I have not had the opportunity to get a full group together to run this AP. With three young children (2 months, 2 years and 4 years old) on top of that, life gets complicated. My wife is keen on trying it however. I have run quite a few games and campaigns solely for her. I just wanted to know if anybody here had tried running RotR as a solo campaign and if they might want to share their experience.
No, though I have played/read RotR and tend to run things for smaller groups.
When you run it "just for her" is it part of a party with NPCs or truly solo? RotR and the other APs are pretty killer, and the nature of 3.xe D&D is that even if you run it for someone a couple levels higher, there's that "whoops, failed a save-or-die" factor.
Often I get away with running a solo adventure by just running it for a single character who's way above its usual level. Like a single level 4 could probably do Burnt Offerings. But at higher levels that breaks down, especially with the semi-mandatory nature of having a good bit of magic in chapters 5-6.
If you run her in a party with 2-3 NPCs, you could do it. We ran through parts of Curse of the Crimson Throne with 3 PCs. Runelords is tougher, though, in my opinion, for solo play.
I'm running some of the PF Society Modules, Hollows Last Hope, and Hangman's Noose for my GF as a solo gamer with GM setting.
In that case, your single player becomes THE hero. We've done this a few times (with her or another gamer over the years) and the thing I;ve found works best is to create a bevy of NPCs with developed character backgrounds and let the solo player pick their party from that list. (Best to role play this...a Pathfinder get-together or even the Swallowtail Festival are great places to do this.)
This gives you (the GM) a chance to seed plot points and hooks into the group and have a party that WILL work together (and fill in the gaps that are needed) while it gives the player a chance to make sure that the party can do what she wants it too as well.
(Right now, my GF has a gnome Rogue, adventuring with a Half Elf Sorceress, Human Varisian Cleric of Shelyn (from Falcon's Hollow), and Half Ogre fighter. All of them have damaged pasts and the gnome's skill at making them into a family of friends is one of the things that keeps the party together.)
Other than that, it also means that you can be certain that the party has the skills and spells it needs to proceed through the adventure. (At least someone should speak Giant and goblin...)
Anyway, it works for me and gives her a fun group to adventure with.
Also, let the solo player make all of the rolls for the party members...it helps them be part of it. Eventually, the solo player sees the NPCs as "Her party" not just expendables.
Something I would suggest to make a "lone hero" concept more viable is gestalt. Otherwise, giving her a backing of NPCs works just fine.
Gestalt is where you fuse 2 classes together, taking the best of both worlds. A gestalt fighter/wizard, for example, would have a BAB of +1/level, 1d10 hp/level, good Fort and Will saves, the bonus feats of both fighters and wizards (at their appropriate levels), a summoned familiar, scribe scroll/arcane duelist, a wizard's spells, and a fighter's proficiency in armor and weapons (although the gestalt still suffers from the standard draw-backs of arcane spell failure). Gestalts can be fun when you have fewer players and really makes the PC feel empowered, even unique.
While I don't fully advocate gestalt, I find it useful in places such as this. While 1 gestalt doesn't equal 2 characters, it certainly helps fill some gaps (a fighter//cleric, for example, can heal himself as good as any cleric and a cleric with the war domain may just get a free weapon focus feat out of it*).
Usually though, I'd try and find more players if I could. Even 2 would be fine, just 1 can feel a bit lonely (and boring). One of the best adventures I ever ran was with 2 players, one of them running 2 characters.
The benefit of NPC helpers is that they can be optimized in ways as to cover a single player's character flaws. For example, if you have only one player and they want to play a bard, then the rest of the party could be more optimized to complement the bard's abilities (say, a "tank" paladin, a wizard/cleric/mystic theurge, and an explorer rogue (anti-trap).
There's one way to do this, but I hope my suggestions/anecdotes/mindless ramblings help somewhat.
*from 3.5 rules, at least.
|
We play with one DM and one player.
Is currently going well in Curse of the Crimson Throne AP and a campaign using the Darkmoon Vale modules.
We give the player two gestalt PCs with good stats. You still lose actions but make up for it with quality characters. It's quite fun to run two characters at once and create a double act.
From my experience, solo play (1 GM & 1 player) is a great opportunity to roleplay characters with no moderation, as it's all about the unique character and everything revolving around him/her.
The GM has the opportunity to devote some time to one character, offering him/her opportunities to live and evolve, meet interesting people and creatures, go through tough challenges...
And nobody will complain about long roleplaying sessions with a NPC as no other player is waiting at the table.
That's also a great challenge for both the player and the GM.
For the player because he/she will be on his/her own, and his character will have no backup, outside of some possible help from NPCs.
But whether these are played by the player or the DM, as any NPC they are secondary, and half-played, so not so useful.
That can be tough and deadly. If the character gets to 0 HP, falls in a trap or is taken prisoner, then that might be bye-bye. But death is what makes life and adventure exciting.
For the GM too because he will have to manage to keep the game interesting around this unique player, making the stories and events connect to the character and his/her backgrounds, goals and motivations.
He should consider the character's potential and weight the challenges carefully, give him real risks although options to turn around a problem.
He should also consider introducing many NPCs, which would be contacts and eventual helpers for the character.
But when danger comes, danger should be real, as if things are too easy or appear to be soften too much, then the adventure loses all edge.
