Gregor was round at my house a couple of nights ago and we were talking about the games of Solipsist I'd been running with small numbers of players, and I was saying that I'd much preferred 1 or 3 player groups, as opposed to 2. 2 players is uncomfortable because it can become a head to head conflict of visions, whereas with more players there are many more combinations of world views, and therefore less inter-player competition.
However most interesting of all so far has been 1 player (well 1 player and 1 GM), where the game becomes basically a kind of extended world creation, with character creation thrown in, as the world we are all familiar with mutates into the world of the character's Vision, detail by detail.
Now I've noticed that 2-player games seem to be increasingly popular right now. I see a lot of people asking about them on Story Games, and there were a few such designs in Game Chef as well, as well as discussion about such things. Is this just a brief fad, or something more interesting in terms of collaborative storytelling? Is it just because many games designers have no friends? :)
Fiction
Submitted by Neil Gow on Mon, 02/06/2008 - 09:14.
It could well be that our assumptions about the 'best' size of RP group is more based around an archetype of gaming drawn from its larger-group wargaming past. If we look at the fiction that the games draw their inspiration from, we see a whole slew of double acts in the midst of a scant handful of ensemble groups. 'Buddy' properties are everywhere - Fafrd and Grey Mouser, Elric and Moonglum, Rincewind and Twoflower, Kirk and Spock, Han and Chewie, Sharpe and Harper, Sapphire and Steel, Crockett and Tubbs, Batman and Robin etc. Thats a bona fide slice of genre that people will want to emulate but that only really works in a strictly two-player game (plus GM for adversity)
I think that gaining clarity of vision comes from having a clear agreed framework of the game already established before the game begins. Joint world building, authoring key NPCs, establishing personal and global goals - it all builds towards getting everyone involved in the game 'on message' and keeping the drama in the fiction and not at the table.
And now the inevitable plug. Duty & Honour has, as one of the facets of it's design, this sort of play at its heart! It's built so that you can easily play Sharpe and Harper. If it didn't it would be very foolish!
neil
Take the King's shilling at http://www.omnihedron.co.uk/dutyandhonour/
That's a very good
Submitted by David Donachie on Mon, 02/06/2008 - 10:08.
That's a very good observation, but in fact I think the brave twosomes are far outnumbered by the lone heros. So surely the biggest field of all should be for 1 player + 1 GM, as the imagination-rich extension of all those solo adventure books?
It's a far more intimate type of RPG though, just one on one time with another person, which makes it's social placing more tricky. It's easy to do with email though
http://www.solipsist-rpg.com/
Social
Submitted by Neil Gow on Mon, 02/06/2008 - 10:17.
Thats true, but in the end roleplaying is meant to be a social experience as well. I've known some people have some very successful one-on-one games but they have always been called 'intense' and 'intimate' and 'highly focussed'. If you want something a little more expansive than that, or a little more loosey goosey, it might be difficult. I imagine that you will churn through the game material far quicker as well, which could be an issue for some GMs.
Both 1-on-1 or 2-on-1 games also address another factor of the developing hobby and thats the aging gamer. As we get older, our ability to meet consistently in groups of 4,5 or more begins to get harder. Families and work begin to eat at our time. Having games designed for smaller groups, but also for ongoing play, could be a reaction to that contraction.
The other side of that argument is that rather than looking to the older gamers, we look to the fresh gamers. If you RP with your kids, you have a very fixed gaming group to work with. I NEED a game with two players to play with my two girls. If you are a newly awoken to the hobby teenager, you might only have one or two like-minded friends and therefore a game which thanks you for such a small group could give a very positive introduction to the hobby.
Neil
(ps. And this links nicely to the conversations some of us were having about having at least one kiddie-friendly game on the stall, which might be another thread!)
Take the King's shilling at http://www.omnihedron.co.uk/dutyandhonour/
Well when I was growing up
Submitted by David Donachie on Mon, 02/06/2008 - 11:15.
Well when I was growing up as an only child I played one on one with my (long suffering) Dad when I first discovered RPGs but had no gaming friends to play with.
Later, of course, I did find others to play with at school, but that was never a 2-person thing, that wouldn't have crossed my mind, i think, despite the fun I'd had playing with my Dad (which was a nice inverse of the stories he had told me as a younger child). It was all about those median groups of 3 or 4 players + a GM.
At University I found most games went the other way, groaning their way towards unweildy 6-9 player games that were driven by the lack of people willing to GM compared to those wanting to play.
Now though, as you say, it can be hard to organize even 3 other people to meet regularly for a game, and the thought of 6+ outside a LARP seems pretty much impossible, so yes, it is natural to start sliding down the size scale again for that reason, and I note a lot of Indie games, designed by people in my age bracket, lean towards the smaller sizes as well.
http://www.solipsist-rpg.com/