Shawn Daniels same. This coronavirus thing has made it impossible to find a group in my area that wants to play in-person. Online doesn’t seem to work well for me.
Is there an official way of playing by one's self? If not, I think the use of the different types of dice to simulate a decision made by one or more simulated characters. Such as using a D4 to determine one of 4 choices your simulated character can make, even if the simulated character "chooses" poorly. For a solitaire game, made up of 1 or more simulated players can tailor the story to go as long or as short as they want. D&D at its fundamentals, is a collaborative story telling role playing game. Being familiar with each simulated player's character will help you how to tailor your story.
I would personally recommend checking out a show on youtube called "Me, Myself, and Die" it's about someone that runs a campaign for themselves using the Mythic GM Emulator, it is quite solid.
There's a positive thing that happens when you have one-on-one play. This is coming from a GM who has game mastered games since the 70's, many of them one-on-one over the years. In these one-on-one games, in order to really be successful, you really need to limit the combat or have some NPC's in there who can heal, because hey. That character can take a beating and die. But the main thing that happens in a one-on-one game that I've noticed that tends to happen more than in a game with multiple players is that there's more focus on role play and world building. This is simply because the character usually isn't involved in fighting all the time (because he's the only player, and a slick GM, knowing this, will limit combat to what the player can handle.). The focus will be on meeting characters. Solving problems and puzzles. Role play... Finding ways out of dangerous situations other than fighting. This, over time, results in some serious world building, and not only that, both the player, and the GM, really ends up getting to know the player character. I've run campaigns over time one-on-one where player characters and worlds have just come to life, right before my eyes, in ways that they never did with multiple players. So it's an interesting, and odd side effect. It's like, when there's multiple players, the game feels like a game, with players trying to win, or complete a goal, but when it's one-on-one, it feels a LOT more like the two of you are collaborating on a story and really building that world. I don't know exactly why this is and this may not be the same for all groups, but this has certainly been my experience.
Usually like to keep parties small anyhow for the same reasons you said: It's a hell of a lot easier to get a story to move forward and to test the waters when it comes to new concepts/ideas. Even have a one-person session with my grandmother that she certainly enjoys, and it's an excellent opportunity for there to get a more dramatic story up & running where a player's decisions have major consequences for better or worse.
How to be a Great Game Master She plays a half-elf cleric lol. Simple backstory of leaving the temple to explore the world. She likes to fight vampires and gather herbs & flowers.
I know what that's like. If you're super into the idea of playing, and you happen to have a nerd-store that deals in tabletop gaming stuff around town you might wanna try writing up a little open message saying you're looking for a group to play ___ with and then provide some means of contact. You also might wanna say what kinds of games/campaigns are especially of interest to you. I did that and eventually managed to land with a group I've been playing with for going on four years now. Granted it took some time for anyone to respond. It was probably around 8 - 18 months before i got the response from them and I had actually forgotten about the post, but it's still worth trying if you're super serious about getting into tabletop gaming.
Lol sameeeee I’ve literally never played before and I’m trying to figure out how to dm for my friend. Just her and me sitting in my room being nerdy and having no clue what we’re doing
Man, you're do good, you just made the experience for me and my fiance' orders of magnitudes better. I had something like this in mind but to have it so clearly explained and laid out is just so very helpful. Thanks buddy.
It depends on the video game you're thinking of. In general, probably not, but a good one on one game could be very reminiscent of something like Planescape: Torment or Baldur's Gate 2.
I've DM'd three games a week for 5+ years, but never had a party smaller than 5. Next week I run a 1 on 1 session for the first time. This man somehow, eloquently, in his gentle accent, introduced DnD to me in a way I never contemplated before. Massive props to you, sir. You created understandable metaphorical approaches to a complex multi-tiered issue that in one video made me feel like this is doable, but not the way I had imagined it. I know I'm late to the party, I'm just glad I ended up here.
So, having recently played a 1-on-1 game, thought I'd comment. Pretty much echo everything said here. I'm fortunately not one to worry about how well I GM despite my lack of experience; I figure if I'm not doing my job at motivating my player(s) and telling a story with them, I'll hear about it. My guest didn't create an excuse to leave early and we're playing again tomorrow (with a couple more players), so I take it as a good sign. The amount of concentration I could expend on a single player/character was refreshing. The player is an experienced player/GM himself, so we comfortably bounced ideas and narrative as we went and managed to flesh out subplots with good depth, even for a 1st session. That said, I can also see why other GMs might prefer multiple players. The "dissenting voices" might lead the party astray, but often they'll will write their own story rather effectively. A couple quips and suggestions, maybe a random roll, and the session snowballs into something fun no matter what the GM initially planned. I'm just glad to get my game going. I've been sitting on it for years, wallowing in untold nostalgia and canon-shattering goodness. More to report another time. And thanks again for your material - always informative and inspiring!
Glad to hear it! Better to play then sit planning I say! And you are spot on with your assessment - if they coming back for more, then you are a good GM! It's that simple. Thanks for sharing and let us know how your bigger group fairs!
So, the bigger session was delayed for a week due to an illness. Fortunately it happened and we got a decent start. Admittedly I didn't prepare my newer players well for the scenario. Rather, I accidentally tempted one of them with a red herring right from their introduction. Fortunately my players are all familiar with each other and made merry with the phrase, "Onward, to Plot!" My goal for next session is to incentivize their camaraderie, then offer some broad alternate directions to show that they do indeed have agency, it's just the global effect will likely chase them wherever they go...
I actually find GMCs to be very enjoyable. I have two one-on-one campaigns with my brother, one for each of us to DM and one for each of us to play, and both tend to feature regular party sizes through the addition of GMCs. We both play very in-character, so if we were to ask them for advice, it wouldn't give the 'best' option - only the option they themselves view as the best. They are supporting rather than leading, of course, and are typically sidekicks on the mission as they are either hired or come along knowing they are not in charge, but it's fun as they bring along interesting stories and side quests of their own. And there is no guarantee that that nifty Life Cleric or damage-absorbing Barbarian will stay; if they are mistreated or their goals are no longer pursued, they leave. And sometimes become antagonists. It's simply fun, as it brings back somewhat of a party dynamic into a one-on-one game, even if interactions are almost always instigated by the PC and not the GMCs. Bonds form, rivalries develop, and it leads to many more adventures. My brother's dragonborn Paladin will soon be going on a mad quest to resurrect the fallen dwarven Cleric, even though he could easily just stop by a town and hire a new one - he has known him for months and months and would risk even death to get him back, even if the Cleric kept many secrets. Which gives me as a DM a fun opportunity to design an grand quest around this. Like you said, in one-on-one campaigns, the story is very personal.
I've been roleplaying for 7 years (Not necessarily playing any form of D&D) and in that time I don't think I've really had the luxury of going without a GMC (shit, I haven't had a chance to be anything less than the GM/DM since my first session, period) simply because the few people I play with enjoy my characters and stories and don't seem to have an ounce of interest in forming stories of their own beyond the backgrounds of their characters. Not that I'm complaining, but I can't say that there has ever been one instance where playing a GMC has ever been a problem except for one-time players who weren't all that invested in the first place.
The key factor, in my experience, is that the solitary Player has to step up far more than they're possibly used to. As you say, all forward motion depends on the one person. There's no "coasting" while waiting for the rest of the party to decide on going right or left. I've had a single Player break out in a real and creative sweat at all the work. For the GM, it's a normal day behind the screen. The Player isn't used to making constant creative decisions. As you suggest, the 1-on-1 situation ideally requires a new, "all-purpose" character to be designed. In my life, though, the 1-on-1 is an impulsive moment that doesn't allow sober character creation. Me and the other person are on a 7 hour road trip and it's a way to pass the time. My ex-girlfriend and I would while away lengthy summer walks with me GMing and her swashing & buckling. Therefore, inn those cases the character being used is a "specialist". A member of a party. In those cases I have no qualms about supplying a GMC (the term I always use) sidekick. I have no problem compartmentalizing such characters and my Players quickly understand they are not secret sources of cosmic GM Knowledge.
That's an awesome idea - road trip = one on one rpg... only one person needs to roll dice. I like it!! It seems the general consensus specialist or broad generalist is the way to go, not a mid-ground. And I can well believe that.
with the risk of making people giggle at my phrasing: Do you have any advice on "playing with yourself"? None of my friends are really interested in table top role playing and I live kind of far away from larger civilisations.
SO not really what you want to hear but have you considered writing? Make a character and make a story. If you really want you can even roll for the characters success in the story.
Try doctor who salitare story game it's free and solo also miso rpg so1um and one page solo engine , impetus, the 9qs , miniso1d6 they are all free I also recommend rory story cubes and some of the online genarators like seventh sanctum and fantasy name genarators
@@joshpeach6 for some people solo rp is more fun I have tried it with friends and it's not as fun as solo I feel like a gm is not necessary especially with some of the awesome gaming aids out there
I run one player games all the time for my wife, because simply, we don't get to game as much as we'd like. Anyway, I find that with, let's say, a D&D game, that giving your one player a small party of different personalities, alignments and goals. This gives her both back up and more dire things like healing, but she also enjoys getting their views and ideas on things. I think a nice trick is not making any of her "party" too informed, and too complacently loyal. This creates debates, which creates story not just in a linear sense, but also in a character sense. She develops, they develop, and all the while, so does the story. That's really all I have, but I love your videos and suggest them to my players and fellow GM's all the time.
