Questioning Jack Spencer Jr.'s View of Solo Play

[M. J. Young]

It came up again in http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=7944">Non-electric Interactive Written Solo Entertainment, and it's been discussed before: is it still role playing if you're doing it alone, such as with Choose Your Own Adventure books or CRPGs or Solo Adventures? Jack says no, it isn't; there's no social contract (because there's only you), and there's no interactivity (because the creator of the unit does not react to what you do).

I have stated before that I'm not persuaded this interactivity is necessary to role playing, and that the social contract may exist in some sense without the parties having met. I'd like to pursue that. I should recognize that Walt's post on that thread is along these lines, but I was thinking of this before I got that far, and am taking it in a different direction.

Let's start with a PbEM campaign, Jack; I'm the referee, and you're the player. I send you a starting position and ask what you're going to do, and you respond, and we interact like this and create our adventure.

Now, let's change it a bit. I'm going to continue to ask what you're doing, but I'm going to limit you to specific choices. That's not really so egregious--I'm going to make it a significant list of choices, covering everything you might reasonably do, but it's still my list. Clearly, it's still interactive.

Now, I'm going to change it again. I tell you at the outset that what I'm really doing is writing a book, but I want you to help me write it by providing your choice of several possible directions for the main character to take at each juncture. Otherwise, play is pretty much the same.

Next I'm going to remove your blinders. I'm interested in writing a good book, and I think you'll be able to help me better if you can see where the story might be going from your choices. Thus when I write to you, I send not only the choices, but the outcomes from those choices, and the choices to which each leads, and the outcomes from there--several steps in each direction. I still want you to write back and tell me which way the character should go. Is it still interactive?

What if I send you the entire package, give you every major choice that will happen in the entire story no matter which way it goes, and let you write back to me to give my your choice for the best selections from these? This has the advantage that you can look at the early choices in light of how to reach the later objectives, so you can make sure you're not eliminating potentially good endings early on. Is this still interactive?

What if when you send me that e-mail, I don't read it?

What if I die before you send me the e-mail?

What if I don't ask you to send me the e-mail, but merely suggest that you take that material and create the story for your own enjoyment?

I maintain that if one person created the framework for the story and another made the choices, it is interactive. It is sufficiently so that it might be role playing--at least to the degree that role playing games require interactivity.

I further maintain that there is a social contract between us. When you agreed to look at the story, you inherently agreed to make choices within the confines dictated, or give up the book entirely. You might break the social contract and write your own ending, but that was not that to which I agreed when I offered you the material.

Now, there might be some other reason why this is not roleplaying; but I don't see the real-time interactivity as an issue.

And your sex analogy does not change my opinion.

--M. J. Young

[Jack Spencer Jr]

I have stated before that I'm not persuaded this interactivity is necessary to role playing, and that the social contract may exist in some sense without the parties having met.

I'll be frank, MJ. I see no reason to go past here with this. We disagree on a fundamental level on this. We should simply agree to disagree.

Seriously. I am reminded by the old George Carlin bit about trying to stump the priest by surrounding a fairly simple sin with complex circumstances.

I see roleplaying as a social activity. A social activity can be heavily restricted and contrived so that for each individual participant it would be the same as a solitaire activity. But that's not the point. The point is its a reason for human beings to interact with each other. I don't care how similar it is to a solo RPG for the individual players. It's apart people getting together and doing something together.

That said, I would have to wonder about a game like you or Walter described. See all past discussions about railroading.

I have the same feeling about your other scenerio. We are conversing here on this forum, right? This is two people interacting. You post stuff. I post stuff in response. And so on.

Suppose I decide, aw, the heck with you and your yancy idears. Suppose the Forge had an ignore feature like many other forums. Now we are no longer interacting. You post stuff. I don't even know about it except when someone else responds to you. We are no longer two human beings interacting.

This is the difference between what you see and I see. You seem to be focused on the method and what it means or appears to the individual. I am thinking about the interaction between the living people. Perhaps the truth lies between our perceptions?

