PDA

View Full Version : Gaming For Two?



AMFV
2016-02-02, 12:58 PM
The thread about single character focused games got me thinking, is there a game designed to be played that way, essentially with just one player and one DM (or whatever). I've always been interested in finding a system like that, I've tried using 3.5 or PF but that takes a lot of monkeying, so now I'm curious if anybody has had more successful experiences and if so, what system did they use?

BWR
2016-02-02, 01:16 PM
My girlfriend and I do this regularly with d20 based systems and I'm sorta in the process of doing it for a bunch of other people and it doesn't take any more monkeying than running for a group of players, really. When making encounters, combat or otherwise, you try to balance them so that encounters are not overpowering but still a challenge or at least meaningful, and there you are. You might cut back a little on save or suck abilities and you might make sure they have useful NPCs or GMPCs with them just in case, but even solo games are perfectly doable and enjoyable. The most important issue I've noticed is not tied to system: if the player is stuck they don't have other players to help come up with ideas. That is the single greatest complaint I have and have heard about 1 on 1 games.

cobaltstarfire
2016-02-02, 01:40 PM
I did a 3 man game for a long time in 5e, I think playing with two players could work without too much trouble in the system.

AMFV
2016-02-02, 01:51 PM
It'd be also interesting to see the kind of stories that two people could tell, which might be difficult to tell with more, and there wouldn't need to be as much separation between the roles as many other games require. Was that also you folks' experience?

JNAProductions
2016-02-02, 02:10 PM
I do one on one freeform RPing with a friend all the time. We just kinda build a story up-he usually makes an intro with a lead-in to a larger plot, I handle the larger plot, he throws in a few wrenches, we both work on the ending, and I handle the epilogue.

Loads of fun. And we (usually) both have characters, as well as playing side characters to boot.

cobaltstarfire
2016-02-02, 03:21 PM
It'd be also interesting to see the kind of stories that two people could tell, which might be difficult to tell with more, and there wouldn't need to be as much separation between the roles as many other games require. Was that also you folks' experience?

My experience (again with three players) is that things are more personal since the characters are more free to interact with each other. There are fewer sub plots to resolve and bog things down, and players have to get creative with how they solve problems. We also got to do an interesting large scale battle (basically war gaming for that night) that I don't think would have worked had there been 4 or 5 of us, simply because of the time and number of units that would have been involved.

When I think of playing a two player game, I imagine each person building characters that are somehow tied to each other. Whether they are partners in crime, good friends/siblings, or hate each others guts but are stuck together. Since there's only two players they can set the tone/theme of the game more closely, because the game will only have to be designed to accommodate to two players.

Mordar
2016-02-02, 05:24 PM
Hi -

Call of C'thulhu is great for a single-player game...a supers game with a detective bent works well (ala Batman)...spy games are good choices too. Those are some of the fiction types where we see a lot of single hero without a troop of support.

So system wise, I think avoid things built on the premise of a party filling roles and look to non-d20 systems for ease (not to say you can't do it in d20 too...just watch out for the expectations of roles).

- M

goto124
2016-02-02, 08:16 PM
The OP seems to be talking about solo campaigns - one player & one DM, as opposed to five players & one DM or two players & one DM.

I've done solo games before, where the DM also played a PC who's a lover of my PC. The PC-DMPC relationship didn't have to fight for attention, and the entire world could be tailored just to emphasize and build on the relationship. Many problems of the DMPC (spotlight stealing, overshadowing the party, etc) just didn't come up in the game.

At one point, I played two PCs, which I'd mistaken the thread title to be about :smalltongue:

Amaril
2016-02-02, 10:14 PM
I think Don't Rest Your Head is supposed to be designed for this, or at least work for it with no problem. The book actually says that even with multiple players, the PCs should meet up only rarely, if at all, as removing the isolation kills the horror.

Zweisteine
2016-02-03, 12:41 AM
The longest D&D (3.5e) campaign I ever played was just me and the DM.

Admittedly, I did have NPCs in the party, but that can be avoided.

If you use 3.5e (or perhaps 5e), you can boost the single player's power by having them be a gestalt character. Also, allowing easier access to Use Magic Device for a non-caster would help with healing and utility magic. My DM actually had a houserule in the campaign I mentioned that if I bought a magic item, the seller would give me directions on how to use it, and someone in town would also train me to use wands I'd found (don't remember if I had to pay for that; the cost of 5 charges might be reasonable).


However, the best RPG I've played in my life was two-player. Me and a GM. No formal system. It was essentially verbal FFRP; it was incredible.

In other words, if you want to play an RPG with a good friend, it's a perfectly good idea to just make it up. That way, you can get all the fun roleplaying, and the best storytelling. And if you want an element of randomness, have them roll a d20 for tough things they try. Of course, if you really do want the structure that rules provide, disregard the last few lines of this post.

Lacco
2016-02-03, 02:08 AM
I have never run specifically a single-player campaign - but once in a while I play one-on-one with my players, usually when there is a subplot involving only one player, or when the others are not available.

I keep specific session ideas for the one-on-one plays, since as goto124 stated, you can go deeper in the roleplay when playing just with one character. You can focus on the PC-NPC relations, PC character, his backstory, subplots and also - the player has time and space to really deep into the character.

For one-on-one campaing, I would suggest a system, that provides opportunities for single players - classless systems work better due to possibility of creating a character that can operate without a group or with a single or two NPC helpers; systems which give you fully functional character (i.e. not starting at level 1/lower on the competence ladder) are also advantagious. Focusing on the roleplay aspect is good too.

From my experience, Shadowrun works fine as one-on-one, since you can get NPC runners to assist you easily, while still keeping focus only on your character, and provides lots of possible roleplaying experiences.

Jay R
2016-02-03, 10:27 AM
This is what hirelings and cohorts are for. Since fighters are the easiest to hire, I'd recommend not playing one. If I were a single player, I'd play an arcane caster who would hire a bodyguard or two, a rogue, and possibly a priest.