The single person experience is indeed an amazing opportunity. As someone who is entirely new to game mastering and with many RPG sessions as a player under my belt I thought that this would be a great way to start as a GM. The focus on a single character does allow more interest in a particular field that would be impossible with a sizable group. Such as delving into lore of a particular area, dungeon, or even an NPC. It also makes it easier for a GM to keep track of where the character is in a large city. You're a great inspiration and your videos have taught me much in the way of game mastering.
Finally found it! I rolled a 3 last time i checked! I'm doing most of the things you're telling here, but if I have to add something, I'm now running a campaign for my GF and this might help. 1: Be inmersive. When GMing one person, in this case my GF, I try to make her feel like she's there with more enfasis than in a normal 4-5 players game (1 OST low volume, Weather/Ambience sounds in another tab, lights). Ambience is a great storyteller. When you run out of ideas, you can always focus on describing the weather, a drastic change or distant sound. Your player won't be surrounded by NPCs all the time so you´ll need to find another "actors" in things, weather or enviroment in general. 2: Focus on details so you can slow your storytelling. As said in this video, a 1 on 1 is going to be much faster than a 4 player game. I tend to be a lot more descriptive in 1 on 1's because point 1 (Inmersion) and because it makes the things slooower. Read LOTR, you'll see what I'm talking about. (Love descriptions btw :D) Thanks for this "How to be a Great Game Master" channel. I'm feeling like coming back to school, literally taking notes as I watch video after video. Every day (because my GF and I are playing almost daily), I'm improving little things that are making my game a lot more dynamic, alive and FLUID. Greetings from Spain!
I am a GM for more than 10 years and I love to play 1-1 games. They are more stroy driven, and I can make my player explore my world that I created in finer detail. Nice video :)
I've been binging your vids lately. This is actually the only kind of GMing I've done before. It's really hard for me to find enough people who are interested to play, so I'm usually doing a bunch of one-shots with single players. All of your points are very spot-on. All of my previous experience and findings point to the same thing. The part I like about it is that with a single player, it's much easier to focus drama and emotional weight. I've gotten players to go into grieving crying fits over a GM character death before because I had enough control to really master the atmosphere and mood of the scene. I can't imagine I could rely on a group's flow enough to replicate that with several players present. Single players really alloy me to hyperfocus.
Your tips are really helpful and I will try to incorporate it into my recently started 1on1 campaign here on UA-cam :) I think playing with just a solo player really offers some great opportunities and it's not just a less-then-ideal solution when you can't find a "regular" group. Everyone should try this!
Curious that a lowly player like myself with little interest in GM'ing find these so fascinating. I'm quite amazed by your captivating way to teach and talk.
Really helpful! My nephew, who is new to rpgs wants to play games with me when he visits, but he usually comes with his parents and his brother, who is too young to grasp the concept. This will go a long way to working something out for him.
The one time I was a player in a single player campaign I was allowed to mix class, but not the normal mix class. Every time I leveled I got a level in both of my classes at once and we made this work but uping the CR by a bit for the encounters. A Ranger/cleric had some great survivability
I'm playing D&D with my friend and we're taking turns DM-ing and playing as our respective characters because nobody else wants to play with us. This is helpful.
Cheers for the advice. I'm about to try this with some of my players and now have added the explanation line to them of; "To put it in movie terms, this is Iron Man, not The Avengers"
I know this video is almost 2 years old, but I just recently discovered your channel. I have been digging through some of the older videos that catch my attention, and this was one of them. I got my trial by fire as a DM doing just this running one player through a campaign. This took place back in 1991, and since then I have ran many single player campaigns. I learned real fast back then that any supporting NPC's were not paramount to the story. The main character was the focus along with the story, and the player caught on real fast that the supporting NPC's were there mainly for companionship and combat support. They were never used in any decision making, and when the player would try to include them in it he would discover the NPC's would be more in favor of always taking the safe route, or were ignorant of the current political or cultural aspects of a certain town or village. In other words they were no help in any part of the decision making process. Of course they were always vocal when it came to rubbing salt in the players wounds for making the wrong choice. I also found NPC companions work really well for plot devises when the player starts to wander off the beaten path as they often do at times. I do agree if not done properly the game will become dull, and the player will become dependent on the NPC companion, but if done right it makes for an epic journey for the player and their character.
Late comer to your channel and loving it. I am currently playing a solo L5R session with my wife, and we enjoying it! I have one or two main npcs helping but letting my wife's character make most of the crucial decisions
So funny you brought this up, ive been asking my dnd group about how they feel about one on one games/sessions. Honestly one on one games are awesome for character development, right now my party of four just slit up for a few days; Shae my druid is at her home village and she just did a ceremonial hunt, Hemi my wood elf ranger just started a romance quest line with the red rose knight, Torvald my corruption walker (home brew) is searching for his leg (long story lol) And when were all done the group will come back together to complete the main story line :) Once again you dropped a awesome video.
+How to be a Great Game Master hahaha it will be a great story one day, when the quest is over ill post about it. Right now he got himself into a bit of a predicament and might or might not have unwillingly sold himself into slavery.
A close friend of mine has been running one on one campaigns for years now that involve 20 people :) And we love it! The way he likes to run his games is so simple to us yet so complicated in the overall scheme of the campaign that it leads for some truly deep story telling. Here's an example of what we've been running recently: My main character owns a Ludus (gladiator school) and has 10 gladiators. I make my main character and 10 gladiator characters, playing all of them during training missions and gladiatorial combat matches. I sometimes have the opportunity during role play as my higher up to meet with other owners and trade or buy their gladiators as well as wager matches. Other players, some of the 20 people playing, each have their entire school. When we meet up and play with 2 or more people it's because we've schedule a tournament match and we get to face off our gladiators against each other. It's a game where we all share a single DM, we all play as we can and we all have a good time competing without feeling like we've been shorted by a friend for "killing our characters". It's a fun and different way to play D&D, running multiple characters separately that all effect the world around you. Sometimes we're chasing some crazy band of killers and it turns out that crazy band is another group of players on their own quest, while at the same time hearing tales of other wild stuff happening from another band a few states over. I don't know how he keeps track of all the story but he tells it so well it's amazing. If you haven't tried one on one games, you should :) For us it honestly helps alleviate the issue of everyone wanting to play but nobody having the same schedule.
That sounds amazing. The most I've ever managed is two full groups of 4 running around in the same world at the same time. It was awesome when they interacted or screwed each others plans up. I cannot imagine the bigger numbers of 1 on 1. It seems awesome! I wonder if he'd ever share how he does it? Would you find out? I'd be happy to chat to him via email or he could do a video and share for us?
I'll talk to him about doing some kind of video but I've seen his "D&D" box. It's stuffed full of overflowing campaigns, ideas, adventures, all rammed into 15 year old spiral notebooks and yellowed paper randomly stuffed into manila envelopes. I know he was going over one of his games that he built for us but never ran in which he has already fully created every major protagonist, all of their character sheets and back stories, hundreds of years of time line...a dizzying amount of stuff that just looks like chicken scratch to everyone but him. The detail is ridiculous but that's part of what makes it so fun :) One thing I'd love to share with you guys is his custom character creation chart that includes all kind of random stuff you can start with in an apocalyptic campaign we're about to pick up again called "Aftermath", it was inspired by the random generation for characters in GammaWorld. Anyway, long tangent there, apologies. I'll see what I can get out of him and share with everyone :)
love it. I felt like a movie director when I had to do a duel between a gnome rogue and an npc orc so your analogy was spot on. this reminded me of your story of the Jedi survival 1 on 1 game. do you think you could do an episode or two telling stories of some of your favorite campaigns or bombastic events? just to see if it takes off the ground?
Excellent!! Can't wait for #3 and #4! I'm planning on running a game of FFG's Star Wars series with about 3-4 players. And expect the party size to decrease to 2 or so on occasion. Can't wait for all the wise advice!
If you could possibly do so - I would appreciate it. But I don't want to be the lone reason you do so. :) I actually was assuming you were going to based on the party size: 1 icon inserted into the video. I assume 4 and 5 party members are a regular group, but 1-3 and 6+ are more special cases. But "I've been known to be wrong... from... time to time." - C3PO :)
Cool! I'd be happy to see this 5 years ago when I had nobody to play with except my 10 yrs old daughter, but didn't know how to make the game compelling enough... Thank you!
Whenever I GM, I make a character to play as well. It is usually non-optimal and built on being interesting (Like my Dwarven Bard, my One-Armed Goliath Sorcerer, or my Warforged Archer). I also opt-out of any key decision making as I already know what will happen in the future from a story standpoint. I still opt in and let folks know my abilities and possibilities when attempting an ambush or in the middle of a fight though. Game is still quite fun that way.
I have been playing in a One on One campaign for a year and a half. Everything you talked of here came about naturally which is interesting. It started as a campaign of a cleric of a new god in a Viking setting trying to spread his religion. It has now turned into a political game of intrigue and conquest with a lot of mystery revolving around the gods and such.
What most of my videos are based on is things that worked for me during play. So they are evolved solutions which come from a similar experience. If we both experienced it to my mind that makes it a universal baseline of operations which is good! It sounds like a really epic campaign and I must admit after recording this video I really had a hankering to run a one on one sci-fi game. Because of these options that pop up.
+How to be a Great Game Master Although one on one campaigns arent as common they might be my favorite, as the player you can get so much done in such a short amount of time. They also create a platform where playing the villain is almost viable. In the campaign I mentioned, I would definitely not call my character pure evil, but he has done some pretty bad stuff to further his goals, and that cant really be done at all in a typical party.
