1 Player and 1 GM

[Easy E]

I'm was unsur ethe best place to put this, so here goes....

I was curious if anyone has tried running a campaign with 1 player and 1 GM. 

The player would have a set of PC's to choose from.  He would receive a mission brief from the GM, choose his PC's for the game, and decide what leads to follow which would lead to teh next missions.  The GM would set-up the mission, establish the setting,  and run the opponents/NPCs. 

The goal would not be competitive, but a more collaborative experience like an RPG in order to tell a story of the progress of an investigation/plot. 

Have you tried this approach before?  If so, what were some of the wins and opportunities using this model?  Was it fun? 

Thanks for your thoughts and feedback.     

[MarcoSkoll]

Yes, I have. Inquisitor doesn't work great as a PvE system, because its rules make all characters somewhat heroic - even a moderately statted NPC can take several hits before going down.
Of course, the NPC problem is partly addressed in the Architecture of Hate articles (and I've been working on my own solution for the Autumn Conclave...).

However, Inquisitor is great for PvP stuff, because it does have characters taking injury and being hindered, rather than just going until their hit points reach zero, but that's not so great when you just need some generic mooks who the player characters can deal with and then skip off happy rather than being nursing a hundred different wounds in the next game.

TL;DR: Inquisitor lets characters take hits that affect them in ways that aren't "dead or not dead", and actually taking a character out is quite hard. This is good for PvP, not so good for PvE. It can be done, but there are better options.

For PvE, an actual RPG system might work better. There are enough free ones out there...
(It's perhaps not great for this, but I recommend looking at Fudge)

[SpanielBear]

As it happens, most if not all the games of Inquisitor I have played have ended up being of this type, PvE that is. The fact that the game works so well as a framework for a narrative makes up for the hardness of mooks. As you say Marco, architecture of hate style mooks are a must, but in contrast big bads can be suitably cataclysmic.

You need a GM whose willing to be on the side of a narrative though. From my experience, the most memorable missions tend to be ones where the PC's are working against an environmental threat, rather than mooks alone. Taking down a strafing VTOL aircraft, evading snipers while moving through a skyscraper and breaking free of a compound besieged by zombies are ones that really stick in the mind.

An alternative for a GM with multiple players is to give one player the PC's and the other control of the mooks, while the GM "monitors" dice rolls and provides a scenario. The Mook player gets a briefing from the GM as to his characters intentions, leaving the PC's free to provide characters to the narrative. It's a good way to bring the back story and characterization of a warband into a campaign.

[InquisitorHeidfeld]

The first games I played were of this type and I think since the first release I've played two games which would be considered standard.
Unnamed mooks (we built our own system based on the concept from Feng Shui, I can't say how they compare to the architecture of hate version because I've never used it) are certainly valuable but I wouldn't say they were vital... They do bring a perception of peril or security to the game which can be twisted around quite nicely though