Treasure Tables is in reruns from November 1st through December 9th. I’m writing a novel as part of National Novel Writing Month, and there’s no way I can write posts here while retaining my (questionable) sanity. In the meantime, enjoy this post from our archives.
– – – – –
Running a solo campaign — one GM, one player — is a different experience from running a traditional multi-player RPG. It’s not everyone’s cup of tea, and it might not always be your first choice, but it can be a lot of fun.
For one thing, solo campaigns are intimate and collaborative in ways that traditional games are not.
A solo campaign is a game played with one GM and one player. This is completely distinct from games with one GM and two players, as well as pseudo-RPGs with only one player (like Choose Your Own Adventure books).
Apart from that, running a solo campaign isn’t fundamentally different from running an RPG for a group. Structurally, they’re almost identical. The differences lie in the details.
This post is being written with the benefit of plenty of hindsight, but it’s been long enough since I last ran a solo game that I want you to have a definite idea of where I’m coming from.
From 1987, when I first started playing RPGs, until 1991 (my first year of high school), nearly all of my experience as a player and a GM was with solo campaigns. I had several friends who gamed, but they went to different schools and didn’t really know each other. Solo gaming was a pretty good solution to that problem.
Three of my all-time favorite campaigns grew out of this period, including the game in the #1 spot. I learned the ropes playing solo — and had a lot of fun doing it — and it’s probably colored my GMing style in ways I’m not even aware of.
Highlights of Solo Gaming
Solo games are generally more intimate: Running a solo campaign, everything that happens in the game is focused on one player. The level of rapport is quite high, and there’s a connection there that’s harder to achieve with a group — you’re collaborating much more directly to tell a story.
You can cover a lot of ground: With just one player, you can play out sprawling epics that are much harder to handle with a group. It’s much easier for two people to avoid distractions than it is for a whole group to stay focused, and the direct connection between player and GM tends to lead to faster play.
Your player gets to do everything: If you include NPC allies in the game (which you should — see below for tips), your player should play most of those characters. That lets them try out a wide range of character types, abilities and builds, which is harder to do in a group game (barring troupe play, like Ars Magica).
Shorter prep time: Even though you’re doing more stuff in a single session, you only have one player to take into account — even if they’re playing the whole party. No matter how well you know you’re group, it’s always harder to come up with contingency plans and side plots with several players than it is for one.
Downsides of Solo Gaming
You miss out on the group experience: There’s nothing quite like sitting down to game with a group of friends. Even with its pluses, I’d take a good group game over a good solo game any day — that social aspect of group play is very important to me.
Less feedback can create problems: Getting player feedback is incredibly important, and when you only have one player you don’t get as much of it. If that player isn’t naturally inclined to give feedback (and it can be tough in a solo game just because of how personal it is), it’s a bit like wearing blinders.
One player means one skillset: If your player isn’t into, say, political intrigue, you won’t get to introduce much political intrigue into your game (that would just be mean). With a group, you’d have a variety of tastes to accomodate — and therefore more opportunities to flex your GMing muscles.
Fewer surprises: Just as fewer people means less prep, running a game for one player means only one person can surprise you. No matter how creative that player is, you’ll have fewer of those awesome Oh, shit! I really wasn’t expecting that! moments than you would with a group. Similarly, players surprise other players, too — so your player will be missing out on this aspect of gaming as well.
Include plenty of NPCs: If you’re running a party-oriented game (like D&D), you need a party. When I ran solo games, I found that even when I introduced the NPCs, both of us changed them in ways we didn’t expect — which rocked.
Let your player play as many of these NPC allies as she can handle. There’s no universal number — my best friend growing up played three NPCs; when I played in a solo Marvel Super Heroes campaign, I ran my whole super-team.
Collaborate, collaborate, collaborate!: Take advantage of the rapport that tends to develop in solo games, and work with your player to develop a really cool story. Even if you’re used to a more traditional division (GM: plot, players: action, for example), don’t be afraid to mix it up and try a different formula — one where both of you are involved in plotting out the game.
Avoid puzzles: Challenges that rely on player knowledge and skills — like riddles and puzzles — become dramatically more difficult when there’s only one player. If you do include puzzles, make sure they’re sidelights, not highlights — i.e., figuring them out isn’t required to make progress. (This isn’t bad advice for group games, either, but it’s crucial in solo games.)
Take your player’s pulse more often: Partly because I was new to gaming, I introduced some godawful stuff into my solo games — both rules and plot elements. I think the low point was along the lines of, “Hey, wouldn’t it be cool if this NPC ally had a pegleg? Okay, the monster bites off his leg.” What can I say, I was young.
The point is that what I should have done was asked my player about it beforehand — and in general, asked a lot more questions about introducing anything new to the game.
Experiment: When there are only two of you, experiments that go awry (on either side of the screen) can only tick off one person — rather than a whole group. You and your player should both take advantage of this, and get out of your comfort zone more often than you otherwise might.
And from Scott M., in the comments:
Wing it: “I’d also emphasize that a lot more happens in one hour — you can’t rely on prep as much, because one player will blow through material very quickly. Solo play is a great place to expand your improvisation skills — because without them, you won’t get to go very far before you have to stop and prep again.”
What’s the Verdict?
In the balance, solo gaming has a lot going for it, but it also has some definite downsides. Whether the pluses or minuses come out ahead for you will depend on your personality, your GMing style, your player’s personality and playing style — and what the two of you are looking to get out of the game.
Looking back on the solo games I’ve run and played in, the thing I liked most was the rapport and intimacy of the collaboration involved. There was a sense not only that the game was ours, but that the characters were, too, and I really dug that.
Have you ever played in or GMed a solo campaign? What did you like and dislike about it — and what did I forget?
– – – – –
Normally there’d be a discussion going on in the comments below, but due to time constraints I’ve turned off all comments during reruns — sorry about that! You can read the comments on the first-run version of this post, and if you need a GMing discussion fix, why not head on over to our GMing forums?