How many of you have run or played in a solo-campaign?

[Wombat]

I've run solo adventures for players on probably a dozen occassions; overall I have enjoyed the experience quite a bit and my players have loved it to tears (leading to many calls for future sessions).

I only run them when they seem truly appropriate, not just because a player wants an extra session, but when the time is right, this is often gaming at its best.

 

[Deadguy]

I probably have more experience running one-on-one campaigns than I do of multi-player! it probably stems from atarting playing D&D in a small village, where there was only one other gamer. You either play solo games, or you don't game at all!

I really enjoy the one-on-one format, though it has some significant differences to a normal game and it can be a lot of work for both player and DM. Most of the difference have already been brought up, but for me, the most noteworthy ones are:

• Intensity: since there is only the DM and the player, interaction between the two is very intense. You are essentially holding a single long conversation. This can be quite draining, and I find that in a solo campaign I need to take short breaks as player and as DM every hour or so, just to relax a little, and to reconsider events.
• Role-Playing: when you don't have to worry about boring other players with immersive conversations, you can get a lot of interactive role-play into the game. Whilst there's clearly no need to do every conversation, there is freedom to spend much more time on PC-NPC interactions. Characters seem to develop a lot of depth in the solo games I have run and played in.
• Demanding: since there are no side conversations between players, there's essentially no break in play except that which you create as DM. As such you really need to know your setting and the NPCs, since they have to be at your fingers immediately. Interestingly, though, I find myself spending more time on the setting, and less on the specific adventure. Since there's no-one else to bow to, the player has a free hand to do whatever he wants, so stories can go off on tangents really quickly!

As for the practicalities of a single character in a D&D game, I have found a couple of things help make the PC's life easier. Firstly, there's no-one else to balance against (except NPCs - but that's the DM's problem), so a character who would be overly strong in a normal game is fine in a solo one. I have a game with a half-fiend PC, and though he has more powers, I don't worry about the Level Adjustment too much.

Secondly, having a few NPCs about to help is fine. In one game, the PC and his sidekick became so close, and the PC knew his personality so well, that in combat I could leave the player to handle the sidekick and just worry about the monsters. That helps immeasurably.

Finally, if healing is a problem, then bend the rules! Let alchemical healing potions be fairly common. Give out a little more cash to pay for NPC clerics to heal. Make using scrolls easier. I suspect, though I haven't tried, that a VP/WP system might be useful here.

I want to add that, though a solo game is different in feel to a standard D&D game, it is still a lot of fun... provided the DM and player mesh well in gaming styles!

 

[Furtive Noise]

Solo games can be great fun, both to DM and play. You can really focus on one character's personality, goals, and development. I think one of the nicest things is that you're not constrained into doing things just to keep a party together. Think of how many times in a campaign your character doesn't do something or reacts in a certain way in order to keep the game going, the group together and not infighting, and the overall story moving. In a solo game, your characters actions are the story. You have to really be into it, however. Both the player and the DM are constantly 'on'.

As for practical concerns about survival and such, well just 'cause its a solo game doesn't mean the character is always alone. Most of the time he can have different people adventure with him, coming or going as seems appropriate for the story. And the party doesn't always need to have a 'perfect balance' of pc's, so varieties in levels work better. I've never seen a high level solo game, but if I were DMing one I'd probably cut way back on instant death effects, having your character die from one missed save sucks when the story revolves around him and not the party as a whole which can keep on fighting. Most solo games I've seen focused on rogue-like characters, the kind who want to go off stealing or into stealthy missions but are constrained by a normal large adventuring battle party.

 

[skinnydwarf]

Back when I was in middle school/high school I ran a great Jorune solo campaign for my friend Aaron. We both really liked the world, and it went well. I wish I could find my notes from that campaign. I wish I could run Jorune again- one of the best roleplaying worlds out there.

 

[FireLance]

Here are a couple of random pointers for solo games:

1. Play to the main character's strengths. Allow her chances to use her signature abilities in every game. Unlike a group game, when everyone should have the chance to shine, you only need to worry about one PC. NPCs should be supporting characters. They may be useful, but they should not overshadow the main PC.

2. Instant-kill and instant-disable effects such as dominate, hold and paralysis are bad. Charm may be ok if you have the right player, but when in doubt, avoid. The fate of the entire campaign should not rest on a single die roll, and it can if the main PC is subject to a save-or-die effect.

3. You can also place treasures that significantly enhance the main character's abilities or shore up her weaknesses. For example, a ring of freedom of movement can allow her to overcome monsters that use paralysis (and allow you to use them). At lower levels, you can give out less powerful items that provide only limited protection, e.g. a ring that converts a paralysis effect to a slow effect instead of making the character immune.