Having said that, the object of any two-player game of D&D is to find more players.

AMFV
2016-02-03, 08:14 PM
This is what hirelings and cohorts are for. Since fighters are the easiest to hire, I'd recommend not playing one. If I were a single player, I'd play an arcane caster who would hire a bodyguard or two, a rogue, and possibly a priest.


Having said that, the object of any two-player game of D&D is to find more players.

I disagree, or at least that's not quite what I'm looking for. I'm looking for a game that is designed around the two player concept, or one particularly conducive to it. There are many stories that are easier to tell with fewer participants.


I have never run specifically a single-player campaign - but once in a while I play one-on-one with my players, usually when there is a subplot involving only one player, or when the others are not available.

I keep specific session ideas for the one-on-one plays, since as goto124 stated, you can go deeper in the roleplay when playing just with one character. You can focus on the PC-NPC relations, PC character, his backstory, subplots and also - the player has time and space to really deep into the character.

For one-on-one campaing, I would suggest a system, that provides opportunities for single players - classless systems work better due to possibility of creating a character that can operate without a group or with a single or two NPC helpers; systems which give you fully functional character (i.e. not starting at level 1/lower on the competence ladder) are also advantagious. Focusing on the roleplay aspect is good too.

From my experience, Shadowrun works fine as one-on-one, since you can get NPC runners to assist you easily, while still keeping focus only on your character, and provides lots of possible roleplaying experiences.

Would that potentially work with a system that doesn't require the hiring of a ton of NPCs?


Hi -

Call of C'thulhu is great for a single-player game...a supers game with a detective bent works well (ala Batman)...spy games are good choices too. Those are some of the fiction types where we see a lot of single hero without a troop of support.

So system wise, I think avoid things built on the premise of a party filling roles and look to non-d20 systems for ease (not to say you can't do it in d20 too...just watch out for the expectations of roles).

- M

What other systems outside of COC have you played that would be good for this?

cobaltstarfire
2016-02-03, 09:07 PM
What other systems outside of COC have you played that would be good for this?

I bet Fate would work pretty fine for it, though it isn't as crunchy a game as others.

Faily
2016-02-03, 09:44 PM
The most important issue I've noticed is not tied to system: if the player is stuck they don't have other players to help come up with ideas. That is the single greatest complaint I have and have heard about 1 on 1 games.

This!

As long as its a system that both player and GM is very comfortable with, it's not going to be an issue.

Not having other players to bounce ideas off of, or plan with, or getting second opinions from... that is often the biggest hurdle to overcome in single-player games. One way to help overcome some of the problems is to offer Intelligence-rolls to remember crucial information, or letting NPCs point out obvious facts that the player is forgetting.

Jay R
2016-02-04, 11:48 AM
I'm looking for a game that is designed around the two player concept, ...

I doubt you will find it. I can't imagine designing an rpg around not trying to get players to try to get more of their friends involved. That's a recipe for diminished sales.


...or one particularly conducive to it.

This is more likely, but I don't know what it would be, since the balanced party has been central to role-playing from the start.

The closest I can think of is Sherlock Holmes, Consulting Detective. Since it was trying to model the actions of one character, it used the work-around that the players were playing the Baker Street Irregulars - street kids that Sherlock had working for him. But I suspect that you could ignore that work-around.


There are many stories that are easier to tell with fewer participants.

True. But I'm not convinced that there are stories that are easier to play out with fewer participants. It may be true, but it is not the same statement, and I have no evidence for it.

Warrnan
2016-02-04, 01:29 PM
I've done it. It becomes difficult for the player when the Dm is rolling all the dice and you basically get one turn. my daughter helps me roll the dm dice.

I found in a 2 year campaign that my bestfriend and I did, that we were both sort of Dms and had a large amount of player input on the direction of the adventure. It's best done with close friends and you will become closer friends as you do 2 man d&d.

There are cr calculators online. You can tune them down to 2 players. This way is how I've made sure that encounters were not too hard or easy.

AMFV
2016-02-04, 01:48 PM
This!

As long as its a system that both player and GM is very comfortable with, it's not going to be an issue.

Not having other players to bounce ideas off of, or plan with, or getting second opinions from... that is often the biggest hurdle to overcome in single-player games. One way to help overcome some of the problems is to offer Intelligence-rolls to remember crucial information, or letting NPCs point out obvious facts that the player is forgetting.

So maybe a system that's not as dependant on coming up with the right idea in response to a problem, but one that allows most ideas to be successful, or a higher volume of potentially interesting solutions.


I doubt you will find it. I can't imagine designing an rpg around not trying to get players to try to get more of their friends involved. That's a recipe for diminished sales.


I disagree. It's much much much much easier to find two people willing to do an activity. This is why chess is more popular than Risk of Diplomacy. Any time you have two you can play, which is much easier to work with. Also most games I think I've bought I rarely play, so worrying about them actually using the game isn't a that relevant to a sales perspective. I don't care if they use it, only if they buy it.



This is more likely, but I don't know what it would be, since the balanced party has been central to role-playing from the start.

It isn't central to roleplaying any more than the presence of dragons is... It's just common because folks are familiar with it.



True. But I'm not convinced that there are stories that are easier to play out with fewer participants. It may be true, but it is not the same statement, and I have no evidence for it.

Depends we are currently talking about using systems that aren't designed for that purpose. I'm looking at finding or designing a system designed for that end.



I've done it. It becomes difficult for the player when the Dm is rolling all the dice and you basically get one turn. my daughter helps me roll the dm dice.

I found in a 2 year campaign that my bestfriend and I did, that we were both sort of Dms and had a large amount of player input on the direction of the adventure. It's best done with close friends and you will become closer friends as you do 2 man d&d.

