PDA

View Full Version : Solo Campaigns: Good? Great? or Otherwise?



MintyNinja
2016-08-21, 09:56 PM
I've been pondering the idea of running solo campaigns for a while now. I've seen a few in the IC threads of the Forum Games section, and so I thought I'd offer the question to the Playground: Have you played or run any solo campaigns (just the GM and one player)? If so, how did it go? Would you share a story or two with us?

BWR
2016-08-22, 03:45 AM
I've had several solo games with my girlfriend, and for the most part they've been fun. There are a few things you have to consider.

1. the roleplaying. Ignoring for a moment the sort of games that are pure hacking and slashing and nothing else, it is even more important for the GM in solo games to provide a large cast of detailed and colorful personalities for the PC to interact with. In a normal group you have multiple players so the PCs can work of each other if nothing else. In a solo game, NPCs are the sole way the PC has of meaningful interaction with the setting and the game.

2. Combat. In most games you usually have a party in the fight. You can rely on your party members to cover for your weaknesses, take your share of the burden in case you are unlucky enough to go down or are otherwise occupied. In solo games, if a lone PC falls to a trap, is incapacitated or seriously injured to the point of being unable to fight, which drastically increases the chances the game will come to a messy end.

3. The story and death. Tied to the point above, in many games, the death of one PC doesn't spell the end of the adventure or campaign. You bring in a new one and the remaining PCs have a link to what has gone before. This is harder to pull off in a solo game. In many cases, it will simply spell the death of the campaign because bringing in a replacement doesn't make sense.

4. Doing it all on your own. The biggest complaint we've had on both sides of the screen is that two heads think better than one. If the player is stuck, there aren't other players to help. No people to discuss with, no other ideas being thrown into the mix, no diffusion of responsibility if things go poorly. The single most frustrating thing about solo games in our experience is being stuck with no idea what to do and not having anyone else to give input. And sure the GM might give some hints but at some point you want to be able to get through the game on your own strength.

The best way to handle points 2-4 is more more characters. Not PCs but hirelings, henchmen and DMPCs.
DMPCs are amazing for solo games because they give regular interaction for the PC, are a convenient target for nasty attacks and can help out when things go wrong. Plus they are a very useful tool for the GM to carefully prod the player to do something when the game is stuck -not necessarily the right thing, but at least something to get things moving.

Pugwampy
2016-08-22, 07:48 AM
This game is more fun with multiple players .
I think solo games are best used for newbie DM or player practice .

When I first tried my hand at being a DM I had a practice session with the former DM who made a pocket God for himself . I got practice and he got to playtest

Little birdies led player to my frumpy Druid NPC girly hiding in a pile of autumn leaves gave him a job to clear out corrupted insane forest creatures .

1st encounter was an insane Centaur ranger with a boar companion . Dm got steam rolled .
2nd encounter was another insane Gold Dragon Samurai . Dm got steam rolled . player got nice loot .
3rd encounter . Sane but evil 6 sahuagin rangers with elf bane tridents . Player DM climbed a tree , DM tried climbing a tree after pocket god and player DM reminded me i need two hands free to climb . packed away the trident climbed up and grappled and we both fell to the ground ........then DM got steamrolled . 6 magic elf bane trident loot .

I then discovered a flaw in my awesome battle tactics . Player was a human .....

BWR
2016-08-22, 08:16 AM
This game is more fun with multiple players .
I think solo games are best used for newbie DM or player practice .


Or you can have far more detailed, intense and intimate roleplaying experiences than you have ever had in a group. It's all how you handle it.

quzar
2016-08-22, 08:29 AM
I highly suggest looking into the game 'S/Lay w/Me' for a guided, intense, 2 player RPG experience.

Belac93
2016-08-22, 10:40 AM
I've had some pretty good experiences. It is better as a sandbox/social intrigue game however, as a combat focused game will eventually (at least if you are playing D&D) get the player down to 0 hit points, and then you are screwed.

One thing I would suggest, is give them a special magic item or DMPC. I know you are probably all screaming at me right now; "**** you! No DMPCs!"

But, for a DMPC, make a character the player can genuinely like (I would suggest a really dumb orc, childlike goblin, or actual kid for a fantasy game). Make them a low level healer who is bad in social situations, and is either not skilled in combat, or has taken some sort of pacifism oath. If they have any skills, make sure they are only good at things the PC is bad at (giving the PC the ability to pretty much just have extra skills), and that they are worse than the PC at anything the PC is good at.

They should be the PCs underling, always weaker, and only there to act as a portable healer, and occasional comic relief. They should never overshadow the single PC, and should never be the focus of anything, unless the adventure is the PC trying to rescue them. And even then, you should make sure the player likes the character enough to want to rescue them.

And above all, don't make them a Mary/Gary Sue.

So, an ally can be helpful in a solo game, as long as they are only there to heal the PC when they need it.

