Waxing Solo

[Jack Spencer Jr]

It struck me as I read about Arabian nights and so on that part of what makes these games so g_d-awful unwieldy is the massive amounts of charts, etc. The dichotomy of wanting it to be simple and playable, yet flexible and multi-faceted could be answered by having a system for assigning stats to what's encountered as you go along. A generative system rather than masses of background. Association webs could be used to allow the solo player to create their own challenges yet not have that "how do you tickle yourself" problem.

I'm more interested in a narrative oriented solo-game, anyway. Like playing Once Upon a Time alone, but crossed with Sorcerer. :) If you have any thoughts on this, I'd be interested to hear.

Hmm...
Now, the thing is about narrativist solo is that you could simply write fiction and get the same or a similar effect. Seriously. A while back I had posted something somewhere around here about that. I story idea seized me in the wee hours of the morning and I *had to* get up and write it. It's actually one of my better pieces, but I digress. The point is it was told totally from the first person. I was totally inside this character's head. Yet as the author of the story, I did some incredibly horrible things to this person.

What I mean here is, why do you need a game to do this? I dunno. Maybe a game system would help, but I think that the game system is more necessary in a group effort than a solo effort. But maybe I'm not seeing what you see.

Now, about your web on-the-fly thing, I can take a page from some kind of zen philosophy somewhere in southern CA and state: "Everything is something to everything else." So, we need some kind of system for figuring out what something is to our solo character, and then going from there.

By this I think I mean that, say, a monster is a Combat Obsticle(tm). The old gorge to jump is a Dexterity Obsticle(tm). The bartender who has vital information but is unwilling to give it is a Roleplaying Obsticle (tm) and so on or some such, anyway.

Personally, I don't see how an on-the-fly system would work, but I keep imagining a game book/variable plot novel. Maybe you could describe what you see a little more.

[M. J. Young]

Not to usurp Emily, whose thoughts I am eager to read, but I think maybe I've got an answer to part of it: why do you need a game system to do this?

I tend to agree in a sense that you don't; but then, like you, I'm constantly writing. I can create the story entirely without any sort of mechanical aid. But then, there's a quote (from Sense and Sensibility, perhaps?):

"Why do they dance? Wouldn't conversation be much more reasonable?"

"Oh, more reasonable, definitely; but much less like a ball."

And so creating a story that way may be, for those who can do it, more reasonable, easier, even in some sense more "fun" or rewarding; but it's much less like a game.

The General Effects Roll mechanic in Multiverser lends itself to this sort of thing; I have found in play that it is a wonderful driver of game situations when the player "leaves the script" as it were, or when there is little or no script. In essence, the roll determines whether the next thing or things that happen are, from the character's perspective, good or bad; whether they are what he wants or what he fears. This is a very difficult thing to do free style in a solo game; a mechanic makes it much easier. Thus as I am creating my story, the character takes an action. If I'm writing a novel, at that moment I decide how I want that action to turn out based on my long view of what I want the story to say. If I'm playing a game, rolling the dice to see whether things go well or poorly gives me some direction. I'm not at this point talking about success or failure; I'm talking about the shift in circumstances. For example, I might succeed in shooting a target bullseye, but is anyone impressed by this? I might succeed in getting into the castle by disguising myself as a scullery maid, but is the head butler going to notice me and give me orders, and then chase after me if it's clear I'm not heading the right direction to do them? Do the circumstances work for me or against me, and to what degree? Having something like that helps create the story, because it gives me some basis to decide whether this is one of those serendipitous moments when things go more right than I had hoped, or one of those disastrous times when everything that could go wrong did so at the worst possible moment.

Such a mechanic can be very useful if you're trying to create a game story, in part because you want to be a bit surprised by the outcome. Obviously, you can't be surprised by what's around the next corner in the sense that you don't know what it is until you get there; but if you've got a mechanic that tells you whether something good or bad is there, you can create a story in which it seems as if there are surprises, because you know that it's time to invent something good or bad for that moment.

Emily?

--M. J. Young

[ejh]

Indeed, one doesn't *need* game rules to play a regular (non-solo) roleplaying game either.  One can just get together with a bunch of friends and decide to tell a story.

Telling a story while following a set of rules is a matter of adopting structure.  That gives you both limitations, and often inspiration, where you find that by doing things to fit the structure you come up with ideas you might not have come up with otherwise.

So I don't think "but you could just write a story!" is a valid reason to write off solo play.  You could just tell stories in groups too, but that doesn't mean there's no point in doing it with rules of some kind.

On the other hand...