I tend to go the 'Companion Characters' route in a single player campaign. A few characters who serve principally as foils for the player character in addition to the unfulfilled roles that need to be filled. I handle their conversations, and their decisions or input serve the direction of the plot. In the particular single player game I running right now (now that our group campaign has closed) we have a medic NPC who lives on the ship, an astromech who handles piloting, a mercenary who offers combat support. My single player makes their decisions in combat and handles all of their skill check rolls and combat rolls. I control their hearts and minds, she controls their character sheets. I am finding that this approach works very nicely, because it gives the player character NPC's to 'fall in love with' figuratively speaking, while also allowing the to be in control of all the crunchy bits whenever some protagonisting needs to be done. It gives the feeling that they have 'more to do' in combat and other situations calling for crunch as well. Great video, especially the bit about decision making with input from multiple characters. It makes decision making much more rich and helps players to see options which they might otherwise ignore. A very constructive approach and a definite lightbulb moment for making my own game a little bit better. :D
Thank you for sharing - I'd not thought about letting them roll for the hero / companion NPC's. It shall be added to the box of tricks. And I'm glad this is a two way learning curve!
Running a solo player game in a few weeks, it is great to see some of these videos. I will say I agree with you about GM characters, I have tried to make characters to play assisting roles and it just feels like you are hamstrung in doing nothing since you know everything. I was actually going in the direction you recommended by using npcs as secondary cast members. I have to say lately it seems like small parties of no more than 2-3 players is my desired group size. Otherwise I would rather have one member. Ive done the large groups and it all seems quite hectic. Appreciate the advice keep on keeping on!
I run a single-player campaign (alongside another with 7 total players) and I agree with a lot of what was said here. I would add though that I do have a GM playing character: my player wanted to be a wizard, but those can be a bit fragile, so I have a druid follow him around. My way of letting the player make the big decisions is by having the druid be very young, naive and a little on the silly side, so his opinions are unreliabe if even manifest, and he looks up to the wizard for guidance. The wizard has become very protective of the little druid, making for some interesting dynamics!
I've always had GMCs in 1 on 1 rpgs, and I find to to work pretty good. Actually, mosto of my rpgs, especially 1 on 1, have the stories focusing quite a lot on these GMCs. And heck, I always have a bunch of them - from 5 to 10, normally. I can use them not only to support the player in combat (of course, I limit the amount of GMCs to 2-3 for that) but also to support the story and the player's role in it. They are there to create hooks, show other points of view, deepen the player's involvement with the world and also to provide some companionship, instead of letting the player be the lone wolf like it or not. To be honest, I can even say I like 1 on 1 rpg more than group ones, since, especially with the help of the GMCs, who are often forgotten I group games, I can create much more involvement between the player and the world/story than I ever could in a group. Not to say that you're wrong about the risks of GMC influence, but I always make sure to highlight before and during the game that my GMCs are independent of my knowledge, they may or may not have the right opinions.
Oh I agree with you totally. There is much more story and involvement to be had for sure. It is a trick though to keep GM knowledge and GMC knowledge separate.
TV show vs feature film. That actually put into good reference as to how to run my game. I have an npc fighter helping the PCs wizard and now I have a better idea how to form the story. Thank you
Great video. One tip: The Solo play style will cut off many of these problems. With this the two players will be surprised with the construction of the story.
Somehow it helps, even you are running a first tabletop game. I consider doing a 'solo-rp' as practice or dry-running. Doing it somehow helps you notice some missing pieces on your game, and even fill it on your own. Though the outcome of doing it is indeed weird but fun.
One thing my buddy and I have tried with good success, 1 player, multiple characters to make a small party. A main adventurer and his side kick or at one time, adventuring spouse. And that way he had a fighter and the cleric and had to make the decisions himself still. So a Batman and Robin duo for 1 player can also work. :D
I just started DMing a solo campaign for one of my players, who wants to get in more playtime in the campaign world but the other players cannot afford to play more during the week. I worked with her to create a new character earlier in the timeline in a different region of the same world we play in for the main campaign. This allows her to experience more of the world and allows for the possibility of future interactions with the main party if her character survives and travels to the region the party is in. She’s already noticed a big difference in combat and I have scaled things accordingly such that it remains challenging but her level 3 paladin (started her at this level because it was important for the character to have sworn her oath to Tyr, god of justice) is thus far alive. Her character, Delilah Monfils, is a human paladin. She was orphaned at the age of 8 when her parents died in a house fire. She was the only survivor of her family and was sent to the temple of Tyr where she was raised. At age 14 she was given the choice to become an acolyte but refused seeking a different calling. She was then trained in the use of sword and pistol and took the oath at age 18. She spent a year and a half guarding temple offerings as the treasure was driven by wagon train from minor to greater temples , but has left that role, resworn her oath, and has been making a living as a bounty hunter for the past year bringing criminals to face justice. At the moment her character is engaged in two missions: one is discovering the source of the dark happenings at the tiefling-owned brothel/tavern The Mysterious Demon and the other is to collect the bounty on a half orc thief that has stolen a rare artifact (a draconic lead plate that can be used to open one of the gates of the portal to the realm where the dragons have been banished). The half orc is unknowingly in the service of the main campaign’s villain, who is trying to collect all of the draconic plates so he can open the portal to the realm of the dragons so he can use the dragons to take over the world but he is having trouble getting all the plates.
This might be the only video of any size, let alone with 20k views, that I've seen on UA-cam with zero dislikes. Usually there's at least 1 from someone who needs the be contrarian. You must be doing something right.
I play my games, when it's just me and one person, like an adventure movie. Yes, they'll fight here and there, but my gf (the one I mainly play with) loves exploring things and seeing bizarre things. Whenever she doesn't feel like role-playing, she makes three characters. Using the Basic Fantasy RPG, this is very easy.
This couldn't have come at a better time. I'm running a Mad Max style game tomorrow with 2 players, i'm expecting to have lots of intense personal combats.
Thanks for responding! The session went well but one of the players was unable to attend so it ended up being a one on one session. your advice really helped and the analogy of a movie was a perfect description of how it felt. Things went a whole lot quicker than normal and i noticed the player was more attentive this time causing things to move more smoothly, allowing the player to move from one action to another rather than start-stop distinct turns.
The other advise (because I run lots of 1 on 1 games) let the player build a Gestault character. Let them play two classes (or equivalent) at once and level up on the regular exp with no drawbacks. let them be at least twice as strong as a regular player character. Give them extra treasure and money and extra bonuses and skills easily. It just lets the game function better and easier for everyone. It is difficult to plan combat otherwise. And every time the player feels more badass and heroic and well enjoys it! Also make sure their stats are high. As for GM characters (I sometimes call NPC/PCs.) In addition to the advice in this video I will say often playing the more Neutral aligned than Lawful or Chaotic. So Neutral Evil, Neutral or Neutral good. As they seem more willing to go with the flow of the actual players choices and cause less strong willed decisions and actions than a Lawful or Chaotic character. Also having hirelings being paid cash (give the PC extra money for this) helps as they listen to their employer. Using a morale and/or loyalty system with GM characters or NPC hirelings is also really helpful. When it gets too low they leave or betray the player (as appropriate to the reason why they lost their loyalty and that NPCs character and alignment.) I tend to wing this but maybe an actual rule system would help more. Fun video thanks!
I've GM'd one-to-one a lot and as far as "party NPCs" go, I have three methods I use for discussing next actions with the player character. (1) The NPC who has no opinion. This works with a servant-like NPC, particularly one who is not very bright. It gets annoying for the player if everyone acts like this, although you can do it more as the PC gains levels, since it makes sense that most people would defer to the powerful PC. (2) The NPC has a very dominant one-track character trait, and that determines what the NPC will recommend. For example: the barbarian always recommends killing everyone, the thief always recommends fleeing. Once again, you cannot have too many people like this else they get annoying. (3) The random roll. I quickly think of about 4 possible options and roll randomly to decide what the NPC recommends. Sometimes the NPC does give the best advice, but they are not reliable. Once you have done this enough it is actually easier than you might think to come up with multiple options. Usually, the options all follow the same themes: fight, flight, stealth, persuasion, intimidation, bribery, magic, etc. and once you realize that, thinking of a few on the fly takes no time at all. If there are multiple NPCs, it is quite fun to have them argue about the best option and then ask the PC to decide.
It's simple. I have two friends that play d&d. We can play together, or I Gm for one of them (When there's only two of us). The two player game is a balance of who takes the spotlight in each situation. The Tiefling Monk likes to role-play, the Ice Dragon likes to plan and have combat (and being a leader). When we play solo... The games are either a tactical game (dragon) or... Well, just a full on anime / movie like adventure, with crazy moves and all that, and the PC is the overpowered protagonist (Monk), and after each session they are always excited. It's awesome, you can just do what that person likes.
My players have a tendency to want to join up with any villains that they find particularly cool. What should one do in this instance? Do you let them join with the villain and generate a new group of heroes to be the antagonists that they're fighting against? Do you prevent them from doing so in the pursuit of keeping with the story? Do you throw out your current story and create a new one around them being evil? My players have done this numerous times, yet when I suggest starting in an evil campaign instead, they generally never wish to do so. Generally when they get with my villain I'm at a loss at how to proceed and the campaign falls apart.
