One on One RPG

[furashgf]

I've noticed a couple of posts about people doing 1:1 RPG's (Sorcerer, etc.) (1 GM, 1 player).  How well does that work?  Any special rules or ideas?  I have a player and a GM...

[Mark D. Eddy]

I haven't played one-on-one since it was just me and my kid brother in our gaming group (this was 1985 and earlier, so keep that in mind). I found that scaling the challenges was the most difficult part: the stock TSR stuff that I had at that point was designed to play 4-9 players at a time. I quickly learned to design my own scenarios, and my prediliction for tweaking games date to that time.

It stands to reason that, if you are playing a less 'gamist' game, it will be easier to work the system. You'll have to provide all of the conflict, and, depending on the game, tailor challenges to the character's abilities.

[Fabrice G.]

Hi fura...,

I Gmed and played in a few 1:1 games. I was loads of fun.

The first game was a Wraith: the oblivion game I GMed. It lasted for about 8-10 sessions if I remember correctly (maybe a little less).
The second game was a two session story told using Over the Edge.

In both case, what I found difficult was getting in "gaming mode", and not just talking about anything else. But as soon as we got in the game, that was a wonderfull experience.

Fisrt thing to consider: you only have two brains working. That means that if one of you is tired or a little slow that day, the whole game can be ruined. It also mean that the player will be on stage full time. No little breaks to take care about the others. He has to move the plot all by himself, and you can only count on him to do things. So you have to think of a story considering this.
This is a strengh and a weekness all in one. Because all the seemingly negative things I just mentioned turn out to gives great stories. As the GM you can really concentrate on 1 character' story (or stories), and as a player, you know that the game is about your character, and his story alone.

So, IME, you have to plan very personal story. You can play on the character percertion of thing to bring some surprise, because as he is alone, you don't have to cling to an objective reality...everything you describe can be subjective to the character. That's how we played, and it was so much fun...(but to each his own).

Another thing to think about his the severity of opposition. That should be well balanced with the kind of story you're trying to tell. For exemple, if the character is taken by his enemies...well, you have some latitude, but not that much. Either you play the escape or you play some kind of rescue (witch can easely become another boring Deus Ex Machina). So if opposition is strong, you should always consider what options are left if thing go wrong.
(this is true in any kind of game, but it just became crucial in 1:1 play, IMO).

Well, that's all I can think of for now. Help it was helpfull.

Any more questions ?

Fabrice.

[jdagna]

I've done a lot of one on one role-playing in the past.  For about three-four years it was almost primarily 1:1 with either me and my brother or me and my best friend.

Some of the things I noticed:
1) Soap-opera plots work really well.  These kinds of plots allow the player to get in depth with NPC relations without having four other players sitting around being bored.  They don't have a lot of violence (which is good because there's only one person).

2) Use lots of NPCs.  I did this not only to help the PC combat-wise, but to give myself some really interesting NPCs to play.  Some of my fondest RPG memories are of those NPCs I ran.  In fact, this 1:1 playing is the only time I've seen players take love interests seriously or develop strong vendettas against villains.

3) Let the PC control the action.  Making PCs who are pro-active about what they want to do can work really well.  With only one person, you can often ad-lib much more easily - his capabilities are more limited and the demands on you as a GM are generally reduced, freeing up brainpower for making stuff up on the spot.

Another thing: both of you have to be fairly mature about gaming and serious about it.  With only two of you, there's not as much social aspect to "justify" role-playing, so you have to be able to really get into the character or story.  At least, I found that to be the case.

[greyorm]

You might want to dig this thread for some info on group sizes and the resulting play dynamics that result: That Social Box

[joshua neff]

I haven't played a one-on-one RPG since...well, college at least (which is now...cripes, 7 years ago). Possibly earlier, high school or junior high.

Until the other night when I ran my girlfriend, Julie, through a Trollbabe session (which I wrote about below--or above, depending on where the threads are in relation to each other). I was pretty nervous, since I've only gamed with her on two previous sessions. And I didn't know if what I had for the session (which was a basic conflict & a bunch of NPC names) would be enough for a whole session. But it went swimmingly well, & I'm very pleased.

Now, I haven't run enough to really dole out any advice regarding one-on-one play. One thing that occurs to me, though, is time: don't be afraid to run a session shorter than you would with more people. You can pack quite a bit of story into a short session & walk away with both people happy. And it seems to me that overpreparing is not necessary--a handful of interesting & engaging NPCs, a conflict or two that draw the Player in, will suffice.

[Demonspahn]

Hi furashgf,

I want to echo what jdagna (nice usernames guys, I feel like I am talking with my mouth full!)  :)  said.  I also want to add that I think one on one is really the _only_ time you can be sure of horror themes working in a game.  It's easy to face down the zombies coming out of the cellar when you know your buddies are watching your back; quite a different matter when you can be surrounded and dragged down by weight of numbers.

Or, you're alone in a spooky woods and you hear a noise in the brush.  It feels like someone is watching you, etc.  You can really pull this off one on one with the lights dim.  With a group, the players have to _agree_ to play nervous, scared or paranoid and even then it still seems artificial.    

So I recommend you choose a horror game.  Jdagna's suggestions for making it more like a personal soap opera still apply to this.  What if the character's family/spouse/employer is responsible for awakening/confining/destroying some ancient evil, a cult has kidnapped the char's mom, Billy next door has disappeared in the woods, the char's dog bit this strange man passing by, etc.

Pete