Group play vs. Individual play

[higgins]

Hi all!

I've heard a lot of good things about The Forge. Happy to finally be here!

As for my thread... There's been a lot of talk regarding gaming systems (GNS) and picking the right one for the group (Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastering), but I haven't really seen any discussion about the more general mechanic -- group play vs. individual play. Two epic examples from the literature are The Lord of the Rings and A Song of Ice and Fire -- one focuses on a group of individuals making their best efforts and other has different characters affecting the world individually.

If the characters act as a single group, it tends to be that they try to resolve a common goal, making one big plotline (with possible sub-plots). However if there is no "party" and each character has his/her individual plotline, this makes a much complex story if the individual plotlines intertwine.

At first I figured this had to be modeled by GNS already, but when I started to think about it... GNS doesn't really differate group from an individual, and so doesn't Robin D. Laws (in any real depth).

I guess what I'm really doing here, is turning to RPG-theorists and asking... What's the real significance of these methods in play? How can I explain the difference without going yapping "what I like" or "prefer". Is this discussed somewhere before? If so, please link it. If not, what's your take on it?

[Christoph Boeckle]

Hi Higgins and welcome to the Forge!
What's your first name, if you don't mind?

Your best bet if you want to delve into this discussion is to present some actual play in the appropriate forum. In this way, we know where you come from and can engage better with your ideas. It has happened way too often that people thought they were talking about the same thing when really they weren't. Placing your questions into the context of your experience gives discussion a solid foundation.

Nevertheless I think I can help with a superficial reply for starters.
GNS looks at how the group of players engage in a social dynamic across the different levels of activity that form play (pretty abstract without some actual examples, right?)
This could be something like "being good at the game, overcoming challenges and bragging about it" (perhaps surprisingly, this is not to be read pejoratively at all). Going from there, either of the methods you describe might be used (in D&D a party sets out against monsters, but another game might have the players control powerful lords that wage wars and conduct alliances amongst themselves, vying for the throne, their characters being separate most of the time). Depending on what other methods (usually referred to as Techniques in this forum, just in case it crops up later on) are featured in a given game and what the designer aims it towards, some combinations might work out better than others, though. That's a point were we need more context to really help you in a meaningful way.
Historically, I think it's safe to say that lots of RPGs were party-oriented, whereas contemporary "forge-inspired" games tend to throw away the concept. Both "types" support a variety of satisfying gaming experiences.

I'm not too familiar with Robin D. Laws' player typology, but I gather it rather works on a psychological level. Player A likes X, so he is a Gamma. I'm not very comfortable with these kind of approaches, because it doesn't tell me that, actually, people of different psychological profiles can get along quite well when there is a shared group dynamic.

To sum up, I don't think it's quite possible to talk about the two methods in absolute terms (and that's a common stance around here). However, the Forge-community can offer you quite a lot of support as soon as you delve into the context of an actual play experience or a game development. We need to know on what terrain your plant is growing and what its neighbours are like to help you fashion a nice garden, so to speak.

Does that make sense?

[Conteur]

Personally, I love solo games. I'm a GM for a Dragonlance campaign with one player. He play an evil priest of treachery. This game is probably the one he love the most (and he played with me for over 15 years now). How could he play with other players when he keep pretending to be a good guy (and lying, cheating, stealing all the while...)
However, I have 3 NPC with him. The rules of Dragonlance are made to consider the group and you can't survive an adventure in pure solo if your Storyteller use traps, magic and hulking monsters.
I think it would be boring to just tell a story with one player playing one character. No real depth could be involved...I also tried one player with two characters and you mus use NPC if you want some talk (I think players hate speaking to themselves in front of a "silent godlike-curious")

[Ron Edwards]

Hi everyone,

For those who don't know me, I'm Ron, co-founder of the Forge and content moderator.

I'm signing in here to welcome Higgins and to underscore Christoph's point: everything he says is right on target for how this thread ought to go. Higgins, that's not about forcing you to prove your point or anything like that. Actual-play descriptions orient everyone toward exactly what you mean and help keep discussions here from degenerating into "a crowd of single voices."

Notice, I said this thread. Let's keep the discussion here for now, in First Thoughts, and then when it gets to be a bit more about Actual Play, I'll shift it into there. No reason to start up a new thread when the reason for the discussion is so nicely laid out.

Best, Ron

[Japo]

Hi my name is Xavier. (Yes real name, I'm Spanish. Well actually we write it Javier but that would just make you pronounce it wrong, well the ones of you who don't speak Spanish.)

