RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I don't know if this practice is common or not, so I thought I'd see what others out there have to say. Frequently, it is very difficult to get a group of players together for a game in my experience but the desire to play the game is still very strong. My friends and I have taken to 1-on-1 games with increasing regularity and I'm really enjoying it. One DM, one player. No party, no NPC "filler" characters, just one PC (with considerably higher than average stats, often gestalt) versus the world.
Currently I'm playing in two such games. I have a fighter/necromancer/spellsword (level 15 now) in one friend's game and a gestalt swashbuckler/warlock (level 8) in another friend's game. I've run similar games for them in the past as well. Does anyone else do this? Note that this is quite different from having a one-on-one scene with a player who's character is in a bigger game. The ENTIRE game revolves around the one PC and he has only himself to rely on. Occassionally there will be NPCs who aid him, but they are always temporary sidekicks and usually go their own way after the quest is completed. Feedback is appreciated.
|
I don't know if this practice is common or not, so I thought I'd see what others out there have to say. Frequently, it is very difficult to get a group of players together for a game in my experience but the desire to play the game is still very strong. My friends and I have taken to 1-on-1 games with increasing regularity and I'm really enjoying it. One DM, one player. No party, no NPC "filler" characters, just one PC (with considerably higher than average stats, often gestalt) versus the world.
Currently I'm playing in two such games. I have a fighter/necromancer/spellsword (level 15 now) in one friend's game and a gestalt swashbuckler/warlock (level 8) in another friend's game. I've run similar games for them in the past as well. Does anyone else do this? Note that this is quite different from having a one-on-one scene with a player who's character is in a bigger game. The ENTIRE game revolves around the one PC and he has only himself to rely on. Occassionally there will be NPCs who aid him, but they are always temporary sidekicks and usually go their own way after the quest is completed. Feedback is appreciated.
Fatespinner
I use to play one-on-ones all the time when i lived both in Fairfax, Va and in Castro Valley, Ca. Odd thing is, since i moved to Southern California, i cant seem to find anyone interested in playing one-on-ones. "Party or nothing," seems to be the motto around here, but when 6 people cant seem to be consistent on date/times, then what is one to do? Sucks for me.
Thoth-Amon
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I use to play one-on-ones all the time when i lived both in Fairfax, Va and in Castro Valley, Ca. Odd thing is, since i moved to Southern California, i cant seem to find anyone interested in playing one-on-ones. "Party or nothing," seems to be the motto around here, but when 6 people cant seem to be consistent on date/times, then what is one to do? Sucks for me.
Come on over to the Phoenix, AZ area. We'll hook you up. ;)
One on One is a fun way to play D&D though there are some classes better adapted to this than others and some types of adventures, like city scenarios, that seem to work better. Even so I dont let someone run more than two characters; and I might throw in some occasional npcs or let the person take on a hirling mercenary or some such.
Director of Narrative
|
One of my favorite characters in 2nd Ed(actually more like 2.5) was a Bladesinger that I ran as a side game with the guy who's about to DM the game I get to play in soon. It was very fulfilling and really made you have to think on your toes and beyond to get through it all in one piece.
Two of the players in my current campaign are brothers and I think most of their gaming lives (20 years for the elder brother) played pretty much 1 on 1. I'm certain when they were younger that they had a larger base of players to pull from, but when they first started playing with our group one of them said that it was the largest group they had ever played with outside of Cons and such - and we were only 5 players and a DM. Knowing each other's gaming-style makes for interesting moments when they are each PCs.
I haven't done any 1 on 1 stuff in a while, but would like to. I've been bugging my wife to play a 1 on 1 game for years, but she won't go for it. She played with our group back in the 2nd Ed days. She says that she doesn't want to learn a new system, but I think she's just done with D&D, because I offered to run a 2nd game for her. At least we still play NWN together and nerd out to sci-fi/fantasy movies and books.
When a friend taught me d&d as a kid, I literally only had THAT kid to play with so we used to one-on-one all the time until he got tired of d&d. Haven't played that way since that time, though I'd do it again in a pinch.
