Gaming For Two?

[AMFV]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Amaril]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Anyone else hearing "An RPG built for two" rolling through their heads to the tune of "A bicycle built for two"?

[Elana]

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]

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]

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]

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" .

[Lorsa]

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]

[QUOTE=lacco36;20401523]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.

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" .

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.