Making D&D more solo player friendly?

[Nadevoc]

Hey guys.

So I've been thinking about running 3.5 with just one player. However, D&D was clearly designed around the assumption of a party having 4-5 players.

Anyone got some tips for running it for just one player?

Obviously, I'll need to tailor the challenges to be somewhat class-specific (eg, no Hallway O' Traps if the player isn't a Rogue). I'll also try to offer opportunities for allies such as a cleric for healing, occasional tag-alongs, etc, but I'd prefer to avoid just giving the player a full party to play with. Whenever possible, I'd like to keep it to just one character.

[Forrestfire]

Have them play a wizard :smallwink:

I'd tone down encounters a bit. Note that something of CR equal to the party's ECL is supposed to be 1/4th the resources of a four-man party, so an encounter of CR = ECL would probably be expected to take almost all of the resources of a single character of that level.

Maybe give them some tools that help sure up weaknesses. Or extra gear on top of their WBL, etc.

[Crake]

Hey guys.

So I've been thinking about running 3.5 with just one player. However, D&D was clearly designed around the assumption of a party having 4-5 players.

Anyone got some tips for running it for just one player?

Obviously, I'll need to tailor the challenges to be somewhat class-specific (eg, no Hallway O' Traps if the player isn't a Rogue). I'll also try to offer opportunities for allies such as a cleric for healing, occasional tag-alongs, etc, but I'd prefer to avoid just giving the player a full party to play with. Whenever possible, I'd like to keep it to just one character.

Gestalt, or even tristalt is probably a place to start. Check here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/gestaltCharacters.htm) for the rules. Tristalt is just gestalt taken to the next level (3 classes instead of 2)

[Urpriest]

Some thoughts:

First, RPGs in general are a bit trickier when they're one-on-one. Especially for games that involve lots and lots of DM prep like D&D, it becomes hard to justify doing that much work for just one person unless they're your significant other or maybe a family member or something.

Solo does give you the opportunity to explore elements that don't work as well in group games, though. Your player can do stealth missions without boring the party, they can take on a variety of roles without making others feel obsolete, and they can change the world and pursue pet projects without eclipsing other party members. In general, this suggests that a Solo game should be proactive: don't think about the game in terms of dungeons and planned adventures, instead, think about how the world will react and let the player proactively make their own goals.

You should take a look at Gramarie (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=252794), for a system that lets players accomplish and build things in the wider world.

[Zweisteine]

There are two important things here:

Make sure they have a way to roleplay interactions with various NPCs (this can be boring, because the DM probably will end up talking to themself, if the conversations go realistically).

Make sure the player has a way to heal. Healing belts are good.

Make sure the player has a way to do the things that are important, but would normally be done by the other party members (a solo fighter might want to fly daily before being able to afford expensive magic items).

One houserule for this is that when you buy a wand, the person selling it to you gives a short lesson in its use, allowing anyone to use wands. This doesn't hurt anyone, and mostly helps the weaker classes, anyway. It actually doesn't make much sense (at least to me), that you have to have the spell on your list to be able to use it from a wand. Seriously, all you have to do is point it and say one word. (Scrolls, though, make more sense, as you're actually casting the spell, just using someone else's stored arcane energy).

[Nadevoc]

I'd tone down encounters a bit. Note that something of CR equal to the party's ECL is supposed to be 1/4th the resources of a four-man party, so an encounter of CR = ECL would probably be expected to take almost all of the resources of a single character of that level.

Yeah, I figure setting up encounters will be the trickiest bit. I remember the CR system being way off on a couple creatures, and I would guess that it doesn't scale particularly well down to one PC.


Gestalt, or even tristalt is probably a place to start. Check here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/gestaltCharacters.htm) for the rules. Tristalt is just gestalt taken to the next level (3 classes instead of 2)

Probably a good idea. From my memory, gestalt doesn't increase HP at all, does it? I might give some bonus HP, too...


Some thoughts:

First, RPGs in general are a bit trickier when they're one-on-one. Especially for games that involve lots and lots of DM prep like D&D, it becomes hard to justify doing that much work for just one person unless they're your significant other or maybe a family member or something.

Solo does give you the opportunity to explore elements that don't work as well in group games, though. Your player can do stealth missions without boring the party, they can take on a variety of roles without making others feel obsolete, and they can change the world and pursue pet projects without eclipsing other party members. In general, this suggests that a Solo game should be proactive: don't think about the game in terms of dungeons and planned adventures, instead, think about how the world will react and let the player proactively make their own goals.

You should take a look at Gramarie (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=252794), for a system that lets players accomplish and build things in the wider world.