Well, I'm usually just a player, but I've tried my hand at DMing once or twice... I've never had a full campaign with 1-on-1, but I have done 1-on-1's to start a campaign, this let's the players develop a feel for their characters (attitudes, mannerisms, etc) before becoming a group, which can be a lot of fun (especially for the role-playing aspect) and everyone starts out with differing amounts of XP, so that the whole party doesn't level-up at the same time... The only rule is that there is no more than 1 full level difference between the highest and lowest level PC's... For me, this just adds more "flavour" to the game...
I also used to do this frequently when I was younger, but I don't think I would enjoy it much anymore. I don't know if any of the guys I play with now would be all that into it either. My best friend through middle and high school and I conducted an epic (in the sense of scope, not levels) campaign in which we played the main characters, taking turns DM'ing.
These days, though, the group dynamic is part of what is appealing to me about D&D in 3.5E. The synergies between characters make for interesting tactical and RP situations that might be lost in a 1-on-1 situation. On the other hand, less interruptions and more focus on the game would always be a good thing.
|
Director of Narrative
|
Well, I'm usually just a player, but I've tried my hand at DMing once or twice... I've never had a full campaign with 1-on-1, but I have done 1-on-1's to start a campaign, this let's the players develop a feel for their characters (attitudes, mannerisms, etc) before becoming a group, which can be a lot of fun (especially for the role-playing aspect) and everyone starts out with differing amounts of XP, so that the whole party doesn't level-up at the same time... The only rule is that there is no more than 1 full level difference between the highest and lowest level PC's... For me, this just adds more "flavour" to the game...
That's a really cool system. I often run one short session with a PC before they all meet up, but we play that as how they got to be first level. I like PCs having staggered XP so your method is even better. I think I'll steal that for my next campaign.
Look around a little. There were some 2e modules for one-on-one play that might be worth modding for 3.5 if you are interested in this kind of gaming.
It's been a long time since I have done it, though it might be interesting to try. Especially for playing some of those high-ECL-races (I've been itching to test a satyr bard sometime) or something equally exotic.
Most of the time however I enjoy intra-party politics (and conflicts) too much that I would be too interested in 1-on-1.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Well, I'm usually just a player, but I've tried my hand at DMing once or twice... I've never had a full campaign with 1-on-1, but I have done 1-on-1's to start a campaign, this let's the players develop a feel for their characters (attitudes, mannerisms, etc) before becoming a group...
We've done this several times too. I ran a single-player campaign for a friend of mine (he was playing an assassin/spy concept) and his 'boss' told him that he had another task for him and that this task was going to involve him infiltrating a local mercenary group to find out who was employing them and take him out. That Friday, the player came over to find the rest of our gaming group.... playing the mercenaries in question. :D
... he got tired of d&d.
BLASPHEMY!
More on topic, I've only ever run a truly 1-on-1 session once that I can remember, with a close friend about a year and a half ago. The rest of the group was busy for a few weeks, and so we just played through 1st or 2nd level, with me as the DM (as usual). I think I played in a similar session as the start of an experimental campaign, but nothing monumental.
Now, my old group used to break off into subplots a lot. However, being in high school, these were during marathon group sessions, so those not invovled in the scene went off and played a video game or something for an hour or so while the solo play was conducted. I had an infuriating time trying to kill a howler with my abjurer. Long story, but suffice it to say, as a player, I hate howlers now. Why in the world are they so fast?!
Well, I'm usually just a player, but I've tried my hand at DMing once or twice... I've never had a full campaign with 1-on-1, but I have done 1-on-1's to start a campaign, this let's the players develop a feel for their characters (attitudes, mannerisms, etc) before becoming a group, which can be a lot of fun (especially for the role-playing aspect) and everyone starts out with differing amounts of XP, so that the whole party doesn't level-up at the same time... The only rule is that there is no more than 1 full level difference between the highest and lowest level PC's... For me, this just adds more "flavour" to the game...
