My current group only plays around once every month or two, I myself am a D&D addict. I was wondering if it is possible to play with 1 player and a DM. The DM will have a character also, but it will be treated more like a NPC so it does not give away to much information.
Now has anyone ever done this? If so what are your results.
Sure, I've done it.
Some of the more memorable games were very low player count, within 1-3 people. It's because you ARE the star and can do whatever you need to without the democracy (or dictatorship.)
The only thing that's needed is less intensive battles, less battles or a way to heal oneself, and a bit more social-aspects. It's fun.
|
There are even modules for one on one gaming, though they don't have the NPC part. It really is interesting running a game with just person, different dynamics and really fun. In some ways it's good since I do worry at times with GM'ing a group if some of them are bored when I have to focus on a specific PC or two.
A single player game allows for a lot of attention, but I think it loses something compared to the team experience. Half of the experiences I remember at the gaming table come from the interaction between the players, not the adventure itself.
My wife and I play with friends of ours. But that's not enough for an addict like me, so I DM a game with just my wife as a player. She plays an elf rogue/sorcerer. We've played this campaign for 8 years irl and its been almost 60 years in game.
I play various human NPC's which is interesting because they actually age. Applying the age penalties to physical attributes really hurts!
As she's a stealthy character, she often finds non-combative ways to solve modules. For instance, it was much easier for her to infiltrate Maure Castle and get the cultists and the gnolls to fight each other as just one character and not have to disguise (or hide) the rest of an uncharismatic party.
There are many tense scenes for her when she's being stealthy and she flubs it. Not being a tank, she can't handle an alerted group of enemies. Racing down halls, chasing down fleeing guards trying to rally the troops has caused more than one nail to be bitten.
DOWNSIDES
Not being a main-line fighter and being alone means she really can't stand toe-to-toe with too many things. She's been cagey enough to tell when she's overwhelmed and bugs out before things get too bad. But it frustrates her (especially when its just because of bad rolls, as opposed to bad planning). While this weakness is exacerbated by being a rogue/sorcerer, it'd be a problem for any single character.
Treasure/Loot: With no one to really split it with, she has way more stuff than she can ever possibly use. She's built a secret armory under her house in Cedarspoke (FR) to store all of her +1 weapons. (I'm actually going to make it useful much later: when the town is overrun and the peasants become refugees, she'll be able to arm them). It's not that she's over-powered because of it, but how many boots of springing and striding does a girl really need?
CHARACTER DEATH: Honestly, the game is more about story. She's come close to death a few times, but because she's so attached to the character, there's always a deux ex machina to keep her alive (she ends up paying for it in powerful items). However, one of the on-going plots is SCAP (I've drastically slowed down the timeline) and her arch-nemesis has become Nabthataron (a cornugon in our game). Anyway, Nabthataron tried to have an ally kill my wife's character and ended up getting her love interest instead. She was so attached that she was very upset by the whole event.
So, while there might not be too much of a direct threat to the PC, there are definitely other things/people that are at risk.
SUMMARY: We both enjoy this campaign a lot. I definitely say that it can work.
My wife and I play with friends of ours. But that's not enough for an addict like me, so I DM a game with just my wife as a player. She plays an elf rogue/sorcerer. We've played this campaign for 8 years irl and its been almost 60 years in game.
-Thanks for your input, I myself will be playing with just my wife. I just wanted to make sure it would be worth while before i put in the time to make a campaign(Forgotten Realms). She is a new player and I did not want her to dislike the game before she gets a chance to experience the greatness off D&D.
It's very important to use common sense instead of Challenge Rating with a small party. Know the player's stats well, and consider foes carefully based on the strengths and weaknesses.
I play with two groups. One group plays every other week while the other plays every week (in fact, we play tonight). The every other week group sticks to that schedule due to kids, jobs, and other real world concerns. The weekly group is more available, but sometimes not everyone can make it. That's when I pull out the single/2 player reserve campaigns.
The big adjustments are as follows:
Give 'em a hand! No one is going to have fun if you kill the PC outright. A big help for us is the Critical hit/fumble deck from Paizo. They can take a dangerous situation and make it a hilarious "No way!" moment. I use the Crtical hit deck for the Pcs and the Critical fumble deck for the monsters.
Another tool I use may sound weird: I lie. Just because I roll it doesn't mean I have to use it. Of course, you must conceal your rolling, but the results can be rewarding. Nothing gives the PC a sense of relief than a last minute yank from the jaws of death. But the downside can be predictability, so mix it up.
