Hi all, I'm looking for advice on duet (one DM, one player) adventures, ideally starting at 1st level. We'd play on Roll20 -- although in-person, not on tabletop -- so the battlemaps should be digital and high-res. Many thanks in advance for any guidance you can give.
This distills a lot of the main considerations, I particularly like the idea of a NPC sidekick who can serve as a sounding board giving the PC space to figure out a course of action.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I am getting ready to introduce my gf to DnD with a duet campaign and would love any other resources people can offer. From my own little bit of research these folks have a site and some products devoted to the concept.
I am in the middle of a one player - one DM campaign. I asked the DM to create a campaign for a second son of a noble, a son that will not inherit the title but would be expected to paly an important part in the Noble's court. Then I asked that it be designed for the party of the Noble Born Paladin, his best friend, a Cleric, an Herald (Bard) recommended as a companion by the Cleric, and a Ranger recommended to the Cleric by the Bard. They all begin as level 1 characters departing the "central" city. The paladin knows the Cleric as his best friend. The Cleric knows the Bard as a friend. The Bard knows the Ranger as a best friend. So much of the early PC interaction is getting to know each other. The DM just creates a story around that theme.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
My first suggestion would be to not use DnD. The game shines in tactical combat and suffers in narrative. A one on one game will naturally focus much more on the character's interactions with their world and have far less options for tactics.
With that out of the way, I suggest having a second character. Use the sidekick rules or make them a full fledged PC; either way, use them to interact with the main character and, rarely, with other NPCs, turning over control of them to the player during combat. If a situation arises where they have to interact with other NPCs at length, have the player take over the character or the NPCs as appropriate.
Also, engage the player in worldbuilding. This also applies with more than one player, but it's more important when you have only one. Don't describe the tavern to them, ask them to describe something about it.
Also, engage the player in worldbuilding. This also applies with more than one player, but it's more important when you have only one. Don't describe the tavern to them, ask them to describe something about it.
I like this suggestion quite a bit and will make more of an effort with it than I have in the past with bigger groups of players. When one player is the full focus it seems to really lend itself to this.
I also fully agree on the second character suggestion. I think that is really important to the enjoyment of the player I am looking to introduce to the game. Wandering the world alone sounds fun for a time but like something that would get old quickly.
I ran a campaign that both reached completion, lasted more than 2 years, and had only one player. My advice would be:
Play D&D
Have a 2-man party - the PC and a GMPC
Never allow the GMPC to steal the spotlight - she's there for story purposes, comic relief, and to administer healing if the PC falls
For that reason, have the GMPC be a rogue that can get out of combat in a pinch - stealth out of combat, return to administer potions
Unless you know the person already, be prepared for such a game to fail a number of times before it succeeds
That said, it's a unique playstyle. A single player requires zero balancing, so can become as powerful as makes any sense. Or not, depending on the focus of the game. But, well, in my game, that PC ended up having the option to ascend to godhood. And chose differently, as an aside.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
I've done this some and I really like what everyone has to say about it. I think the one solid piece of advice I can give is that in a single-player game it's more important than usual for the DM to keep the world around them active. In a party, the PCs are all dealing with each other's junk, and those developing stories help the world seem alive. In a single-player setup, the player has nothing to get nosey about except their own problems and the entire rest of the world, which is the DM.
I think detailed world building in advance is overrated, but you can't let the established stuff remain static. The DM needs to put real, focused brain-time between sessions considering the people and places the PC cares about and what they're up to.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hi all, I'm looking for advice on duet (one DM, one player) adventures, ideally starting at 1st level. We'd play on Roll20 -- although in-person, not on tabletop -- so the battlemaps should be digital and high-res. Many thanks in advance for any guidance you can give.
This distills a lot of the main considerations, I particularly like the idea of a NPC sidekick who can serve as a sounding board giving the PC space to figure out a course of action.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
How about Beowulf Age of Heroes by Handiwork Games - designed exactly for what you want. Not you standard 5e but based on the same rules though.
I am getting ready to introduce my gf to DnD with a duet campaign and would love any other resources people can offer. From my own little bit of research these folks have a site and some products devoted to the concept.
https://dndduet.com/
I am in the middle of a one player - one DM campaign. I asked the DM to create a campaign for a second son of a noble, a son that will not inherit the title but would be expected to paly an important part in the Noble's court. Then I asked that it be designed for the party of the Noble Born Paladin, his best friend, a Cleric, an Herald (Bard) recommended as a companion by the Cleric, and a Ranger recommended to the Cleric by the Bard. They all begin as level 1 characters departing the "central" city. The paladin knows the Cleric as his best friend. The Cleric knows the Bard as a friend. The Bard knows the Ranger as a best friend. So much of the early PC interaction is getting to know each other. The DM just creates a story around that theme.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
My first suggestion would be to not use DnD. The game shines in tactical combat and suffers in narrative. A one on one game will naturally focus much more on the character's interactions with their world and have far less options for tactics.
With that out of the way, I suggest having a second character. Use the sidekick rules or make them a full fledged PC; either way, use them to interact with the main character and, rarely, with other NPCs, turning over control of them to the player during combat. If a situation arises where they have to interact with other NPCs at length, have the player take over the character or the NPCs as appropriate.
Also, engage the player in worldbuilding. This also applies with more than one player, but it's more important when you have only one. Don't describe the tavern to them, ask them to describe something about it.
I like this suggestion quite a bit and will make more of an effort with it than I have in the past with bigger groups of players. When one player is the full focus it seems to really lend itself to this.
I also fully agree on the second character suggestion. I think that is really important to the enjoyment of the player I am looking to introduce to the game. Wandering the world alone sounds fun for a time but like something that would get old quickly.
I ran a campaign that both reached completion, lasted more than 2 years, and had only one player. My advice would be:
That said, it's a unique playstyle. A single player requires zero balancing, so can become as powerful as makes any sense. Or not, depending on the focus of the game. But, well, in my game, that PC ended up having the option to ascend to godhood. And chose differently, as an aside.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
I did a 3-shot with my DM to get a better handle on a character I was playing in a different campaign.
Expect combat to be more narrative, not relying so much on damage rolls.
I've done this some and I really like what everyone has to say about it. I think the one solid piece of advice I can give is that in a single-player game it's more important than usual for the DM to keep the world around them active. In a party, the PCs are all dealing with each other's junk, and those developing stories help the world seem alive. In a single-player setup, the player has nothing to get nosey about except their own problems and the entire rest of the world, which is the DM.
I think detailed world building in advance is overrated, but you can't let the established stuff remain static. The DM needs to put real, focused brain-time between sessions considering the people and places the PC cares about and what they're up to.