I've been running a mish-mash of PF modules in a Pseudo Campaign one on one (most of the time) with MY GF.
She created her own character and then I had her "recuit" and adventuring party of NPCs.
I've done this before with DD3e, Mekton, and even V&V back in the day.
I let the player make all of the dice rolls for the NPCs in the party, and make most of the major decisions for the NPCs as well. BAsically, its run like a hero and their cohorts...
It also allows for some great one on one roleplaying.
But you also need to understand that there is only one "mind" on the player's side, so sometimes they will miss clues and solutions that a party of 4-6 players would work out talking amongst themselves...so you ahve to roleplay the NPCs to give helpful hints.
With this in mind, we did a great mini campaign:
Silent Tide
Hangman's Noose
Master of the Fallen Fortress
(Then a short trip north to Falcon's Hollow: two mini adventures)
Hollow's Last Hope
Kobold King/Return of the Kobold King/Hungry Dead (Combined into one long scenario)
(Back to Absalom- two more mini adventures)
Off to the River Kingdoms: Trial of the Beast (set in "Lengport" a Ustalavian Colony City on the north shore of the first lake)
The party "works" for the Pathfinder's Guild, which gives them an excuse to run all over the place with the Gnomish Experimental Paddleboat they bought.
Now, with 1:1 gaming, you'll get to know your player's style and what kind of adventures they like (My GF likes more roleplaying and exploration/puzzles: that's why I picked Silent Tide to introduce her to PF) and you should tailor your adventures to fit that.
For example, we are using the slow XP progression to allow more room to roleplay and have off adventure encounters. My GF doesn;t like dungeon crawl, so I keep most of the combat scenes down to 6 encounters or less...sometimes spreading them out over several locations. For example in Kobold King, the party tried to unite the kobold slaves....this allowed them to bypass several encounters.
So, have a good time, read through some of the advenutres, and see if your player would like to adventure that way. And let them help you create the advantureing party... that can be fun all by itself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm running Carrion Crown as a solo AP. Here's my experiences.
You've got a lot of talking. Paizo's more recent APs put in vast stacks of NPCs to add flavor to the setting, keep interest in the plot, to guide the PCs when the plot gets too vague, and to make interacting with the showcased region more fun and fulfilling. Your player is (usually) playing just one character. On a good day you're doing half a dozen. Including dungeon crawls because what happens when your PC is smart and ends a combat with a charm monster?
You've got a lot of handholding. The APs require a great deal of thinking out of your players. There are inferences, deductions, puzzles, planning, and your player will only accept a finite amount of obvious help. I've had to comfort my player out of game because a combat went bad, I've had to take a week off so she could mull over a puzzle longer, I've had to add extra clues, and I've had to fudge rolls. Now, all of these things are problems a standard gaming group could easily run into but in that gaming group you have other players to provide that support and to help a lagging player catch up. You don't have that when you solo-DM.
You've got to modify a few combats. Paizo combat is deadly. CRs are often level+1, the monsters are expected to use terrain and resources, and (most importantly) your player has no backup. One failed save against a ghoul paralysis and either it's a TPK or you get creative. Maybe the ghoul only wants to eat your player's left ear. Maybe it wants conversation. Maybe it tries to bite over and over again just to pass along ghoul fever. Or mayby the player dies and all the work the both of you have done over weeks and weeks collapses because of a single bad roll.
You might have to walk that fine line. That fine line of GMPCs. I use them. There's a fine line between playing a walking meat shield and being accused of railroading your player into a preconceived plot. Because I have a very intelligent player I tend to fall more towards the 'walking meat shield' end because my player is capable of finding each and every point where I give unsolicited help and it bugs her to no end.
I'm not recommending against solo-RP. I'm not recommending for it either. With the right adventure it's great. I've put together really good, fulfilling adventures for solo-RP. I've also overestimated what my player can do and had to get creative. It's all in how you balance it. You just have to remember that one player is not a standard 4 PC party. Even if that one player is playing 4 PCs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a great deal of experience playing RPGs, especially D&D, one-on-one. I would typically have the player play 2 characters, and I, the DM/GM, would play another 2. Of course, any decisions which I feel my DM-omniscience would influence I leave to the player.
