On single-player campaigns

[YT]

Hello, everyone. Just joined this forum as it seems to be one of the more intelligent ones out there...

Anyways, I was posting to elicit a little discussion of games with only one player. Anybody have experience with such campaigns? How did it turn out? What was more difficult than running for a group of usual size, and what was easier? Did you face any issues or advantages unique to single players? If you've been a single player, how did you find it different from playing in a group? Did you face any particular challenges or helpful situations? How many characters did you play? In either case, how did system or setting affect play?

I ask this as I have recently been running a single player game for a friend of mine on Cyberpunk 2020 (yeah, that's right, choomba), and I've made a few observations:

First, I've noticed a distinct benefit in that only having one player means only having one plot to focus on. While watching PCs and their backgrounds interact is very interesting, having a single player can allow one to take events in whatever direction is most interesting without having to worry about the rest of the party becoming disinterested or irrelevant. I haven't had the chance to be on the players side of the screen in one of these campaigns, but I've noticed that having the entire game focused on oneself seems rather engaging.

Besides the ability to focus the plot on the character, there is also the ability to focus the mechanical aspects. While one character might not have the variety of abilities that a group of four can cover, the absent need to keep everyone relevant allows one to create challenges that are focused on whatever the character is focused on in a way that can make them much more interesting by detail (such as playing out an entire scene that might be covered by a single stealth or seduction roll) or by simple possibility (it's hard to get the entire party to seduce one person or sneak a full 'borg/fighter in full plate/whatever through some places).

I've noticed some problems that are (fairly) unique to single player games as well. For one, the ability to focus on a character's abilities is offset by the fact that characters can easily become cripplingly over-specialized. The degree to which this is limiting can vary greatly, though: there are a myriad of ways to make combat interesting, for example, but characters depending greatly on particular skills or abilities can find themselves very quickly screwed.

The second and much more difficult issue is the fragility of the game. Without turning this into another discussion of PC death, it should be noted that as soon as your one player dies or is crippled beyond playability, the campaign in pretty much over. Sometimes this can be remedied by creating another character and taking another approach to the events thus far, but that isn't always an option and players aren't always that inspired.

So, now that I've stated the obvious and am well into the realm of rambling...

tl;dr your experiences with single player games.

[j0lt]

Any time I run a single player campaign (or two-player, for that matter) I always include a GMPC.  Not the type who will outshine the main characters by virtue of GM fiat, but a support/mentor type character who can be more or less the sidekick to the PCs.  That type of GMPC's main duties would be the menial tasks that most players hate doing out of combat, and the helpful but unexciting actions (like buffing the PCs) in combat, as well as rounding out any skills.

[RobbyPants]

For a long time, about the only thing I ran was single player games.  You've hit on a lot of the basics, but I have a few more points:

In regard to specialization, a single-player game actually encourages generalization.  Because the PC has no one else to "keep up with", it doesn't matter if his overall power level is behind for his character level.  I simply, as a DM, look at what he's capable of, and design encounters around that.  So, multiclassing can really be a good thing here.  If playing 3.5 D&D, the gestalt rules can be nice too.

You are right about the campaign ending when the PC dies.  I think this gives a tendancy for some DMs to want to fudge rolls a lot.  I've also played in my share of single player games, and the DM did just that.  He'd put me up against an encounter, I'd breeze through it, so he figured he'd have to up the difficulty.  As this trend continued, I would be fighting stuff that statistically speaking should almost certainly win.  I realized that no matter what, I couldn't die, so it took the tension off of combat, but it also killed the fun.  So, I would encourange not fudging the dice rolls, and to err on the easy side for encounters if you're worried about ending the game.  If nothing else, the other character feels like he's accomplishing a lot.

One thing you didn't mention: be wary of anything that can deny the PC actions.  In a four-person game, if one gets stunned for a few rounds, it's no big deal.  The other three PCs keep fighting and/or help the stunned PC.  In a single-player game, being stunned is a death sentance.  Once you're stunned, you get quickly killed with no recourse.  It's frustrating for a player to deal with this.  As a DM, you might as well tell the player his character has a heart attack and dies or something.

[veekie]

One thing you didn't mention: be wary of anything that can deny the PC actions.  In a four-person game, if one gets stunned for a few rounds, it's no big deal.  The other three PCs keep fighting and/or help the stunned PC.  In a single-player game, being stunned is a death sentance.  Once you're stunned, you get quickly killed with no recourse.  It's frustrating for a player to deal with this.  As a DM, you might as well tell the player his character has a heart attack and dies or something.