I've done one-on-one games before, actually - generally using Burning Wheel. I realize that D&D 3.5 isn't really the ideal system for a one-on-one game, but I have reasons for going with it. (Basically, history/comfort; it's the system both the player and I started with, one that we enjoy and has some nostalgia)

[Anxe]

Have you considered designing small mods for a game like Skyrim instead? Might not be what you're looking for, but it was worth mentioning.

I'd also encourage the gestalt or tristalt idea.

EDIT: What level are we talking here anyways?

[Vhaidara]

One idea I've had DMS use when lacking players is multiple characters to a player. It is more paperwork, but it lets the player enjoy every aspect of the game (combat, stealth, social). Also has some interesting plot options (2-4 mind-linked adventurers).

It also keeps the player from being murdered by action economy. My first campaign was 2 gestalt characters, and at level 3, the DM sent around a dozen CR 1/2 formian workers. Shouldn't have been too hard. We were swarmed completely under.

[Nadevoc]

Have you considered designing small mods for a game like Skyrim instead? Might not be what you're looking for, but it was worth mentioning.
Not what I want in the least. As I've said, I'm aware that D&D 3.5 isn't generally the perfect system for this, but for personal reasons related to me and the player, I'd like to use it.


EDIT: What level are we talking here anyways?

Probably start around level three since level one can be quite a crapshoot in 3.5 even with a full party.


One idea I've had DMS use when lacking players is multiple characters to a player. It is more paperwork, but it lets the player enjoy every aspect of the game (combat, stealth, social). Also has some interesting plot options (2-4 mind-linked adventurers).

It also keeps the player from being murdered by action economy. My first campaign was 2 gestalt characters, and at level 3, the DM sent around a dozen CR 1/2 formian workers. Shouldn't have been too hard. We were swarmed completely under.

It's something I considered, but I'd like to mostly avoid. From my experience and that of others, character immersion and roleplay often suffers exponentially as more characters are added.

[Zaydos]

Dragon Magazine suggested EL = character level -4 as equivalent to a EL = party level encounter for a solo adventurer and personal experience says it's about right (also an EL X encounter is 4 times the enemies for an EL X-4 encounter).

I'd suggest going for more solo encounters than normal, unless they are particularly geared towards taking out large groups. Avoiding very many traps unless they're a rogue. I'd also suggest dropping some healing items, having employers give them some potions of Cure X, etc, if they don't have in class healing.

Also gestalt/trisalt can work pretty well.

[Tovec]

I've done this a fair bit lately. Here's some quick things I've gleamed.

First, healing. A solo character is going to need an easy way to get healing when they are out by themselves doing whatever they do. The solution can be anything from a supply of potions, a friendly cleric, or maybe even improved/rapid natural healing.

Second, NPCs. It is important to have a strong supporting cast so that the player isn't confused and aimless the entire time. In my experience I've tried mentors, recurring villains, friends and allies, all in varying amounts but falling back on cliches helps.

Third, spellcasting. Or at least access to it. It is no fun being a fighter and being struck with the same sword the entire time because you can't craft another. The solution might be to let them gestalt so they can spellcast themself or just to let them know a spellcaster who can hook them up. Up to you.

Fourth, and something I've only tried fairly recently, let them have a party. Or otherwise control other characters. Have them choose one that is their main, so they aren't stuck talking to themself, but in practice consider letting them control more than one character during fights. This also gives them a quick out if one falls unconscious or dies - they can start using another temporarily or permanently. In my case I made a specific line of companion feats to facilitate this since I REALLY REALLY hate the leadership feat.

Fifth, get the player involved. Having a strong central premise (even if they decide never to fulfill that goal) is key. If the player wants to become a god then the story can be about achieving that end, the fights and challenges to seeing that done. Then if they decide to spend a few months in a random town and settling down you can but at it starts in a really strong place. It also helps if the mentors and villains show up and wreck that town to get the character/player back on track.

Sixth and finally, with all of this said, I don't think a specific class for the PC is necessary. Just give them the tools to play the character they want, but so they won't automatically die. Decide if they expect or even want high level magic to play a role and if not work around it or give them tools they need to deal with it.

Hope this helps.

[lsfreak]

One of the big things I'd do to help solo/small group stuff is eliminate the assumption that fighting is something everyone's willing to do. A bit more realistically, the only people who will jump into a fight are those who are trained killers, those who are under an altered state of mind (drunk, mob mentality), and those who have severe mental problems. Everyone else will likely do everything they can to avoid a fight, and if they do get into a fight, there will likely be a period of psyching themselves up ahead of time (mocking, threatening, chest-beating, and otherwise convincing themselves to fight, which may result in the other side backing down before it escalated). The picture changes a lot when the assumption is no longer just, kill the guards, because it's damn near impossible to goad someone into a fight.

[Maginomicon]

The Dragon Compendium says that a solo campaign should assume APL-2 for your highest Encounter Level. That is, at ECL 1 they should be fighting an EL 1/3. At ECL 2 fight EL 1/2, at ECL 3 fight EL 1, etc.