Let them join the villain, let him let them join, with open arms! Then slowly separate each party member until they are all alone and then kill them. No chance of survive. Just death. Teach them that villains are bad and horrid. If they don't want to be evil henchmen then they are of no use to the villain. Do that a few times and see if they still wanna join the villains. :) Otherwise just don't let the villain agree to allowing them to join. That would be my suggestion.
That is DELIGHTFULLY evil. If I didn't have a group of players that would lynch me if I went that route, I would do it gladly. They've never really taken too kindly to such severe punishments for their decisions and the game just breaks down into an argument that I can't contain.
As you were talking, I started thinking about Fire Emblem and how it’s a multi-character contolling game but still a single player game. Might try a dnd campaign like that, especially since the player whom I am going to dm for absolutely loves Fire Emblem. (still plays Awakening and Fates, practically for the gameplay now)
Like the costume you have going in the video. But besides that, I enjoyed the video. I do one-on-one role playing very regularly, and I can definitely say it lets you tell very dramatic, personal stories. Even in big, epic situations like a massive battle, the player and their rival might engage and duel. However, I'm kind of yammering on. One bit of advise I have to share for running single player campaigns is give them more than you normally would. A few extra skill points, a nice stock of health items to keep themselves going, and some extra money to compensate for the lack of people.
Ah yes! A great point and one that I forgot. Unless it's important to the story/mission we must remember one character is gathering less, carrying less, and doing less so resources are generally less. Thanks for adding!!
In Shadowrun, a party of one is possible. But only if the character is more a Jack of all Trades with a few little specializations instead of one big specialization and a party to back the lack of unimportant skills like... Con. Or Etiquette. Or Basic Computerskills. Or lack of Combat-Skills, whatever. The single-character needs to be more capable in many different aspects of... well, life, really. Or... in shadowrun's special case, one can explore the alternate realms in more dept. Maybe the Singleplayer-Char IS a very specialized character that only gets very special missions. A Hacker-Cybercombatant that is contracted to take down vicious AIs, or rather an Infobrokertype-Hacker that steals secrets out of Corporate Servers/Hosts. Maybe hesheit is a Social infiltrator that finds a full size party to be more of an inconvenience. Or its a Mage that deals with the politics of the Astral realm - some kind of Geomancer that tries to find the cause for Astral Phenomena or tainted Astral Space. Now I want a One-on-One game, because there is no way I can explore all of those Ideas in a normal Group-Game DX
used to have henchmen and hirelings back in the day, the player could have subordinates with simple stat blocks and no class levels or special abilities, just weapons and armor and mediocre attacks and damage, maybe the player has a noble background and has a few guards that accompany him on his adventures
Do you think it would be possible to do as GM a satire RPG? Some that players could understand and give them some redeeming value, but sometning they would also enjoy at the same time?
I will soon be running two different groups, one is going to be two or three players and the other is going to be six or seven. I am planning on having them both be in the same world but the small group is going to be part of a special unit of the city guard working on taking down baddies like cartels, murderers, and the like whilst the big group goes on a diplomatic mission to a neighboring country. It will be interesting to see how the feel changes from largish group to small group.
I'd love to see a video about how to handle larger groups. I remember older editions talked about assigning a party "caller" to act like a sort of assistant, but I've never played a game that actually had that many people to see it in action. How well does that work? Are there other solutions? How big of a group can a person realistically handle? What about epic adventures, the kind of multi-table events run by WotC?
I've personaly had to run a 1 person party and make a side character to help him, I didnt want to make it easy but he kept failing quests. We are playing an adventure of the Elderscrolls tamrial full sandbox world for optimal choices and lore. I simply made the character take a large side position by starting a small guild hall and hireing npcs to go with him. depending on how well he knows the npcs he can form spacial bonds with in game characters for help. Rather then depending on me. I write the basic info race,name, class ,weapon, AC and made it so the hall can only hold about 6 people.
I play some RPG with just my wife. I use lots of random tables and also play a character along side her. The main issue is trying to decide what behavior the baddies will do in combat. It is more like solo RPG with a sidekick. It does work surprisingly well.
I'm surprised you didn't talk about the one thing that a 1 player game does better than any other - stealth! 1-2 player games are fantastic for doing those stealth missions you can never get away with when you have a whole party.
Another great video with seemingly perfect timing. I did also have a question, you partially addressed gming for a large party, me and my friend who is fairly new to gming have been thinking about making a party of our 14 odd friends with a "co-gm" game. As in one of us shall control one party and one control another that we can weave together or even against one another. Is this just a foolish endeavor? Or is it a plausible game style? Any advice would be great.
Great questions... next week my friend! The answers shall be revealed next week! But you on the right track. I'll share some of the wins and epic fails I've had trying that method.
With such a large you need a simple rules set so the time between rolling a die and narrative outcome is as short as possible. Also maybe have challenges that require multiple successful roles from multiple players. like say five superheros stopping a building falling while six fight the bad guys and have three diffuse the bomb all at once with consequences for failing any part.
With 1x1 RPG, I think the main advantage is personal stories, like stories with a "chosen one" or a "lone survivor", which are hard to do with a group. For example, I myself am kind of wanting to try a 1x1 campaign where I play a space traveler who gets stranded on a world resembling a medieval fantasy setting. This would be kind of a weird concept for a group RP, but here I think it works. Though, I'm having some trouble figuring out how exactly to do it (finding a GM, ect).
That's it exactly - it's the personal story, or as you rightly say - the story that works best with 1 on 1. For system I'd recommend using D20 Modern with Sci-Fi expansion. Gives you all the rules you need for sci-fi and medieval in one book.
I’ve never played D&D before, downloaded the Basic rule book, got polydice & made 2 characters, an lawful evil Tiefling Sorcerer & an lawful neutral Air Genasi Ranger. Those characters just spoke to me. I’m ok with buying & reading all the books. I would like to get familiar with playing the actual game by myself first, before bothering others with my questions (when I can just look the answers up in my own time). So I would like to start a trial campaign, being the DM as well as 2 or 3 characters at the same time, just to get a feel for it. Any tips on that?
I am sort of in the same boat as you, I wanted to learn and try out RPG systems for myself before bothering others. recently I found a book called the Mythic GM emulator, it tries to function as a DM would, so it's perfect for testing out how a tabletop RPG works. If you want an example, go check out the UA-cam series called "Me, Myself and Die" it follows someone playing an RPG while using the Mythic system as a GM. would highly recommend it.
Oh... Actually I need to know how to play by myself. .......
Shawn Daniels same. This coronavirus thing has made it impossible to find a group in my area that wants to play in-person. Online doesn’t seem to work well for me.
I was hoping to find a way to DM and play agains a prescripted campaign or something.
Is there an official way of playing by one's self? If not, I think the use of the different types of dice to simulate a decision made by one or more simulated characters. Such as using a D4 to determine one of 4 choices your simulated character can make, even if the simulated character "chooses" poorly. For a solitaire game, made up of 1 or more simulated players can tailor the story to go as long or as short as they want. D&D at its fundamentals, is a collaborative story telling role playing game. Being familiar with each simulated player's character will help you how to tailor your story.
I would personally recommend checking out a show on youtube called "Me, Myself, and Die" it's about someone that runs a campaign for themselves using the Mythic GM Emulator, it is quite solid.
I believe it's called writing a book.
Seriously though if your I charge of the plot and character action just write a book.
There's a positive thing that happens when you have one-on-one play. This is coming from a GM who has game mastered games since the 70's, many of them one-on-one over the years. In these one-on-one games, in order to really be successful, you really need to limit the combat or have some NPC's in there who can heal, because hey. That character can take a beating and die. But the main thing that happens in a one-on-one game that I've noticed that tends to happen more than in a game with multiple players is that there's more focus on role play and world building. This is simply because the character usually isn't involved in fighting all the time (because he's the only player, and a slick GM, knowing this, will limit combat to what the player can handle.). The focus will be on meeting characters. Solving problems and puzzles. Role play... Finding ways out of dangerous situations other than fighting. This, over time, results in some serious world building, and not only that, both the player, and the GM, really ends up getting to know the player character. I've run campaigns over time one-on-one where player characters and worlds have just come to life, right before my eyes, in ways that they never did with multiple players. So it's an interesting, and odd side effect. It's like, when there's multiple players, the game feels like a game, with players trying to win, or complete a goal, but when it's one-on-one, it feels a LOT more like the two of you are collaborating on a story and really building that world. I don't know exactly why this is and this may not be the same for all groups, but this has certainly been my experience.
Usually like to keep parties small anyhow for the same reasons you said: It's a hell of a lot easier to get a story to move forward and to test the waters when it comes to new concepts/ideas. Even have a one-person session with my grandmother that she certainly enjoys, and it's an excellent opportunity for there to get a more dramatic story up & running where a player's decisions have major consequences for better or worse.
That sounds like a lot of fun. Please tell me she plays a barbarian?! Mine could have played a dragon overlord well... :p
How to be a Great Game Master She plays a half-elf cleric lol. Simple backstory of leaving the temple to explore the world. She likes to fight vampires and gather herbs & flowers.
Is your grandma Shirley curry
I recently had to move into my mom's place. I wish she would play with me, but she thinks RPG's are demonic. 🙄
I'm glad you go down on your grandmother. Very polite.
When you want to play d&d but you have no friends and have too much anxiety to meet new ones
I feel that
I know what that's like. If you're super into the idea of playing, and you happen to have a nerd-store that deals in tabletop gaming stuff around town you might wanna try writing up a little open message saying you're looking for a group to play ___ with and then provide some means of contact.