Be free with the loot. PC can't hit those darn kobolds? "Cool! I found a magic sword!" No cleric for miles? "Hmmm? Is this a potion?" Throw them a bone, just watch how often. And make 'em earn it!
One on one can be a lot of fun for the PC and the DM, not to mention easier and faster. No one ever feels left out because you're interacting with one or to people. ENJOY!!
A good rule of thumb is to use CRs equal to their level or lower.
|
I have been thinking about this myself for a few weeks. As far as I know there is only one company that makes games for this and the adventures are called 1 on 1.
I think later this year I will begin making all future adventures 1 on 1 games as well. But not positive.
|
I do 1 player games very often. Successful techniques include:
1) Running a DMPC or heavily integrated NPC with the player. Because there is only one player you can get more involved than in a larger party - have conversations and even shine yourself if defeat is near.
2) Play up the interaction. If you or the player enjoys roleplaying you can get some really good drama without the embarassment of others around.
3) Gestalt classes are your friend. Doesn't completely allow equal CRs (usually one lower than the APL is safe) but does solve some of the technical problems like allowing a healer/skill-monkey when you really want to play a mage and a fighter. I've even done triple-Gestalt but the power level gets insane - you wipe the walls with most opponents, but high-level foes are still deadly.
4) Be careful with wealth. If the player devises a way to get all the treasure out of the adventure, they will be extremely wealthy for their level. Just be sure this is what you want (usually it is fine) or enforce some more general limitations or reduce treasure.
5) Play up the success of the player. Unlike in a normal group, you can't play favorites (unless you do so with yourself, which is just wrong). Give them ludicrous in-game rewards for their actions that would normally make other players jealous. I've had solo games where players became demi-gods, emperors, or inter-planar assassins.
6) Have fun with optional rules. If the player really wants to play an Ogre character, this could be their chance. Let them play a monster without their level adjustment to compensate for the lack of party members.
I'd think that stealthy characters would be easiest. A bard would make a good single character. Curing your own wounds and being able to charm people and make knowledge rolls can come in handy.
You could also give them an NPC "friend" now and then for the trickier problems; people they can go to for help and advice, who might even tag along if the situation warrants.
For the character on a "mission," a boss of some kind to give them assignments to complete, a la James Bond, could be fun. Then the player doesn't have to wonder what to do. They could loan them some "gagdets" to get the job done.
If your wife wants to be evil, an assassin-type character could be a lot of fun. "Lord XYZ is trying to cut into our racket. Take him out. It has to look like an accident!"
And, of course, getting to know people in the neighborhood can take up an evening without a single die roll. Being invited to a party could have a ton of interesting hooks. "My diamonds have been stolen!", or "There's something strange about how the prince has been acting."
Now that I think about it, it sounds like fun! Keep CRs low and possible escape routes and bluffable ruses available when things go bad. I'd maybe allow max hd for the first 2 or 3 levels, and some generous ability scores. The star of the show should be exceptional in every way!
My 2 cp.
|
|
I would think many of the non-core four classes could find ways to shine. Especially the half-builds like Bard, Ranger, and Paladin. Their diversity will finally be an advantage and their weaknesses are not so bad anymore.
It also is easier to play to their strengths than in a regular game where another player is often sharing a portion of the niche they occupy.
You may want to look at gestalt characters for one-on-one games.
The player takes 2 character classes and gets the best of the two classes saves, skills, attacks, hit points and all of both classes special abilities.
They are horribly over powered for regular games but can work nicely on solo games.
Just for the love of god don't let them be a gestalt monk/druid.
One of my favorite characters originated in a one-on-one game (v3.0). We traded off the DM job, and each ran 2 characters.
Just for the love of god don't let them be a gestalt monk/druid.
...why?
I concur with Chris McDowell: Lie.
I still roll the dice right in front of my wife, but since I'm controlling her friendly NPCs and the baddies, I will sometimes alter for whom the die is rolled. Say its opposed grapple checks. I might give the better roll to her ally as opposed to the actual order of the attack. She doesn't keep track of initiative, so it makes it easy.
A note on wealth. I don't think it gets out of hand as long as you have something to do with it. For instance, as one of the plots is the SCAP, Vanya (wife's character) has acquired the Sign of the Smoking Eye. She wants to return that section to Celestia. A while ago she acquired a stone golem manual. She was going to use it then and there until I changed the properties of the item. Instead of just providing the XP of a stone golem, it'll provide the XP of whatever stone golem you make. When I told her that, she decided to wait until she could afford (and was powerful enough) for a greater stone golem.