[Eldonauran]

A summoning focus Druid will just about carry every role other than skill monkey. If you get generous ability scores, even that won't be a problem.

[ramrod]

I just introduced my gf to d and d and she played with me being DM. She played two characters, I played a paladin lackey for her and it seems to work fine. She essentially just role played her main character and I filled in for the lackeys.

That way we could cover different roles in the party, skill monkey, caster and tank/healer.

If I wasn't introducing her to the basic concepts, I would javelin used gestalt characters as well, perhaps her just playing one and me playing the other as a support lackey.

[Mnemnosyne]

One of the biggest problems I've encountered when trying to do solo D&D is the lack of other players for the player to bounce ideas off of and decide what to do with. In any group of at least two people, they can discuss things, think of things the other person didn't think of, and the discussion might bring to light ideas that neither one of them would have thought of on their own. When you're alone, it can be really hard to figure things out.

To that end, look at some of the classic best computer RPGs. Baldur's Gate series, Planescape: Torment, that sort of thing. What you're looking for here is the sort of 'let the player do what they want but also give them direction' sort of thing. You'll have to adapt a lot, because obviously you don't control their dialogue choices, but try to set up situations in which there are 3-5 obvious responses. And by 'obvious' I mean 'actually pointed out in-character' because what's obvious to you may well not be obvious to your player. He may come up with an idea you didn't present, and that's great, but hopefully if you presented enough clear options he will choose one AND not feel like he's being led by the nose.

And then there's the downside...this is actually harder to do than normal D&D with multiple players. You often have to run NPC hirelings that are subordinate to the player's character for whatever reason, but also provide dialogue and conversation like a real party would. You often have to come up with not only the challenges, but how to solve them, whereas with a full party it would be easier to say 'well, they'll figure it out because collectively they're smarter than I am, and collectively, they have broader experience than me, so at least one of them is likely to get it'.

Also, figure out what you want to happen when the character loses. Because if you're playing fairly by mechanics, they'll lose sooner or later. For many, perhaps even most opponents, it would be unjustifiable to have the character wind up with a second chance at that point if they're alone, while a party would be able to retreat after losing one of its members in many situations. Talking this over with the player may help. The character may well need a special power to deal with this, or they may need allies that, for some reason, are willing to resurrect them or otherwise restore their ability to act.

[Eldariel]

1) Any caster class can actually solo adventure, so there's that.

2) Hirelings.

3) Magic items to cover the corners.


Enjoy.

[lsfreak]

One of the biggest problems I've encountered when trying to do solo D&D is the lack of other players for the player to bounce ideas off of and decide what to do with. In any group of at least two people, they can discuss things, think of things the other person didn't think of, and the discussion might bring to light ideas that neither one of them would have thought of on their own. When you're alone, it can be really hard to figure things out.
It might, depending on the DM, be possible for the DM to play this role. Have the player and the DM bounce ideas back and forth, with he DM basically taking the role of a different voice in the mind. The player needs to trust the DM enough not to feed them false information, or trust that the DM will feed them false information (ever been so sure of something but you later realized one of the "impossible" alternatives was the easier, better alternative?). Would need to be established ahead of time.


Also, figure out what you want to happen when the character loses. Because if you're playing fairly by mechanics, they'll lose sooner or later. For many, perhaps even most opponents, it would be unjustifiable to have the character wind up with a second chance at that point if they're alone, while a party would be able to retreat after losing one of its members in many situations.

I'd say that depends greatly on the situation. If the player is a minor noble, for example, in a heroic fantasy-type world, where most enemies are going to be bandits or opposing clans/kingdoms and not doom cults and one-on-one dragon fights, it might be perfectly reasonable that most people are going to keep them alive to try and ransom them back.
EDIT: And of course there's things like medieval/Renaissance England, where killing is pretty much always punished with death without "proof" of escalation by the other party, as opposed to say Germany at the same time where duels to the death were acceptable. In guards are going to be killed for murdering someone, or spark a regional war if they do, it's going to be much less likely that the PCs life is in immediate danger.

[NotScaryBats]

Sounds like a perfect time to introduce a Talking Magical Item! You can really focus on one-character storylines in a 1 on 1 game, like "Born with a destiny" "find an artifact" and the like.

Maybe work together with the player to hash out what you two want the general story arc to be, and then just focus in on that. Since you aren't catering to the raging barbarian, sneaky thief, and valorous paladin at the same time, you can do only the plot and meaningful interactions of the one player.

For crunch, gestalt or tristalt, maybe give generous WBL, low ball a few encounters, and if you have more enemies than two, make sure they are pretty weak because action economy is a huuuuuge advantage (that's why the 1 BBEG vs party of 5 is usually such a faceroll).