I've done this as well, when I first started as a DM, I got started with just the individual characters of the players that wanted to join the game, I actually had some real success balancing the almost overpowering encounters that literally launched their pcs into 3rd level by the time I started at least DMing for pairs of players, and most were 4th-5th by the time I finally had EVERYONE in the same group fighting the same battle at the same time. (Only like 2 players were 5th level when this happened, both had earned the extra XP in their 1-on-1 and subsequent sessions)
I would recommend the tactic to any first time DM or working with a group that hasn't played together before, or especially in starting them off at different areas across a continent or even a city, for players that haven't met yet, keeping them separated until you want them to meet works better for setting a pace and controlling how and when and where the players meet, I had a couple pcs actually bump into each other shortly before a larger group developed, and they didn't jump into the saddle with each other right away, since they were used to playing solo, the individual characters were becoming more developed, though less likely to immediately rely on other characters for support.
I would probably be interested in doing a 1 on 1 campaign, either as player or DM, more so player for now, but if/when I finish my current campaign I'd be tempted to jump in on some 1 on 1 action as a DM or alternating DM. Since I might be moving soon, I'd like to actually work out an online system so I can keep in touch with some of the good players here and play games, but when I move, I'd like to be able to start up games there too and may take the 1 on 1 model at first.
I had a very close friend that I grew up with. We lived in South Africa and were both poor. We spent a few tens of thousands of hours playing a variety of roleplaying games. His Fighter Thief was involved in a low fantasy thieves guild takeover that took us two years to conclude. We eventually stopped using dice altogether, relying on trust in DM judgement. One on one is still my preferred game style. Pure story, absolute focus and a lack of compromise in character stand out as three of the signal virtues of solo play. He is now strung out on heroin and cocaine, he has burned all his bridges and is now living from fix to fix. Best player I ever had and I have been playing since 1979.
Anyone know of any guidelines for writing adventures for just one player? Or maybe two players? Our game is so irregular that I have often thought it might be easier to just play short scenarios with one or two players depending on who can make it. But they dont publish adventures like that.
Anyone know of any guidelines for writing adventures for just one player? Or maybe two players? Our game is so irregular that I have often thought it might be easier to just play short scenarios with one or two players depending on who can make it. But they dont publish adventures like that.
Effectively, a party of two is about strong as a full party of four that is two levels lower. One character is roughly as strong as a full party of four that is four levels lower.
The biggest problem in running published adventures (usually) is the assumption that a party has an arcane caster, combatant, divine caster/healer, and a locks/traps specialist. You may have to modify the adventure (or add NPCs to the party) if one of the roles is unfilled. Note that in small parties, Leadership can be one of the best feats.
Used to play a lot with just 2 people... me as DM with one PC; my buddy as player with a PC who was the party leader (i.e., called the shots, player-wise). Worked out great; really captured that "Lethal Weapon"-type buddy feel. Sometimes we'd try multiple PCs, but 1-on-1 with 2 PCs is, in my opinion, an excellent way to play.
I suspect you're best off custom building adventures to highlight the features of the classes they're playing. If there's going to be a need for a skill that they don't have (say trap finding if there's no rogue), make it clear early in the mission briefing and have a hireling available for the task.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I suspect you're best off custom building adventures to highlight the features of the classes they're playing. If there's going to be a need for a skill that they don't have (say trap finding if there's no rogue), make it clear early in the mission briefing and have a hireling available for the task.
My friends and I have discovered that, for 1 or 2 player games, gestalt characters are the way to go. Often, Use Magic Device is sufficient to fulfill the healing role through wands if one of your classes is not healing-capable. I've found that combining rogue or fighter with an arcane caster is a very effective combination as long as you sink a few points into UMD. If your DM prefers dungeoneering to straight-up battles, rogue (or scout) might be the wiser choice as finding traps will likely be important.
I'm contemplating doing this myself, and I was just wondering what you all did about experience points. Did the sole character get an undiluted amount and level insanely fast, or did he get his XP flow nocked down a little to slow the advancement some? Just curious, as it seems my hopes to get a new group together via the gaming club at my college was just a pipe dream.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I'm contemplating doing this myself, and I was just wondering what you all did about experience points. Did the sole character get an undiluted amount and level insanely fast, or did he get his XP flow nocked down a little to slow the advancement some?
