Probably the easiest would be taking a page from computer games/mmo with a simple “fetch” quest or a bartender says something is making noise in the Tavern’s cellar. the fetch could be someone left an item near a pond where they were picnicking but can’t go back. So the adventurer goes, maybe encounters a wolf or two along the way. Then at the pond a couple bandits found the item and the adventurer has to deal with it (fighting or RPing it out). You can make it more involved if you need to flesh it out more. Edit: Maybe the bandit is a treasure Hunter and the item in question is a “key” to a hidden treasure. And it can go from there to extend the adventure.
I don’t know, something like that. Or maybe they stumble upon a small village being plagued by kolbold attacks and they have to investigate why.
There’s lots of little things you could run to ease into it. Just don’t try to come up with some grand twisting story arc. Save those for later when you have some experience.
if you can, I'd actually recommend finding a copy of Lost Mines of Phandelver. The first part of the adventure, which involves investigating a goblin cave in the woods, is a good introduction to the game and works as a one-shot all on its own... plus if you and your player get really attached to the game you now have a full adventure you can continue to play through.
For a single-player adventure, I actually recommend just letting the player control multiple characters in combat. The adventure is balanced for a team of 3 or 4, and includes a few pre-generated characters. So I would say have the player actively control just one character at all times, have the other two as NPCs, then when combat rolls around the player controls two characters and you control the other one (I'm assuming you're the DM in this scenario). But the game largely is built for groups of characters and doesn't hold up quite as well with a single adventurer... it's doable, but not ideal. But the DM is already controlling every single NPC and enemy throughout the game... I don't think it's too much of an ask to have the player control both the Fighter and the Cleric once combat rolls around.
Personally, I wouldn't use a published adventure (at least, not from WotC). In the adventure that did give guidance on how to adapt it to different party sizes, it was pretty poor at doing so. It wasn't terrible, but there was a definite sweet spot for having a party of four or five. The further you got from that, the less it balanced the encounters well - it was easier for larger parties and harder for smaller ones (just not as extreme as not adjusting at all). Also, having one character severely limits the abilities of the party in a way that having two or three doesn't - at least not anywhere near as much.
I'd also recommend against having too many characters per player. It's a lot harder to keep things straight, to track things, and also to get into the characters themselves. Obviously, it depends on the players on how many they can handle, but we had the player have a their main character, then a sidekick and the DM played a character - although they didn't really take part in the roleplaying etc. They were just there to provide some extra firepower in fights, really. the next campaign we tried doing a full party - it sucked. We just couldn't get into our characters, fights became a flaff because we kept having to switch etc. It was like having two DMs - which is not great. I'd recommend at most a second character for the player and a character for the DM, purely to provide extra utility. They don't form plans or take the spotlight. I occasionally used my character as a mouthpiece to prompt the player if they were stuck, but otherwise, he was there to blast Orcs.
Perhaps there is an adventure on DMsGuild that is designed for one-player. I think that's better than trying to mess around with boosting the player's team or making the monsters easier etc.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Who has a suggestion for a one-shot or short adventure to run for one player as a means to both introduce a new player and ease in a new DM?
Probably the easiest would be taking a page from computer games/mmo with a simple “fetch” quest or a bartender says something is making noise in the Tavern’s cellar.
the fetch could be someone left an item near a pond where they were picnicking but can’t go back. So the adventurer goes, maybe encounters a wolf or two along the way. Then at the pond a couple bandits found the item and the adventurer has to deal with it (fighting or RPing it out). You can make it more involved if you need to flesh it out more. Edit: Maybe the bandit is a treasure Hunter and the item in question is a “key” to a hidden treasure. And it can go from there to extend the adventure.
I don’t know, something like that. Or maybe they stumble upon a small village being plagued by kolbold attacks and they have to investigate why.
There’s lots of little things you could run to ease into it. Just don’t try to come up with some grand twisting story arc. Save those for later when you have some experience.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Thanks for the tips! Much appreciated.
if you can, I'd actually recommend finding a copy of Lost Mines of Phandelver. The first part of the adventure, which involves investigating a goblin cave in the woods, is a good introduction to the game and works as a one-shot all on its own... plus if you and your player get really attached to the game you now have a full adventure you can continue to play through.
For a single-player adventure, I actually recommend just letting the player control multiple characters in combat. The adventure is balanced for a team of 3 or 4, and includes a few pre-generated characters. So I would say have the player actively control just one character at all times, have the other two as NPCs, then when combat rolls around the player controls two characters and you control the other one (I'm assuming you're the DM in this scenario). But the game largely is built for groups of characters and doesn't hold up quite as well with a single adventurer... it's doable, but not ideal. But the DM is already controlling every single NPC and enemy throughout the game... I don't think it's too much of an ask to have the player control both the Fighter and the Cleric once combat rolls around.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Personally, I wouldn't use a published adventure (at least, not from WotC). In the adventure that did give guidance on how to adapt it to different party sizes, it was pretty poor at doing so. It wasn't terrible, but there was a definite sweet spot for having a party of four or five. The further you got from that, the less it balanced the encounters well - it was easier for larger parties and harder for smaller ones (just not as extreme as not adjusting at all). Also, having one character severely limits the abilities of the party in a way that having two or three doesn't - at least not anywhere near as much.
I'd also recommend against having too many characters per player. It's a lot harder to keep things straight, to track things, and also to get into the characters themselves. Obviously, it depends on the players on how many they can handle, but we had the player have a their main character, then a sidekick and the DM played a character - although they didn't really take part in the roleplaying etc. They were just there to provide some extra firepower in fights, really. the next campaign we tried doing a full party - it sucked. We just couldn't get into our characters, fights became a flaff because we kept having to switch etc. It was like having two DMs - which is not great. I'd recommend at most a second character for the player and a character for the DM, purely to provide extra utility. They don't form plans or take the spotlight. I occasionally used my character as a mouthpiece to prompt the player if they were stuck, but otherwise, he was there to blast Orcs.
Perhaps there is an adventure on DMsGuild that is designed for one-player. I think that's better than trying to mess around with boosting the player's team or making the monsters easier etc.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.