Hi Ron, welcome to the Forge! LOOOOL
Sorry.

I'll most likely be testing this because I plan to play soon (actually to playtest a new sketch system of mine), and I've got one friend more than confirmed but it's likely that I won't find more. I also plan to post about it in the Actual Play section soon, for the sake of the system playtesting as well. I already played solo once (I was player not director) and there was nothing wrong about it, really.

I think it would be boring to just tell a story with one player playing one character. No real depth could be involved...I also tried one player with two characters and you mus use NPC if you want some talk (I think players hate speaking to themselves in front of a "silent godlike-curious")

I don't agree (for now, could change my mind). The only reason why we'd be adding more players if possible is to hang out with more people. Firstly one player would need NPCs to talk but they needn't be glued into some "adventuring group" along with the PCs for that. Because, you really mean that the *players* need to talk to other than the GM? Because I think that the *characters* (in-game personae) most likely need it, but their *players* (meta-game personae) don't (and if they do they should take a break from roleplaying and have some beers). Just my opinion though, willing to hear others.

Also it may be that I don't need a save-the-world in a story for it to interest me, actually that kind of stories get cliched and cartoony fast if no care is taken, in my opinion. My favourite example is Moby Dick. Is this book epic because the story is important for the universe it takes place in? No, if you think coldly it's about a cetacean and an old man with a mental disorder.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Javier and everyone,

Let's see what Higgins tells us about his actual play experiences before continuing.

Best, ron

[higgins]

Hi again!

Sorry for the lack of introduction, my name is Henri.=)

As for the thread and Actual Play... I didn't quite get what you meant, but I'm going to clear one thing up... This thread isn't really about game design. I would have posted it into RPG Theory, but that forum seemed locked (as the latest threads were more than two years old).

I'm not too familiar with Robin D. Laws' player typology, but I gather it rather works on a psychological level. Player A likes X, so he is a Gamma. I'm not very comfortable with these kind of approaches, because it doesn't tell me that, actually, people of different psychological profiles can get along quite well when there is a shared group dynamic.

Yes, that's basically it. I just listed both "organise the roleplaying in your head" articles/books I was familiar with, and neither adressed what I was trying to organise myself.

To sum up, I don't think it's quite possible to talk about the two methods in absolute terms (and that's a common stance around here). However, the Forge-community can offer you quite a lot of support as soon as you delve into the context of an actual play experience or a game development. We need to know on what terrain your plant is growing and what its neighbours are like to help you fashion a nice garden, so to speak.

Are Gamist, Narrativist and Simulationist absolute terms? What about Fortune, Karma and Drama? While the six presented terms explain player aims and system resolution, (and though my quesion resolves around all games, not just between distinguishing systems,) I'd like to add another layer in the formula -- call it the "storyline type" for the lack of better term at the moment. I've experienced both "party" and "intervoven" games and I feel they are different enough to be recognised as separate categories in RPG theory. I'm just a little stuck how to elaborate it instead of yapping about "what I like".

I hope I was more clear than the last time.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Henri,

The reason that the RPG Theory forum is closed is because topics like this one lead to poor discussions.

I am now telling you, as moderator, that unless you post about an actual play experience of your own which illustrates the features of play you're talking about, I will close this thread. Theory discussions at the Forge are now required to include such accounts of experiences.

This may seem draconic and arbitrary to you. It is not. It is born of seven years of experience of constantly moderating this forum, and learning what does and does not work.

The actual play experience does not have to be recounted in every last painful detail. It should illustrate what you're calling group play or what you're calling individual play, or provide one of each. It would be good to know what game system was used, how many people were involved, generally what happened with or to the characters, and how the real-live people enjoyed or did not enjoy the experience.

The points you've raised are interesting and worthy of discussion. But they must be grounded for the readers of the thread in an account of play as I'm describing.

Best, Ron

[higgins]

Sorry for the long pause. I try explain more througly what spawned this question of mine.

I started roleplaying when a friend of mine bought a 3rd ed PHB. My first games were about traveling groups of fantasy heroes solving quests by fighting monsters and hauling magical equipment afterwards. Then I met people who were into low fantasy and along with the absence of magical equipment and decreased spell capabilities came more gritty combat rules. With the main hauling elements cut off, our games started to focus on goals of the party -- fighting or helping organsations/people by the sympathies of the group.

Then a change came into my life and I was forced to play online with my buddies, as we weren't able to meet face-to-face as regularly as we would have liked to play. We soon discovered that unlike with live gaming, it was a piece of cake to deal with separated characters online. Basically, players could easily follow their own goals outside the group, without having the rest of the players to wait. Soon enough, we didn't even have groups. Teaming up with other players became a voluntary and character based desicion.

