Do you have any thoughts on GMing for only a single player and how it differentiates from GMing for a more typical multi-player group?
I have run what I refer to as 'One-on-One' campaigns, games involving a Gamemaster and a Single Player, quite a few times over the years. Some of them lasted a decently long time. Among the most memorable ones were a Dungeons & Dragons 3E (Modified and Houseruled) with my ex-wife Selina, two separate classic Traveller campaigns (the 2nd of which lasted almost 3 years of nearly daily play) also with Selina, and a FASA Star Trek game with my friend David Concepcion. The late, great Dave Cotton and I had a One-on-One campaign of sorts, although it was more like a series of six One-on-One adventure sessions united by the same character and setting but split across a two year period.
To me, the essence of Tabletop Roleplaying Games is the dynamic between the player or players and the Gamemaster. In this relationship, I tend to default to thinking like and being the GM. However, I have also been a GM who focuses on the players' fun. As I said to a friend and player of mine recently, "[At the most basic level] I am going to have fun as the GM regardless, so my goal to make sure all the players have a good time."
Let's be honest, [as the GM] I am getting to do what I love doing. I'm world-building, following established and emerging narratives, getting to create and portray NPCs, etc. That's just what the GM does and that's why I enjoy doing. Any real effort on my part is in making sure everyone participating is having as much fun as I am. Unless of course I am not having fun. It certainly happens. Some flaw in the way I've set things up, the players not liking what I'm dishing out definitely occurs from time to time. My approach to the next attempt remains pretty much the same, focus on the players fun as mine is just going to come naturally if [mostly] everything lands.
With a single player and GM situation, this is easier to accomplish. If you really get that one person and they get you, the rest is a piece of cake. You know that if you two are generally on the same page, things will move a lot more smoothly. That said, One-on-One games do come with their own challenges. The most notable of which is that, depending on how you prep and execute your games, it can be a lot of work for the Gamemaster. You aren't just the NPCs, the World, and the arbitrator of the rules...you're Everything and Everybody.
Normally there would be other Player Character's interacting with what is now the singular 'main character' and that doesn't just mean banter and conversation. The lone PC only has certain skills and abilities and if you want them to be able to go on traditional adventures, they are going to need a team to go with them. The GM is no longer just the NPCs the Party meets, the GM is the Party! And those they meet. And everything else a GM always is.
Not going to lie, that can be alot, even for someone like me who thrives on that kind of thing. Is it worth it? I believe it is. I believe it SOOO is. Seriously, some of my best games have been One-on-One and here's the twist; I've had a number of One-on-One campaigns turn into regular ones. With David Concepcion's Star Trek: Renown campaign, people would overhear us playing, if not straight up listen in, and ask if they could join. A few of my Winghorn Guard/Aerth/D&D-But-Not games went this way as well.
All in all, I think its a wonderful endeavor but you've got to prepare yourself. It can be tricky and it can wear you out but based on my own experiences, One-on-One games can really be great fun.
Barking Alien
No comments:
Post a Comment