Hey /tg/
A friend and I are going to be doing a 1v1 campaign, partially because we have no one else to play with, and partially because my friend is an old gamer and wants to help 'shake the rust off'
So we got to talking about it, specifically what game he'd be down to play, and which I'd be down to run. We've narrowed it down to 3.
3.5 DnD (the game he knows and is most comfortable with)
7th Sea (a game both of us are intrigued by)
and Deathwatch (a game who's settings and lore I'm pretty damn familiar with)
Thing is, 1v1 campaigns can be a tad tricky depending on the system you're using. I remember running a VtM 1v1 game waaaay back in the day, and that went rather well. I think that's because of the heavy emphasis it puts of roleplaying rather than smashing shit.
I'm just wondering which of these 3 games would be the best for 1v1 gaming. DnD I'm skeptical of, as, unless I'm fudging rolls or scaling the power back to a silly extent, one bad die throw and he's toast. 7th Sea, as I remember it, doesn't let heroes die unless it's because of the efforts of a villain, so I'm considering that. Deathwatch characters are themselves ridiculously stompy (being Astartes and all), so him getting wrecked is something that shouldn't be easy (assuming I don't send a Daemon Prince his way).
What do you guys think? Which one of these games would lend itself the best to 1v1 gaming.
Next time don't post a loli.
>>45962981
Didn't think it was a loli, was the only image that could describe my mental process (as I do feel a tad durrr hurrr about this)
7th Sea. 3.5 D&D is wildly dysfunctional for anything less than four players, and Deathwatch is a team game about being fuckups together.
>>45963122
>Deathwatch is a team game about being fuckups together
I thought I could use Deathwatch rules, yet just be him being Sphess Mahreen of whatever chapter.
>>45962968
I've had quite a bit of experience GMing 1v1 campaigns (or "solo campaigns" as we call them) over the years.
It sound like my experiences are a bit different from yours, but the main problems I've been running into are;
1) If a game has a lot of intense role-playing and doesn't have a break from that role-playing, like some combat or whatever, I become very fatigued very quickly.
2) It's always pretty tricky to set up combat encounters, dungeons, and various other challenges for a single player, because most games aren't built for that.
One thing is stuff like the game's math and how much more debilitating certain things are when you're THE WHOLE PARTY (oh guess I triggered a trap on the way down the steps to the first room of the dungeon and took 6 damage, I'll have to go back to town and rest now!) and things like having to make sure not to accidentally overwhelm the player character.
Another thing is that a single player character typically has a very small "toolkit" of things like skills, spells, etc. It's very likely that a single PC will straight-up be unable to deal with a LOT of stuff.
3) Things can get a bit quiet when there's no party to banter with.
Generally speaking, we've solved those problems in two ways
* Play a game that has somewhat frequent combat.
* Give the player character NPC companions that tag along on the adventure.
Usually it's enough just to have a couple of them, represented simply by monster stat blocks at the player character's level (just bump a few statistics when they gain a level and then swap to a new stat block when you find another that fits better. Don't worry too much about them; they're just supporting cast after all.)
It's useful to use monster stat blocks for a couple of reasons; they're simpler, they typically require less tracking and bookkeeping, and their power level is generally lower so they won't end up hogging the spotlight.
>Avoid dungeon crawls
>avoid D&D
>add tons NPCs that are at least inclined to help and let the player describe (or atleast roll) for them in battle
>let the player have a say on little things like "what's the first thing you notice about the inn?"
>make it about the character not the story, asking things about his past that can develop on flashbacks for example.
>can be very taxing on the GM to describe everything, make vague descriptions and let the players fill the blanks is he's interested on something
>Using a system that leaves room to improvisation and/pr on the fly adjustments is preferable, since the GM won't have down times of only players interaction
That's what comes to my mind about 1v1 sessions. Had a few with my gf to introduce her to the hobby and were really fun.
>>45963590
So NO D&D.
What about Deathwatch and 7th Sea?
>>45965143
haven't played neither of them, but I heard good thing about 7th Sea in the past.
You could play D&D handily, just give him NPC followers a level or two reduced (can still pull weight in combat, don't overshadow MC) and let him control them in combat. Could also do Gestalt if you want him extra buff to make up for only being one guy. I'd play it.
Burning Wheel and give the player a companion to make Beliefs about and make BITs for the companion.
OP here
Just talked to him. He seems very interested in 7th Sea.