I like 'get out of jail free' cards you hand to the player, simply because that many more fights are life and death, as it's one against many. He can use that to summon a lifesaving npc, briefly ignore a condition or avoid an attack he couldn't otherwise have. It's a healthy medium between fudging and not fudging, especially if you award those 'on demand fudgings' whenever the player does something awesome.

[YT]

On the topic of GMPCs and specialization, one must pay great attention the the system they're using when figuring out how (or if) they are going to do this. In games like D&D, having some allies (like a cleric for healing or a rogue for traps) is very helpful and gives the player a bit more space to play what they want. Gestalt rules would also be very helpful, especially considering that one could easily cover all four "classic" party roles between the player and one ally.

Similarly, the encouragement of generalization is also a matter of system. In some games, not being good enough at (at least) one thing is a death sentence, and trying to do too much can be just as bad. Also, some games do not have any proverbial bases to cover, making the idea of generalization somewhat irrelevant. That being said, I would rather be able to work more ways than one, especially when those proverbial bases are present.

RobbyPants' point about fudging rolls and being invincible is very true and applicable to any number of players.

On loss of actions and "get out of jail free" cards, I like to do this by making items or equipment with such effects available. such as items offering Freedom of Movement to combat drugs depending on the setting. I like this method because it won't break immersion or test suspension of disbelief and allows you to provide players with a variety of advantages (and associated disadvantages). "Fate points" and other similar mechanics allowing the player to reroll failures or cheat death are also helpful, but would probably feel cheap if introduced to a system that didn't already have such rules.

As an additional question, what (if anything) changes or becomes an additional consideration is forming plots or making scenarios/encounters when you are running for a single player?

[officeronin]

I ask this as I have recently been running a single player game for a friend of mine on Cyberpunk 2020 (yeah, that's right, choomba)...

Cyberpunk 2020 is probably my favorite game.  I love the interaction between humanity loss and power via cyberware...  That said, the system is very lethal -- any punk with a .22 can get a lucky roll for a headshot and end the game fast.  The time period between realizing the fight is going poorly and it's time to run and the time when you are dead is almost non-existent.  As a result, I'd move the focus away from the deadlier aspects of the gameplay (combat and netrunning) and move toward the social aspects.  Running a fixer or a even a corp would be a great way to allow the character to get hurt without killing him (kill off his network or his corporate resources, or even his reputation).

[Akalsaris]

I used to run 1-player games almost exclusively, with the PCs occasionally teaming up for a few sessions - I had 4 different PCs active in the same world for a few years.  This was for 2E, but a very loose, freeform version of it.

For the mage/thief, he was versatile enough to cover all the roles in combat, and had enough healing items to heal a bit in a fight, but generally he had to be very on his toes for each combat.  I ended up putting a lot more stealthy or diplomatic challenges for him.

For the fighter/mage, he basically was a pure powergamer and just blasted through fights, and again I gave him some magic items for healing.  He was very fragile with HPs - a glass cannon, essentially. 

The fighter player got a ranger cohort early on to support him, while the paladin player had a rogue cohort of sorts as support.  Basically, non-multiclass characters didn't really have the flexibility to deal with all the threats I wanted to provide.

Those games were definitely a lot of fun though - the best part was that both players had to constantly be on the ball, and you could "accomplish" a ridiculous amount in a single session, as well as really get the feeling that the character is on a heroic journey in the world in a Conan-esque sense. 

Now I run a 2-person game that captures a lot of that feel, but it's a lot more PC-vs-DM that the solo games that I ran really ever were.  But the group goes through revised Gygax modules, so part of that sentiment is definitely understandable.

[Endarire]

Many believe solo campaigns work better with social- or skill-heavy situations.  No matter how uber 1 guy is, he most likely gets only 1 action per turn.  Even with Leadership, a familiar, an animal companion, and construct/undead minions, if the main character is incapacitated, he's often as good as dead.

In 3.5, one optimized non-gestalt character, depending on some circumstances, can probably reliably handle small groups (2-4) of foes that are 2-4 CR below him.  One on ones tend to end quickly for one side.

Finally, I echo the statement to avoid fudging rolls.  Unless it's for the sake of awesome, it's almost always bad form.