How would a 1on1 Campaign work?

[Ace010]

Like, is it just a regular campaign but more.. Intimate? 😳

I jest, but this does legitimately intrigue me.

[Corvino]

You might miss the "standard RPG experience" and party dynamic. You wouldn't need to wrangle the Chaotic Stupid character, or lie to the Paladin, or rescue the hapless Bard. Sounds like heaven.

Seriously though, it would be a different experience. Playing off other players means you can get collaborative creative stuff going. Someone has an idea which another person elaborates on. It's messy but fun.

I've not played one, and could be wrong. It seems like the by-the-book stuff would be fine. Most 5e characters are designed to do only a few roles and function as part of a group. You might get stuck using the same approach to every problem solo.

[Ace010]

@Corvino

I suppose, but I already have experience with many party dynamics. Now I wanna try a party of fun(party of one). >:)

[Bobthewizard]

It can work fine as long as you like each other. I prefer a small group game of 2-3 players over solo but it can still be fun.

For the player, don't focus on combat effectiveness. Ignore DPR and even AC and HP. The DM is going to adjust the combats to you, so your numbers don't matter much. What you want is versatility. Arcane Trickster, Dex-based Eldritch Knight, Hexblade, Ranger, Cleric and Bard are all good options. Wizards, sorcerers, and non-hexblade warlocks might struggle at low levels but would be fun later. Ludic's Celestial generalist would be great for this. I'd take a race that gives me extra spells. For feats, take things that are fun and increase your versatility. Fey-touched, shadow-touched, magic initiate, ritual caster, aberrant dragonmark, and telekinetic are all great. I wouldn't take any ASI's, or feats that are mechanical advantages like PAM, CBX, GWM, or sharpshooter.

For the DM, consider using Gestalt rules so the player has access to more options. Maybe even give them 2 actions per round. Consider a melee NPC ally at low levels. A wolf that grows into a dire wolf at level 3 is a good option. But don't give them a social NPC or something that overshadows them in any way.

[Rukelnikov]

It can work fine as long as you like each other.

This.

I've ran and played a few like this and its a different experience. You both definitely need to be comfortable with the 1 on 1 scenario or it may get awkward.

[Sparky McDibben]

I will give more details after work, but I almost exclusively run 1:1. There are several differences, but there is a decent article series on Kobold Press's blog about it.

[Man_Over_Game]

Been doing this with my wife, it's been a lot of fun.

Key things of note are:
Make sure the player has multiple tools at their disposal. Usually you're relying on 4 different skillsets to progress things, it can slow to a crawl if you're limited to just 1, so try to avoid letting them play something like a Fighter.
If there is a glaring weakness for the player, try to stopgap it with an NPC. Try not to have the NPC dictate the direction of things, otherwise you'll run into the situation where that NPC is talking to another NPC, and that always gets weird, and it's not that much fun for the player.
When they ask if they want to do something that's an exception, make it happen. The problem with making an exception for a normal table is when it becomes a consistent part for 4 other players. Nobody is going to care if the game is a little easy for the one player, especially if they're having more fun that way.
Try and describe things a little more. Without as much of a party, they aren't influencing the most obvious parts of the world and creating more action for the rest of the party to interact with. With a single player, you need to give more options, since they don't have 3 other players to make the decision for them anymore.


Lastly, and this one's important, it's inherently going to be an intimate thing. That can be a good thing. It means that it doesn't get weird when the character you're improvising as needs to confront the player, or talk to them about something important. Players don't interact much, but you can create those player-to-player dynamics fluidly since you're the DM. We do weird **** all the time, so you can dig a little deeper than most.

[Eldariel]

I second ensuring that the character is well-rounded. Since they literally do all the interaction themselves through some means, it sucks if they have no ability to engage with a part of the rules set. This is one (of the many) reason to have the player play a spellcaster of some kind. Well, in addition to literally the whole system being built around spellcasters. So if the player is at all interested, hook them up with a class that can cast spells and preferably produce underlings: for a party underlings are strong but for a solo character, they're a lifesaver. Obviously the solo character should also do their best to avoid unnecessary combat and use sneaking or socialising or both (as appropriate for the character) to accomplish things.

It works quite well as long as the assumptions about the campaign and its style and such match. Which is way easier with two players than any other number. In a way, it's much less of a hassle to run a two-player game than any other number.

[Tawmis]

Like, is it just a regular campaign but more.. Intimate? 😳
I jest, but this does legitimately intrigue me.

If you are the DM - the main skill you will probably need is the ability to improvise.

I say this, because if it's 1:1 - throwing a lot of combat at the player may prove difficult, or unreasonable.

For example, "Our weapons were stolen by goblins! Can you go get them for us!"

At a low level, the player would reasonably only be able to survive fighting on goblin at a time. But why would a marauding goblin band - have such poor ideas of only placing one guard?

So I feel like, a lot of the 1:1 to really make it enjoyable it going to rely on roleplaying.