At first I thought this kind of organisation weren't feasible for live games, but a friend of mine just came along and did it successfully. So, the difference wasn't just about the means, but of method. Which is why I switched "online vs. live" in my mind to "group play vs. individual play". I had never seen such categorisation before. So, being familiar with "System Does Matter" and accounting my experiences, I also feel that "Method Does Matter".

My first instinct would be to say that group play is restrictive to character freedom and is better suited to group character creation, where everyboy knows from the start that the characters will be working as a team (Werewolf: The Forsaken and Stargate are excellent examples) and therefore much more simpler goals (everybody needs to go along, if everybody want to play) and big general plotline, while individual play would be more suited for sandbox method, separate entwining plotlines with a backdrop plot (majority of the published games, really).

So, what's your take on the significance of these methods in play? How can I explain the difference without going yapping "what I like" or "prefer".

-Henri

P.S.
If my explanation is not sufficient to keep this thread open, please explain me what is missing.

[Christoph Boeckle]

Hi Henri

I see a fruitful reflection that you're having based on your play history and insofar as we all know that, I think it's safe for you to voice your preferences. It's not like you were crashing into somebody's thread with an empty "I prefer group play" one-liner, never to participate again. So, rather than asking other people just to tell you what they prefer, which amounts to an opinion poll with little possible depth in discussion, I'd encourage you to develop the parts of the subject that you find interesting, so as to keep the thread focused.

To answer your question about explaining the difference, I think you've already done a good job by giving us an overview of your experience and how, in this context, you see those differences. For what it's worth, I agree with the two extremes you paint. I also believe that lots of nuances are possible in between, and that one might play very personal issue-exploration in group play (I can point you to some play of a game called Carry, which has characters fighting in the same squad in the Vietnam war). A game like Dirty Secrets doesn't even have multiple player characters in the traditional sense (it has one main character, a few important characters and some who are there just for colour). Others will have play where groups form and break up all the time. The variations on the theme are numerous.

Ultimately, I think that what you can extract and keep on applying to all sorts of games is the following: the way you define (or let open) the types of relationships between (player) characters has a major impact on play.
Why? Because all stories are based on relationships between people.
This realization took me quite some play, time and help from some helpful people around here, because overwhelmingly, mainstream RPGs focus on a group of player characters as their main or sole way of playing. It's neat that you've been realizing this through your own experience.

This does not mean that group-play is not interesting of course. It just can't be used for all premises you might want to explore. My best advice to continue from this point would be to always take a sharp look at how characters relate to each other in games and check if it works with what you're trying to achieve as players.

How does that sound to you? If you want some examples, check out some reports in the Actual Play section of the site. Even if the topic isn't explicitly about this issue, you will often see variations of it at work.

I see we are striding off into Actual Play territory, so if you have some specific experience you want to build upon, you might as well open a thread in that section, with a link back to this one.

[David Berg]

Henri,

Thanks for the description of your experiences, I now have a much clearer idea of what you wanted to discuss.

We soon discovered that unlike with live gaming, it was a piece of cake to deal with separated characters online. Basically, players could easily follow their own goals outside the group, without having the rest of the players to wait. Soon enough, we didn't even have groups. Teaming up with other players became a voluntary and character based desicion.

That makes sense...

At first I thought this kind of organisation weren't feasible for live games,

Me too.

but a friend of mine just came along and did it successfully.

How?! 

Did certain players just get invited to certain sessions?  Please fill me in!

[higgins]

but a friend of mine just came along and did it successfully.

How?! 

Did certain players just get invited to certain sessions?  Please fill me in!

That's exaclty how. There's no set schedule and players are invited to game depending on what time and place their characters reside in. There are also internet sections in the game (that's how I'm in it) and if my character meets other PC(s), we play via internet, but that's beside the point -- the referee started of with a 100% live group and I joined later on.

[David Berg]

Ah, okay.  I was hoping you'd say, "No, everyone gets to play live regularly, we just..." or something.