[Walt Freitag]

Speaking as one of the first gamers to use the adjective "interactive" (in 1979, as a part of a required pretentious name for a campus D&D club -- that's right, the name was required to be pretentious in order to get approval), I have this to say about the word:

AAAGH! It's come back from the dead! Kill it! Kill it before it destroys us all!

Sorry, I bear some of the blame for allowing "interactive" into the discourse, on the referenced thread. I thought I was safely containing it in a historical context in a fringe topic (solo non-electronic play), but somebody fed it after midnight and now it's broken out of its cage and gotten into the air vents and we're going to need Ripley with a flamethrower taped to an assault rifle to get rid of it again. It was the most misused and misunderstood word in the English language for a decade-long period, and it's been seeking revenge ever since.

Why is a TV show in which viewers can vote for which of two possible endings takes place hyped as "interactive," but the folks at the hardware store never bother to remind you that the hammers they're selling are "interactive?" The hammer responds to your choices far more than the TV show does. The reason is that "interactive" tends to be used as a comparative term; it often means "more responsive than the normal old version." Normal TV shows don't respond to viewer choices at all, so if one does give you a one-ten-millionth share of a binary decision you might (if you're gullible) think "oooh, interactive." While the far more interactive hammer is still just a normal hammer. Similarly, a choose your own adventure book has some number of choices along the way that link you to a limited number of specific entries, while many nonfiction books have (and have always had) tables of contents, glossaries, indexes, footnotes, and other similar tools for flexible usage and guided random access to all the pages from any point. So which one do we describe as "interactive?" The former, because we're used to indexes and whatnot while mutable storylines in fiction seem (relatively) new and interesting.

This comparative usage-convention conflicts with all attempts to establish any absolute definitions for what is and is not interactive. It's fairly universally agreed that you can interact with a person because a person can think. A set of building blocks can't think, but it can exhibit complex and unexpected behavior which makes it worth playing with for quite a long time, at least if you're a child for whom gravity, mass, balance, torque, friction, and other key principles of the behavior of building blocks are new and interesting. So are the blocks "interactive?" How about a computer simulation of building blocks? Many cat toys are labelled "Interactive!" on their packaging. Are they? If they are, then do they remain so when the cat is ignoring them?

The other huge pitfall of interactivity is that examining whether something is interactive or not, or assessing "how interactive" something is, can become a huge distraction from what you should be examining, which is how well the thing serves its purpose. This, of course, is so obvious that it's often completely overlooked. The quality of being "interactive," no matter how defined or how well defined, has no intrinsic value.

So, in the end I have to agree that real-time interactivity is not an issue, because it cannot be an issue, because it cannot be clearly defined. The thought experiments (M. J.'s here, and mine on the previous referenced thread) help to establish that. So why even ask whether something like a branching solo game text is interactive or not? Isn't it more important to decide whether or not it gives you a worthwhile playing experience? If someone thinks it does, then saying "but it's not interactive!" isn't going to change their mind about it, even if you could prove that to their satisfaction. The reverse doesn't work either.

I feel pretty much the same about the questions "is it really role playing?" and "is there a social contract?"

- Walt

[Jack Spencer Jr]

I don't think we're using the term the same way, Walt. I'm talking about two or more people doing stuff together.

Textbook talking past eachother, although I agree with your take on measuring the interactivity of the game itself.

[Walt Freitag]

Hi Jack,

You're right, we're not. I was responding to M. J.'s (and my own, on the previous thread) attempts to break down whether processes, systems, game play, or story-contents do or do not have this slippery quality called "interactive." Whereas you speak only, and unambiguously, about whether the proceedings involve people interacting. Not the same thing at all. (Furthermore, we were talking past each other literally; my post crossed yours and I didn't notice because it was so late at night.)

However, the idea that role playing definitionally requires such interaction between people can only be addressed on an axiomatic level. We can ask, if we make that a requirement, what conclusions does it lead to? How about if we don't? Based on which set of conclusions we prefer, we can decide whether to accept the axiom. But it's all just a matter of opinion. Whether you or I like it or not, if we ask a solo-module player "what are you doing?" he's far more likely to answer "playing a role playing game" than "playing a game that one might describe as a role playing game, save for its present lack of immediate social interaction with another person." Furthermore, that person would have no difficulty perceiving strong differences between the game he's playing using the solo module and other solo games and activites that he could be doing instead that are clearly (to him) not role playing games.

