save the world, someone's going to wind up unhappy.
Now, over in the parent thread, this is compounded by hostility towards Lone Wolves in general. Lone wolf players in a group-play campaign can be a major disruption to the game because they are trying to play their way, and everyone else is playing the other. This is my experience, so I have a bias against lone wolves in campaigns/groups/games not suited for their playstyle. Many DMs have a bias against evil characters, because people use "playing evil" as an excuse to be a disruption. Same situation.
A lone wolf playstyle, a lone wolf character, a group of lone wolves can work just fine if everyone is on the same page from day one. Case in point, "The Usual Suspects". All the characters work together because they have to. If one said, "Forget you guys, I'm going home", then either he leaves the story, or 1/5th of the movie is about that guy at his house, doing things unrelated to the rest of the story. The latter is what happens in an RPG, because you have 4-5 people writing the story as it happens.
Last edited:
jdrakeh
Front Range Warlock
Great example! Spycraft is a game that has a strong reliance on archetypes but doesn't assume a specific party composition. Ditto, Shadowrun, actually. I think that is the single biggest thing that hinders D&D with regard to 'lone wolf' play (i.e., the assumed default party composition and, by extension, the way that the default D&D archetypes feed into that).
Remathilis
Legend
I'm actually going to try for Asmodeus's Advocate here.
I think 4e is the BEST version of D&D so far to accommodate solo play.
1.) Characters can Self-Heal, both IN combat (Second Wind) and out (surges). Previous to that, PCs needed a cleric, cure potions, or to a lot of rest in-between to heal.
2.) Since Skills raise evenly, a PC can attempt more things than he could before. He can try to scout, search, climb, jump and even identify magic without relying on large amounts of magic items and spells to do that.
3.) While the current XP system is built around 5 people, some simple number-juggling could create a system of creating challenges for a solo. For example, if 5 level 1s is a challenge for a 1st level party, one level 1 (or 5 minions) would be close enough. You'd have to be very forgiving (few multiple foes unless very weak or minions) but it could be done.
While not perfect, I certainly don't see 3e or earlier as any less clunky at solo gaming, esp without resorting to more DM fiat and excessive magic.
I think 4e is the BEST version of D&D so far to accommodate solo play.
1.) Characters can Self-Heal, both IN combat (Second Wind) and out (surges). Previous to that, PCs needed a cleric, cure potions, or to a lot of rest in-between to heal.
2.) Since Skills raise evenly, a PC can attempt more things than he could before. He can try to scout, search, climb, jump and even identify magic without relying on large amounts of magic items and spells to do that.
3.) While the current XP system is built around 5 people, some simple number-juggling could create a system of creating challenges for a solo. For example, if 5 level 1s is a challenge for a 1st level party, one level 1 (or 5 minions) would be close enough. You'd have to be very forgiving (few multiple foes unless very weak or minions) but it could be done.
While not perfect, I certainly don't see 3e or earlier as any less clunky at solo gaming, esp without resorting to more DM fiat and excessive magic.
This is how most games I run, apart from D&D, tend to go. I've found that as long as what's happening is interesting, exciting, or funny, no one really minds waiting their turn. Well, for 5-10 minutes. You don't want to make it an hour while the ninja sneaks around or whatever. That will kill your pacing faster than just about anything.
I don't really keep it on a timer, more like just try to keep it long enough for them to try whatever they had thought of, and not so long that the interest of the other players starts to die down.
Another thing that helps is to completely trust your players with In Character vs Out Of Character knowledge. I never go off in another room if someone gets some information the rest of the group doesn't know about. Yes, doing that adds verisimilitude, but it kills pacing, and to me pacing is king. I simply trust that they'll play their characters appropriately, or at least in a fun way. They generally do
.Similar Threads