You also might wanna say what kinds of games/campaigns are especially of interest to you.
I did that and eventually managed to land with a group I've been playing with for going on four years now. Granted it took some time for anyone to respond. It was probably around 8 - 18 months before i got the response from them and I had actually forgotten about the post, but it's still worth trying if you're super serious about getting into tabletop gaming.
Lol sameeeee I’ve literally never played before and I’m trying to figure out how to dm for my friend. Just her and me sitting in my room being nerdy and having no clue what we’re doing
really needed to find some advice on how to GM....
by the gods I was not let down 😂
well I'm off to binge watch your playlists
That's super cool to hear! Comment and ask questions! Enjoy yourself. Laugh, cry, get angry... usual emotions when watching my channels :)
I will attempt to place a regular slew of emotion in text as I go 😊
:)
i love this guy once i found Guy i have been learning from him so i can be a great GM lol
Perspective-based fucking reality you son of a bitch!
Man, you're do good, you just made the experience for me and my fiance' orders of magnitudes better. I had something like this in mind but to have it so clearly explained and laid out is just so very helpful. Thanks buddy.
Absolute pleasure! Glad to be of help!!
So... Structure your campaign like a video game?
It depends on the video game you're thinking of. In general, probably not, but a good one on one game could be very reminiscent of something like Planescape: Torment or Baldur's Gate 2.
What about Shining Force?
@@kevinsullivan3448 ¿you know conan style systems for one player one gm?
@@kevinsullivan3448 Thanks.
Or Dark Souls
I've DM'd three games a week for 5+ years, but never had a party smaller than 5. Next week I run a 1 on 1 session for the first time. This man somehow, eloquently, in his gentle accent, introduced DnD to me in a way I never contemplated before. Massive props to you, sir. You created understandable metaphorical approaches to a complex multi-tiered issue that in one video made me feel like this is doable, but not the way I had imagined it. I know I'm late to the party, I'm just glad I ended up here.
I did this, they made it through a 4 person dungeon.
1. half-elf. wizard. at level 1.
whoa...
That’s some old school d&d shit
Bladesinger?
@@WhiskeyPatriot phb only because that's all we had
My husband and I play a "2" (player and GM PC) player game and what you advised is perfect for our games. I love your DM videos!
So, having recently played a 1-on-1 game, thought I'd comment.
Pretty much echo everything said here. I'm fortunately not one to worry about how well I GM despite my lack of experience; I figure if I'm not doing my job at motivating my player(s) and telling a story with them, I'll hear about it. My guest didn't create an excuse to leave early and we're playing again tomorrow (with a couple more players), so I take it as a good sign.
The amount of concentration I could expend on a single player/character was refreshing. The player is an experienced player/GM himself, so we comfortably bounced ideas and narrative as we went and managed to flesh out subplots with good depth, even for a 1st session.
That said, I can also see why other GMs might prefer multiple players. The "dissenting voices" might lead the party astray, but often they'll will write their own story rather effectively. A couple quips and suggestions, maybe a random roll, and the session snowballs into something fun no matter what the GM initially planned.
I'm just glad to get my game going. I've been sitting on it for years, wallowing in untold nostalgia and canon-shattering goodness.
More to report another time. And thanks again for your material - always informative and inspiring!
Glad to hear it! Better to play then sit planning I say! And you are spot on with your assessment - if they coming back for more, then you are a good GM! It's that simple. Thanks for sharing and let us know how your bigger group fairs!
So, the bigger session was delayed for a week due to an illness. Fortunately it happened and we got a decent start. Admittedly I didn't prepare my newer players well for the scenario. Rather, I accidentally tempted one of them with a red herring right from their introduction. Fortunately my players are all familiar with each other and made merry with the phrase, "Onward, to Plot!"
My goal for next session is to incentivize their camaraderie, then offer some broad alternate directions to show that they do indeed have agency, it's just the global effect will likely chase them wherever they go...
Sounds like a plan! Global effects always chase sometimes close, sometimes far...
8:58
Accidentally turns on light saber
Erick Vega HAHAHAHAHAHA
I actually find GMCs to be very enjoyable. I have two one-on-one campaigns with my brother, one for each of us to DM and one for each of us to play, and both tend to feature regular party sizes through the addition of GMCs. We both play very in-character, so if we were to ask them for advice, it wouldn't give the 'best' option - only the option they themselves view as the best. They are supporting rather than leading, of course, and are typically sidekicks on the mission as they are either hired or come along knowing they are not in charge, but it's fun as they bring along interesting stories and side quests of their own. And there is no guarantee that that nifty Life Cleric or damage-absorbing Barbarian will stay; if they are mistreated or their goals are no longer pursued, they leave. And sometimes become antagonists.
It's simply fun, as it brings back somewhat of a party dynamic into a one-on-one game, even if interactions are almost always instigated by the PC and not the GMCs. Bonds form, rivalries develop, and it leads to many more adventures. My brother's dragonborn Paladin will soon be going on a mad quest to resurrect the fallen dwarven Cleric, even though he could easily just stop by a town and hire a new one - he has known him for months and months and would risk even death to get him back, even if the Cleric kept many secrets. Which gives me as a DM a fun opportunity to design an grand quest around this. Like you said, in one-on-one campaigns, the story is very personal.
I've been roleplaying for 7 years (Not necessarily playing any form of D&D) and in that time I don't think I've really had the luxury of going without a GMC (shit, I haven't had a chance to be anything less than the GM/DM since my first session, period) simply because the few people I play with enjoy my characters and stories and don't seem to have an ounce of interest in forming stories of their own beyond the backgrounds of their characters. Not that I'm complaining, but I can't say that there has ever been one instance where playing a GMC has ever been a problem except for one-time players who weren't all that invested in the first place.
I feel lonely I clicked the video to find out how to play by myself
i’ve been running a game like this for a year now and it’s been my favorite game
The key factor, in my experience, is that the solitary Player has to step up far more than they're possibly used to. As you say, all forward motion depends on the one person. There's no "coasting" while waiting for the rest of the party to decide on going right or left. I've had a single Player break out in a real and creative sweat at all the work. For the GM, it's a normal day behind the screen. The Player isn't used to making constant creative decisions.
As you suggest, the 1-on-1 situation ideally requires a new, "all-purpose" character to be designed. In my life, though, the 1-on-1 is an impulsive moment that doesn't allow sober character creation. Me and the other person are on a 7 hour road trip and it's a way to pass the time. My ex-girlfriend and I would while away lengthy summer walks with me GMing and her swashing & buckling. Therefore, inn those cases the character being used is a "specialist". A member of a party. In those cases I have no qualms about supplying a GMC (the term I always use) sidekick. I have no problem compartmentalizing such characters and my Players quickly understand they are not secret sources of cosmic GM Knowledge.
That's an awesome idea - road trip = one on one rpg... only one person needs to roll dice. I like it!!
It seems the general consensus specialist or broad generalist is the way to go, not a mid-ground. And I can well believe that.
Very helpful. I particularly like your your take on how the player weighs what the GM NPC says more than they would anyone else. So very true.
It's amazing how useful rewatching your videos is.
Thank you for your huge catalogue of videos
with the risk of making people giggle at my phrasing: Do you have any advice on "playing with yourself"? None of my friends are really interested in table top role playing and I live kind of far away from larger civilisations.
Did you try to find online communities? That could be your answer.
SO not really what you want to hear but have you considered writing? Make a character and make a story. If you really want you can even roll for the characters success in the story.
Try doctor who salitare story game it's free and solo also miso rpg so1um and one page solo engine , impetus, the 9qs , miniso1d6 they are all free I also recommend rory story cubes and some of the online genarators like seventh sanctum and fantasy name genarators
damn you need to get new friends
@@joshpeach6 for some people solo rp is more fun I have tried it with friends and it's not as fun as solo I feel like a gm is not necessary especially with some of the awesome gaming aids out there
I run one player games all the time for my wife, because simply, we don't get to game as much as we'd like.
Anyway, I find that with, let's say, a D&D game, that giving your one player a small party of different personalities, alignments and goals. This gives her both back up and more dire things like healing, but she also enjoys getting their views and ideas on things. I think a nice trick is not making any of her "party" too informed, and too complacently loyal. This creates debates, which creates story not just in a linear sense, but also in a character sense. She develops, they develop, and all the while, so does the story.
That's really all I have, but I love your videos and suggest them to my players and fellow GM's all the time.
Your videos have vastly improved my gm skills which my party playing iron kingdoms surely appreciated
I love when I watch your videos and realize I've been taking all your advice already! Super reaffirming!
The single person experience is indeed an amazing opportunity. As someone who is entirely new to game mastering and with many RPG sessions as a player under my belt I thought that this would be a great way to start as a GM. The focus on a single character does allow more interest in a particular field that would be impossible with a sizable group. Such as delving into lore of a particular area, dungeon, or even an NPC. It also makes it easier for a GM to keep track of where the character is in a large city.
You're a great inspiration and your videos have taught me much in the way of game mastering.
Finally found it! I rolled a 3 last time i checked!
I'm doing most of the things you're telling here, but if I have to add something, I'm now running a campaign for my GF and this might help.
1: Be inmersive. When GMing one person, in this case my GF, I try to make her feel like she's there with more enfasis than in a normal 4-5 players game (1 OST low volume, Weather/Ambience sounds in another tab, lights). Ambience is a great storyteller. When you run out of ideas, you can always focus on describing the weather, a drastic change or distant sound. Your player won't be surrounded by NPCs all the time so you´ll need to find another "actors" in things, weather or enviroment in general.
