Hero One on One?

[Eisenmann]

Hi all,

 

I'm thinking about using Fantasy Hero Complete for a game where it's one GM and one player. Anyone doing or done it? Any tips and tweaks to better suit such a setup?

[Joe Walsh]

I haven't run FHC one-on-one, but I have done Hero one-on-one plenty of times, from 2e to 6e.

 

As with any one-on-one RPG campaign, make sure the PC has the skills and resources necessary to survive in the campaign. Point-based systems like Hero make that pretty easy.

 

Don't put the PC in deadly situations all alone without realizing that, hey, if the PC loses consciousness, it's all over unless the bad guys/monsters/whatever decide to keep the hero alive for some reason (a well you can't go back to every time).

 

One or more friendly NPCs can make a huge difference in some campaigns, but of course there's the danger of the NPCs overshadowing the PC so you have to be thoughtful about it.

 

In some genres, such as dungeon crawl, it may be a good idea to let the player run multiple PCs if they're up to it.

 

It's not Hero-specific, but there was a good column on RPG.net about running one-on-one campaigns that you may find useful: http://www.rpg.net/columns/list-column.phtml?colname=duets

[Christopher R Taylor]

There are some great scenarios that only work with one character - mostly inspired by books, so that's a real option.  I've run D&D with my brother one (and he as GM with me) on one a lot, although we played multiple characters.  Haven't done it for years.

[Altair]

So, most of what I've run as GM are single-player games. I probably have hours of experience in the triple digits (man, where's the time gone?), though none of it would be in HERO. Having said that, here's my 2 CP.

 

OBSERVATION 1: Role-Playing Games are inherently a dynamic medium; nowhere is this more true than in the 1-on-1 game.

 

I'm a writer/artist/amateur voice actor, who runs games for a System Architect with significant Project Management experience. It is probably unsurprising then, that these games tend to contain a very proactive protagonist, getting into positions of power, and dealing with a large array of colorful characters. 

 

If the player was more shy, or had a greater desire for tactical combat, or an allergic reaction to their character taking on social responsibilities, the games would be quite different. And they should be! Dynamism. 

 

OBSERVATION 2: Even though there's only 1 PC, that doesn't mean they won't wind up with allies. 

 

This is, of course, dependent on the character, but even video game protagonists - those bastions of going it alone - tend to have robust supporting casts. My favorite "lone wolf solves world's problems by skulking about" game in recent memory (The excellent Dishonored) gives its protagonist some recurring support characters, as well as your classic dependents.

 

I guess the thing I'm getting at here is, as a GM, be prepared to create a supporting cast worthy of the main character. It can be fun, and often skews closer to traditional narratives than an RPG party tends to. 

 

OBSERVATION 3: The GM's in-game workload will be significantly increased 

 

In a traditional, party-based RPG, the players talk to one another, make plans, banter, quarrel and so on. In matters of mechanical resolution, you have a lot of PCs with the capability of affecting the world. Whittle that down to just one, and in a practical sense, this cuts down on the time that the GM isn't talking. This has a couple effects that really hit me:

• You're now talking all the time. Dehydration can be a genuine problem - so hydrate accordingly
• There's a lot less "down time," so your ability to think and act on your feet will get a workout.

It can make games feel really vibrant - after all, less down time means that you're spending more time in the game - but don't be afraid to stop and take a breath every now and again. Also, for the sake of your sanity, get a hold of a giant pile of pre-generated characters of various sorts, so that you have them when you need them.

 

OBSERVATION 4: The Player's in-game workload will be significantly increased 

 

Obvious, and perhaps it goes without saying, but if your player tends to be a wallflower type, or likes playing the quiet, skulky sort, the game might grind to a sudden and unexpected halt.  Might seem obvious, but it's worth talking about character concepts before the game starts.

 

I could go on and on, but those are the big ones. I hope that they are in some way useful, based as they are on my own experiences.

 

What kind of campaign are you thinking of? What kind of character do you think you'll get? 

 

Best of luck with the new game!

[Eisenmann]

Thanks for the feedback, guys. I've run a lot of one-on-one games with a good number of different systems. I do have to re-read my copy of Fantasy Hero Complete, but I was wondering if there are specific game options that I should select to make this sort of game flow better. Things like how to handle mooks, is there an obvious (to Hero experts) shorthand for hirelings, guru ideas for streamlining, things like that.

[Altair]

Rock. 

 

I will say that this thread (starting at page 2) is chock-full of advice on how to make GMing combat less brain-intensive, and might have some tips  on streamlining you'd like.  

 

What I've seen elsewhere on this board, and have found satisfying in my own tinkering, is abstracting mook BOD & STUN to roughly "one good hit." Somebody takes a hit? They're down. Obviously, salt to taste, but I've found that to be useful. For hirelings, what role are you looking for them to fill? Are they around to carry Real Adventurers' stuff? Are they skilled mercenaries, able to provide combat assistance above and beyond what the player can bring to bear? Are they large numbers of unskilled peasants with crossbows? 

 

Hireling can mean a lot of different things. 

[procyon]

Just to add to the "The GM's Workload will be increased" thought.

It sounds like you haven't spent a lot of time running Fantasy Hero.

You will want to make sure that you have the system down cold and know the adventure you want to run forwards/backwards - as any 'downtime' on your part is not going to be filled in with player banter and discussions.  If you have to spend much time at all looking through books or browsing on your laptop - it is going to have a big impact in the flow of play.

 

If you are waiting while the player wrestles with a huge decsion - that is angst.

