|
Post by robosnake on Apr 27, 2016 17:05:37 GMT
I thought this episode was really interesting, in part because my start in RPGs was in small group games. I picked up Dangerous Journeys, the game Gary Gygax wrote after he left TSR, from a local bookstore. Read through it many times, and then tried running games for my friends, almost always for one friend at a time. Even later in my gaming, it was usually with one or maybe two friends playing AD&D or GURPS or West End Star Wars. So for years, basically until college, my experience with RPGs was with one or two players. For me it was weird to work on skills to have three or four or more players, since I was used to spotlighting a single protagonist. We ripped off ideas from novels we liked a lot, since those often had a single protagonist and a cast of characters around him or her, and that kind of storyline fit perfectly with the campaigns we were running.
My experience was that we got through far more story in a given session with one player than with a group, and I ended up having to improvise a lot more because it was hard to plan that far ahead. Also, I find one player to be more unpredictable than four. With a party, they'll discuss things and make group decisions, and the crazy ideas will often be walked back. With one PC, they can just go do whatever comes to mind, no matter how crazy, and there's no one (except the NPCs, who they'll ignore of course) to tell them otherwise. They set their own agenda and pursue it however they choose.
In some ways, I miss it. I like having more than one player because getting together with a group of friends is awesome, but I miss the intensity and focus of those one-player games.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2016 3:42:42 GMT
My favorite part of the 'sode was Jeff's anecdote at the end, about looking at two-player games being the default for collaborative storytelling in RPGs. Some of my favorite memories of gaming were when a friend and I were learning 4e in preparation of a group game. The point was to learn the system, so that when the full group got together, our combined knowledge would make for smooth gameplay. However, we didn't just test discrete systems, we treated it as a "normal" game in every respect, with each of us handling two characters.
He moved to another city awhile ago, but in the coming weeks, we're planning to get together for a marathon two-day, two-player game of 5e. I'm looking forward to it more than any other game in the last two years.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2016 20:01:49 GMT
So I finally had that 1 on 1 game earlier this week, and it went great! We put in over 20 hours of gaming over the course of two days. I was technically the DM, but it was a highly collaborative event. My friend helped me flesh out one of the largely undeveloped areas in my homebrew setting as part of his characters' backgrounds.
The basic setup was for us to both play 2 PCs. He did a ranger (hunter) and bard (lore), while I played a barbarian (totem) and cleric (light). We ran through a mixture of my own content and some published adventures heavily modified for my setting, including a couple Adventurer's League Expeditions. We went from level 1 to 4.
We're planning on doing it again later this year, with most of the content from this point forward derived from Princes of the Apocalypse. It'll be heavily modified to account for setting and plot, but the basic structure of that adventure path will be the same.
All in all, it was an overwhelmingly positive experience. I seem to recall Jeff saying something about there being so many 2-player games for every other genre that it's baffling there's a stigma or other resistance to doing 2-player D&D. If he didn't, I'm saying it now. It's awesome if you have the right friend to do it with.
|
|