One of the real things that sets solos apart and challenges the concept of the solo RPG is the matter of speaking.  In a non-solo RPG the "action" takes place primarily through dialogue.  In a solo RPG, it has to either take place in writing or else in one's head.  Writing takes longer and is less fluid than speaking (for most of us), and simply making mental notes of events in one's head is terribly ephemeral.

In a "gamebook-style" solo, events are pre-written by the gamebook writer, which allows them to move past very swiftly, but obviously puts huge limits on what can happen.

The "solo play" which character creation consists of makes a record of itself in writing, generally.

Any attempt at solo RPG design has to address this problem: "if the events of the universe are not manifested in speech, how are they manifested?"

[Mike Holmes]

Excellent points ejh. But while I think that there is good reason to want such a game...

I would say that one of the biggest problem with creating a solo Narrativist game is a classic one. That is, it's been observed that one of the sources of excitement in Narrativist games is being able to address the conflicts that are provided by an outside source, and in doing so, address them in an interesting fashion. What we actually have is three elements. Conflict, Resonse, and Result (sorta IIEE cognates). The actual observation is that when all three are provided by the same player, that, well then, you might as well be writing a novel.

So you have to pull out one or more of these, and give them to another entity to handle. Typically, the response stays in the hands of the player. And using FitM, you could even leave the result to the player. But usually, the item that is given to the GM to affect is the Conflict itself. The GM provides the opposition.

Now, this can be given to an outomated system. But as Walt Frietag notes in the other thread, doing so is problematic. Because, no automated system yet devised allows for the player to both choose his own rout, and yet to achieve anything storylike. That is, you can't trust an automated system to give you Conflicts that are always such that the player can address them in a thematicc way. Or, for those that are, the player has to be railroaded to that point. You just can't have both by any known technology. Requires a human brain, and thus another participant.

Meaning no solo narrativist play. Sorry.

OTOH, I could see a weird sort of play where the player chose the conflicts, and the system chose the responses for the character (very much an anti-RPG). This would be very much like the Sim's, I'd think, but you could more likely be able to get something liek "Narrativism" from it, because, you could always choose conflicts that has outcomes that, while randomly selected, would all be thematic. Or rather, you'd always get a "Literary Story". The problem is that this is very much like writing a book, and just rolling to see what the character does at important junctions. I'm not sure it's interesting.

Can anyone else envision that?

Mike

[ejh]

I guess I'm not married to the concept of "narrativist play" being the
Thing to Do as opposed to simulationist or gamist, or something else
entirely, so it doesn't terribly matter to me if a solo RPG I found
interesting was pronounced "narrativist" or not by someone.

But I still don't buy the "if the same person both sets up and responds
to a conflict, you might as well be writing a novel" line.

A group of roleplayers "might as well be writing a collaborative novel,"
but the fact remains that they aren't doing that, they are playing a
role-playing game.  Who cares what they "might as well be doing"?  Why
is that a problem?

You're doing what you're doing, regardless of what you "might as well be
doing."

The "you might as well be..." thinking exactly the kind of thinking that
a lot of traditional roleplaying gamers would use to write off cutting
edge Narrativist stuff in general: "No hit points? No armor class? It's
all about telling stories? Screw that, you might as well be writing a
novel."  That's the way people talk about systemless or system-light or
narrativist-system gaming all the time.

I'm curious as to what interesting things might be done in terms of solo
RPGs.  I don't have a clear idea of what kind of steps could be taken to
do interesting new things with solos in the way that some of the games
featured on the Forge have done interesting new things with non-solo
RPGs. But I don't really like to see the whole idea written off as
impossible so quickly, and on what does not seem to me to be a very
logical basis.  Maybe it's impossible to have a "narrativist solo game"
(though it doesn't seem to me that by Ron's definitions it should be --
after all, Ron's definition of "narrativist" strictly speaking applies
to choices made in a game, not to games themelves).  Maybe it's even
impossible to have a solo game that deserves to be called a roleplaying
game.  But I haven't yet seen a convincing argument to that effect.  And
I wonder why one would *want* to rule out certain types of gaming as
"impossible" or as "not real roleplaying games."

[greyorm]

Can anyone else envision that?

Yes, quite honestly, I can.
Many writers outline their stories beforehand...some of them, however (including JRRT himself) note that stories have a mind of their own, they end up writing parts of themselves the writer never intended.

In this fashion, such could be compared to "rolling dice at important junctures to discover the outcome," as the element of randomness produces results unintended by the writer.

Certainly, I think it is or would be a valid form of gaming, or at least a very interesting sort of solo adventure (much like those old "Pick-a-Path" books in some ways).

