one player campaign

[thapheonix]

A'ight, here's the deal. I'm trying to make a game where you have all the experiences of a regular rpg, except, you fight on a gridded board in a tactical, turnbased way. Kind of like a video game. The deal is, you're a mercenary. And my question is: Since I'm trying to incorporate a one-player campaign as well, I wondered, since you would get more XP as a single player[you're doing everything yourself], would it balance out if I added the ability to have "paintball" types of games, not for actual items or money, but just to gain xp? Like I said, I want to balance this out, so I would write the rules to only use this option if you're playing with some people. I usually play games by myself, and it's pretty hard being the PC and the GM, but somehow, I pull it off. Anyway, thanx for the help

[Callan S.]

Hi Thapheonix, welcome to the Forge!

By  'balance out' are you asking whether it would break the 'dream' of play? In that getting XP for a paintball game would cause a break in immersion?

Or are you concerned it makes a short cut for getting XP, bypassing the risk involved in adventuring and such like?

If your concerned about both, which concerns you the most?

Sorry for so many questions, though it's pretty traditional here at the Forge to ask lots of them Anyway, here's a suggestion: If your using levels or such like, then you can only earn X amount of experience from paintballing, per level. Once you've earnt X amount, you can only learn from paintballing next level. This suggestion is to help with the second concern.

[thapheonix]

What I'm concerned about is, will the game get boring for multiple players because they don't level up as fast? Now that I think about it, if I do implement a paintball kind of thing, I probably will have to put a cap on how it works. I don't really know how to explain this...the way I see it, in a one-player game, you're going to get new skills faster. So, if there is no way to balance out the XP earning, it wouldn't be fair to take a one-player character into a multiplayer game, because he would be able to move faster, attack better,and so on. He would then earn more XP. So, if I don't put in paintball, maybe I should just have the highest level character stay back and provide cover fire?

[Callan S.]

It sounds like this game is focused around a one player campaign, rather than playing with others. Is this right?

If that's so, then your only playing paintball occasionally, when others want to join in.

Do you need to bring them in at first level?

Also, because these people don't play very often, I don't think they are going to be interested in gaining XP at all. It's like playing in a convention game...your unlikely to ever play with that GM again, so XP earned at the end of a convention game is basically meaningless.

[Kriegsaffe No. 9]

A "paintball" game for extra XP would be interesting.  I'd rule that a "paintball" game would cut all earned XP in half; you're not risking yourself as much, so you don't grow as much.  However, because it's an acknowledged "break" in the campaign, you can have all sorts of fun with it.  It's like a one-shot "breather" built into the rules--good idea.  Plus, you could use it as an excuse to try something different: a lighthearted game with a grim and terrifying horror paintball game, a serious and dramatic game with a tension-relieving jab at the campaign, or so on and so forth.

As for playing with multiple characters--include rules on how to increase the challenge for multiple characters, and reward the same ammount of XP to every character, so that growth rates are unaffected.

[Kriegsaffe No. 9]

Oh--and further.  Paintball games are, once again, an excellent idea.  As a DM, I've always wanted to bring in cool high-CR fiends, but had to use the slower "make a higher level character character creation to do so.  Being able to start off low and then work up your strength to rapidly reach higher levels of power sounds like a godsend.

S'more ideas: "minigames" for extra XP after a session, "side quests" for more XP during downtime in the story, and "running in circles" to find extra challenges in a set adventure, ala a roleplaying game attracting random encounters.

Another idea: perhaps, to keep gear up in step, include accumulated riches or equipment, but at a weaker strength than the normal game, and should one perish in the paintball game, cut back on the number of equipment accrued.  That way you don't just get stronger without your gear falling behind.

[Troy_Costisick]

Heya,

What I'm concerned about is, will the game get boring for multiple players because they don't level up as fast? Now that I think about it, if I do implement a paintball kind of thing, I probably will have to put a cap on how it works. I don't really know how to explain this...the way I see it, in a one-player game, you're going to get new skills faster. So, if there is no way to balance out the XP earning, it wouldn't be fair to take a one-player character into a multiplayer game, because he would be able to move faster, attack better,and so on. He would then earn more XP. So, if I don't put in paintball, maybe I should just have the highest level character stay back and provide cover fire?

Couple things.  First, I believe that a majority of the players who played the game would not care if they leveled up slower in a group vs. solo.  They're playing in a group because they want to hang out with their friends.  The only ones who might care are the powergaming minmaxers who are out to break a system.  In which case, that's a social contract issue and not something you have to be too concerned about.  Second, it really looks like this game is meant for one GM and one Player.  So why not focus on that?  Make it mainly a solo game for people who live in neighborhoods w/o many people who are interesting in gaming.  This would fill in a niche nicely and would help your game really stand out.  If it works best as a solo game, focus on that and enhance those qualities about it to the max!

Peace,

-Troy