There are cr calculators online. You can tune them down to 2 players. This way is how I've made sure that encounters were not too hard or easy.

So less die rolling, smaller encounters, more ways to truncate rolling or summarize if?

cobaltstarfire
2016-02-04, 02:24 PM
So maybe a system that's not as dependant on coming up with the right idea in response to a problem, but one that allows most ideas to be successful, or a higher volume of potentially interesting solutions.

Yeah FATE would definitely be a good system.

FUDGE (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fudge_%28role-playing_game_system%29)may also be a good one to try if you want to build your own system (actually I think FATE may be based on FUDGE? Fudge is basically just tools to make your own kind of system.


The rules of Fudge are highly customizable and can be adjusted for the level of simplicity or complexity desired by the Game Master and Players. Overall, the system is designed to encourage role-playing over strict adherence to an arbitrary set of rules. In fact, the main Fudge documents encourage players to "Just Fudge It"; that is, to focus on the story being created rather than on the game rules. For example, one character creation method encourages players to first write prose descriptions of their characters and then translate those into Fudge Traits.

Mordar
2016-02-04, 03:10 PM
What other systems outside of COC have you played that would be good for this?

I've had a great RoleMaster game with just the DM and I...but I know that RoleMaster is probably not a good suggestion without better knowing the participants.

In the superhero genre I've done 2-player games in Marvel (MSHRPG), Mutants and Masterminds and Champions.

I have heard (can not confirm) that Savage Worlds is okay, but that the Deadlands game from which it sprang was a little better for 2 players.

Hope that helps!

- M

Warrnan
2016-02-04, 03:41 PM
So maybe a system that's not as dependant on coming up with the right idea in response to a problem, but one that allows most ideas to be successful, or a higher volume of potentially interesting solutions.



I disagree. It's much much much much easier to find two people willing to do an activity. This is why chess is more popular than Risk of Diplomacy. Any time you have two you can play, which is much easier to work with. Also most games I think I've bought I rarely play, so worrying about them actually using the game isn't a that relevant to a sales perspective. I don't care if they use it, only if they buy it.



It isn't central to roleplaying any more than the presence of dragons is... It's just common because folks are familiar with it.



Depends we are currently talking about using systems that aren't designed for that purpose. I'm looking at finding or designing a system designed for that end.




So less die rolling, smaller encounters, more ways to truncate rolling or summarize if?

Generally just pc level -2 makes for moderate encounters. Tune it as you go for the desired difficulty. We've done it with 3.5 for years.

With 2 man games, some encounters go like this:

Dmpc takes turn.
Pc takes turn.
Dm determines monsters attacks and strategies.
Dm says to pc, "hey can you roll me 5d6 then move the kobold in front of your wizard?"

This way the Dm isn't basically doing everything except controlling the only PC. Both people have things to do all the time. I've found my 8 year old daughter loves moving the miniatures and rolling the dice but gets bored quickly if she has to sit around while I resolve things.

ImNotTrevor
2016-02-04, 05:07 PM
I would look into GMless games such as Fall of Magic. (A particularly good one, though rather new.)

These kinds of systems put the two players on equal, cooperative footing from the get-go.

I would at least look into them. They might not be quite the experience you envision RIGHT NOW, but they might show you a new kind of experience that could be just as fun... or more fun.

AMFV
2016-02-04, 07:55 PM
I would look into GMless games such as Fall of Magic. (A particularly good one, though rather new.)

These kinds of systems put the two players on equal, cooperative footing from the get-go.

I would at least look into them. They might not be quite the experience you envision RIGHT NOW, but they might show you a new kind of experience that could be just as fun... or more fun.

Well not the sort of experience I'm looking for to be honest. Nothing against those games they aren't my cup of tea though.

CharonsHelper
2016-02-05, 05:48 PM
Anyone else hearing "An RPG built for two" rolling through their heads to the tune of "A bicycle built for two"?

Elana
2016-02-06, 02:48 AM
I think it can work nice with D20
You might consider Gestalt for more options, but that isn't really necessary.

What should be included are the rules Armor as Damage Conversion from unearthed arcana.
If the armor transforms some of the damage to non lethal the single player is much more likely to survive even lost battles.

Of course that requires enemies who are more likely to take you prisoner than to ..say eat you.

And you might need to think about various escape scenarios from dungeon cells..slave camps etc.

JoeJ
2016-02-06, 03:07 AM
I think it can work nice with D20
You might consider Gestalt for more options, but that isn't really necessary.

What should be included are the rules Armor as Damage Conversion from unearthed arcana.
If the armor transforms some of the damage to non lethal the single player is much more likely to survive even lost battles.

Of course that requires enemies who are more likely to take you prisoner than to ..say eat you.

And you might need to think about various escape scenarios from dungeon cells..slave camps etc.

If you're going to use any version of D&D for that I'd recommend 5e. When you reduce someone to 0 hit points with a melee attack you can decide if they're dying or just unconscious, so enemies can almost always take you prisoner instead of kill you if they win (if they want to).

AMFV
2016-02-08, 03:20 PM
If you're going to use any version of D&D for that I'd recommend 5e. When you reduce someone to 0 hit points with a melee attack you can decide if they're dying or just unconscious, so enemies can almost always take you prisoner instead of kill you if they win (if they want to).

Well to be fair, to use D&D for this you'd probably need quite a bit of houseruling. And there would probably be house rules you would want to make to make the game more enjoyable, since you have some additional options.

Lacco
2016-02-09, 04:15 AM
Well not the sort of experience I'm looking for to be honest. Nothing against those games they aren't my cup of tea though.

What sort of experience are you looking for? Specifically - what genre? What do you find enjoyable enough - combat, mystery, socializing...something from each?


Would that potentially work with a system that doesn't require the hiring of a ton of NPCs?