Now that she has the Smoking Eye and wants of control Occipitus, she's decided to wait until she has enough for a stone colossus. So, while she is acquiring mass wealth, she isn't doing anything world breaking with it because she's waiting until she's epic level.
A rogue/sorcerer is fairly easy one-on-one. The spells she's chosen are mostly buffs, so they always help. And the mad skillz give her versatility. The breakdown is when the jig is up and she's forced to slug it out or she runs into something unexpectedly. She's gotten beaten like a red-headed step-child a few times in those instances, but for the most part, it is exhilarating to watch her creatively go through missions.
Its amazing what you can bypass when the tank ain't there to clank.
I've also had a lot of fun DMing for a solo player. A lot of the important points have already been covered in this thread; role-play like there is no tomorrow, hide the rolls and fudge them when necessary, and mix in red-shirt NPCs to fill out missing roles. In this particular campaign, the PC was a Warlock (worked great, since she never ran out of ammo) with a level of Aristocrat. An NPC character class is a crappy choice as far as optimization goes, but it fit with the character concept, so we tweaked its functionality just a bit. The PC picked up the Leadership feat as soon as possible, which gave a "buffer/healer" cohort in the form of a Mystic Theurge, and all of the followers were the Aristocrat's subjects. Since it's ridiculous to drag 1st-level mooks along on an adventure and expect them to live, we just treated them like cannon fodder or comic relief, and they got replaced in between each session with more peasants/men-at-arms/whatever. The "whatever" was sometimes the most fun of all, like a Mariachi Band comprised of a half-dozen low-level bards, or a small Cult of Personality made up of low-level clerics, or, just once, a band of ten 1st-level ninjas that died hilariously in their very first fight.
While it's fine to use the NPC for story flavor and as a combat backup for your PC, it's important for the Player to get lots of opportunity to shine; nothing's more boring than sitting around and watching NPCs handle everything. You might consider making sure the PC's ability sores and equipment make him/her superior to the NPC.
For 3.5 I would have suggested gestalting the character between maybe an NPC class like Expert or Warrior and a PC class, just to give the PC more skills or better combat than normal for a PC class. Not sure that's the best idea in PF, though.
I play (and DM) in a two-person group. We run two sessions a week, taking turns as player and DM. So two concurrent campaigns.
In each, the player runs three PCs. The DM runs a "DMPC" which is statted as a PC would be and it shares in XP and wealth as usual, but is never a "face" character or frontline fighter. Typically the DMPC will be designed to fill a hole, so rogues, monks and clerics are common.
This works pretty well for us but we've been doing it for many years so we're comfortable with the rules. Running three PCs generally isn't a problem. Just keep the character sheets in order and plan your next action.
It's actually kind of fun if you can handle it.
One of my favorite characters originated in a one-on-one game (v3.0). We traded off the DM job, and each ran 2 characters.
Just for the love of god don't let them be a gestalt monk/druid....why?
Because the very idea of a grizzly bear doing flurry of blows causes a rift in the fabric of reality.
Because the very idea of a grizzly bear doing flurry of blows causes a rift in the fabric of reality.One of my favorite characters originated in a one-on-one game (v3.0). We traded off the DM job, and each ran 2 characters.
Just for the love of god don't let them be a gestalt monk/druid....why?
That is true when there are other players to compare that PC with, but that's the beauty of the 1 player game; there can be only one discontent player.
If you want to recreate Kung-Fu Panda, druid/monk is the way to go...
A binder might be a nice idea for a single PC game. They are very versatile, able to change roles between tank, face, skill monkey, blaster, healer, etc. At higher levels, they can have 2 or more roles. Also, the flavor of the binder fits the loner.
EDIT:
Druid would be good too....animal companion, healing, blasting, tanking, buffing, etc.
I've played in small groups where the players ran a couple of PC's each. Worked out OK for us, but was difficult to role play sometimes.
A binder might be a nice idea for a single PC game. They are very versatile, able to change roles between tank, face, skill monkey, blaster, healer, etc. At higher levels, they can have 2 or more roles. Also, the flavor of the binder fits the loner.
EDIT:
Druid would be good too....animal companion, healing, blasting, tanking, buffing, etc.