Hence, the temptation to try to draw a useful line somewhere else, by attempting to characterize the activity (or its texts, or its story-content, or its story-outcome) as "interactive" or not. Which is a quagmire. Since you set the bar higher by limiting what you consider role playing to social interaction between people, an understandable position, you avoid the quagmire. But as you've said, not everone will agree.

- Walt

[Marco]

I'm still laughing about the air-vents. We need Apone!

Actually I dunno if it's cannonical or not but: If the Lumpely principle can aportion credibility to the game-designer (who presumably isn't at the table) then there's a case to be made for a person following a roll-your-own-adveture ... erm ... choose that is--is in some kind of a social contract.

That's really the hell tenuous. And *I* don't buy it--but it's kind of the same scenario when everyone at the table gets a rule wrong and they look it up in the book and then play it that way.

Kind of.

-Marco

[Mike Holmes]

Is it Sex if you do it by yourself? Who cares?

The only question that I think is relevant is whether or not we can talk about solo games here on The Forge. I think we'll probably agree that they're close enough that we can.

Are solo games the same as games with multiple participants? No. Is the difference hard to define? No. So when discussing all we have to do is keep in mind the differences, and all is well, no? I'm not seeing what we're gaining out of this discussion. We all agree that they're not the same thing precisely, but that they're close relatives. Isn't that good enough to proceed?

Mike

[Jason Lee]

I consider the time I spend between sessions visualizing future plans for my characters and events that happened in game playing.  I even get that bit of feeling (sad, happy, whatever) from identifying with the character.

Feels like roleplaying to me.  I wouldn't call it interactive though.  That is, until I talk to someone else in the group about it.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

However, the idea that role playing definitionally requires such interaction between people can only be addressed on an axiomatic level. We can ask, if we make that a requirement, what conclusions does it lead to? How about if we don't? Based on which set of conclusions we prefer, we can decide whether to accept the axiom. But it's all just a matter of opinion. Whether you or I like it or not, if we ask a solo-module player "what are you doing?" he's far more likely to answer "playing a role playing game" than "playing a game that one might describe as a role playing game, save for its present lack of immediate social interaction with another person." Furthermore, that person would have no difficulty perceiving strong differences between the game he's playing using the solo module and other solo games and activites that he could be doing instead that are clearly (to him) not role playing games.

True enough, Walt. My goal is not to do away with convenient shorthand. My goal has been to draw a line here because it would be more useful to both.

With the perspective thread I tried doing something that had often been tried before, to define roleplaying. As what happens every time someone tries to do this, some posts "what about ___?"  What about solo play? What about Universalis? What about when pluto is aligned with jupiter?

In a sense I am like a judge at a chili contest. Saw something about that on Food network. In a chili contest chili is supposed to be a certain way. One of the judges explained that how he judges is he just looks for a reason, any reason, to disqualify an entry as per the contest guidelines. It's like that. The activity has many facets, which makes it difficult to discuss because we find ourselves talking about different things. Past attempts to define RPGs have been found wanting or had fizzled into "it cannot be done." It can be done. We just have to be willing to kill some darlings.

I like solo RPGs, although I don't play them often. I find gamebooks clunky and merciless for the most part. But it doesn't fit the definition I have. So, out it goes, but it is still an activity that is worth exploring and taking on its own merits. This is actually good for solo RPGs since many of the gamebooks I have collected have essentially lite group RPGs attached. (do a search on past solo threads for most of my thoughts there) I think they would be better with a system designed for one person.

I suppose an arguement can be made for a blanket category of "roleplaying" with group and solo games under this umbrella. I suppose, but I'll leave that to those who like nitpicking terminology. However, since solo RPGs have all but disappeared and group roleplaying is the "norm" or the type most likely encountered. It seems to me that it's not too much to call group roleplaying simply "roleplaying" while solo RPGs, when encountered can be called "solo rpgs" or just "solos."