It depends on the stories you expect to play. Even Shadowrun can be done with a single character - e.g. investigation-heavy scenarios are fine, breaking-and-entering and wetwork also. However, you need to check the scope of game - if you want to solve a gang war, you better have some heavy firepower. But to take down a single low-tier mob boss...could be done as solo play. And could be interesting.

Basically, I would use a classless, levelless system, which gives you a fairly competent character from the beginning for 1on1, move the scope of campaign to more personal level and either center it around strong narrative, or think of it as "sandbox roguelike" :smallsmile:.

Lorsa
2016-02-09, 05:42 AM
I have ran solo campaigns in almost any system I've ever GMed. D&D 3.5, Eclipse Phase, World of Darkness, Ars Magica, some swedish systems, etc, etc. Never felt like D&D was particularly bad at it, as long as both you and your player are aware of it (the limitations of only being one player that is). Granted, in many games the player often choose to pick up an NPC. Mostly those decisions were based on in-character reasons (a particular like for the NPC) rather than OOC reasons (I need more people to balance the fights).

I think this game is specifically designed for two people:

http://adept-press.com/games-fantasy-horror/slay-wme/

and at the bottom of the page you will find links to other such games.

One type of story that solo campaigns do much better than the larger groups is the "Chosen one" type of game. When there's only one player, the character can actually be special, have extraordinary powers or the like, without tilting the party balance. It might not be what you want, but if you do, this is the type of setup where it actually works pretty well.

I've also found that it is easier to have a more "roleplay" (or social interaction) based game with only one player. With a group, either they will try to talk into each other, or some players will be bored because only one of them is doing all the interaction. Quite often, players are more interested in or have an easier time interacting with NPCs when they're the only player, so that's definitely one thing to include.

Long story short, I find that solo campaigns are good for deeply immersive games, where one player is allowed to really shine in all situations. Most people I've ran solo campaigns for have been very pleasantly surprised.

AMFV
2016-02-09, 09:23 AM
What sort of experience are you looking for? Specifically - what genre? What do you find enjoyable enough - combat, mystery, socializing...something from each?

I'm going to be honest, it's the genre that would make me not exactly want to go towards those systems, rather it's the structure. I'm looking for something that has a 1 DM - 1 Player structure. More because I'm familiar with my audience. I have a friend who wants to do more roleplaying but is not particularly familiar with games. This means that having a system where she doesn't have to do as much work on the front-end is critical. Also FATE, while interesting, is probably a little open-ended, at least in terms of aspects, I know I found it to be frustratingly so. Although there are many people who love that system so it's possible that I've not given it enough thought.

[QUOTE=lacco36;20401523]
It depends on the stories you expect to play. Even Shadowrun can be done with a single character - e.g. investigation-heavy scenarios are fine, breaking-and-entering and wetwork also. However, you need to check the scope of game - if you want to solve a gang war, you better have some heavy firepower. But to take down a single low-tier mob boss...could be done as solo play. And could be interesting.

Basically, I would use a classless, levelless system, which gives you a fairly competent character from the beginning for 1on1, move the scope of campaign to more personal level and either center it around strong narrative, or think of it as "sandbox roguelike" :smallsmile:.

Why would you use a classeless and levelless system (not that I'm knocking that, it just seems like it's kind of the non-sequitur here)? I mean Roguelikes almost all have classes. You could certainly have more options as far as viable character development than you could in other games as well, for example a non-viable archetype could work in this system.


I have ran solo campaigns in almost any system I've ever GMed. D&D 3.5, Eclipse Phase, World of Darkness, Ars Magica, some swedish systems, etc, etc. Never felt like D&D was particularly bad at it, as long as both you and your player are aware of it (the limitations of only being one player that is). Granted, in many games the player often choose to pick up an NPC. Mostly those decisions were based on in-character reasons (a particular like for the NPC) rather than OOC reasons (I need more people to balance the fights).

How did the balancing go? What were the challenges you noticed?



I think this game is specifically designed for two people:

http://adept-press.com/games-fantasy-horror/slay-wme/

and at the bottom of the page you will find links to other such games.


That looks pretty interesting, I will have to check it out when I am less at work.



One type of story that solo campaigns do much better than the larger groups is the "Chosen one" type of game. When there's only one player, the character can actually be special, have extraordinary powers or the like, without tilting the party balance. It might not be what you want, but if you do, this is the type of setup where it actually works pretty well.

I've also found that it is easier to have a more "roleplay" (or social interaction) based game with only one player. With a group, either they will try to talk into each other, or some players will be bored because only one of them is doing all the interaction. Quite often, players are more interested in or have an easier time interacting with NPCs when they're the only player, so that's definitely one thing to include.

Long story short, I find that solo campaigns are good for deeply immersive games, where one player is allowed to really shine in all situations. Most people I've ran solo campaigns for have been very pleasantly surprised.

So is there anything you would want to add to a game designed around solo runs? Did the players feel particularly isolated? Would you say you prefer solo campaigns? I know that these are a lot of questions, but I'm actually really interested in the idea. So I apologize in advance on that front.

Lacco
2016-02-09, 10:11 AM
I'm going to be honest, it's the genre that would make me not exactly want to go towards those systems, rather it's the structure. I'm looking for something that has a 1 DM - 1 Player structure. More because I'm familiar with my audience. I have a friend who wants to do more roleplaying but is not particularly familiar with games. This means that having a system where she doesn't have to do as much work on the front-end is critical. Also FATE, while interesting, is probably a little open-ended, at least in terms of aspects, I know I found it to be frustratingly so. Although there are many people who love that system so it's possible that I've not given it enough thought.

My command of English fails again to provide me with input, so I'll ask: what did the part "system where she doesn't have to do as much work on the front-end is critical" mean?

Yes, I find FATE to feel better when used with several players - I have played a 1-on-1 session and session with 3 players, and the second one was better, as it requires a lot of creative input from players.