[Emily Care]

Sorry it took me so long to get back to you Jack, M.J. et al. Let's see, good discussion going on...Thank you for continuing the conversation, Jack, here are my responses to your initial post:

Now, the thing is about narrativist solo is that you could simply write fiction and get the same or a similar effect.
[example snipped]
What I mean here is, why do you need a game to do this? I dunno. Maybe a game system would help, but I think that the game system is more necessary in a group effort than a solo effort.

I agree with you Jack, that writing a story can essentially be solo roleplay.  The process of writing up a character for a game could be looked at as pre-play solo work.  And as has been discussed elsewhere system does function to grease the wheels of consensus among groups of people. Since not everyone is a writer, having a system could do the same thing for a single person as well.

Also, as ejh points out, the experience of playing a role-playing game has a different quality than writing a story. Just some things that are missing are the editing process, and the necessity of it pleasing more than an audience of one.  I'd be interested in solo-N play as a source of internal exploration, or even journeying, but I'm just wierd that way. :) Tarot cards are extremely helpful for helping access ideas we don't know we have.  Mechanics in a game like this could be designed to bring out that kind of "aha" moment. That's what I'd like to see, anyway. Yeah, I don't know how yet...  

.. story idea seized me in the wee hours of the morning and I *had to* get up and write it.

That's what I'm talking about.  Reminds me of the feeling I get when a character or a plot/world element gets away from me, and "starts playing itself". Yes, it's always me, but it feels like it is being expressed through me instead.  A system isn't necessary for that at all. However, it could foster that kind of experience in someone.  

The solo system is also a way for an individual to take advantage of someone else's good ideas.  But as folks have pointed out in this and the other thread, it's limiting to just run someone else's story.  I think how I'm seeing it is that ideally a narrativist solo-rpg would help someone write their own story, rather than simply run through someone else's story in 1st person. The story could be, of course, a personal take on the premise of a game system.

Now, about your web on-the-fly thing, I can take a page from some kind of zen philosophy somewhere in southern CA and state: "Everything is something to everything else." So, we need some kind of system for figuring out what something is to our solo character, and then going from there.

"Everything is something to everything else." Yes, sounds like divination to me. :) Sorry if I'm not using enough words to describe what I mean...

Personally, I don't see how an on-the-fly system would work, but I keep imagining a game book/variable plot novel. Maybe you could describe what you see a little more.

What I'm envisioning right now is a system that gives an overall story arc: I actually had an idea driving home tonight, let me share it and see if that helps.

Take a system where the overall plot (or is it premise?) is that the primary character will go through the process of becoming a mage.  The kind of world/setting I'm imagining is something like the world of Patricia McKillips recent novels, especially Song for Basilisk.  Anyway, the primary character will have to master 7 essences to become a mage. These essences are inside of her, but they must be found on the material plane and bound to the mage for her to wield their power. You know, the usual. Each essence would have a keyword: raven, moon, red, wolf, laughter, whatever. The game system would start the player off with a set of them, but the mechanics would be explained to the player so that they could write the whole game over again for themself, using whichever essences they saw fit.  

How does it go from there, well, here come the association webs: take raven. Write it on the middle of a blank sheet of paper, write some number of words surrounding it. Black, Bird, Magic, Trickster,  Writing Desk.  From each of those words, do the same, etc.  These words become assigned to aspects of the journey, so that each person's experience of maybe even the same sequence of events as determined by the system have completely different associations and meanings than what anyone else would have.

Meaning no solo narrativist play. Sorry.

I love that. Such certainty. :) What, am I on crack? But then, as far as I'm concerned, each person's own personal reality is an example of solo narrativist play, so of course I think it's possible.  

--Emily Care

[Mike Holmes]

I've not been clear here.

First, ejh, yes indeed, who cares? It's just that it's the subject of the thread. Once can certainly play other types of games; that's not in dispute. The only question is whether or not one can play Narrativist Solo.

And I am not contending that one cannot use a system and play with oneself in a Narrativist fashion, either. Once certainly can. I overstated the case to make a point.

What I am talking about is the realization that some designers had a while back that something "essential" to RPGs was lost in designs such as "Chalk Outlines". That is, if you author both sides of a conflict, there is a loss of tension. See this thread for a detailed explanantion:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1167

And it makes sense when you think about it. When someone "objects" to just writing a novel, they aren't saying it's a bad or useless activity. Far from it. It's just that it's an activity that has lost an one of the very cool things that are provided by the RPG format. That sorta "contested" collaboration.

This became very important to Ralph and I in the writing of Universalis. We realized that with no GM we needed a way to ensure that this sort of "Contested" authoring could occur. Hence our Complication mechanics, and the requirement that there be two players each as opposing advocates for some in-game component. Otherwise, it's pointless. I'm just rolling against myself. Wheras, I might just as well buy the results from the system straight.