2: Focus on details so you can slow your storytelling. As said in this video, a 1 on 1 is going to be much faster than a 4 player game. I tend to be a lot more descriptive in 1 on 1's because point 1 (Inmersion) and because it makes the things slooower. Read LOTR, you'll see what I'm talking about. (Love descriptions btw :D)
Thanks for this "How to be a Great Game Master" channel. I'm feeling like coming back to school, literally taking notes as I watch video after video. Every day (because my GF and I are playing almost daily), I'm improving little things that are making my game a lot more dynamic, alive and FLUID.
Greetings from Spain!
I am a GM for more than 10 years and I love to play 1-1 games. They are more stroy driven, and I can make my player explore my world that I created in finer detail. Nice video :)
I've been binging your vids lately. This is actually the only kind of GMing I've done before. It's really hard for me to find enough people who are interested to play, so I'm usually doing a bunch of one-shots with single players.
All of your points are very spot-on. All of my previous experience and findings point to the same thing. The part I like about it is that with a single player, it's much easier to focus drama and emotional weight. I've gotten players to go into grieving crying fits over a GM character death before because I had enough control to really master the atmosphere and mood of the scene. I can't imagine I could rely on a group's flow enough to replicate that with several players present.
Single players really alloy me to hyperfocus.
Your tips are really helpful and I will try to incorporate it into my recently started 1on1 campaign here on UA-cam :) I think playing with just a solo player really offers some great opportunities and it's not just a less-then-ideal solution when you can't find a "regular" group. Everyone should try this!
That was great, thanx! I’d never thought of the contrast between series vs feature film before.
Thank you for the video! I was feeling a bit lacking of information for my campaign of one player (two PC's), but this helped me a lot!
Curious that a lowly player like myself with little interest in GM'ing find these so fascinating. I'm quite amazed by your captivating way to teach and talk.
Good to know the GM position so that you can understand how your GM is thinking when you play.
This episode was VERY helpful! I only have the one player, so this was perfect. Thank you!
Really helpful! My nephew, who is new to rpgs wants to play games with me when he visits, but he usually comes with his parents and his brother, who is too young to grasp the concept. This will go a long way to working something out for him.
That's awesome to hear! Let us know how it goes!
The one time I was a player in a single player campaign I was allowed to mix class, but not the normal mix class. Every time I leveled I got a level in both of my classes at once and we made this work but uping the CR by a bit for the encounters. A Ranger/cleric had some great survivability
I'm playing D&D with my friend and we're taking turns DM-ing and playing as our respective characters because nobody else wants to play with us. This is helpful.
Cheers for the advice. I'm about to try this with some of my players and now have added the explanation line to them of; "To put it in movie terms, this is Iron Man, not The Avengers"
Checking out videos, very impressed with the good advice. Even more impressed with the ebb and flow of Guy's beard!
Thank you. This video really helped get on the right track of thinking for a one player campaign.
I know this video is almost 2 years old, but I just recently discovered your channel. I have been digging through some of the older videos that catch my attention, and this was one of them. I got my trial by fire as a DM doing just this running one player through a campaign. This took place back in 1991, and since then I have ran many single player campaigns. I learned real fast back then that any supporting NPC's were not paramount to the story. The main character was the focus along with the story, and the player caught on real fast that the supporting NPC's were there mainly for companionship and combat support. They were never used in any decision making, and when the player would try to include them in it he would discover the NPC's would be more in favor of always taking the safe route, or were ignorant of the current political or cultural aspects of a certain town or village. In other words they were no help in any part of the decision making process. Of course they were always vocal when it came to rubbing salt in the players wounds for making the wrong choice.
I also found NPC companions work really well for plot devises when the player starts to wander off the beaten path as they often do at times. I do agree if not done properly the game will become dull, and the player will become dependent on the NPC companion, but if done right it makes for an epic journey for the player and their character.
I gotta say, you are awesome man! I've watched a ton of your videos and am learning so much! So thank you for everything you do!
Late comer to your channel and loving it. I am currently playing a solo L5R session with my wife, and we enjoying it! I have one or two main npcs helping but letting my wife's character make most of the crucial decisions
As a GM who's about to do my first solo campaign, this helped a lot! It's also gonna be my first time playing, but it should be fine.
So funny you brought this up, ive been asking my dnd group about how they feel about one on one games/sessions.
Honestly one on one games are awesome for character development, right now my party of four just slit up for a few days; Shae my druid is at her home village and she just did a ceremonial hunt, Hemi my wood elf ranger just started a romance quest line with the red rose knight, Torvald my corruption walker (home brew) is searching for his leg (long story lol)
And when were all done the group will come back together to complete the main story line :) Once again you dropped a awesome video.
Thanks for sharing and inspiring us! The leg story sounds like an epic campfire tale! I need marshmellows and beer... mmmmm... but thank you!
+How to be a Great Game Master hahaha it will be a great story one day, when the quest is over ill post about it. Right now he got himself into a bit of a predicament and might or might not have unwillingly sold himself into slavery.
#questofthelostleg
A close friend of mine has been running one on one campaigns for years now that involve 20 people :) And we love it!
The way he likes to run his games is so simple to us yet so complicated in the overall scheme of the campaign that it leads for some truly deep story telling.
Here's an example of what we've been running recently: My main character owns a Ludus (gladiator school) and has 10 gladiators. I make my main character and 10 gladiator characters, playing all of them during training missions and gladiatorial combat matches. I sometimes have the opportunity during role play as my higher up to meet with other owners and trade or buy their gladiators as well as wager matches. Other players, some of the 20 people playing, each have their entire school. When we meet up and play with 2 or more people it's because we've schedule a tournament match and we get to face off our gladiators against each other. It's a game where we all share a single DM, we all play as we can and we all have a good time competing without feeling like we've been shorted by a friend for "killing our characters". It's a fun and different way to play D&D, running multiple characters separately that all effect the world around you. Sometimes we're chasing some crazy band of killers and it turns out that crazy band is another group of players on their own quest, while at the same time hearing tales of other wild stuff happening from another band a few states over. I don't know how he keeps track of all the story but he tells it so well it's amazing.
If you haven't tried one on one games, you should :) For us it honestly helps alleviate the issue of everyone wanting to play but nobody having the same schedule.
That sounds amazing. The most I've ever managed is two full groups of 4 running around in the same world at the same time. It was awesome when they interacted or screwed each others plans up. I cannot imagine the bigger numbers of 1 on 1. It seems awesome! I wonder if he'd ever share how he does it? Would you find out? I'd be happy to chat to him via email or he could do a video and share for us?
I'll talk to him about doing some kind of video but I've seen his "D&D" box. It's stuffed full of overflowing campaigns, ideas, adventures, all rammed into 15 year old spiral notebooks and yellowed paper randomly stuffed into manila envelopes. I know he was going over one of his games that he built for us but never ran in which he has already fully created every major protagonist, all of their character sheets and back stories, hundreds of years of time line...a dizzying amount of stuff that just looks like chicken scratch to everyone but him. The detail is ridiculous but that's part of what makes it so fun :) One thing I'd love to share with you guys is his custom character creation chart that includes all kind of random stuff you can start with in an apocalyptic campaign we're about to pick up again called "Aftermath", it was inspired by the random generation for characters in GammaWorld. Anyway, long tangent there, apologies. I'll see what I can get out of him and share with everyone :)
Sounds awesome! And a little intimidating, but awesome!
love it. I felt like a movie director when I had to do a duel between a gnome rogue and an npc orc so your analogy was spot on.
this reminded me of your story of the Jedi survival 1 on 1 game. do you think you could do an episode or two telling stories of some of your favorite campaigns or bombastic events? just to see if it takes off the ground?
I can do a few ... these are a few of my favorite stories episode. It's added to the list!
Excellent!! Can't wait for #3 and #4!
I'm planning on running a game of FFG's Star Wars series with about 3-4 players. And expect the party size to decrease to 2 or so on occasion. Can't wait for all the wise advice!
Well next was going to be handling bigger groups like 6 plus. Would you prefer I also looked at groups of 2 or 3?
If you could possibly do so - I would appreciate it. But I don't want to be the lone reason you do so. :)
I actually was assuming you were going to based on the party size: 1 icon inserted into the video. I assume 4 and 5 party members are a regular group, but 1-3 and 6+ are more special cases. But "I've been known to be wrong... from... time to time." - C3PO :)
Well spoken, just loved this tip of yours.
Gratitude! Always nice to get such compliments.
Cool! I'd be happy to see this 5 years ago when I had nobody to play with except my 10 yrs old daughter, but didn't know how to make the game compelling enough... Thank you!
Well now she's 15... which means you can up the level of gore and violence, and ... lol. Glad you liked the video.
It's impossible. Not to like your videos. :) Haven't seen anything more valuable in such a concise form yet for these topics.
Whenever I GM, I make a character to play as well. It is usually non-optimal and built on being interesting (Like my Dwarven Bard, my One-Armed Goliath Sorcerer, or my Warforged Archer). I also opt-out of any key decision making as I already know what will happen in the future from a story standpoint. I still opt in and let folks know my abilities and possibilities when attempting an ambush or in the middle of a fight though. Game is still quite fun that way.
I started out with just one player. Then we grew into over 10! Both are a blast.
With a single player you can make flashbacks that became tricky with more players
Indeed! There are lots of things you have the space and time to do when running a campaign for one that makes it a whole new experience.
