Running a game for just one player?

[Bendris Noulg]

Playing to style is very crucial... I've been running a solo game for nearly 5 years, and the conversion material to d20 (since it barely qualifies as "D&D" per 3E's definition) is being playtested by a solo campaign in addition to a 3 member party-based game.

The solo game is ery political and metaphysical, involving concepts of politics, intrigue, warfare, self-obtained divinity and evolution psientific evolution (making it very hard to find the right Players to bring in to make the game non-solo).

(Of course, anyone living in the far-south burbs of Chi-Town can always drop me an email if such things interest them. )

[Edit]
Forgot to mention that I've just begun playing a solo Oathbound game, which shows a lot of promise (playing a Fighter 8/Assassin 1/Sorcerer 1, from Kara-Tur, using GRR's Assassin Class and the Wu Jen's spell list focusing on Divination). The character has a bit of Herbalist/Apothecary lore via BP's Alchemy & Herbalism rules, which has produced a very well-rounded character. Fighter is definately a strong point, but with "just enough" side abilities to avoid complete dependance on NPC assistance (although a loyal ally is always good to have from time to time).
[/Edit]

 

[Rel]

Despite all the talk of playing to a character's abilities, I firmly believe that you should play to the player's style.

I needed to pop back in here and offer more support for this statement.

A few years ago I ran two separate solo games using the White Wolf - Mage system. The detail required to use the Mage magic system and some of the other intricate political and metaphysical notions in that world lend it well to solo games.

Anyway, with one player we spent a lot of time with him exploring his character and his relationships with his family and friends and how the Awakening of his magical powers affected those relationships. There was also plenty of action filled moments, but most of the time was spent in the roleplaying.

With the other character it was much more of a "guns blazing" style of campaign with very frequent combat and danger and treachery at every turn. Also much fun, but far more suited to that player's gaming style.

The other point mentioned about how you need to have your act together is important. In a "regular" game, you usually get a number of breaks in any given session where you can look over your notes while the players roleplay amongst themselves or concoct a plan or things like that. Not so in a solo game. Every moment that you are reading back over your notes is "dead-air" to the player in question.

This means that solo play can lend itself well to shorter sessions. For the game I run with my wife, this works out well because we play in the evenings after we put our daughter to bed. But we also have the luxury of playing more frequently if we like since we are almost constantly available to one another.

 

[Zander]

Back in the 80's, I DMed a 1E game for a friend that lasted about a year. I second Haiiro's suggestion of allowing the player to have two characters. As in Haiiro's example, it's a good idea if there's a strong bond between them such as might be found between relatives, close friends or members of the same order/organisation. This helps to explain why the characters think alike.

If you have a friendly NPC tag along, make sure he doesn't eclipse the player's PC(s).

As has already been suggested, if the character(s) don't have any kind of magical or mundane healing (beyond natural bodily healing), make sure they find a few healing potions or similar curing magic early on.

Also, hide all your dice rolls even those you would normally show the players in a larger group. The reason is that you'll probably have to fudge rolls more with a single player (both for and against the player).

Where possible, use adventures the solo PC can dip in and out of without too much trouble. For example, I designed a scenario set in a sewer complex. While there were plenty of dangers, I included lots of exits to the surface world. So when things got too dangerous, the PC could leave and come back. Of course there were in-game down sides to leaving and returning, but at least it meant that the PC would survive. The dip in and out approach also means that you can introduce NPC's/monsters without a great deal of explanation about how they got there. In the sewer case, it just meant that the NPC/monster had entered the system from somewhere the PC hadn't been yet or didn't know about (such as a missed secret door).

 

[Silver Moon]

I agree with just about everything stated above, and have a few more suggestions to add. The key is improvisation! The DM needs to be more of a "storyteller" than usual, with less prepared in advance but the ability to keep the story moving in whatever direction the player takes it. Plot notes rather than scripts is the way to go. The other key factor is well developed NPC's, which the solo player should get a chance to play as well during the combat secenarios.

I began a solo game with my wife last summer, originally planned for a single session to bring an old "Living City" character of hers into our weekly campaign. The story took on a life of its own, and we have now played more than 300 hours. Her character is a Rogue, who has now been 'adopted' by an elvan family of bards. She is currently off on a quest, accompanied by a elf Bard, half-elf Rogue and human Fighter. This story is great fun!


The setting and NPC's from this solo campaign are now very well developed, and I've posted them over on the Plots & Places board as "Kingdoms of the Elves (and Dwarves).