Knights & Knaves Alehouse

Chainsaw wrote:We're having lunch Sunday, so we'll talk through it all and figure out what makes sense. Between my experience, his experience (he was DM'ing AD&D) and these suggestions, I think we'll be able to come up with something that makes sense.

Just let him be Conan.

DungeonDork wrote:Just let him be Conan.

That was the last one-on-one AD&D game I ran -- the player had a Barbarian character, he also had a couple NPC sidekicks (I don't remember if they were technically henchmen, but functionally they were -- a wisecracking halfling thief and a hot chick fighter, IIRC) and he had assorted mostly-improvised adventures. I think we may have even run him through one or two modules. We would run this character when the main group couldn't get together. This works, probably better than the alternative of letting the single player run 3 or 4 PCs simultaneously, which we also did a lot of earlier on.

Nowadays I think I'd be more willing to play in a one-on-one game than I would be to run one -- personalizing NPCs and doing in-character dialogue is probably my least favorite part of GMing and it seems like there would necessarily be a lot more of that in a one-on-one game than in a traditional group game (where mostly the players interact among each other and I just sit back and observe and react).

I already warned him that I didn't do voices and costumes - that there'd be no scene where we act out his character hitting on the alewench or any weird shit. Thankfully he said that wasn't his bag either.

When doing one on one I like to keep the action moving. Unless the player is getting into military situations keep them to one PC and whatever henchmen and hirelings they can swing. Urban adventures and thieving are much easier to pull off with one character for me. Situations that aren't' a threat for a whole group all of a sudden are potential risks for one character. Solo characters can also pull of bluffing NPCs easier as they don't' have to cover for the others in their party.

A player going it alone has to stay mobile, and can't play like a tiny door-kicking party of one, as that route leads to death.

Donovan,

Most of the games I run for my 8 year old son are like this. At present, he manages 3 PCs (2 fighters and a cleric). I handle the 6 men-at-arms, the 1 NPC cleric, and 2 NPC magic-users in addition to regular DM duties. The NPC's get full shares of treasure and experience. The men-at-arms get half-shares of treasure and experience.

Since we're using the random tables from the DMG and the OSRIC book, I let him make rolls for discovering things like secret or hidden doors, monsters, and treasures, but that's mainly because I'm also trying to teach him some of the game.

Doing it this way is, for me, far more enjoyable than some of the one-on-one adventures I ran when I was younger with a planned adventure module.

I've found when one-on-one, whether with an adult or a child, puzzles are often more enjoyable than combat. And making combat just a different kind of puzzle is a lot of fun since no one has the numbers to hack'n'slash through.

HTH

Chainsaw wrote:I already warned him that I didn't do voices and costumes - that there'd be no scene where we act out his character hitting on the alewench or any weird shit. Thankfully he said that wasn't his bag either.

This is where reaction tables, morale, loyalty scores can do the work for you--i prefer 0d&d as the tables are a little more basic and faster to use (less modifiers). No need for hackneyed dialogue, roll reaction modified by cha and just describe what happens. Even stuff like, "bizrak roars a cry to his god and wades into battle, bloodlust washing over his face" et cetera is even too much for me. Saying "I" attack in the 1st person is as deep as i'll go into a pc.