I'll assume then that this scenario is specific to the (presumably vast) scheduling flexibility of the players involved and the fact that many of them are just as happy to play online if they don't get their live fix.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

As for your questions, they seem a little open ended, and I think Cristoph's suggestions point in a more focused direction.  For now, let me just offer some feedback on your formulation here:

My first instinct would be to say that group play is restrictive to character freedom and is better suited to group character creation, where everyboy knows from the start that the characters will be working as a team (Werewolf: The Forsaken and Stargate are excellent examples) and therefore much more simpler goals (everybody needs to go along, if everybody want to play) and big general plotline,

Like Cristoph said, this depends on character relationships.  I've played in a game which successfully combined the following elements:
1) individual character creation with no knowledge of others' characters
2) contrived situation to force all the characters to interact with each other
3) missions where all the characters are allied against Evil
4) characters brainwashing and killing each other

We all agreed on what kind of exploration we wanted to engage in (superpowered characters with extreme beliefs struggling in conspiracy-filled mystic urbania), and staying true to that was enough to make all of the above fun.

while individual play would be more suited for sandbox method, separate entwining plotlines with a backdrop plot (majority of the published games, really).

By "individual play", do you mean:
1) anything other than "group play" (possibly including #2 and/or #3)
2) 2 people together - 1 player, 1 GM
3) 1 player sitting at his computer and playing online

So, what's your take on the significance of these methods in play? How can I explain the difference . . .

In the most basic "what the players do" terms, the difference seems to me to be pretty simple.  Either the same people all show up at the same time, and that's the game, or various members show up at various times, and that's the game.  (Or, there is no "showing up" because the game is online.)  I don't think anyone would argue that this difference isn't significant.

If by "significance" you wish to refer to "what kind of gameplay the players engage in when present", I think there's plenty of flexibility, as I hope my above example demonstrates.

Perhaps the distinction you wish to discuss is:
1) play in which all characters must work together toward a common objective -- if they don't, fun play doesn't happen
2) play which can be (and is expected to be) fun without that

. . . without going yapping "what I like" or "prefer".

I think having your categories thoroughly defined will help.

[higgins]

Ah, okay.  I was hoping you'd say, "No, everyone gets to play live regularly, we just..." or something.

I'll assume then that this scenario is specific to the (presumably vast) scheduling flexibility of the players involved and the fact that many of them are just as happy to play online if they don't get their live fix.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Well, there is a little "but" I forgot to mention, which helps greatly to fix the regularity and flexibility issue -- we are running parallel games which groups match almost a 100%. This means that if both (or all) GMs aren't playing with each other, more people will be able to play simultaneously, even if not in the same game.

Like Cristoph said, this depends on character relationships.  I've played in a game which successfully combined the following elements:
1) individual character creation with no knowledge of others' characters
2) contrived situation to force all the characters to interact with each other
3) missions where all the characters are allied against Evil
4) characters brainwashing and killing each other

That sounds a lot like my first game I ever ran, except they were after the money, not Evil. =D

By "individual play", do you mean:
1) anything other than "group play" (possibly including #2 and/or #3)
2) 2 people together - 1 player, 1 GM
3) 1 player sitting at his computer and playing online

No. 2 is what I'd call "solo play". No. 3 is just mean of play, not a method itself (assuming that there are other people online he instant-messages with in a role-playing context, not just click-killing goblins or similar in some MMORPG).

Perhaps the distinction you wish to discuss is:
1) play in which all characters must work together toward a common objective -- if they don't, fun play doesn't happen
2) play which can be (and is expected to be) fun without that

This is a very good definition of how I wanted to categorise things, yet couldn't word it. No. 1. is exactly what I meant when I talked of "group play" and no. 2 is what I mean when talking of "individual play". And then there's "solo play" or 1-on-1.

Then I have another theory that group play tends to be more "quest" or "combat" based. The reasoning would be that these are the main two things that keep groups together: common goals (quests or "jobs") and imminent danger (combat). In indivudual play, however, the combat would ensue to serve the story or player decision instead of being a mechanic of keeping the game running. The quest part again... Well, every character would have their own goals and more power to them if they choose to unite. I've ran a game where one PC offered antother her help to uncover the details behind a death. They co-operated marvelously, yet there was no solution -- until later on when the helper confessed that she only joined the investigation to keep an eye on what information was gathered, as she was the real killer. By then, the investigator knew enough background that he could not blame her for the deed.

[David Berg]

Parallel games!  Brilliant!  I might try something like this with some of my more stubbornly character-exploration-driven players someday.

It seems to me that you've succeeded in your purpose for this thread.  You've clarified a distinction and made some pertinent observations regarding different methods of running games.

From my perspective, I would just suggest that you acknowledge that people you play with may have plenty of valid "but what if..." counterpoints; nothing is set in stone, after all.  If you would like to see some character-driven games that are designed to work well with groups, ask, and I bet someone here (sorry, not my forte) can point you to at least one.