The solo character did indeed get undiluted XP but typically you pit the character against challenges several CRs below his actual level to limit the drain on his resources. This helps to balance the leveling slope a bit. A CR 10 creature might be a easy fight to a party of level 10 characters but it's substantially tougher against a single 10th level character. We typically shoot for CRs about 3-4 below the character's level. We also usually start solo campaigns at level 4 or higher because the early levels die much easier, especially when they have to act alone. Alternately, you could give the character some help from DMPCs to get him through the early levels and then set him loose once he's high enough level to reliably solo things.
|
I noticed a couple of 1 on 1 games that Paizo has for sale that were in the store blog recently. Check here BLAMMO!!.
I have always wanted to do this but it was always too much work trying to get the challenges just right. I don't have any idea how good the modules are from the link I posted, but at least someone saw a need for some 1 on 1 lovin'. Even if they suck you can mine them for ideas and gain a better grasp on tailoring encounters to a 1 man wrecking crew.
Also the Gestalt rules would allow your player to effectively be of 2 classes each with full powers(like a wizard and cleric).
just some random thoughts.
FH
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Also the Gestalt rules would allow your player to effectively be of 2 classes each with full powers(like a wizard and cleric).
Yeah, we tend to use the gestalt rules when running solo campaigns. It gives the character more versatility and allows the DM to come up with a wider range of adventures for the character.
Imagine if your player wants to play a fighter. Without gestalting, there's only so many variations you can put on a fighter-themed adventure before you've run yourself into the ground. Make it a gestalt fighter/rogue, though, and you've got many more options to choose from.
We also tend to use methods of stat generation that allow for much higher average stats. Our most common solo-campaign stat generation rule is that each stat is 1d8+10 per stat. This way, the lowest stat is still an 11 and 18s remain rare (but perhaps less so). Having a penalty in one (or more) stats will get a character killed much more easily than a lack of exceptional stats will.
Check out campaign journal I started...exp is undiluted but since the CR is somewhere around 2-3 and my character's ECL is 8, it isn't that much (and couple of those encounters already proved out to be rather tough for a single character...)
[Yeah, we tend to use the gestalt rules when running solo campaigns. It gives the character more versatility and allows the DM to come up with a wider range of adventures for the character.
Yeah, Gestalt is the way to go for 2-PC campaigns; I'd also double the XP requirements for the next level (because gestalt gets 2x class abilities), but with only 2 PCs, that means xp awards come out even with a 4-PC non-gestalt group. Base xp is calculated as party level = level of gestalt characters x 1.33 (because gestalt characters are basically 1e multiclassed ones, and the 1e to 3e conversion notes from WotC claim that 3e level for a 1e multiclassed character should be highest level + 1/3 other levels).
|
I did this to help a friend out who couldn't fit in everyone else's schedule. Here's what we learned -- some of which has been somewhat implied already.
1) Some classes do not do well on their own unless it is a very specific adventure or campaign design. This means you either use the same few PC classes over and over or you always start at high level or you greatly limit the kinds of campaigns you can experience.
2) If one of the things a DM should do is try to make sure all the PCs have a chance to shine then when there's only one PC the DM should cater to the PC. BIG Problem! The player has a right to "suggest" other ways in which the campaign should unfold or an NPC to behave etc., etc. This is hell!
For example, if a player who enjoys the aspect of finding traps, solving dungeon puzzles, etc. is given a session that has none of it -- he or she may b$@#! about it, constructively and politely, but still...
3) If the PC gets an idea to do something, or, more often, has a really bad idea or wrong solution, there aren't other PCs to talk it through. The only other player to bounce ideas off of during the game is the DM!! This can be a major problem because the DM can't give out too much info on these matters.
Anyway, that's my experience with solos.
-W. E. Ray
I love those few 1 on 1 games I get to DM, they allow for faster development and you can make better character backstories. Of course, some classes are easier to solo with. I would not want to be a first level rogue as opposed to a Barbarion with healing potions.
I would not want to be a first level rogue as opposed to a Barbarion with healing potions.
Heh, my old 1-on-1 players would look at you like you were deranged. EVERYONE was human and took rogue as their 1st level, because they knew my penchant for urban intrigue, and knew if they didn't max out at least 9 skills immediately, they were in trouble.