And since you know the audience - what is the friend you have looking for? You stated that there is a need for more roleplaying, but... should it be combat oriented? Exploration? Social/intrigue-focused?


Why would you use a classeless and levelless system (not that I'm knocking that, it just seems like it's kind of the non-sequitur here)? I mean Roguelikes almost all have classes. You could certainly have more options as far as viable character development than you could in other games as well, for example a non-viable archetype could work in this system.

You answered my question better than I could - it's the options, but also it's because with the classless systems there is usually an assumption that you don't have to cover all angles before going to the dungeon. As for the "roguelike" comparison - my brain works that way, I usually connect dots to see completely different picture than the one I am expected to see. However, this one I can easily explain - in roguelikes, you usually play alone (no party members), have only small amount of companions (and usually only quest-related, not stable ones) and you have to deal with the world, which does not expect a full party that covers all the angles (e.g. traditional fighter-thief-mage-cleric for fight-sneak-magic-heal combo).

AMFV
2016-02-09, 10:48 AM
My command of English fails again to provide me with input, so I'll ask: what did the part "system where she doesn't have to do as much work on the front-end is critical" mean?

It means that a system that prizes collaboration as it's highest ideal, may not be ideal if both players are not at equal comfort levels.



Yes, I find FATE to feel better when used with several players - I have played a 1-on-1 session and session with 3 players, and the second one was better, as it requires a lot of creative input from players.

And since you know the audience - what is the friend you have looking for? You stated that there is a need for more roleplaying, but... should it be combat oriented? Exploration? Social/intrigue-focused?

Well I don't necessarily think that there's a need for more roleplaying. So much as I think a format with two people would inevitably want more or different roleplaying. That was sort of a separate query, although it's related. There are a lot of roleplaying options that are present with only two that you might not have with more. Horror becomes easier. Isolation/Survival can become a much more present game aspect than it could otherwise.



You answered my question better than I could - it's the options, but also it's because with the classless systems there is usually an assumption that you don't have to cover all angles before going to the dungeon. As for the "roguelike" comparison - my brain works that way, I usually connect dots to see completely different picture than the one I am expected to see. However, this one I can easily explain - in roguelikes, you usually play alone (no party members), have only small amount of companions (and usually only quest-related, not stable ones) and you have to deal with the world, which does not expect a full party that covers all the angles (e.g. traditional fighter-thief-mage-cleric for fight-sneak-magic-heal combo).

Fair enough. I think that the idea might not be necessarily class vs. classeless, but roles and design. In a system that's designed for fewer folks, it would be as workable to have classes as not. Just depending on the overall game design principles.

Lorsa
2016-02-09, 11:00 AM
Having read some of your replies to others, perhaps World of Darkness is what you're looking for? It's a very easy system to get into in general, and modern fantasy is quite popular in media today, so there's lots of inspiration to be had for the setting.


How did the balancing go? What were the challenges you noticed?

One big challenge is if the system is heavily dependent upon certain skills being present in the party for the average adventure. For example hacking in games like Eclipse Phase or Shadowrun. It's very hard to fit them into a character who's also supposed to be good at fighting and talking. Sure, you can do adventures that doesn't need any hacking expertise, or you could make a character who is very good at hacking, but that is usually quite boring for a solo game. My players often solve this by bringing some awesome hacking AI with them or the like. But it's something to keep in mind.

Obviously you have to tailor encounters accordingly, again this depends on the game. In D&D for example, I had a player taking out a group of eight Orc warriors on level 1 by clever use of Stealth and ranged attacks. Other times the character has simply been a bit better than normal, and thus been able to take on rather large numbers by themselves.

Generally, I don't find the balancing hard, as there's only one character to worry about. Balance is usually more of an issue with multiple players. You can basically make a solo character how good or bad you want, and then just tailor the encounters accordingly.



So is there anything you would want to add to a game designed around solo runs? Did the players feel particularly isolated? Would you say you prefer solo campaigns? I know that these are a lot of questions, but I'm actually really interested in the idea. So I apologize in advance on that front.

Feel free to ask as many questions as you like. I will try to answer them more in detail when I have time, and perhaps more time to reflect also. Sometimes experience is hard to teach.

I'm not sure if there's anything in particular to add to a game designed around solo runs. Do mean mechanically or story-wise?

My players never felt particularly isolated, as they usually had a whole world to interact with. I guess one of the challenges is to create interesting NPCs, and when the player ask a friendly NPC for ideas, to give them the type of ideas that NPC might provide, not necessarily the right (or wrong) solution. In a solo game, I don't think it's bad to give your player ideas if they're stuck, just make sure to provide options and make sure the ultimate decision lies with them.

Yes, in many ways I do prefer solo campaigns. They don't suffer so many group dynamic issues as larger groups might, and you can't really tailor the game to fit that one player, which makes it easier to GM. Also, I often become more immersed in my NPCs, so it's often more fun for me as well. With only one player, there's more play time for you as GM, as there won't be any in-party interaction to take up the time.

AMFV
2016-02-09, 11:25 AM
Having read some of your replies to others, perhaps World of Darkness is what you're looking for? It's a very easy system to get into in general, and modern fantasy is quite popular in media today, so there's lots of inspiration to be had for the setting.


World of Darkness could certainly work for it. My main complaint is that the splats tend to be on the depressing side. Actually at this point, I'm looking at houseruling or constructing my own system, since it's something that I could see having wider reaching applications and potentially being useful for others. Which is probably why my responses have been all over the place. Since I'm both looking for something to play with my friend, and potentially looking for design/houseruling considerations. I could certainly do something with WoD, but I'm not sure that's ideal, mostly at this point I'm looking for interesting discussion.



One big challenge is if the system is heavily dependent upon certain skills being present in the party for the average adventure. For example hacking in games like Eclipse Phase or Shadowrun. It's very hard to fit them into a character who's also supposed to be good at fighting and talking. Sure, you can do adventures that doesn't need any hacking expertise, or you could make a character who is very good at hacking, but that is usually quite boring for a solo game. My players often solve this by bringing some awesome hacking AI with them or the like. But it's something to keep in mind.

