Ever Do A Single Player Campaign?

[Scorponok]

I was wondering if any of you ever DMed a single player campaign? (Just you and one other player)

There seems to be advantages to doing this, one being, the player can go off on an evil tangent and you don't need to worry about him stabbing all your other players in the back. You don't need to worry about party cohesion, nor do you need to worry about a player monopolizing the DM's time. (Looking at wandering Rogues mostly)

Are there any specific challenges to this? I'm guessing if the player is dumb and ends up being a follower of an NPC instead of taking the lead role in the story, you could end up in a situation where you're eventually playing your own story, but I don't think I really need to worry about this with any of my players.

[Thurbane]

I think an Assassin campaign would work well for a single PC - the PC gets handed contracts from the Guild...

[nedz]

I did this a lot at one point due to a shortage of players. Normally we had 6 PCs for the one player - but multiple characters per player was common in 1E.

[Drelua]

I've played in a few games like this, mostly when I was in high school and I only had one friend that was interested, so he GMed. We lived out in the country, so it was hard to find people.

Gestalt works really well for this, since the game often assumes that you have access to different spells and abilities that it's very difficult for one character to have. I also found it was good to make the PC more powerful, starting them with a few levels under their belt and giving them a powerful set of ability scores and, maybe even a free template if you're feeling generous. Also, be careful about putting them against more than a couple enemies at once, since action economy can get dangerous when one guy gets swarmed by 5 enemies. Then again, if you're emphasizing stealth, maybe combat should be a little extra dangerous so the player has a good reason to avoid direct combat.

[SimonMoon6]

It's okay to have one player, but in 3.x, it's a disaster to have only one PC. A single save or die spell can result in a TPK if you have only one PC. And since a lot of medium to high level play tends to involve save or dies, well, that's problematic. So, I recommend letting the one player have more than one character under his control (or at the very least, let him have the Leadership feat).

OTOH, there are things that I think can only be done well with a single player. For example, being a stealthy, sneaky character works great when you're the only PC. It's hard to sneak into the dragon's horde to find a certain treasure and then get out again without engaging the dragon in combat when you have three other party members who wear noisy clanking armor... and who don't want to be marginalized by not getting to fight the dragon. Plus, there are various city-based encounters that a single rogue would excel at which would be hindered by the presence of an entire party.

But still... one save or die and the game ends.

[Falcon X]

Every time I've done single player, it's become quite RP heavy because it's easier to tailor-fit it to the individual character.

Overall, I much prefer a two person campaign. It adds for social interaction while keeping a balance of RP and fighting.

[erok0809]

I've done it. It was difficult at first because the single player was an enchanter, which meant I couldn't really use anything with immunity to mind-affecting spells. It quickly became a solo campaign with two characters, because my player decided to charm a troll into being his friend and companion, and then I was able to do more interesting things. We never finished it because we graduated from college before it could end, but it worked while it lasted. I've also done one much shorter solo campaign, but that was just a kick-in-the-door "what am I fighting now?" thing where he fought a bunch of stuff on the way to the goal, and fought the thing at the goal, and then it was over. That was more of a playtest than a campaign though, that friend (different from the enchanter friend) wanted to see how druids played, so we did that.

[Scorponok]

But still... one save or die and the game ends.

Never mind the Save Or Dies, even one bad roll can kill the PC in certain instances.

With single player, you could also initiate a "3 lives" rule, where if the player dies, you can turn back the clock and have them redo that part of the story which killed them.

I'll probably do this, except instead of just 3 lives, I'll see how many lives it takes for the player to get to the end.

[DirePorkChop]

This makes me chuckle, and stinks highly of Fear of Girls.

[THEChanger]

I've run a few single player campaigns for my significant other, and they can be a lot of fun. A few things that I've picked up that tend to help:

1) Cohorts, Followers, potential party members. Include the option for NPCs to be recruited. Either have them run the NPCs in combat, or do it yourself. But the math in 3.5 is so heavily based on having a four-man party that even against encounters several CR below their level, it becomes very dangerous. Also, while in almost any other circumstance the Leadership Feat is broken as all hell, for a solo game it practically becomes a requirement.

2) Build a world around them. For a more traditional game, I take a world that I have created, and thrust the PCs into it, with all the complications it has. I'll change it somewhat to accommodate backstories of my players, but the world exists mostly independent of them. I've found this doesn't work as well in a single player game, for whatever reason. Single player games lend themselves better to sandbox style games, rather than ones with a defined, overarching plot. So work with your player to build that sandbox. They want to play a pirate? Well, creating a world where that's possible, and a big deal, becomes important. A world with lots of islands, lots of ocean, at the beginning of the gunpowder age. Player wants to become a deity? Well then they better be able to do that in your world!

3) Resurrection is a must. Above me, people have mentioned how lethal a single player campaign can be. They're right. Death happens a lot. You have Save or Lose/Dies, critical hits, full attacks from dragons, drowning, lava, drowning in lava, backstabbing elves...you get the idea. So you have to come to a decision. Does death mean Game Over? Or do you want to play the game as long as possible? If the later, you have to have a way to bring the player back. There's a lot of ways to do this. Divine magic wielding NPCs, deals with Outsiders, becoming an intelligent Undead, to name a few. Death is only an issue if you don't plan for it.

4) This is your chance to make really awesome special things. Special loot, special Feats, that sort of thing. You only have a single player, so you don't have to worry about balancing a party. There's a lot of fun to be had there. Planeshopping warship? No reason why not! A blade made of your own soul? Hells yes! This is a chance to introduce all the really cool items you've been too afraid to in a traditional game.

...That's what I think of right now. Personally, I like the single player games I've done. I can't wait to do another one. If you have someone you like a lot who does D&D, I recommend giving it a try. It's very different from a traditional four-man game, but it can be a lot of fun.

[thethird]

I've run a couple inheriting from the old tradition of dungeon crawlers. My personal piece of advice. One player doesn't mean one character.

[Theobod]

I have run a few, some very successfully, but I want to second gestalt and make sure the character designed for the game is something with diverse abilities and a decisive leader, after all the first time an NPC comes along that is smarter than them the game feels like playing with yourself, plus someone to kill monsters with. I would also suggest E6 which cuts out the worst of the high lvl effects, save or dies etc, also make an early loot item a cloak of resistance for added safety.

Start. At. Level. Two.

Best of intentions a single PC versus a cr1/4 at lvl 1, with a handful of bad rolls, is dead.

And as the DM, build baddies with the limitations of the 'party' in mind, more so than larger parties, some spells are just a bad idea to lob around even if thematically appropriate, without warning at least.
If something very deadly is clearly signposted and the player doesn't go and work around it (such as buying some goggles so they don't get glitterdust in their eyes from the 'Magician of sparkle mountain' the town sage told them explicitly about) they deserve it.
Also if they do lose, but aren't killed outright, I have had party members captured before (group games but still relevant, maybe more so) and imprisoned for interrogation, experimentation or coercion and prison breaks are a cool twist to a failed adventure.