Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Scurvy_Platypus" data-source="post: 3967022" data-attributes="member: 43283">I've run a solo game for my wife for quite a while, and here's what I've noticed...1. It's a _lot_ more tiring. You as the GM are _always_ on. The more players you have, the more opportunities you have to take a break and shift gears to do this or that. Additionally, the other players can keep each other amused while you try to figure out something or another. Often I find that I can keep things going easier with multiple people, because I can split my attention and file away what I hear other people talking/speculating about, and incorporate it. I'm _very_ aware of pauses in the game, even when running a rules-lighter game than d20.2. While you can slow down and focus on this or that scene, overall you can expect to move through things a lot faster than with a group.3. An outgrowth of #2 is that you're going to have to improvise a lot more, if you want to have a decent flow to things. Because your player can potentially move through _much_ more stuff, it's going to be hard to run something like a module, except in a broader sense. All sorts of details and bits are going to be forgotten or changed, in the course of trying to keep up with the player. If you try and follow a module "as is" it's most likely going to very stilted.4. D&D is based around a 4 person group engaged in a _lot_ of combat. You _can_ use D&D for a solo game, but understand that the assumptions are going to have to be tweaked. With a group of people you can toss out a couple of combats, and "pad out" the adventure. People get some combat and dice rolling, XP and treasure rolls in, and life is good. With a solo player though, there's a limited amount of combat padding that's possible. If you try and run a combat heavy game (like a lot of D&D is) you're very likely going to wind up with a bored player.5. Let the character be competent from the start. Everybody seems obsessed with this "zero-to-hero" thing. "Just look at Star Wars!!! Luke...." Whatever. They always seem to miss that Han and Chewbacca started out kicking ass, and didn't really change in terms of their ass kicking. It's annoying enough to have to worry about having your face eaten off by a rat or a cat, when there's a group of you. When it's just one person, you really have to wonder what the point of it is. Don't just give "4 extra skill points a level to help your character out." Let them be able to open locks easily if they're thief types. The dice roll doesn't reflect _if_ they can open the lock, but how long it's going to take.If they're a fighter type, let 'em kick in a door or find a key or something. It's pretty easy to hamstring players because they're only playing one class in a game that's expecting 3 others along with them.5. I see a number of people suggesting having an NPC along. I personally disagree. I'm not a fan of NPCs being in the party to begin with. I see almost no point to it. Almost everything that an NPC can provide, can be given to the players without actually having an NPC along. This relates to point #4. As far as I'm concerned, the point in a game is _always_ for the player to be awesome. I expect to be awesome in a game when I play, and I make it so that other people can be awesome when I run a game. Having an NPC along to help out just reduces the awesome. If the _player_ explicitly looks to bring along an NPC, then you should go ahead and let them have one. But make sure that while the NPC is useful, the player still rocks. Have the NPC ask questions, seek direction and so forth. Always try and reinforce that the player is in control, and that will help avoid the impulse to "steer" the player through the NPC. It'll also help avoid having the player wonder if the GM is just steering them through the NPC, or even worse simply relying on the NPC to fix things.You want the player (and character) on the spot, making decisions, kicking ass, and being a hero. One advantage to one on one play is you _can_ let the character and player be awesome, and never worry about the thunder being stolen from anyone else. The character _can_ become the next king of Aquilonia, and the only thing to think about is whether you've tried to script the play so much that it can't happen.6. One-on-one play is much more "intimate". With a couple of other people around the table, things wind up be a bit more neutral. There's more people to take into consideration. A typical "because I'm the GM" sledgehammer doesn't work in one on one play. You've got to be willing to negotiate and explain yourself.7. Change your perception. You're not playing D&D, with just one person. You're running the Vlad Taltos books, and happen to be using the D&D rules to pull it off. Or you're running the Hawk & Fisher novels using D&D. Or you're running 300 and focusing on King Leonidas, and happen to be using D&D. It's sort of like shifting your thinking from "half empty" to "half full".If you focus on just the game aspect, you're running a _strong_ chance of dissatisfying play for both the GM and the player. Massage the rules and use them to get the sort of thing the two of you are looking for. For example, I noticed someone mentioned using Action Points.If you follow the strict rules of Action Points, you're missing some potential awesome. The Action Points should renew each session, not per level. Let them do more than just the minimum stuff they've listed. Let an AP be spent for a lucky coincidence, or some sort of power-up. You don't have to let the player stomp all over the game and challenge aspect of things, just recognize that usually in one on one play, it's about a lot more than just the game.8. I think it's a pointless argument whether or not D&D is "appropriate" or "the best" or whatever in terms of running a one on one game. I'm a huge believer that system matters. I'm also a huge believer that if something doesn't work, toss the rule. You can definitely run a kickass one on one game using D&D. If you want to run a one on one game using D&D/d20, go for it.The suggestions about Trollbabe or Burning Wheel (yuck) or some other small press game... if you've got one, sure go for it. If you're interested in spending money and learning a new rule system, I've got a number to recommend and some free ones too. But don't buy into the idea that D&D is only for group play or zero-to-hero crap, or any of that other stuff.As long as you're willing to be flexible, you can make D&D/d20 do just fine. Sure, it might take a bit more work, but then again if you're both already knowledgeable about the D&D/d20 rules, you're going to have more work switching over to a new system and learning its quirks and problems. There's no such thing as a perfect game system, no matter what some system freak might claim.The real secret of success to the smaller press games and why they tend to "work better" for this sort of thing? They're got less rules to start with, and they explicitly say that not all solutions to getting through stuff is just "kill it and take its stuff".Less rules means that the player and GM automatically have to engage in dialog and power-sharing, instead of simply relying on the rules as a substitute. And it's pretty easy to figure out (and allow) ways of gaining XP (and treasure) other than the usual kill-n-loot.</blockquote>

Verification