Well one of the advantages, I suspect, of a solo game is that you don't have to unduly limit character strengths. In 3.5 D&D terms, a Tier 1 character is almost always going to be completely fine. The only issue is for the DM to ensure that they can challenge the player. So you'd probably have to adjust character creation to fit that. Of course, if we're aiming for horror or something grittier we might not want that particular bit.



Obviously you have to tailor encounters accordingly, again this depends on the game. In D&D for example, I had a player taking out a group of eight Orc warriors on level 1 by clever use of Stealth and ranged attacks. Other times the character has simply been a bit better than normal, and thus been able to take on rather large numbers by themselves.

Generally, I don't find the balancing hard, as there's only one character to worry about. Balance is usually more of an issue with multiple players. You can basically make a solo character how good or bad you want, and then just tailor the encounters accordingly.


How do you vary the type or style of encounters?



Feel free to ask as many questions as you like. I will try to answer them more in detail when I have time, and perhaps more time to reflect also. Sometimes experience is hard to teach.

I'm not sure if there's anything in particular to add to a game designed around solo runs. Do mean mechanically or story-wise?

My players never felt particularly isolated, as they usually had a whole world to interact with. I guess one of the challenges is to create interesting NPCs, and when the player ask a friendly NPC for ideas, to give them the type of ideas that NPC might provide, not necessarily the right (or wrong) solution. In a solo game, I don't think it's bad to give your player ideas if they're stuck, just make sure to provide options and make sure the ultimate decision lies with them.

Yes, in many ways I do prefer solo campaigns. They don't suffer so many group dynamic issues as larger groups might, and you can't really tailor the game to fit that one player, which makes it easier to GM. Also, I often become more immersed in my NPCs, so it's often more fun for me as well. With only one player, there's more play time for you as GM, as there won't be any in-party interaction to take up the time.

Now, here's some of the kicker, if you could have any kind of difference in a system to make solo campaigns easier, what sort of things would you want?

Lorsa
2016-02-10, 02:49 AM
World of Darkness could certainly work for it. My main complaint is that the splats tend to be on the depressing side. Actually at this point, I'm looking at houseruling or constructing my own system, since it's something that I could see having wider reaching applications and potentially being useful for others. Which is probably why my responses have been all over the place. Since I'm both looking for something to play with my friend, and potentially looking for design/houseruling considerations. I could certainly do something with WoD, but I'm not sure that's ideal, mostly at this point I'm looking for interesting discussion.

Mage is probably the least depressing splat, but you could always create your own. I had a solo game once where I created something called "Gibil", that had powers like disciplines from vampires, but healed like werewolves. They fed off life energy from humans, in different ways depending on their Vice.

Or you could play a mortal in WoD, which is probably best for horror, and let the character decide how to deal with being introduced to the existence of the supernatural. If you want to avoid the player feeling too alone, you could always have them being part of some government X-files type agency. There's lots to do in WoD, and it's quite easy to get into.



Well one of the advantages, I suspect, of a solo game is that you don't have to unduly limit character strengths. In 3.5 D&D terms, a Tier 1 character is almost always going to be completely fine. The only issue is for the DM to ensure that they can challenge the player. So you'd probably have to adjust character creation to fit that. Of course, if we're aiming for horror or something grittier we might not want that particular bit.

Sure, it all depends on what you're aiming for. Like you said, the good thing about solo games is that it's easier to do horror also. Even the tiniest of ghosts will be scary if you're playing a mundane character all alone in the dark.




How do you vary the type or style of encounters?

I am not sure what you're getting at here. Do you mean encounters as in combat encounters, or problems in general? I vary combat encounters like I normally would in a party game, just with more care of the player's abilities rather than staring myself blind at supposed challenge ratings. Damage immunities and such become more of an issue in a solo game. You can still include those type of enemies, just remember they'll be "extra hard".

As for encounters in the broader sense (as problems to be solved), it's the same. I mostly provide problems, and the players have to figure out the solution. Planning for "problem X can be solved by either Y or Z", is the path to railroad town. Players are a creative bunch, and they'll surprise you with the type of solutions they'll come up with. Especially in a solo game, I think, railroading is the worst. Let your player figure out how to work with the skills their character has, don't figure it out for them.



Now, here's some of the kicker, if you could have any kind of difference in a system to make solo campaigns easier, what sort of things would you want?

Depending on the system, I would like to have rules for creating characters with extra skills. In D&D for example, a solo player could do with some extra class skills (unless they're a Rogue), and an extra skill point or two per level. This gives them some more options for how to solve problems without making them vastly more powerful than normal. Many games have rules geared towards having a party of specialists, but in a solo game you typically want one generalist instead. Not necessarily "good at everything", but at least "good at two things".

AMFV
2016-02-12, 12:16 PM
So as I see it the chief problems are the following:

One player is less survivable. This is typically mitigated by encounter design, although it could be mitigated a few other ways depending (such as adding survival talents).

One player lacks specific skills, this is mitigated by playing a system that doesn't have skills, through henchmen (although that seems a copout), or by altering things to allow skills to apply more widely.

And then lastly there's the lack of inspiration, or stumping.

I think that all of these problems could be mitigated, I'm actually considering redesigning some of the 3.5 Classes to fit solo adventuring (like they did in Scarlet Adventures, which I found as a result of this). This would let me use some of my published adventures and APs I've not gotten to use without too much trouble. Although exactly how the re-design should work is up for debate yet, and the lack of inspiration problem is still not something I've figured an easy way to resolve.

AriLance
2016-02-12, 02:49 PM
Not sure if anyone recommended this, but Oakspar's thread ( http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?471393-Lessons-from-DMing-with-my-GF-(Oakspar77777) ) has great advice on one-on-one D&D campaigns.