I have been playing in a One on One campaign for a year and a half. Everything you talked of here came about naturally which is interesting. It started as a campaign of a cleric of a new god in a Viking setting trying to spread his religion. It has now turned into a political game of intrigue and conquest with a lot of mystery revolving around the gods and such.
What most of my videos are based on is things that worked for me during play. So they are evolved solutions which come from a similar experience. If we both experienced it to my mind that makes it a universal baseline of operations which is good! It sounds like a really epic campaign and I must admit after recording this video I really had a hankering to run a one on one sci-fi game. Because of these options that pop up.
+How to be a Great Game Master Although one on one campaigns arent as common they might be my favorite, as the player you can get so much done in such a short amount of time. They also create a platform where playing the villain is almost viable. In the campaign I mentioned, I would definitely not call my character pure evil, but he has done some pretty bad stuff to further his goals, and that cant really be done at all in a typical party.
hehehe... no lawful good conscience hovering around... :)
I tend to go the 'Companion Characters' route in a single player campaign.
A few characters who serve principally as foils for the player character in addition to the unfulfilled roles that need to be filled. I handle their conversations, and their decisions or input serve the direction of the plot. In the particular single player game I running right now (now that our group campaign has closed) we have a medic NPC who lives on the ship, an astromech who handles piloting, a mercenary who offers combat support. My single player makes their decisions in combat and handles all of their skill check rolls and combat rolls. I control their hearts and minds, she controls their character sheets.
I am finding that this approach works very nicely, because it gives the player character NPC's to 'fall in love with' figuratively speaking, while also allowing the to be in control of all the crunchy bits whenever some protagonisting needs to be done. It gives the feeling that they have 'more to do' in combat and other situations calling for crunch as well.
Great video, especially the bit about decision making with input from multiple characters. It makes decision making much more rich and helps players to see options which they might otherwise ignore. A very constructive approach and a definite lightbulb moment for making my own game a little bit better.
:D
Thank you for sharing - I'd not thought about letting them roll for the hero / companion NPC's. It shall be added to the box of tricks. And I'm glad this is a two way learning curve!
"But well get to that just now" love that Segway!
Running a solo player game in a few weeks, it is great to see some of these videos. I will say I agree with you about GM characters, I have tried to make characters to play assisting roles and it just feels like you are hamstrung in doing nothing since you know everything. I was actually going in the direction you recommended by using npcs as secondary cast members. I have to say lately it seems like small parties of no more than 2-3 players is my desired group size. Otherwise I would rather have one member. Ive done the large groups and it all seems quite hectic. Appreciate the advice keep on keeping on!
I run a single-player campaign (alongside another with 7 total players) and I agree with a lot of what was said here. I would add though that I do have a GM playing character: my player wanted to be a wizard, but those can be a bit fragile, so I have a druid follow him around. My way of letting the player make the big decisions is by having the druid be very young, naive and a little on the silly side, so his opinions are unreliabe if even manifest, and he looks up to the wizard for guidance. The wizard has become very protective of the little druid, making for some interesting dynamics!
I've always had GMCs in 1 on 1 rpgs, and I find to to work pretty good. Actually, mosto of my rpgs, especially 1 on 1, have the stories focusing quite a lot on these GMCs. And heck, I always have a bunch of them - from 5 to 10, normally. I can use them not only to support the player in combat (of course, I limit the amount of GMCs to 2-3 for that) but also to support the story and the player's role in it. They are there to create hooks, show other points of view, deepen the player's involvement with the world and also to provide some companionship, instead of letting the player be the lone wolf like it or not.
To be honest, I can even say I like 1 on 1 rpg more than group ones, since, especially with the help of the GMCs, who are often forgotten I group games, I can create much more involvement between the player and the world/story than I ever could in a group. Not to say that you're wrong about the risks of GMC influence, but I always make sure to highlight before and during the game that my GMCs are independent of my knowledge, they may or may not have the right opinions.
Oh I agree with you totally. There is much more story and involvement to be had for sure. It is a trick though to keep GM knowledge and GMC knowledge separate.
thank you so much for posting this vedio. it was very informative. btw, love the outfit
My thanks. It's the uniform of my sci-fi show that I'm trying to get off the ground slowly :)
TV show vs feature film. That actually put into good reference as to how to run my game. I have an npc fighter helping the PCs wizard and now I have a better idea how to form the story. Thank you
Absolute pleasure! Let us know how it goes okay?
Great video.
One tip:
The Solo play style will cut off many of these problems.
With this the two players will be surprised with the construction of the story.
This is such good advice! Thank you so much for this video
Somehow it helps, even you are running a first tabletop game. I consider doing a 'solo-rp' as practice or dry-running. Doing it somehow helps you notice some missing pieces on your game, and even fill it on your own.
Though the outcome of doing it is indeed weird but fun.
One thing my buddy and I have tried with good success, 1 player, multiple characters to make a small party. A main adventurer and his side kick or at one time, adventuring spouse. And that way he had a fighter and the cleric and had to make the decisions himself still. So a Batman and Robin duo for 1 player can also work. :D
Interesting concept "Feature film Vs Series" i like it.👍
I just started DMing a solo campaign for one of my players, who wants to get in more playtime in the campaign world but the other players cannot afford to play more during the week. I worked with her to create a new character earlier in the timeline in a different region of the same world we play in for the main campaign. This allows her to experience more of the world and allows for the possibility of future interactions with the main party if her character survives and travels to the region the party is in. She’s already noticed a big difference in combat and I have scaled things accordingly such that it remains challenging but her level 3 paladin (started her at this level because it was important for the character to have sworn her oath to Tyr, god of justice) is thus far alive.
Her character, Delilah Monfils, is a human paladin. She was orphaned at the age of 8 when her parents died in a house fire. She was the only survivor of her family and was sent to the temple of Tyr where she was raised. At age 14 she was given the choice to become an acolyte but refused seeking a different calling. She was then trained in the use of sword and pistol and took the oath at age 18. She spent a year and a half guarding temple offerings as the treasure was driven by wagon train from minor to greater temples , but has left that role, resworn her oath, and has been making a living as a bounty hunter for the past year bringing criminals to face justice. At the moment her character is engaged in two missions: one is discovering the source of the dark happenings at the tiefling-owned brothel/tavern The Mysterious Demon and the other is to collect the bounty on a half orc thief that has stolen a rare artifact (a draconic lead plate that can be used to open one of the gates of the portal to the realm where the dragons have been banished). The half orc is unknowingly in the service of the main campaign’s villain, who is trying to collect all of the draconic plates so he can open the portal to the realm of the dragons so he can use the dragons to take over the world but he is having trouble getting all the plates.
Informative as always. Good stuff!
Much needed information! Thanks again!
This might be the only video of any size, let alone with 20k views, that I've seen on UA-cam with zero dislikes. Usually there's at least 1 from someone who needs the be contrarian. You must be doing something right.
I've also probably jinxed this now, sorry.
I play my games, when it's just me and one person, like an adventure movie. Yes, they'll fight here and there, but my gf (the one I mainly play with) loves exploring things and seeing bizarre things. Whenever she doesn't feel like role-playing, she makes three characters. Using the Basic Fantasy RPG, this is very easy.
This couldn't have come at a better time. I'm running a Mad Max style game tomorrow with 2 players, i'm expecting to have lots of intense personal combats.
Awesome - let us know how it goes!
Thanks for responding! The session went well but one of the players was unable to attend so it ended up being a one on one session. your advice really helped and the analogy of a movie was a perfect description of how it felt. Things went a whole lot quicker than normal and i noticed the player was more attentive this time causing things to move more smoothly, allowing the player to move from one action to another rather than start-stop distinct turns.
Awesome! Thanks for sharing!
The other advise (because I run lots of 1 on 1 games) let the player build a Gestault character. Let them play two classes (or equivalent) at once and level up on the regular exp with no drawbacks. let them be at least twice as strong as a regular player character. Give them extra treasure and money and extra bonuses and skills easily. It just lets the game function better and easier for everyone. It is difficult to plan combat otherwise. And every time the player feels more badass and heroic and well enjoys it! Also make sure their stats are high.
As for GM characters (I sometimes call NPC/PCs.) In addition to the advice in this video I will say often playing the more Neutral aligned than Lawful or Chaotic. So Neutral Evil, Neutral or Neutral good. As they seem more willing to go with the flow of the actual players choices and cause less strong willed decisions and actions than a Lawful or Chaotic character. Also having hirelings being paid cash (give the PC extra money for this) helps as they listen to their employer.
Using a morale and/or loyalty system with GM characters or NPC hirelings is also really helpful. When it gets too low they leave or betray the player (as appropriate to the reason why they lost their loyalty and that NPCs character and alignment.) I tend to wing this but maybe an actual rule system would help more.
Fun video thanks!
I've GM'd one-to-one a lot and as far as "party NPCs" go, I have three methods I use for discussing next actions with the player character.
(1) The NPC who has no opinion. This works with a servant-like NPC, particularly one who is not very bright. It gets annoying for the player if everyone acts like this, although you can do it more as the PC gains levels, since it makes sense that most people would defer to the powerful PC.
(2) The NPC has a very dominant one-track character trait, and that determines what the NPC will recommend. For example: the barbarian always recommends killing everyone, the thief always recommends fleeing. Once again, you cannot have too many people like this else they get annoying.
