Hiyas!

I, unfortunately, only have one player to GM in Rogue Trader - fortunately, he chose to be the Rogue Trader!

Have you guys/gals had this situation & if so, how didya handle it?

Thanks!

L

It...is typically discouraged, honestly. It usually doesn't end very well, or is just very awkward. You might want to try visiting your local game store and posting for more players or something.

That being said, you work with what you've got. Good luck to you.

riplikash said:

Hiyas!

There is no "local game store" here, I live in a Death World that makes the Hazeroth Abyss look like God-Emperorland.

Thanks!

L

Well, as riplikash said, it is a very suboptimal situation.

If you still want to do it, you might want to think about - beware, great Heresy ahead - creating a GMPC . This way he has at least someone to always be by his side and aid him. Also giving him some extra starting xp would be good or he will often hit dead ends or major complications because of his lack of skills.

Why suboptimal?

It's actually - as I perceive it - a very interesting situation. There are two drawbacks here: lack of interaction with other players (but there's the GM) and social awkwardness. The first one is really a non-issue, since now the PC truly has to RP all social interactions, the second - well, it could be an issue, or not. Depends who your player is. If it's a close friend, good buddy, then I suppose there won't be an issue (although if you're the same sex, then either of you may trigger a homophobic response, or something). Since there is no local gaming shop, I'm assuming it to be the case.

Think of the possibilities:

- increased tension, as he's truly alone

- the skill deficit mentioned previously shouldn't be a problem - all the RT has to do is ask his people to do stuff for him... And since his players aren't co-operating co-players (and co-operation is sometimes enforced on the principle of fostering a coherent group, where situation would not make it that clear), loyalties aren't guaranteed.

- you truly can tailor the campaign to the player and play out all the nuances of his backstory

- possibly less distractions, more to-the-point gaming

Von Todkopf said:

It is considered sub-optimal because thousands of people have tried it and reported that it is suboptimal. Its fairly common knowledge.

Which isn't to say there are NO benefits, and the ones you brought up are included. I didn't say it was a disaster waiting to happen, and they it should never be attempted.

But it is sub-optimal. 1-on-1 games are almost never as good as group games, and the vast majority of them end in failure.

At the same time, I have known a few people who ran them successfully, and I ran a partially successful one myself. When you don't have more than one player, you work with what you have.

But if there is any chance of getting even ONE more player you should take it. 1-on-1 games just have a poor track record.

you could try to get a online player.

personally i never could get into the online play. in the online play you can't really simulate what happens in a flesh and bone group. you don't have the jokes, odd ball antics, and nothing to really fill the gap of warp travel. if you can only find 1 or 2 people, still better than none. been trying to get a group together for a while after are GM left.

riplikash said:

I hope your use of statistics does not mean that you're predicating about the success of this game? I.e. you're not indicating that it should not even be tried? You know, maybe this is the thousand first player, the one for whom this set-up will work? If they try it and it doesn't work - then yes, they should look for more players (starting with people known to both the GM and the player, etc.).

I copy-pasted this from another thread with a similar topic:

"I gathered a lot of experience in running RPG-campaigns with only one player. The most important advice I can give is to invest much more time in the creation of remarkable NPCs. As your player won't interact with other players, the whole interaction will take place between him/her and your NPCs – so your NPCs should be well prepared and highly elaborated with authentic backgrounds – especially the NPCs that accompany your player.

If you decide to give your player a team of NPC-companions, you should give those team-members really strong characters. Everyone of them should be unique in his behaviour and advice and they should all highly interfere in the happenings – don't let them be just puppets that just silently walk aside the player."

The advantage of Rogue Trader is that the player's power and influence does not depend on the number of PCs as your Rogue Trader has access to high resources and military forces. So the question if a single-player-campaign works is rather a question of social interaction...

Von Todkopf said:

If you read my entire post I clearly was NOT predicting the game to be a failure. I indicated it is "sub-optimal" and that there are significant hurtles to be overcome, and then said that if you only have one you work with what you have, good luck.

The previous post had some excellent advice. NPCs often are rather two dimensional compared to the PCs, but that is normally ok since the PCs supply mosto f the interaction. In a 1-on-1 game the NPCs really have to take center stage.

Another thing to be aware of is that a single PC rarely has enough good ideas to get through a tricky encounter, the best solutions come from group synergy. You don't want to dumb down the encounters, or have the NPCs offering up too much unwarranted advice, it makes the PC feel like their hand is being held.

What you are going to want to do is change the nature of the encounters from "success/failure" and "life/death" into a more "choose your own adventure" context. The player should be offered interesting decisions to make where there are multiple valid options that can change the direction of the story.

Next, the PC is going to need to be more well rounded and powerful, and much more competant than those surrounding him/her. This is OK as the PC is now always in the spotlight, they should be an exceptional individual (even more so than usual). Think about dropping XP requirements and providing numerous "elite advance" opportunities (non-class skills).

Remember, the class structure was designed with a group dynamic in mind, so that everyone would be well balanced and have a role. You need to tweak it to handle a single character.

Next is combat. Again, the system was designed for four to six people, and to not spend too long focusing on any one player. You want the exact opposite! And the combat needs to change accordingly. Invent some extra combat abilities for the PC to choose from that grant minor bonuses based on the situation. You may want to invent a talent that gives them an extra move each round, and an extra dodge.

You need combat to be more "granular". Tighter focused on the individuals action. You should encourage the player to describe his actions and tactics in greater detail, and do so for the opponents, granting bonuses and penalties based on the players input. Feel free to invent some extra combat abilities to spice up combat.

You also need to encourage the PC to use the enviroment more effectively. Prepare lavish descriptions of the locals and present plenty of interesting features. Things that explose, crevases, things to swing on, etc.

Lastly, even more so than in most RT games, your player should be encouraged to use his/her full resources. Troops, ships, vehicles, negotiaters, etc. This will allow you to keep a good epic pace. The player can accomplish a lot and feel powerful.

Again, good luck. It can work, it just takes a very different mindset, and a lot more preperation on the part of the GM.

Hey there, y'all!

Thanks for the suggestions!

L

hi

one player campain can be very interesting.

for some good advice take a look at this site:

http://www.rpg.net/columns/list-column.phtml?colname=duets