Lacco
2016-02-12, 02:59 PM
One player is less survivable. This is typically mitigated by encounter design, although it could be mitigated a few other ways depending (such as adding survival talents).

Environment also plays a good role - however, this is part of the adventure/encounter design. For example - a rogue with no outdoor survival skills will operate in city if there is no group that will support him outdoors. However, if there is someone he can steal from...

This depends mainly on whether it is a sandbox-style play or adventure-focused one.


One player lacks specific skills, this is mitigated by playing a system that doesn't have skills, through henchmen (although that seems a copout), or by altering things to allow skills to apply more widely.

Would it seem a less of a copout if the player has to think who to hire/what will he need during the adventure?


And then lastly there's the lack of inspiration, or stumping.

I think that all of these problems could be mitigated, I'm actually considering redesigning some of the 3.5 Classes to fit solo adventuring (like they did in Scarlet Adventures, which I found as a result of this). This would let me use some of my published adventures and APs I've not gotten to use without too much trouble. Although exactly how the re-design should work is up for debate yet, and the lack of inspiration problem is still not something I've figured an easy way to resolve.

What are the main parts you are redesigning?

The lack of inspiration is hard to tackle and there are various ways how to overcome it within the system - however, as the knowledge skill thread shows, the what is correct/right way for one player can be unacceptable to others.

goto124
2016-02-13, 02:13 AM
This depends mainly on whether it is a sandbox-style play or adventure-focused one.

The lack of inspiration is hard to tackle and there are various ways how to overcome it within the system - however, as the knowledge skill thread shows, the what is correct/right way for one player can be unacceptable to others.

I suspect that lack of inspiration allows for a more adventure-focused campaign, where the DM gives ideas to and guides the player.

Murk
2016-02-13, 05:08 AM
I find it interesting that one-on-one roleplaying games seem to be rather rare, while pretty much all early video games were essentially just that.
Zelda, Mario, Pokémon, Sonic, heck, even Pacman in a pinch - those are all one on one roleplaying games, with one player and one DM (the computer).

Players never had a problem with video games. Maybe these games are less interesting for DM's, because there's less player input, but then again I've heard of plenty DM's who'd rather just tell a story, so that seems unlikely too.

SirAshley
2016-02-13, 11:53 AM
Another option that I don't believe has been presented is the Old World of Darkness system by White Wolf. The most popular systems for this series are Vampire: The Masquerade and Werewolf: The Apocalypse. Both of these systems are designed around group play, but you can easily have a one player, one storyteller game. In fact, the world settings and lore of the game can be explored much more in depth in this sort of situation. If you are going for a more D&D themed setting, both of these games have Darg Ages supplements; Dark Ages: Vampire and Dark Ages: Werewolf, respectively. It's a bit lore heavy, and as the Storyteller or DM, you would need to do a fair amount of reading, but I have found that these systems offer some of the most intense and in-depth roleplay I have ever had the privilege of being involved in.

SirAshley
2016-02-13, 12:07 PM
Sorry for the double posting, but I wanted to more specifically address your concerns in your last post in regard to White Wolf systems.


So as I see it the chief problems are the following:

One player is less survivable. This is typically mitigated by encounter design, although it could be mitigated a few other ways depending (such as adding survival talents).

To address this concern, both of these systems have the characters more tough than your average human, regardless of which system you use. Werewolf is more like D&D than Vampire is, as it involves much more combat and encounters of that nature. Regardless of the "class" options the player chooses, simply by being a Werewolf they come with a "built in" durability and resilience to most normal damage types.

Vampire is built around a more social setting, with political maneuvering and webs of lies, intrigue, and deception. It can be made into a more combat oriented game, depending on which "class" your player goes with, but it is definitely built for intrigue.



One player lacks specific skills, this is mitigated by playing a system that doesn't have skills, through henchmen (although that seems a copout), or by altering things to allow skills to apply more widely.

With the White Wolf systems, all characters have the potential to learn all of the skills and abilities in the game with the application of XP points, and the character creation process allows for character customization on a more intricate level than traditional D&D. More specifically, each character sheet has three categories of abilities. The player chooses which category their character has as their primary, secondary, and tertiary skill set, and assigns starting ability points based on those categories.


And then lastly there's the lack of inspiration, or stumping.

I have found that the lore within these settings help to mitigate stumping to a degree, as there is ALWAYS something going on in the meta plot, if you want to use it, that you can start hinting at and drawing your character towards, and then figure out later as a DM how you want to connect the two.



I think that all of these problems could be mitigated, I'm actually considering redesigning some of the 3.5 Classes to fit solo adventuring (like they did in Scarlet Adventures, which I found as a result of this). This would let me use some of my published adventures and APs I've not gotten to use without too much trouble. Although exactly how the re-design should work is up for debate yet, and the lack of inspiration problem is still not something I've figured an easy way to resolve.

Ultimately, if you are looking to keep the D&D chassis of classes and races, White Wolf wouldn't be the ideal choice. White Wolf is a system where, to use D&D terms, everyone is a human with a template, and have the ability to learn all of the abilities you could reasonably expect any person to learn, given the time to practice or study, and the proper XP expenditures. If you and your player would be interested in something like that, then I would highly recommend looking into this system.

AMFV
2016-02-14, 06:38 PM
Sorry for the double posting, but I wanted to more specifically address your concerns in your last post in regard to White Wolf systems.



To address this concern, both of these systems have the characters more tough than your average human, regardless of which system you use. Werewolf is more like D&D than Vampire is, as it involves much more combat and encounters of that nature. Regardless of the "class" options the player chooses, simply by being a Werewolf they come with a "built in" durability and resilience to most normal damage types.

Vampire is built around a more social setting, with political maneuvering and webs of lies, intrigue, and deception. It can be made into a more combat oriented game, depending on which "class" your player goes with, but it is definitely built for intrigue.