The same would be true for this theoretical Narrativist Solo System.

Anyhow, it may be for a given individual that this is more or less important.

The other part of my point was just to say that automating the "opposition" (collaborator?) as it were is not, currently, a viable way past this.

Mike

[ejh]

I haven't read "Chalk Outlines" (got a URL?  What is it?) but I guess I'll have to agree with you  that there are good things in group play that are necessarily lost in solo play, but differ with you on being convinced that those things are "essential" to RPGs.

IMHO, "essential" is in the eye of the beholder -- what's essential in one context or to one person  may be inessential in another context or to another person.

As you say:

"Anyhow, it may be for a given individual that this is more or less important. "

I agree with your second point basically:

"The other part of my point was just to say that automating the "opposition" (collaborator?) as it were is not, currently, a viable way past this. "

That certainly seems to be true on the face of it.

[lumpley]

Guess that's my cue.  

Chalk Outlines waiting to happen

-Vincent

[Mike Holmes]

Just for historical context, Vincent, has this version been updated since Paul's playtest way back? If so, then the problem may not be visible.

To recap, the problem was that in the version played, a single player would fame a scene, initiate a conflict, and resolve it, all by themselves.

Anyhow, ejh, my point was merely that the lack of different participants making the different sides of he conflicts in these activities makes them seem to me to become more like writing than RPGs. They become similar enough that I would say that if you preferred to write, then I would suggest a game without the opposing element, but that If you prefered traditional RPGs to writing that you'd be dissapointed by an RPG with nothing effectively creating the other side of the characters' conflicts.

Is that more palatable?

Mike

[lumpley]

Nope, no updates.  That's the same ol' game.

-Vincent

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

The relevant Actual Play thread is How we played Chalk Outlines.

Best,
Ron

[Wormwood]

Mike,

Your mention of "just rolling against myself" reminded me of some mechanics I've been working on of late. I refer to them as "Oppositional Mechanics" and they primarilly consist of making all rolls opposed, (or what resolution system you prefer). I've submitted an article on the subject, but it hasn't been posted yet (not here, at actionroll.com).

The interesting thing about this, is that I've been messing around with a particular group of oppositional mechanics, where your primary opposition in any given roll is your own faults. This is intended to work in a 'rise to mastery' or a 'fall of the master' style game, but oddly enough seems to work very well in the context of a solo narrative game, as it is perfectly reasonable for players to narrate how their faults lead to failure.

So submitted for approval a design sketch:

All characters roll a d20 when they take an action. This is the actor die.

They also roll three other dice, each of these represents a fault, which should be named before the game begins. These also start as d20's. These are the fault dice.

Characters should also have a primary drive, which may change at anytime.

result of rolls:

Actor die > all fault dice - action succeeds, degree suggested, but not required by the value rolled on the actor die.

Actor die < one or two fault dice - action fails, due to the fault in question. Describe result accordingly. If two fault dice higher, then use the highest, or describe the result as a mixture of faults leading to failure.

Actor die < all three fault dice - severe failure, likely to lead to some significant sacrefice to the character, character loses a "life"

Actor die = highest fault die - reduce the fault die by one level, action fails, but a lesson / realization occurs.

Also:

Characters start with a number of "lives" when all are lost the character, well, dies. Choose the number of lives based on how risky you want it to be.

If there is no action: roll all dice, if a fault is highest then something happens which takes advantage / tempts this fault, if actor highest then something happens to further the drive, if there is a tie for highest, something unrelated happens adding another element to the story.

I hope that is food for thought,

   -Mendel S.

[Emily Care]

Cool mechanics, Mendel. Thank you for sharing.  

All a player really needs is something to interpret meaningfully for conflict-resolution to be satisfying. That generally comes from an external source, but can just as easily come from a self-narrated source or from the modifications to self-narrated actions by a system.  

Mendel's mechanics put the response into the hands of the system.  Conflict and Resolution are narrated by player.  Seems like that would be the easiest part to allow the system to automate.  That avoids having to pre-plan every type of encounter in the system: leave it up to the player to create it, and make the system support their efforts.

Also, if you were actually playing a narrative solo rpg, you would be likely to spend a certain amount of time "writing". We all do, in all rpg, it's just called "narrating" because we don't actually write anything.  Perhaps, solo rpg can be seen as writing with use of a system, or writing can be seen as rpg without the use of a system.

--Emily Care

ps Mendel, have you seen the "let's make a game" and "Enlightenment Group Game Design" threads?  Your mechanic or something like that might be well suited to the game that's being worked on.