It really does work. I ran many fun campaigns this way. One of them (using 3.0) lasted for more than 3 years.
I, too, have extensive 1:1 GMing experience. The insights of the previous two posters are very wise.
Some other thoughts I had:
1) Make sure that she's not afraid. When you're alone timidity can be a very big thing. Talk her up into adventuring and into using limited-use items. Hoarding =/= the wisest thing when you're alone.
2) Tightly control wealth. Random item generation can get very silly very quickly if you don't. I'm not suggesting that you "starve" your PC for wealth - far from it. But if you rely on random item generation, a single PC's power swing will vary far more than it should, even using the same methods. Take long, hard looks at items before you introduce them. Focus items so they're more useful or easily liquidated or she has an easy location to store them and a plot reason to keep them. This especially becomes important if you don't do number...
3) I'd actually recommend against having the PC have multiple characters. We started out doing this, and it was great, but it got tedious over time, and more and more difficult to role play such a divergent set of characters in their off-time; as such, we've slowly walked away from this style and more into a one-PC style (with multiple ways of handling that). It's not that it's a bad thing at all, and your style will certainly differ, but it can cause a headache for a player who's attempting to keep track of two large sets of abilities, two different sets of items, keep track of two different buffed individuals (and their separate buffs) and so on. It can be complicated doing that for one, much less two! However, if you take this route...
4) I'd recommend giving a power boost to the player to increase survivability and to help her feel more at ease taking risks (see number one). This power boost can take many forms, ranging from free/extra hero points (as seen at the back of the APG, alternatively, action points from Eberron - they're different but similar in concept), a nice (single) magical item that she'd want to hang on to for a good while (possibly an heirloom, it shouldn't be too overwhelming, like a +3 weapon at level one, but it should have enough benefits to be retained for several levels), to simply better stats (5d6/re-roll 1's and 2's for rolling, 25-30 point-buy for point-buy, etc). One other option, though I don't recommend it lightly is...
5) Don't be afraid to stray from RAW. Depending entirely on how much experience you have with this sort of thing, feel free to alter, adjust, or blend different classes into one expressly for the player character. This is not a recommendation to simply gestalt. Down that road can lie madness (especially to a new player!). Rather, feel free to semi-gestalt or quasi-gestalt. Take a few (a very strong preference toward non-conditional or constant) benefits from one class that would be useful and/or thematic to the campaign, clean them up, and blend them into your PC's chosen class as a great way to tie them into the game you're doing thematically without overwhelming them. This should be handled with care, however, and usually comes recommended when you're player is the only character, or their concept really doesn't blend with your own well, or would suffer badly in the game as you have it now (and you've no real way to change it and/or she wants to play this game/concept/whatever, not another).
6) Don't be afraid of GM-PC's, but don't favor them heavily, especially compared to the PC(s). As I said above, both posters offered wise insights on how to use these, so I'll not delve further into it. Even in multi-party games I've used GM-PCs, however mine tend to have a low survivability rate. One great way to ratchet up the tension, still make the party feel threatened, but not actually murder your only player is to target a fairly tough GM-PC and have them go down. Don't do this every time, of course, otherwise they'll become the "Worf", but every once and a while this can be an effective tactic. Also, if your player is (to borrow a term from a game I don't play) grabbing too much "aggro" from the baddies, the GM-PC is a great way to divert their wrath and allow your only player to survive. If you have to have a murder session, a GM-PC is far preferable to the rest of the party.
7) Roleplay. Also, ROLEPLAY. Oh, and just to clarify: ! :D THIS is the place where 1:1 shines far more than any of the larger group games I've run or played in. It's not that a Dungeon Crawl is worthless 1:1, nor that large groups don't have some great RP potential (certain things even better than 1:1), but 1:1 has many, many, many RP options to delve into that group-play doesn't. There are so many more ways to blend, alter, or delve into the story and background with a 1:1 than you can easily do with a group, and (especially if you have a strong bond of trust and/or good communication skills) you can delve into stories or concepts that group-play just doesn't support. It's probably one of the best facets of 1:1. So use it. Use it good. 'Cause that's some powerful stuff when done well.