MintyNinja
2016-08-22, 12:50 PM
Thanks for the input, folks. While reading I realized that a Thief's Campaign would be great for solo play. Avoid combat, dodge traps, colorful allies, open world... makes me wish I were the player instead. In any case, feel free to load this thread up with stories and anecdotes.

Vegan Squirrel
2016-08-22, 05:59 PM
I've had several solo games with my girlfriend, and for the most part they've been fun. There are a few things you have to consider.

1. the roleplaying. Ignoring for a moment the sort of games that are pure hacking and slashing and nothing else, it is even more important for the GM in solo games to provide a large cast of detailed and colorful personalities for the PC to interact with. In a normal group you have multiple players so the PCs can work of each other if nothing else. In a solo game, NPCs are the sole way the PC has of meaningful interaction with the setting and the game.

2. Combat. In most games you usually have a party in the fight. You can rely on your party members to cover for your weaknesses, take your share of the burden in case you are unlucky enough to go down or are otherwise occupied. In solo games, if a lone PC falls to a trap, is incapacitated or seriously injured to the point of being unable to fight, which drastically increases the chances the game will come to a messy end.

3. The story and death. Tied to the point above, in many games, the death of one PC doesn't spell the end of the adventure or campaign. You bring in a new one and the remaining PCs have a link to what has gone before. This is harder to pull off in a solo game. In many cases, it will simply spell the death of the campaign because bringing in a replacement doesn't make sense.

4. Doing it all on your own. The biggest complaint we've had on both sides of the screen is that two heads think better than one. If the player is stuck, there aren't other players to help. No people to discuss with, no other ideas being thrown into the mix, no diffusion of responsibility if things go poorly. The single most frustrating thing about solo games in our experience is being stuck with no idea what to do and not having anyone else to give input. And sure the GM might give some hints but at some point you want to be able to get through the game on your own strength.

The best way to handle points 2-4 is more more characters. Not PCs but hirelings, henchmen and DMPCs.
DMPCs are amazing for solo games because they give regular interaction for the PC, are a convenient target for nasty attacks and can help out when things go wrong. Plus they are a very useful tool for the GM to carefully prod the player to do something when the game is stuck -not necessarily the right thing, but at least something to get things moving.

This is great. I'm currently DMing a solo campaign with my girlfriend for the first time, but it's only been a few sessions. She's running 2 PCs (they haven't come together yet), and I also have a DMPC and other NPCs to join in. And of course the DMPC will be blind to any brilliant insights stemming from DM knowledge of the campaign world.

We decided to make this a game where she's a part of an organization. This provides a cast of characters, source of leads, and sense of direction when all else fails, but she can still find leads and make decisions on her own as she rises into a higher position within the organization. They can bring along low-level assistants and mission specialists as needed. Even if there's just the one PC, if she's part of an organization that also creates a plausible way for a new character to take over if the solo character dies.

So, I guess that's my suggestion. Think about including organizations.

We also talked a lot about what kind of play experience and aesthetic factors we wanted in the game. You don't have to compromise so much to make everyone happy, so take time to find the style and flavor of game that you'll both be excited about!

EDIT: Oh, right, the thread title is a question. Any of the above! Just like any other campaign, it's whatever you make of it.

GnomishPride
2016-08-22, 07:54 PM
Seconding the thief and/or organization idea. I've had a great run with an assassin character who was loads of fun to play, in part with the aid of the organization. Hasn't died yet, mostly cause he's too sneaky and cowardly to get caught. :smalltongue:

Belac93
2016-08-22, 08:49 PM
Well, I just started a solo 5th edition D&D game with my friend online today, with me as a player and him as the DM. I'm playing a half-orc warlock that I built to have a ton of temporary hit points, and some social abilities as well. It's pretty much a sandbox game, but hasn't gotten very far yet (called off early because of a slight emergency). It's been fun and hilarious so far.

vasilidor
2016-08-24, 01:37 AM
They can also make a game you like into a horrid chore. Just ended a campaign for that very reason.

Lord_Jord
2016-08-25, 12:02 AM
My response to this is Popcorn DMing, a type of dnd that a buddy of mine and I came up with for this exact purpose. Both people play PCs of their choosing, but both DM aswell. If player 2 is talking to the NPC, then player 1 is the NPC. But both describe the situation. Maybe one person has an idea of what the tavern looks like, and the other comes up with notable NPCs to talk to... Maybe one person does both and the other throws in an idea later "In walks a man dressed in dark leather, his head is lowered, but he appears to be walking right towards you,"
In combat you take turns DMing, where you alternate who just plays the player, and who plays the environment/enemies each round. Note that this takes a lot of comraderee between the two players. But it is a ton of fun, and can even be done with more people.

Malacronious
2016-08-25, 01:15 AM
I recently played a Pathfinder solo game. At first it was nice to be able to just post back and fourth without ever waiting on other players to post but after a while the game started to feel lonely imo. Since the only thing my character was interacting with were NPCs and such that were extensions of the GM, it started to become very apparent that it was just us. Having other players to interact with and bounce creativity off of was missing.