I'm fairly familiar with WoD, my only issue, would be that the setting, is fairly on the downer side, which is not something I'm sure I'm looking for, although possibly I could shift that, but it seems fairly built-in, as it were.



With the White Wolf systems, all characters have the potential to learn all of the skills and abilities in the game with the application of XP points, and the character creation process allows for character customization on a more intricate level than traditional D&D. More specifically, each character sheet has three categories of abilities. The player chooses which category their character has as their primary, secondary, and tertiary skill set, and assigns starting ability points based on those categories.

I have found that the lore within these settings help to mitigate stumping to a degree, as there is ALWAYS something going on in the meta plot, if you want to use it, that you can start hinting at and drawing your character towards, and then figure out later as a DM how you want to connect the two.

White Wolf certainly has system/fluff combinations that are pretty awesome, again, my only issue is that it's such a depressing setting, if I could find similar that wasn't depressing, I would jump on that bandwagon.



Ultimately, if you are looking to keep the D&D chassis of classes and races, White Wolf wouldn't be the ideal choice. White Wolf is a system where, to use D&D terms, everyone is a human with a template, and have the ability to learn all of the abilities you could reasonably expect any person to learn, given the time to practice or study, and the proper XP expenditures. If you and your player would be interested in something like that, then I would highly recommend looking into this system.

Oh, I'm not hung-up on that idea, that comment was mostly in response to somebody who suggested classeless systems and then also taking inspiration from Rogue-likes, I was trying to figure out what exactly they were aiming for, since most Rogue-likes have classes.

BWR
2016-02-14, 06:50 PM
White Wolf certainly has system/fluff combinations that are pretty awesome, again, my only issue is that it's such a depressing setting, if I could find similar that wasn't depressing, I would jump on that bandwagon.



WoD should be pretty easy to play as something far more hopeful than it is. W:tA, sure things are bad now but you are getting better, stronger and you can actually win fights and make meaningful contributions. Successful conservation efforts, removing supernatural baddies mucking things up, enjoying playing a giant furry death machine.
V:tA, sure the Beast is a pain and Gehenna is a looming shadow but you can achieve Golconda and make things better for yourself. You can improve, maybe even win. Enjoy being an oversized nocturnal mosquito with superpowers.

Morrandir
2016-02-14, 08:12 PM
Scarlet Heroes (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/127180/Scarlet-Heroes) is built around 1 player and 1 DM, though I haven't personally played it to let you know how it is. I've just heard good things is all. :smalltongue:

It's supposed to be compatible with old adventures, as well.

AMFV
2016-02-14, 08:17 PM
Scarlet Heroes (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/127180/Scarlet-Heroes) is built around 1 player and 1 DM, though I haven't personally played it to let you know how it is. I've just heard good things is all. :smalltongue:

It's supposed to be compatible with old adventures, as well.

I've been reading through the quickstart from that one, but I'm not sure if I like it yet or not. There are chunks of stuff that seems to not be in the quickstart, and those bits are the things I'd be most worried about (Like skills and spreading those)

SirAshley
2016-02-15, 11:13 AM
I'm fairly familiar with WoD, my only issue, would be that the setting, is fairly on the downer side, which is not something I'm sure I'm looking for, although possibly I could shift that, but it seems fairly built-in, as it were.



White Wolf certainly has system/fluff combinations that are pretty awesome, again, my only issue is that it's such a depressing setting, if I could find similar that wasn't depressing, I would jump on that bandwagon.



Oh, I'm not hung-up on that idea, that comment was mostly in response to somebody who suggested classeless systems and then also taking inspiration from Rogue-likes, I was trying to figure out what exactly they were aiming for, since most Rogue-likes have classes.

To alleviate the depressing feeling, I second BWR and also recommend using the W:tA chassis for something more uplifting. Your player is a champion of Gaia, and takes on heroic quests from the spirits and other Garou elders, going forth to vanquish the minions of the Wyrm and slow, if not halt, the spread of corruption in our world.

AMFV
2016-02-15, 01:39 PM
WoD should be pretty easy to play as something far more hopeful than it is. W:tA, sure things are bad now but you are getting better, stronger and you can actually win fights and make meaningful contributions. Successful conservation efforts, removing supernatural baddies mucking things up, enjoying playing a giant furry death machine.
V:tA, sure the Beast is a pain and Gehenna is a looming shadow but you can achieve Golconda and make things better for yourself. You can improve, maybe even win. Enjoy being an oversized nocturnal mosquito with superpowers.


To alleviate the depressing feeling, I second BWR and also recommend using the W:tA chassis for something more uplifting. Your player is a champion of Gaia, and takes on heroic quests from the spirits and other Garou elders, going forth to vanquish the minions of the Wyrm and slow, if not halt, the spread of corruption in our world.

How difficult would it be to port the WoD stuff to a setting that's completely separate from the one it normally occurs in. A change of setting might be all the lightening it needs to be easier I think. Although I'm not sure Werewolf would be the splat I'd use, but putting in a different setting might be really interesting (Although that might be more work than it's worth).

SirAshley
2016-02-16, 08:35 AM
How difficult would it be to port the WoD stuff to a setting that's completely separate from the one it normally occurs in. A change of setting might be all the lightening it needs to be easier I think. Although I'm not sure Werewolf would be the splat I'd use, but putting in a different setting might be really interesting (Although that might be more work than it's worth).

I wouldn't think it would be too difficult, honestly. The d10 system is pretty straightforward, since you generally don't have to add and subtract different multipliers, bonuses, and the like. Mage is one of the more complicated ones, but if you wanted to eliminate Paradox, you could have a pretty cool RPG port into a different setting. Same for Vampire; perhaps the Clans are just classes, renamed and such, and your character isn't a vampire, the Disciplines are just supernatural abilities granted by your class.