I am one of those people that traditionally has 6 people at the table (7 if you count me) - for three of my games. Makes throwing big combat at them, fairly easy to do - so combat feels "realistic" as to what they're encountering. However, with so many people it does make giving each of them some RP time difficult.

Recently, for my work game I DM (which is six people, me being 7) - on our off week, I started a new campaign for those that want to come from the group - so far, it's been 3 (or 4) people. I plan ZERO out of it. At the most, I look at the Monster Manual and look at a monster or two, and formulate rough ideas. For example first session, I wrote "goblins, beach, manor" - because I wanted to do a horror type vibe (with the manor being haunted). That's all I had. The party of three ended up approaching the goblins, talking to them, the goblins revealed one of their strongest went into the manor and it'd be great if the party could go in and see if he's all right. Inside, they met a ghost of a woman whose neck had been slit (came up with that because that's the literal image of the ghost in MM for 5e). And there was so much RP going on between me as an NPC and among one another - that it was really fantastic.

So definitely be ready to RP to create a memorable experience, if combat won't always be a big option. If you opt to bring an NPC with them that you control - PRO TIP - Your NPC never does the killing blow on enemies. Don't rob that of the person you're 1:1 with. Make the 1:1 experience be about them.

[Sparky McDibben]

OK, now that I'm off work, let me give some more nuanced feedback here.

First thing is gonna be your player. Make sure this is someone you have a strong bond with - I only play 1:1 with family members (wife, kids). That's because solo games can get very personal; fewer people at the table means you have to account for fewer boundaries, but it also means their boundaries matter more.

Second difference from a regular game is going to be accounting for action economy. You might really drop the monster numbers to account for this. Maybe you only run one or two goblins instead of 1d4 + 1. Personally, I get 'round this with DMPCs. That's a different subject (and if you'd like to discuss it, I gladly will) but I feel like D&D works better with specialized archetypes, which means your PC is not going to have the skills to cover all their bases. Not to mention that just having someone along with healing word can turn a TPK into a tense fight.

Final difference is game prep. Single player games go through content like sh*t through a goose, hoss. I was prepping 3x the amount of content I would for a group game for the single player game. I recommend getting good at using procedural content generators combined with a campaign tentpole (a fallback that you can use; megadungeons do delves, with urban campaigns it might be faction missions, etc) to create content on the fly. This reduces the prep load, gives you something you can run off-the-cuff, and supports you while you develop your improv skills. See pretty much any Kevin Crawford game for what some of these look like. Guildmaster's Guide to Ravnica is also good.

As far as how it works at the table, get used to playing a lot more NPCs. I cannot count the number of times my PC has maneuvered me into having a conversation with myself. Get used to your player making decisions without building consensus for half an hour. Finally, it is freeing. You don't have to worry about balance nearly as much, nor "breaking the game." You've got one person to entertain. Know that person, know what they want, and deliver it.

Last point: you should do it. It's fun.

[Ettina]

I run a lot of 1on1 campaigns, and for the most part they're not hugely different from multiple-player campaigns.

Main differences in my experience:

* Balance is utterly irrelevant. It barely matters in multiple-player campaigns, unless PCs are vying for the same niches or getting really competitive/jealous, but in 1on1 campaigns, balance is not a thing you need to even vaguely consider. Just adjust the power of encounters to be appropriate to the power of the PC. Doesn't matter if they're a full vampire with class levels, as long as the things they're fighting can threaten a full vampire with class levels. (Speaking of my solo Curse of Strahd PC here.)

* Versatility is important. In multiple-player campaigns, chances are at least one PC has the appropriate skill set for the situation. In solo campaigns, if your PC in particular doesn't have the right skills, your only option is to find an NPC who does. Which can be a fun source of plot hooks, but you don't want to be doing it all the time.

* Adventures are a lot more character-focused. You don't have to find ways to bring the party together on a shared goal, or balance out who's getting the spotlight. "Main character syndrome" is a good thing in a 1on1 campaign, because you are the main character. The plot revolves around you and how you deal with situations.

* Stealth is a lot better. Even with group skill checks (as opposed to one bad roll initiating combat), you're probably going to struggle to achieve the Stealth feats a reasonably-Stealthy solo PC can achieve unless your ranger or druid burns a level 2 slot every hour. If you've ever wanted to play D&D as a full-on Stealth game, I recommend a 1on1 campaign.

* Combat is more dangerous. If you go down, you stay down, unless you happen to roll a 20 or you've managed to attract the support of an NPC who can pick you up. One downed player is a TPK in a 1on1 campaign. Which also contributes to the Stealth game feel, if you decide to build for Stealth, since most Stealth games have it be really risky or downright suicidal to just openly fight the enemies.

[Ace010]

This got more replies than I thought it would. Very smart people too. After reading all the advice, it would seem I like an appropriate dm. 😔😔😔

Such is life I suppose.

[rlc]

i've done 1on1 with my nephew a lot, and once or twice with my daughter. i second the extra descriptions and the leaning in on exceptions and gearing things more toward the player. you can do the chosen one gimmick a bit better, too.