Mike. I agree. And my answer to the relavant question is, of course, yes.

[Ben Lehman]

Let's start with a PbEM campaign, Jack; I'm the referee, and you're the player. I send you a starting position and ask what you're going to do, and you respond, and we interact like this and create our adventure.

Now, let's change it a bit. I'm going to continue to ask what you're doing, but I'm going to limit you to specific choices. That's not really so egregious--I'm going to make it a significant list of choices, covering everything you might reasonably do, but it's still my list. Clearly, it's still interactive.

BL>  This is no longer a role-playing game.  It is a large decision maze game.

extra period for emphasis:  "."

 In a role-playing game, you have a infinite (limited by system, setting, and social contract, yes, but still infinite) number of choices at any given point during the game.  This is why, for instance, a solo computer game can never, and will never, be narrativist or immersive simulationist in the same style that an RPG is.  (Note: this is not the defining feature of a roleplaying game, it is merely a defining feature.)

Large decision maze games -- especially of the computerized variety -- are quite popular, especially in Japan, I here.  But they are in no way RPGs.

yrs--
--Ben

[Mike Holmes]

The problem with narrow criteria here Jack, the legal idea that we only include something if it fits the criteria precisely (as opposed to broad, in which you assume something fits the criteria unless it can be shown difinititvely not to be the case), the problem is that so many things with contradictory parts claim to be RPGs that they all would fail a narrow test of some sort. So there we have the problem. If we go narrow, nothing is an RPG. If we go broad, then, because of the same attributes of the games that are considered RPGs, everything is an RPG.

So we can't use either standard, and have to look at each subdivision as just that; a subdivision with it's own unique qualities.

Mike

[Gordon C. Landis]

I may be channeling Ron here - I think he's alluded to "solo Narrativism" before - so let's just talk about Nar.  Which is defined as something like shared during-play creation of a story with a Premise.

So, if a designer embeds Premise-stuff in a solo-adventure, and the during-play choices of a player develop/illuminate that Premise for the player . . . we have Nar happening.  Some parameters are put in place by the designer, some choices are made by the player ("sharing"), play occurs, and Premise results.  Nar.  Maybe not satisfying to some folks, because choices are restricted rather than infinite - but so is Trollbabe. Or MLwM.

But - maybe this puts us in a wierd place where Nar happens without "roleplaying" (under some definition) happening.  Huh.  Is "roleplaying" actually a seperate phenomena than G/N/S?  And some definitions of it make a solo game incompatible, while others don't.  Again, huh.

I think my response to Walt over in that other thread makes my position clear - solo play can be "roleplaying", or not, depending on how "good" the design and play are.

Gordon

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Mike.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by subdivisions. Can you illustrate?

[pete_darby]

But - maybe this puts us in a wierd place where Nar happens without "roleplaying" (under some definition) happening.  Huh.  Is "roleplaying" actually a seperate phenomena than G/N/S?  And some definitions of it make a solo game incompatible, while others don't.  Again, huh.


Gordon

Well, I'd go the whole hog and say you can have GNS without RPG...

G - Most non-RP games, sports, debate, etc etc.
N - most fiction writing, moral dillemmas in ethics classes
S - fiction without narrative (world building), computer simulation

I still say the social contract, social interaction axis is vital to making it RPG.

[Gordon C. Landis]

I still say the social contract, social interaction axis is vital to making it RPG.

And I don't disagree - I just think that it is possible to get "enough" of that social interaction via a pre-established input from another human being, if they design it well and you're willing to engage with it.  For a stretch of years when I couldn't find other real, live gamers that I could enjoy playing with, I played a LOT of the Tunnels & Trolls solo modules, and ALL (I think) of the Melee/Wizard ones.  Some of them felt mostly like RPing, others did not.

I don't think anyone can "prove" that it is or isn't possible to get that social interaction element from a pre-established text, so Jack's agree-to-disagree may be all there is to say here.  But I thought it was worth pointing out that no one was disagreeing that a social interaction is needed, they just disagree about whether it is or isn't possible to get that interaction from the already-written work of another human.

Gordon