There were times when I felt like I was just posting the same thing over and over as well. One can only describe a characters traits and quirks or how he picked a lock within 1 or 2 pages of posts so many times. Again, having more players to spread posts out with more content would have made it do those quirks wouldnt have become so repetitive.

Part of the above issues also comes down the fact that I was a Rogue playing in a game where some dungeon crawling was involved. For nearly a week or longer multiple times to through out the game the GM and I posted back and forth about checking for traps and picking locks and it still dragged on even when we simplified things to speed it up. It's a known issue with rogues and pbp dungeon crawls but at least with more players there can be conversation happening and some other flavorful text. At times I would try and roleplay my character reminiscing about his training or a valuable lesson he learned on a job gone wrong and after a while it became tiring to try and come up with new memories or conversations with himself while he picked yet another lock or searched for yet another trap.

I think solo can be fun with a good GM and some house rules to speed up rogue jobs in a dungeon crawl etc but I personally felt like I wanted to have some other players with me. Trying to use a rules heavy system without really tweaking it for pbp could have been the pain point too. Neither of us were experienced enough to do it differently though.

One thing I did like about my solo game was that I could learn with the GM at a relatively chill pace and it never bogged things down to ask questions or figure out solutions to problems we encountered.

AMFV
2016-08-25, 02:39 AM
They can also make a game you like into a horrid chore. Just ended a campaign for that very reason.

Any chance we could get some specifics? What was a lot more work than for a standard game? I mean that sounds a lot like something pretty grueling and serious if you're going to end a campaign over it. Which system were you playing?

bulbaquil
2016-08-25, 06:16 AM
Solo games can be great in the following situations (assuming IRL or virtual-tabletop, not play-by-post):

- Rogue/thief-type players. You can actually do stealthy stuff without worrying about Sir Clank-a-Lot in his plate mail ruining it, and if the paladin in the party has a problem with it... well, you recruited that NPC; you can very well un-recruit him. Certain things rogues would logically do would, in the context of a regular game, require secret time with the GM or extended periods of resolution while the other players would be twiddling their thumbs.
- Military-style games or any games with a very clear-cut party leader. You're the PC and you command a small contingent (fireteam or squad) of DMPC subordinates.
- Evil games: PvP isn't possible in "single-player mode", and minion recruitment isn't as much of an issue since if they do that, then basically they have announced "I want to play a minion management game."

hymer
2016-08-25, 07:04 AM
One thing I didn't see mentioned above is about the (relative) workload for the GM. In a game with four players, quite a bit of time is used in PC to PC roleplaying, and discussions on various subjects. With fewer players, you can go through a lot more material in one session, and all of it requires the GM to be 'on'. So you get fewer chances to breathe, and you have to prepare more stuff per session.
Add to this that you also entertain exactly one person with your performance rather than the more usual 3-5, and there's a basic cost-benefit advantage to having more players than one.

I've done the occasional single-player session, but much prefer regular sessions.

Braininthejar2
2016-08-25, 07:25 AM
I've done it for some time now with my GM.

She GMs me a political intrigue story loosely based on Dragonlance universe.

I GM her a campaign based on the Baldur's Gate game series.


It is a lot of fun to play. Also, much easier to meet for a game when there are only two of you.

One thing you must be mindful of though is logistics - You'll want to give your character some support, so that a single failed roll against stun doesn't end the adventure - and you'll be tempted to rp a cast of colorful NPCs. But if you lose control and end up with a big party, you might end up rolling a 16th level fight with four casters pr side, and that requires some really good coordination not to become boring (helps a lot if your player knows the game enough to control her whole party in battle)

Koo Rehtorb
2016-08-25, 07:45 AM
There's a hundred odd episodes, of varying quality, of two friends doing this very thing. One of them DMs until the PC inevitably meets a gruesome fate, and then they switch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0NtEZpBfjA&list=PLPV88C9y83a6SypA0CAxeoXNWmxK2F84l

Lorsa
2016-08-25, 08:14 AM
I would guess at least 50% of my GMing time has been spent on solo campaigns. Mostly because they're much easier on the logistics (all you need is ONE friend with as much time as you have).

I think they are great, and easier in a way compared to group games. In a solo campaign, you only have ONE player's wishes and expectations to deal with, not three or four. I've never met two people who want the exact same thing out of a game, so with more than one player you always have to juggle that a bit. When you can tailor a game for just one person, it usually ends up being a much better experience for that person.

The current solo campaign I am running has the PC being the Commander of an exploration spaceship. The rest of the crew consist of 19 people (so 20 total on the vessel), which includes the ship's AI. That kind of set up would be almost impossible with a group, as one player being the commanding officer can seriously screw with your group dynamics (almost impossible is not the same as truly impossible, just means it's difficult).