I can see it now.. level one gestalt-druid/monk with improved initiative.
Surprise round-shillelaghRound two... Win
edit: or if playing with fumble rules, crit's himself for 2d6+whatever and dies.
Admittedly I was fishing for some direct reference to using a flurry of blows in combination with a natural attack routine, which has never been legal due to the no-off-hand restriction on a monk, and in 3.P is now called out as explicitly disallowed. ;)
Shillelagh monk sounds pretty beefy, tho!
Admittedly I was fishing for some direct reference to using a flurry of blows in combination with a natural attack routine, which has never been legal due to the no-off-hand restriction on a monk, and in 3.P is now called out as explicitly disallowed. ;)
Shillelagh monk sounds pretty beefy, tho!
well, probably only for 3 encounters per day... at first level the rest of the day he takes 2 rounds to kill you.. unless his animal companion does.
Edit: gotta have love for the wisdom to armor while wildshaped as well.
A friend and I do single-player games often. While yes, you're not a full party, that has the advantage that the hero can aproach situations in ways he wouldn't be able to with a party. He can chose his fights, and he can fight on his own terms.
Most important. Single-player games become all about the character. Be ready to be flexible, be ready to say yes, and be ready to negotiate, a lot.
Death, however, can become rather heavy though, being single player games all about the character, the hero dying equals the game ending (and recurring to the "False Protagonist" literary resource just won't cut it when both player and GM have invested themselves into the hero as much), but with an ingenious player this shouldn't be something depriving you of sleep at night. I don't pull punches when GMing a single player, then again those times when luck isn't on the player's side you must be aware than death isn't always an immediate consequence of defeat. Heroes get captured just as often, and even without Escape Artist or Disable Device on your list of class skills, a window of oportunity eventually opens (it doesn't hurt you to open it yourself now and then either)... now, minimizing death doesn't necessarily mean destroying your credibility or suspension of disbelief as long as defeat still has -consequences-, failing to protect a loved one, for example, -will- hurt a player who has invested himself in his character enough more than death, things like that ought to keep the player motivated into fearing defeat just as much.
Another tip for solo play.... Covenant Items are a concept introduced in the Midnight RPG, and are items particularly close to you than become empowered on specific, life-changing events. These items are bonded to you and gain more (and better) magical qualities as you grow in level. A couple of covenant items will free your hero from treasure-dependancy and allows him to focus on what really matters.
If your hero isn't a divine-magic user, I recommend using the Reserve Points rule, and if he's a spellcaster of any kind, using Spell Points and Vitalizing will give him the versatility he'll need.
Hope that helps. =)
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
A buddy of mine and I played single-player games quite often years ago. Dogbert hit the nail right on the head when he said that single-player games are all about the character and that character death often means "game over."
Naturally, since things like "game balance" aren't an issue with only one player, I'd encourage your player to create a concept that might not necessarily be the "norm." A story like Drizzt Do'Urden's is something that might be appropriate to a single-player game. Create a character with wildly above average stats, perhaps let him be a member of a powerful race, and give him every possible advantage you're willing to deal with... he will likely need them. For our single-player games, we did stats by rolling 1d8+12, allowing a natural range of anywhere from 13 to 20 before racial modifiers. We also made the characters using the gestalt rules from Unearthed Arcana, choosing two classes instead of one and getting all the benefits of both (my personal favorite character was a ranger/cleric, lots of survivability in that combo).
I had a lot of fun with single-player gaming in the past and I'm sure you will too, you've just gotta be willing to let the PC get away with stuff that would normally never fly in a group game. :)
I am running a second edition dark sun game and on the off weeks a friend of mine is running a 4e game(shame on him I know). My players our really into dark sun and there characters and do not want to change. I want to run Pathfinder so when I squeeze it in I been running pathfinder with my girl friend who loves and we invite friends once in a while over. I am running two characters, the adventure and she runs too. It is working out really well. I try to let her make all the choices and try to run my characters like Hench men. It is working and we our having allot of fun.
|
|
My current group only plays around once every month or two, I myself am a D&D addict. I was wondering if it is possible to play with 1 player and a DM. The DM will have a character also, but it will be treated more like a NPC so it does not give away to much information.
Now has anyone ever done this? If so what are your results.
Recently a third party publisher converted a book of solo adventures to Pathfinder RPG
I plan on picking it up
Well, as the gestalt rules quite clearly point out, taking hybrid PrCs when you're already gestalt should be expressly forbidden.