4. Interaction becomes important in a solo campaign, or you might as well open the monster manual and work you way up from the CR 1/10 creatures. Since the PC has no other PCs to interact with, you will have to supply interesting NPCs to shore up the gap.

5. As other people have said, a solo campaign can make that single PC truly stand out. In group campaigns, every player ought to have "equal time" and generally, equal influence in the campaign world. In a solo campaign, the PC can be special and unique: the heir to the kingdom, or the Chosen One, or the subject of some ancient prophecy.

 

[ArcOfCorinth]

I probably have more experience running one-on-one campaigns than I do of multi-player! it probably stems from atarting playing D&D in a small village, where there was only one other gamer. You either play solo games, or you don't game at all!

I really enjoy the one-on-one format, though it has some significant differences to a normal game and it can be a lot of work for both player and DM. Most of the difference have already been brought up, but for me, the most noteworthy ones are:

• Intensity: since there is only the DM and the player, interaction between the two is very intense. You are essentially holding a single long conversation. This can be quite draining, and I find that in a solo campaign I need to take short breaks as player and as DM every hour or so, just to relax a little, and to reconsider events.
• Role-Playing: when you don't have to worry about boring other players with immersive conversations, you can get a lot of interactive role-play into the game. Whilst there's clearly no need to do every conversation, there is freedom to spend much more time on PC-NPC interactions. Characters seem to develop a lot of depth in the solo games I have run and played in.
• Demanding: since there are no side conversations between players, there's essentially no break in play except that which you create as DM. As such you really need to know your setting and the NPCs, since they have to be at your fingers immediately. Interestingly, though, I find myself spending more time on the setting, and less on the specific adventure. Since there's no-one else to bow to, the player has a free hand to do whatever he wants, so stories can go off on tangents really quickly!

As for the practicalities of a single character in a D&D game, I have found a couple of things help make the PC's life easier. Firstly, there's no-one else to balance against (except NPCs - but that's the DM's problem), so a character who would be overly strong in a normal game is fine in a solo one. I have a game with a half-fiend PC, and though he has more powers, I don't worry about the Level Adjustment too much.

Secondly, having a few NPCs about to help is fine. In one game, the PC and his sidekick became so close, and the PC knew his personality so well, that in combat I could leave the player to handle the sidekick and just worry about the monsters. That helps immeasurably.

Finally, if healing is a problem, then bend the rules! Let alchemical healing potions be fairly common. Give out a little more cash to pay for NPC clerics to heal. Make using scrolls easier. I suspect, though I haven't tried, that a VP/WP system might be useful here.

I want to add that, though a solo game is different in feel to a standard D&D game, it is still a lot of fun... provided the DM and player mesh well in gaming styles!

I agree. I'm running a solo campaign right now that features a half-drow/half-celestial as the PC. We completed the Sunless Citadel in seven sessions and moved on to Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil. We played for ten hours last session and didn't roll a dice until the eighth hour or so.

 

[ArcOfCorinth]

Ugh.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

As someone that's played in many solo games (including a current Oathbound game as a 12th Level NE Human Fighter) and run many more, I see a lot of good advice in this here thread.

Very nice.

Role-Playing: when you don't have to worry about boring other players with immersive conversations, you can get a lot of interactive role-play into the game. Whilst there's clearly no need to do every conversation, there is freedom to spend much more time on PC-NPC interactions. Characters seem to develop a lot of depth in the solo games I have run and played in.

While in full agreement with all of your points, this one can't be stressed enough. I'll occassionally break the game up for 3-4 weeks, having 2-3 solo sessions per player during the interim, using the time to involve them in politics (government, guild, religious heirarchy, etc.), involve their personal relationships (parents, siblings, significant others and children, long-time allies, etc.), as well as individual-quests specifically for/about the specific PC.

Example: The Wizard wants to make an item and research some spells, the Druid has obligations to pay back a favor granted, the Rogue wants to go be a lounge lizard, but the Fighter in the group wants to do something). This simple set up can easily provide 1-2 sessions apiece as solo games, even more if I feel like stirring things up dramatically and the players are up for it. This can even be used to set things up for the next quest or even later: During this time, the Wizard is visited from a friend that warns of a comet appearing in an ill-favored constellation, while the Druid learns from the EarthMother that darkness approaches, the Rogue catches a rumor that an evil cult is back in the city and attempting to obtain an evil artifact via the black market, and the Fighter returns with stories of unnamed evil stirring in the southern forests. Re-united, the PCs share their information and things start to come together into a larger picture that begins their next adventure as a group.

Over all, this effect helps to "draw out" the characters even more in a group game, since the players all become more familiar with their characters and more comfortable portraying them to some degree.