If they are waiting for you to look something up - that's boredom...

[Eisenmann]

I'm thinking about a low fantasy sandbox. Hirelings will be in the vein of old school D&D; porters, torch bearers, some extra muscle when needed, etc. I suspect that the full nature of how they play out in the game will likely match my competency in running and other constraints related to Hero itself.

[Tech]

It'll work but the GM and player have to come up with alot of NPC people to populate the world: the GM for villains and allies, the player for possible people he/she has met in the past or recently met or even enemies that the character may (or may not) be aware of.  This helps solidify the game because the player knows some of the people that will be met eventually. The player is the star and everything does revolve around him. Allowing the player to achieve some big goals, such as becoming an archmage/knight/master rogue (not rouge as so often incorrectly spelled), become famous, etc.

[Altair]

 Master Rouge - King of Cosmetics.   

 

I dunno man, that'd be worth shooting for.

[Nemblamenchisus]

 Master Rouge - King of Cosmetics.   

 

I dunno man, that'd be worth shooting for.

or perhaps my favorite villian (sic)

Scarlet Rouge

[bluesguy]

I'm thinking about a low fantasy sandbox. Hirelings will be in the vein of old school D&D; porters, torch bearers, some extra muscle when needed, etc. I suspect that the full nature of how they play out in the game will likely match my competency in running and other constraints related to Hero itself.

This could be a fun game.  If you set the game in a city then playing a rogue type character would be perfect.  You just need to create scenarios where if the PC is in combat that if there are a bunch of opponents they are easy to put down - one good hit and a PC might be stunned or knocked out and then that would be the end of that character.

 

I could see spying, stealing, infiltrating, etc being a big part of the game.

[rjcurrie]

This could be a fun game.  If you set the game in a city then playing a rogue type character would be perfect.  You just need to create scenarios where if the PC is in combat that if there are a bunch of opponents they are easy to put down - one good hit and a PC might be stunned or knocked out and then that would be the end of that character.

 

I could see spying, stealing, infiltrating, etc being a big part of the game.

Combat Luck would be a good ability for a solo character.

 

Plus, it might be worth creating a "Hard to Stun" talent (4 points for a +5 CON [Only to prevent the character from being stunned, -1/4]).

[zslane]

If the PC hardly ever gets Stunned, KO'ed or seriously hurt (maybe even killed), where is the sense of danger? Where is the challenge? When nothing important is at stake, victory/success ceases to have any meaning.

[Altair]

If the PC doesn't have anything important at stake besides avoiding physical injury, that can be just as true. 

 

Again, I recommend John Rodgers' excellent (if not perfectly SFW) blog post on writing action scenes. In an action film, we know the hero's not going to die - we've seen them do stuff in the trailer that hasn't happened yet - so how can there be any tension in an action scene? The short version is that if the only tension in an action scene is whether or not the main character dies, then it's poorly written, and we can do better. On the other hand, if you're going for a gygaxian high-fatality, low-character attachment dungeon crawl, then immediate danger is one of your best tools.

 

All depends on the type of game you're going for. 

[zslane]

You have a point.

 

By the same token, if what is at stake has nothing to do with physical peril, then any action sequences that appear to put the protagonist in physical peril are irrelevent and a waste of time. In fact, I would argue that all those action movies you refer to are actually quite uninteresting during those sequences in which the heroes are supposed to be in danger (but aren't because they have Plot Immunity and we, the viewers, know it).

 

I guess I don't see the point of nerfing all the combat mechanics just to avoid their normal reprecussions when simply avoiding the dramatically-irrelevent combat in the first place does the trick even better (and saves a lot of wasted playing time to boot).

[Altair]

So, there's this discussion regarding how to make Superman interesting. Many like the character, though I am not usually one, for many of the reasons you list. "Superman is in a fight Gee, I wonder if he'll be ok?" - said pretty much nobody ever. If he action scene has one goal/two outcomes (Supes wants to win/survive; he either does or does not), then it's dull as anything. Of course he'll survive, he's Superman.

 

But, if the goals are:

• Get Information From the Villain (hopefully through polite questioning post-apprehension)
• Rescue Jimmy Olson
• Prevent Civilian Casualties
• Keep Cute Coffee Shop Intact for Upcoming Date With Lois

... then we have a lot of different potential outcomes. Supes could rescue Olson and prevent any other casualties, but lets the villain get away in the process, he could get everything right but lose the coffee shop, he could have to choose between Jimmy and a couple other bystanders, etc. 

 

Basically, the idea is that Superman's physical peril is the least interesting thing we could be paying attention to. So, we pay attention to other things, which are actually in question. 

 

To bring things back on point, for an old-school, D&D-style sandbox game like the OP is planning, personal physical peril is an integral part of that classic setup, and is likely to feature pretty heavily. IMO, HERO is a great option for that style in a single player game; its tendencies towards PC survival mean that your player doesn't necessarily need a stack of characters ready to replace their fallen hero - provided they hire competent assistants to drag their incapacitated body back to town

 

Normally, I'd be pretty leery about the chances of that type of game succeeding in a 1-on-1 setting; after all, if the PC dies, there's no party for them to meet back up with, yes? It's a TPK. Hero's bias toward survivability tilts that math in the PC's favor.

 

Though if I were them, I'd be asking the OP if the resurrection power is ok in their world, just in case. 

 

(Tangentially related: hot diggity, do I adore how relatively cheap self-resurrection is in this game! It's very exciting to me.)