(3) The random roll. I quickly think of about 4 possible options and roll randomly to decide what the NPC recommends. Sometimes the NPC does give the best advice, but they are not reliable. Once you have done this enough it is actually easier than you might think to come up with multiple options. Usually, the options all follow the same themes: fight, flight, stealth, persuasion, intimidation, bribery, magic, etc. and once you realize that, thinking of a few on the fly takes no time at all.
If there are multiple NPCs, it is quite fun to have them argue about the best option and then ask the PC to decide.
your voice in this video reminds me of david attenburough. weirdly soothing and easy to understand.
Great video and fantastic presentation of the topic
It's simple. I have two friends that play d&d. We can play together, or I Gm for one of them (When there's only two of us).
The two player game is a balance of who takes the spotlight in each situation. The Tiefling Monk likes to role-play, the Ice Dragon likes to plan and have combat (and being a leader).
When we play solo... The games are either a tactical game (dragon) or... Well, just a full on anime / movie like adventure, with crazy moves and all that, and the PC is the overpowered protagonist (Monk), and after each session they are always excited. It's awesome, you can just do what that person likes.
My players have a tendency to want to join up with any villains that they find particularly cool. What should one do in this instance? Do you let them join with the villain and generate a new group of heroes to be the antagonists that they're fighting against? Do you prevent them from doing so in the pursuit of keeping with the story? Do you throw out your current story and create a new one around them being evil? My players have done this numerous times, yet when I suggest starting in an evil campaign instead, they generally never wish to do so. Generally when they get with my villain I'm at a loss at how to proceed and the campaign falls apart.
Let them join the villain, let him let them join, with open arms! Then slowly separate each party member until they are all alone and then kill them. No chance of survive. Just death. Teach them that villains are bad and horrid. If they don't want to be evil henchmen then they are of no use to the villain. Do that a few times and see if they still wanna join the villains. :)
Otherwise just don't let the villain agree to allowing them to join. That would be my suggestion.
That is DELIGHTFULLY evil. If I didn't have a group of players that would lynch me if I went that route, I would do it gladly. They've never really taken too kindly to such severe punishments for their decisions and the game just breaks down into an argument that I can't contain.
Hugs. Time for a new group?
The game actually imploded last night when we ran due to player in-fighting, so it seems so.
Embrace the opportunity to have good friends that you don't roleplay with, and and a new role-playing group that you can make friends with! Sorry man.
As you were talking, I started thinking about Fire Emblem and how it’s a multi-character contolling game but still a single player game. Might try a dnd campaign like that, especially since the player whom I am going to dm for absolutely loves Fire Emblem. (still plays Awakening and Fates, practically for the gameplay now)
I’ve always thought a 1-person game would be a disaster, but you’ve given a great analogy for how to make it work. Thanks!
Like the costume you have going in the video. But besides that, I enjoyed the video. I do one-on-one role playing very regularly, and I can definitely say it lets you tell very dramatic, personal stories. Even in big, epic situations like a massive battle, the player and their rival might engage and duel. However, I'm kind of yammering on. One bit of advise I have to share for running single player campaigns is give them more than you normally would. A few extra skill points, a nice stock of health items to keep themselves going, and some extra money to compensate for the lack of people.
Ah yes! A great point and one that I forgot. Unless it's important to the story/mission we must remember one character is gathering less, carrying less, and doing less so resources are generally less. Thanks for adding!!
In Shadowrun, a party of one is possible. But only if the character is more a Jack of all Trades with a few little specializations instead of one big specialization and a party to back the lack of unimportant skills like... Con. Or Etiquette. Or Basic Computerskills. Or lack of Combat-Skills, whatever. The single-character needs to be more capable in many different aspects of... well, life, really.
Or... in shadowrun's special case, one can explore the alternate realms in more dept. Maybe the Singleplayer-Char IS a very specialized character that only gets very special missions. A Hacker-Cybercombatant that is contracted to take down vicious AIs, or rather an Infobrokertype-Hacker that steals secrets out of Corporate Servers/Hosts. Maybe hesheit is a Social infiltrator that finds a full size party to be more of an inconvenience. Or its a Mage that deals with the politics of the Astral realm - some kind of Geomancer that tries to find the cause for Astral Phenomena or tainted Astral Space.
Now I want a One-on-One game, because there is no way I can explore all of those Ideas in a normal Group-Game DX
Hahaahaha and there folks is the POWER of the one on one game. Thanks for sharing!!
I only have my brother to play with so this is a very helpful video😂
Advice on how to play with myself!
In all seriousness. Solo play!
I will add it to the list :)
I’ve got it on my channel.
Write a book, roll dice to make decisions.
Great analogy! Very helpful
used to have henchmen and hirelings back in the day, the player could have subordinates with simple stat blocks and no class levels or special abilities, just weapons and armor and mediocre attacks and damage, maybe the player has a noble background and has a few guards that accompany him on his adventures
Thank you for doing this video
Do you think it would be possible to do as GM a satire RPG? Some that players could understand and give them some redeeming value, but sometning they would also enjoy at the same time?
I think a good example of a satire RPG that is also compelling in it's own right is Dimension 20 Fantasy High. You could check it out
I will soon be running two different groups, one is going to be two or three players and the other is going to be six or seven. I am planning on having them both be in the same world but the small group is going to be part of a special unit of the city guard working on taking down baddies like cartels, murderers, and the like whilst the big group goes on a diplomatic mission to a neighboring country. It will be interesting to see how the feel changes from largish group to small group.
I'd love to see a video about how to handle larger groups. I remember older editions talked about assigning a party "caller" to act like a sort of assistant, but I've never played a game that actually had that many people to see it in action. How well does that work? Are there other solutions? How big of a group can a person realistically handle? What about epic adventures, the kind of multi-table events run by WotC?
Wait for tomorrow! That's the topic of the video :)
I've personaly had to run a 1 person party and make a side character to help him, I didnt want to make it easy but he kept failing quests. We are playing an adventure of the Elderscrolls tamrial full sandbox world for optimal choices and lore. I simply made the character take a large side position by starting a small guild hall and hireing npcs to go with him. depending on how well he knows the npcs he can form spacial bonds with in game characters for help. Rather then depending on me. I write the basic info race,name, class ,weapon, AC and made it so the hall can only hold about 6 people.
I love your silly costumes, which you kept the hat on whole vid
I play some RPG with just my wife. I use lots of random tables and also play a character along side her. The main issue is trying to decide what behavior the baddies will do in combat. It is more like solo RPG with a sidekick. It does work surprisingly well.
9:00 Deanna Troi in a nutshell :D
I'm surprised you didn't talk about the one thing that a 1 player game does better than any other - stealth! 1-2 player games are fantastic for doing those stealth missions you can never get away with when you have a whole party.
Another great video with seemingly perfect timing.
I did also have a question, you partially addressed gming for a large party, me and my friend who is fairly new to gming have been thinking about making a party of our 14 odd friends with a "co-gm" game.
As in one of us shall control one party and one control another that we can weave together or even against one another.
Is this just a foolish endeavor?
Or is it a plausible game style?
Any advice would be great.
Great questions... next week my friend! The answers shall be revealed next week! But you on the right track. I'll share some of the wins and epic fails I've had trying that method.
With such a large you need a simple rules set so the time between rolling a die and narrative outcome is as short as possible. Also maybe have challenges that require multiple successful roles from multiple players. like say five superheros stopping a building falling while six fight the bad guys and have three diffuse the bomb all at once with consequences for failing any part.
Thanks guys! This is really helpful.
+How to be a Great Game Master Oh and I wait with bated breath.
All good pieces of advice... I'll be adding them to next weeks video for sure! Thanks everyone for helping build our skills :)
This was great thank you!
With 1x1 RPG, I think the main advantage is personal stories, like stories with a "chosen one" or a "lone survivor", which are hard to do with a group.
For example, I myself am kind of wanting to try a 1x1 campaign where I play a space traveler who gets stranded on a world resembling a medieval fantasy setting. This would be kind of a weird concept for a group RP, but here I think it works. Though, I'm having some trouble figuring out how exactly to do it (finding a GM, ect).
That's it exactly - it's the personal story, or as you rightly say - the story that works best with 1 on 1. For system I'd recommend using D20 Modern with Sci-Fi expansion. Gives you all the rules you need for sci-fi and medieval in one book.
THANK YOU for this video!
I have always been in games that where the more the better it allowed the party to go further than a smaller party could
well maybe that's a challenge for you - try running a smaller one and taking it further! :)
Huh. Neat video. I'm going to sub.
I’ve never played D&D before, downloaded the Basic rule book, got polydice & made 2 characters,
an lawful evil Tiefling Sorcerer & an lawful neutral Air Genasi Ranger. Those characters just spoke to me.
I’m ok with buying & reading all the books.
I would like to get familiar with playing the actual game by myself first, before bothering others with my questions (when I can just look the answers up in my own time). So I would like to start a trial campaign, being the DM as well as 2 or 3 characters at the same time, just to get a feel for it. Any tips on that?
I am sort of in the same boat as you, I wanted to learn and try out RPG systems for myself before bothering others. recently I found a book called the Mythic GM emulator, it tries to function as a DM would, so it's perfect for testing out how a tabletop RPG works. If you want an example, go check out the UA-cam series called "Me, Myself and Die" it follows someone playing an RPG while using the Mythic system as a GM. would highly recommend it.
Nichard Oosthuizen thanks so much!
Omg! Guy! You look adorable in that little uniform! xD
my dad and I play a 2 person group one as dmpc and the other as pc I am luckily playing as a dumb person so when I dm I'm no help in traps or puzzles.