No deus ex machina. A solo character wants to be the hero, no the follower of a demi-god descending from the heavens to save his little butt in every situation.
In the end, if successful, this kind of game can be very satisfying, as the two partners, GM and player, play at their best.
Have a great game.
(That makes me think once again that i would love to run a solo game for my wife. Damn)
I would like to thank you all for your suggestion on how to run a solo game. Like I mentioned in the original post, I have run solo campaigns of and on for my wife before. Actually, I have run quite a few in the past 12 years using GURPS and D&D. Most suggestions made I knew and I can only answer with thanks.
That said, the object of my post was more specific. I was looking for suggestion concerning adaptations of the adventures themselves to solo gaming.
I have already run the first two encounters of Burnt Offerings. To adapt them, I used the minion mechanic from 4e. This allowed the encounters to be challenging while reducing its lethality.
Any other suggestions ?
(That makes me think once again that i would love to run a solo game for my wife. Damn)
I'm lucky in that regard. Julie, my wife, is really into gaming. Now, if I only could get her confidence up so that she would run the games and I got to play a little ! ;)
|
|
Salut Guillaume,
It's nice to see another Quebecois on the board. ;) Too bad you don't live closer to Montreal!
I also ran RotRL as a DM with only one player, but in my case, we had 4 characters in the group, 2 controlled by the player and 2 controlled by me. I find it much simpler than converting the entire campaign's encounters to be the right level of challenge for a single PC, and I also love the interactions between the 4 PC's (even though at times it can get a bit strange to role-play arguments between your two own characters ;) ).
Have you tried both in the past? 1 PC only, and several PC's all controlled by the player and DM? If so, I'm curious to see why you and your wife prefer the 1 PC approach.
|
|
That said, the object of my post was more specific. I was looking for suggestion concerning adaptations of the adventures themselves to solo gaming.
I have already run the first two encounters of Burnt Offerings. To adapt them, I used the minion mechanic from 4e. This allowed the encounters to be challenging while reducing its lethality.
Any other suggestions ?
As your PC is losing a lot of actions a round you might consider removing iterative attacks from opponents. That should level some difficult encounters while maintaining the tension.
Also consider downgrading some encounters (Malfeshnekor could be more seriously limited bu his wards, Erylium could lose her invisibility...) so that they have more RP scope and are less lethal.
Presumably your solo character is racking up the XP and should shoot ahead in level but the PC will never get the extra attacks and options that a party has and is more vulnerable to foes like Mal. that are supposed to endanger one party member so that the rest can rescue him/her.
Salut Guillaume,
It's nice to see another Quebecois on the board. ;) Too bad you don't live closer to Montreal!
Je suis ici depuis quelques temps. C'est juste que je n'affiche pas souvent. As for living closer to Montreal, I lived there for a couple of years and most of my greater family lives in the Greater Montreal Metropolitan Area (ie Laval, West Island and South Shore). I do get down there once or twice a year for family reunions.
I also ran RotRL as a DM with only one player, but in my case, we had 4 characters in the group, 2 controlled by the player and 2 controlled by me. I find it much simpler than converting the entire campaign's encounters to be the right level of challenge for a single PC, and I also love the interactions between the 4 PC's (even though at times it can get a bit strange to role-play arguments between your two own characters ;) ).
Have you tried both in the past? 1 PC only, and several PC's all controlled by the player and DM? If so, I'm curious to see why you and your wife prefer the 1 PC approach.
I have tried it many times before. The reason we prefer the 1 PC approach is mostly a question of divided attentions. I find myself with my hands full just running the NPCs that adding a DMPC really adds to much to my workload and I can't spend time planning appropriately my next NPC moves. Also, I really dislike the fact that every once and while, after a few unlucky dice rolls, battles become a showdown between the DMPC and the NPCs.
As for Julie, she just likes to run one PC at a time. Again, it is a matter of divided attentions. However, this time around she is playing a gestalt sorcerer/bard with a young fire pelt as a familiar. I gave the fire pelt to give her something which could have some offensive power and retain some viability. Also, I increased the amount of spells known and per day to give her a little more durability.
With that said, I am not adverse to the idea of inputing a NPC into the game, every once in a while, to give her a hand. As usual, I'll play it by feel.
As your PC is losing a lot of actions a round you might consider removing iterative attacks from opponents. That should level some difficult encounters while maintaining the tension.
That's a good one, I hadn't considered. As we are still at the beggining of Burnt Offerings, this isn't in play yet. I'll try to remember this suggestion when we reach that level.
Also consider downgrading some encounters (Malfeshnekor could be more seriously limited bu his wards, Erylium could lose her invisibility...) so that they have more RP scope and are less lethal.
Again good suggestions.
Presumably your solo character is racking up the XP and should shoot ahead in level but the PC will never get the extra attacks and options that a party has and is more vulnerable to foes like Mal. that are supposed to endanger one party member so that the rest can rescue him/her.
Yes and no. By using a slower XP progression Julie's character isn't shooting up levels quite as fast. That said, the extra attacks and options have always been a problem and will remain so in solo play.
Thank you all. If you have specific experiences with RotR in solo play and can give concrete exemples of the adaptation required, they will be most welcome.