Playing Solo

[CRG]

2 player controlled characters

When running a game that goes from "normal" to "solo", it is often difficult to scale back and completley change the direction of a game from "question" or "intrigue" to simply "single guy doing thief guild things".

For that reason, when this has happened in the past, I generally recommend that the player think hard about the character they want to play. If they will be happy with one, so be. If they really will want another to do specifically what they wish (and not just be a spear carrier or support cast), play 2 PCs max.

The remainder can be hirelings or henchman.

That said, it has been my experience in most D&D games that (unless you completely trivialize traps and such) a theif-type is nearly required. I've seen successful solo's run where the PC was a straight class with no frills (ie, fighter) but they tend to be more pigeon-holed into adventures ("me fight now"). Having a theif hireling to do all the fun work and get rid of all the traps just doesn't seem realistic.

The Bard-Rogue idea though, I like. It gives you talkiness, stealth, traps and some magic (even some curative magic). That would be a decent class to start with. Hire a bodyguard or two eventually and you're done.

 

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Last time i checked CR didn't stand for Common sence Reduction. If you were able to run a solo adventure in any other version of the game with out lumping a bunch of npc/mutliple characters on the poor player than you should be more than capable to do it with 3e. You just need to gage diffuclty based on the monsters stats on a case by case basis, people used to do it all the time. Don't let CR become a cruch!

 

[fett527]

I love solo!

Solo adventures can be extremely fun! I have a character in a current campaign that requires soloing from time to time and things move much quicker and have an even more realistic feel than group play. I love roleplaying even if it is only with the DM and this allows great interaction with the DM's NPCs. The DM has to be up for the challenge because it is tough on him/her to make sure everything is scaled down. You can always try checking out the old Class Challenge modules from 2nd ed for ideas. I wish someone would convert these. (I also posted a thread about this on the conversions forum with no takers).

 

[optimizer]

Howdy!

We had a similar discussion on this at Dragonsfoot (http://www.dragonsfoot.org ) a short while ago. I noted that a weakness with solo adventures is the lack of variety in problem solving -- different players have different approaches in solving problems, and some problems may not be readily solvable by a single person because they do not see the problem the right way. Still, playing solo is better than not playing at all.

Best of luck!

Mike

 

[Spove]

I love solo games, from either side of the table. I've found that a solo evil game can be quite fun. Evil games normally have a tendency to self-destruct unless you are doing team evil. But even then they tend to bog down. All that baggage is left at the station when running solo evil.

Whether evil or not solo games allow for much more roleplay, npc development and story personalization. Of course it all hinges on a player and dm who are on the same page.

 

[kreynolds]

There is another option everyone is forgetting about that is now possible under 3E rules: You could play a character with levels in all of the four basic areas. A fighter/rogue/sorcerer/cleric, for instance.

The Jack-of-all-Trades. Works every time. You can do it, but it isn't necessary.

I wasn't aware that multiclassing wasn't possible until 3rd edition.

 

[KnowTheToe]

Combat may be more difficult with a one player campaign, but storyline, plot and intrigue no longer need to take a back seat because of party dynamics. I love solo games as well, they are actually better than 2 players and 1 DM IMO.

 

[Voadam]

Single PC games can work well, the dm can fit the descriptions and style of the game to the single PC. The combat has a different flow as groups become much more dangerous and there is no synergy (flanking, cross-class buffing etc.). A bard is well suited to go alone (he can heal, has decent skills, etc.) and there is always multiclassing to become a more all around guy if he wants. He just can't handle combats at anywhere near what you'd expect a party of his level to handle. A single bard could have a lot of fun dealing with adventures designed for much lower level characters where the combat can be handled or there is opportunity for exploration and interaction as opposed to face the uberterror critter or rampaging horde.

I would avoid doing multiple characters with one pc or extraneous npcs joining up with him to be a standard party, stick with the lone guy doing his thing and things can work out well. Of course there will be interaction and cooperation with npcs but the focus should be the one PC.

It should be fun for at least a while.

 

[Maraxle]

In the solo game that I used to run, the player was a fairly intelligent, though boisterous, fighter. I (the DM) ran an NPC rogue that was his sidekick of sorts. We used a lot of adventures found on the web, and fit them in our world. The most fun we had was when I did not adjust the difficulty down for just the two of us. It forced my player have to be very creative with his solutions to problems, as he couldn't just muscle his way through things. Since as the DM I had more info than I should, my taking the "sidekick" role worked out well. I could occasionally come up with a good idea, as all good sidekicks should, without unbalancing the game by leading the player by the nose.

 

[Xilo]

thanks for all of your comments. I may take a level or two in combat orientated class, but i have to say i'm liking the idea of being a little sneaky. my last character was an out and out fighter.

again thanks for all your ideas. i'll bring them up with my DM.