Solo d20

[mrswing]

Don't know whether this is the ideal forum for this thread, but...

I can't help wondering if there isn't a strong market for an RPG which is intended for one player and one DM. And if this were to use the d20 engine (with a maximal compatibility with existing systems), so much the better.

But what rule changes would be needed to make this a viable system? Something definitely should be done about healing, as the character will not be part of a polyvalent party where everyone has his/her niche.
The number of opponents the character faces will probably be much lower than in the run-of-the-mill D&D adventure (taking D&D as a yardstick for a moment).
Which of course also means that experience rules will have to change drastically. It will no longer be feasible to base increases in experience level mostly on XP gathered by slaying hundreds of opponents, but the bulk should be earned by reaching story goals.
Perhaps a change in the combat system (to make it easier to achieve non-lethal but temporarily debilitating results) would also be necessary.
Succesful saving throws against (say) a fireball should probably result in no damage, rather than half damage. And save or die-effects should be VERY rare indeed.

Any ideas/suggestions?

 

[ivocaliban]

I ran a solo Greyhawk campaign for six years. The rest of the party was made up of NPCs, although we split the duty of controlling these supporting characters. While I spoke for all of the NPCs and gave them their personalities, the player rolled dice and made tactical decisions for several of them. I suppose in that light it was rather like a Final Fantasy game in which the player told the characters what to do in combat, but he didn't control their personalities.

Anyway, this style worked for us, but I'm sure it isn't for everyone. You do have to put aside the idea that death is always a hair's breadth away, however, if you want a solo campaign to work with any sort of continuity. As I've said before, there are many fates worse than death...and all of them are more rewarding when considering the overall storyline. Death can occur, but in a solo campaign it's more important that it not be entirely random. A dramatic battle with a key villain that ends in death is at least more rewarding than failing a saving throw and falling in a pit trap.

I realize some folks don't appreciate fudging the rules under any circumstances, but it really is a necessity in a solo game. Otherwise the entire campaign grinds to a halt while the player makes a new character and the DM tries to find some way to connect this new character to the old character's quest. Or you end up doing an entirely new game/setting which means the DM has to start from scratch. Either way, it's a drag.

One way I found to fudge without breaking too many rules was to give the solo PC a "gift." In my solo campaign, for instance, the PC was an aasimar whose mother died not long after his birth. She left her son with a ring bearing her family crest. When the PC grew up, he wore the ring constantly in memory of the mother he never knew. During a particularly nasty battle with an ogre mage the PC was slain, just before the rest of the party managed to over come the foe.

The party was far from any sort of healer and I knew it would slow down the game immeasurably to have things end at this point. So, I remembered the ring and considering the nature of aasimars and their ancestors I decided to have the ring cast raise dead on the PC before it crumbled to dust. I also took advantage of this moment to play out a dream sequence/near death experience with the PC and his mother's spirit and it worked well from all angles.

So, the "gift" can be anything...and you don't have to explain it all right away. In fact, it's far better if you don't. That way, you have at least one failsafe built into the system if something goes terribly awry. The PC above just thought his gift was an ordinary signet ring until the moment came and its power was triggered.

Anyway, just a few suggestions from someone who has DM'd more than his fair share of solo campaigns.

 

[balterkn]

If one player controlling 3+ PCs isn't an option (and likely, wouldn't be too satisfying), maybe something like a character tree?

Let the player have a few characters, of which only one is "in focus" at any one time. You can fudge experience, so that off-screen PCs gain XP at 1/2 rate (to simulate that they do some other value added, but not interesting, adventuring). The off-screen PCs will be behind, but as long as they come out occasionally, they should keep up). I haven't had a chance to work on the actual rate (1/2 verses 3/4 verses 1/4). The idea would be that if the current PC dies, there is another PC available to continue the plot (and is presumably related to the first PC in some way as to be motivated for a rescue).

This gives the player some variety in character and the DM a little plot-buffer so that the one main PC death doesn't grind things to a halt.

Oh, and the idea of NPCs with joint control for battle is a good addition also (which is what we currently do for one-on-one gaming) but still has the resiliency problem, as mentioned above.

 

[Rob Toth]

A great question and great suggestions so far. My two cents: Some of the best times I've ever had gaming came in a solo James Bond campaign. The rule set was a perfect match for the movies and novels, which is to say, adventures where a lone hero can pull off superhuman stunts, fight oddball bad guys, be an expert in everything (including zee art of love) and save the world single-handed. I think you could duplicate that experience in lots of existing game systems, but you would have to let the hero be a "hero"--somebody who's far above everyday folks in terms of abilities. And that approach wouldn't fit into every RPG. Maybe Conan, say, but not necessarily A Game of Thrones.

In terms of actual mechanics, you might just start the character at an advanced level (in a d20 game) or provide a bunch more points at creation (in GURPS, for instance). For in-game stuff, action points could give the charcter a heroic edge. And you might shift the expectations of adventures. Returning to the Bond game, for instance, it was explicitly spelled out in the rules that characters shouldn't be afraid to get captured by the big villain; in the spirit of the books and movies, capture was a way to find out vital information, and there'd always be a chance of escape. So there might need to be an agreement between the GM and player about the tone of the game and how dangerous situations would be handled.

Going back to 007 one last time, it definitely helped that my GM and I were rabid fans of the series and generally had the same sensibilities and sense of humor. A good relationship between players and GMs is always important; in a solo game, it's critical.

Hope this helps!

Take care,
Rob