As I remember, Heroes can't be killed by Henchmen or Brutes, but only Villains. (Am i remembering correctly?) This should be a real boon when it comes to solo campaigns, yes?
>>45962968
I don't know the other two systems well enough to recommend, but solo D&D is alright if you pick a high-tier character class and do some moderate optimization. Most likely a Druid with a wand of Lesser Vigor in his pocket. Wizards are strong too.
The first couple levels will be dicey, because they always are. If you skip to level 3 or so, it should be pretty safe.
For a Druid, you're mostly casting Entangle and running past the problem (or slowly picking them apart with a crossbow). Once you get wildshape, you get a lot of utility for bypassing problems: I'm particularly fond of burrowing creatures.
For a Wizard, you're mostly casting Color Spray/Web/Solid Fog/Black Tentacles and running past the problem (or slowly picking them apart with a crossbow). The giant pile of utility spells that some people obsess over are important here too.
Bump
Anyone who played a 1 player campaign, what is it like?
I imagine they develops much more immersion than regular ones, more story, less combat. More relationships to NPCs.
And, is this a viable option to rope someone into RPGs? Like, convince them to try a short campaign or a few oneshots 1v1, then invite them to a bigger party?
I ask because I am trying to find players for something like this but most people I've played with have no experience or even know anything about D&D and the likes. So I thought I get a few people try it out and if they like it invite them into my group.
>>45963181
There are rules in DW for a solo marine. Suggests having him attached to the lower power systems like RT or whathaveyou or running 1 man missions where a scalpel is more appropriate than a hammer.
>>45965737
Yes and no. It doesn't mean that you're striding down the street swinging a huge cock around deflecting arrows and ignoring knives in the back. It's more like a cinematic angle; you could still be knocked out/kidnapped/tied up/etc. It just means that the next worse possible thing INSTEAD of dying is still valid.
>>45966860
I think 1on1 and gm on group games have fundamentally different dynamics. If you learn to play in 1 on 1 then you're probably going to be knocked askew if you want your character to do something alone but it's not viable since it'd leave the other players bored.
Just dump 'em in the group. If they enjoy it they'll manage fine, otherwise it wasn't for them.
>>45962968
I think 1v1 is for ERP.
>>45967017
I mentioned those to him.
He lol'd.
>>45966860
I like them, could be a good starting point with people who are socially anxious, since they learn the game and then meet the people.
But if you have more than one candidate that can function normally on a group of new people I would say that a game with all of them is better than various one on one games.
>>45967748
I thought about it more like giving them one or two introductory sessions so they have a clue how the game works and to familiarize themselves with their character. Like playing the backstory for each new player separately up to the point where they meet the party.
>>45967918
Oh, I see, then I think it's okay. Probably the most reasonable thing to do.
7th sea, first edition. Use some houserules and extra points to make a competent character, then go hog wild.
We used 1 on 1 sessions to make the prologue for our 7th sea chars in my newest campaign and it was awesome.
>>45968339
>Use some houserules and extra points to make a competent character, then go hog wild.
Is there something about it (the system or character creation) that's broken?
Also I'm not sure if I have first edition. It was printed in 1999. That's all I know.
>>45969457
Bump because I need to know. Like, a burning, burning need.
IT BURNS!
Sorry for the faggy bumps
GURPS works really well as a wargame.
>>45972495
The only thing that's faggy is your refusal to ERP with your friend.
Idk if this would be the best thread to ask this but the 3.5 general thread is dead so yeah.
So I haven't really played 3.5 in a year so I've forgotten a fair chunk of the rules (transferred to 5e since it is newer and, in my opinion, better). However, a group of old friends wanted me to join in their 3.5 game which stats in a week, so I started rereading up on the rules to be prepared. My DM wanted to know what I would be playing and I remembered I really liked the thought of playing the dread necromancer class but never got the chance to, so I told her that's what I was gonna be playing.
Now here is the problem. Though I remember I wanted to play the class, I can't remember how I built the class to make it effective. I'm tempted to switch to fighter, since that's what I played the most in 3.5, but I don't want to tell her I changed my character plan unless I need to.
So In short, could I get help building an effective dread necromancer? Or should I just bite the bullet and tell her a changed my mind? It doesn't have to be optimized, just good enough to not die and be able to help in combat effectively at low to mid levels.
>>45977435
The only thing I remember about Dread Necromancer is that a Necropolitan with a level of Tainted Scholar can get an arbitrarily high casting stat and stupid unbeatable DCs.