That's about it for now. I might come back to this later, if I remember. Sorry it took me so long to respond to this. >.<
A lot of what you do as a DM will depend on what class they take.
I have some expirence mutiple pcs works from a combat perspective. Also from this perspective make sure to give the pcs magical weapons they are proficient with. It sucks finding the a +1 axe and having no one be proficient with it. Pay attention to what the pc wants as it will not interfere with anyone else in the group.
Pay attention to what the pc wants as it will not interfere with anyone else in the group.
And not only is it easier to cater to one player, but you can use that to your advantage, and exploit it, giving you an instant adventure hook.
PLAYER: Boy, I wish I had a Belt of Awesomeness.
ME (as DM): One of your contacts just told you where a Belt of Awesomeness is rumored to be: deep in the Dungeon of Death, not far from the hamlet of Remoteville.
Take a look at the Duets column over at rpg.net.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, and another thing. I differ from Tacticslion on this point...
Don't be afraid of GM-PC's, but don't favor them heavily, especially compared to the PC(s). As I said above, both posters offered wise insights on how to use these, so I'll not delve further into it. Even in multi-party games I've used GM-PCs, however mine tend to have a low survivability rate. One great way to ratchet up the tension, still make the party feel threatened, but not actually murder your only player is to target a fairly tough GM-PC and have them go down. Don't do this every time, of course, otherwise they'll become the "Worf", but every once and a while this can be an effective tactic. Also, if your player is (to borrow a term from a game I don't play) grabbing too much "aggro" from the baddies, the GM-PC is a great way to divert their wrath and allow your only player to survive. If you have to have a murder session, a GM-PC is far preferable to the rest of the party.
In my experience, a lone player should, and usually will, regard DM-PCs as members of the party, just like (s)he would regard PCs controlled by other players in a "normal" game. Members of a party should care about each other and look after each other, and the death of a party member played by ANYONE should hurt. (I said "USUALLY will" because there were a FEW exceptions. I did play a few DMPCs that one player found annoying. Sometimes, he would distrust that character, or even want to get rid of that character.
But that's another story.
SECOND TRY! (first one got eaten by the forums)
Oh, and another thing. I differ from Tacticslion on this point...
If you have to have a murder session, a GM-PC is far preferable to the rest of the party.In my experience, a lone player should, and usually will, regard DM-PCs as members of the party, just like (s)he would regard PCs controlled by other players in a "normal" game. Members of a party should care about each other and look after each other, and the death of a party member played by ANYONE should hurt. (I said "USUALLY will" because there were a FEW exceptions. I did play a few DMPCs that one player found annoying. Sometimes, he would distrust that character, or even want to get rid of that character.
But that's another story.
Actually, I do agree with Aaron entirely. My advice was based off the idea that sometimes a GM doesn't feel they're doing their job unless someone goes down (to be clear - this isn't me, but I've been with a GM whose goal was that for each boss battle). And there's nothing more boring than having your only player go down and you rolling your dice by yourself and later saying, "You open your eyes. The battle is over: they won without you."
In honesty, I don't use the tactic above often at all (I think I did only once), and only for purposes of story (as in, they got better).
The other time to target a GM PC over a player character is if, for whatever reason, the battle is going poorly and the player must run or die, especially if you can't not kill someone without completely breaking the game (i.e. a terrible and unrealistic deus ex machina). In that case, it's always better to kill the things that aren't the only party member that's not you, unless the only way to raise the dead is your GM-PC (in which case, especially after your player goes down, do what you can to make sure they get away!).
To be clear: it's far better not to purposefully "down" one character over another. But if you feel you "need" to, don't kill your only player.
Also, my DM-PCs have a low survival rate is... just because it usually happens without intent. Also, while I do target the PC (and have taken them down once or twice), I'm usually not as completely unmerciful as I am with the others. I don't visually pull my punches - that's not a good thing to do either. It's more of a subtle thing (if they get to hit all the characters but get one twice, it's usually not the PC*, as an example).
Effectively, I advocate balance in combat, but leaning more against the GM-PCs than the actual PC.
* Unless the PC has made themselves a super-prominent target. Sometimes it's wrong not to target them.