Questioning Jack Spencer Jr.'s View of Solo Play

[Mike Holmes]

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

Tabletop
CRPGs
LARP
Freeform
Interactive Fiction
Solo RPGs
Collaborative Storytelling
etc.

These all subdivide further.

Mike

[Walt Freitag]

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.

Yup, that's the issue in a nutshell. Making the question more complex is the fact that "the already-written work of another human" can consist of a lot more than just descriptive text passages and simplistic "when the player does X, Y happens" links. It can also be an Erasmatron verb web, a HAP (Oz/Zoesis/Facade) hierarchy of character behaviors, A Dramaton event database and state-based selection schema, a planning system, a "forest of trees" schema with state-sensitive selection of which tree (as in the Tales of the Arabian Nights board game), or completely custom manual rules or computer code.

The Star Saga computer/board/text hybrid games refer to the computer program as the "CGM" for "Computer Gamemaster." This was deliberate and, IMHO, accurate. Unlike in most computer games, the CGM is not acting as a simulator of in-game cause and effect -- or at least, not entirely as such. I designed it to actually simulate the kind of decision-making I would (at that time) make as a tabletop GM. While the program of course lacks the ability to create new or unforeseen events on the fly, the game's library of events is large and includes far more possibilities than needed for any single player to complete the game. The CGM steers each player toward different portions of the global scenario (or more accurately, puts different portions of the global scenario into the player's path) depending on many different factors, including:

- The players' past track records of which sorts of options they have tended to select in the past, when given a choice. (Does the player like to make contact with the natives, or explore the archaeological mysteries first? Riskier or safer options? Pursuing resources or information? Fighting or problem-solving?)

- Which character the player is playing. The game offers six pre-written characters, each with a different "theme," making some subplots more thematically resonant with some characters than with others.

- The players' current "needs" in the resource-management portion of the game, such as sources of resources not yet found or uses/markets for resources already possessed. (The weighting for this is affected by the number of players in the game; it's weighted low in multi-player games, where we wanted to encourage players to trade with each other; higher in solo games, where players don't have that option.) In multi-player games, the overall resource picture is also evaluated for all the players as a whole, attempting to maintain a balance that avoids gamewide resource bottlenecks while giving each player some trading power.

- Each player's overall progress in various aspects of the game (resource development, ship/character ability improvement, discovery of the history, physical progress through the game space) relative to the other players' and the "ticking clocks" of the global scenario.

Is interacting with the GGM I created the same as interacting with me? No. But I daresay it can result in better (by many possible measures) play than interacting with some of the real live human gamemasters out there.

And I believe, it barely scratched the surface of what well thought out interactive storytelling systems could do, using carefully thought out procedural rules (no inscrutable AI techniques required), brute force, and well-writtent content.

That's why I don't see the issue as so cut and dried beteen "human interaction" and "no human interaction" types of play. But I have to admit that the vast majority of solo modules and computer games, developed without "CGM" sensibilities, are dumb enough that you wouldn't be missing much by excluding them.

- Walt

[Jack Spencer Jr]

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.

Actually, my question is less about the person who plays the solo so much as the person who writes it. Is anticipating another's every possible action interacting with that person?

I suppose that if the answer that comes back is anoything other than "Well, no..." then we'll have to agree to disagree, then.

That said, I can see the solo designer *touching the lives* of everyone who plays the solo, much like how an author or song writer or filmmaker with touch their audience, and are lucky if they even get to meet a fraction of the people they had touched. This is neat in an of itself, but I don't think it's the same as interacting with these people during the creation of the piece.

Mike.
Ok, not quite what I thought you were talking about. For the most part I agree.

[Gordon C. Landis]

Jack -

Your first statement confuses me a bit - I, too, am mostly (though definitely not exclusively) talking about the person/people who design(s) the solo.  My analysis is that if they do it well, and the player constructively engages with it (complex feedback here - good design lends itself to being engaged with, and a willingness to engage can compensate for some weakness of design) - that looks like a social interaction to me.

Not the same as if there was a person/people acoss the table from me in all ways, of course - but the same in some ways.

If the only difference we have is if the some ways in which it is the same are "enough" to qualify for the category RPG . . . well, I'd want to know where and how, for you, "touching the life" of someone seperates from "interacting" with them.  Which may just another way of getting to that we disagree about what constitutes a social interaction, and what doesn't.

That said, I *think* my answer to your "is anticipating every possible action interaction?" question is also "well, no."  But for me, the reason why is related to Walt's post over in the thread that MJ references at the start of this one.  "Every possible action" is just data, and the real key is the process.  Interaction is (mostly) a process - one that does not, for me, require that two people sit down at the same table and talk to each other in real time.

Gordon

[Jack Spencer Jr]

"Every possible action" is just data, and the real key is the process.  Interaction is (mostly) a process - one that does not, for me, require that two people sit down at the same table and talk to each other in real time.

Hrms I'll try one more thing before it's time for bed.

Moms cooks her family a nice homecooked meal. Chicken, biscuits, rich meaty gravy with apple pie for dessert.

Moms leaves a note on the fridge "I'm out with the Bridge Club. There's food in the fridge. Fend for yourself" We'll say, for the sake of arguement, the family manages to have the same meal. Chicken, biscuits, rich meaty gravy with apple pie for dessert. They even cleaned up the dishes. Wash, dry, put away. Mom grabbed some Taco Bell drive through with the girls. When she got home, she did even know the family had eaten. (although she can assume they did) Are these the same? Mom provided the dinner for her family. Mom does the grocery shopping. They chose from what she had provided for them. I think my point here is less about that and more about how she didn't get to eat with them or eat of this same meal as they did.

*changes gears*

When a designer writes a solo, do they ask their fans what choice they want? No. They attempt to imagine what choices a player would want to make. Who is this player the designer is imagining making these choices? It is themselves. It is like how the author is technically the first reader of his book. The designer plays as subsequent players will play...by themselves. (OK, yeah, they may have friends play it and make changes here and there, but this is based on the writiers original solo work)

So I put forth that the designer of a solo is not so much playing with everyone who plays their game as they are playing with themselves.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Sorry. Double post.

[Gordon C. Landis]

Hi Jack,

So - let me check where we're at.  We agree that solo play and group play are the same in some ways, but not in all ways.  Your claim is that "social interaction" is one of/the main distinguishing feature of group play, and that that difference really puts solo's outside the RPG envelope.

My thought is that that depends upon how you think about social interaction.  The claim isn't that the meal with the mother attending is the same as the meal with the mother absent, but rather that the mother has an impact on the meal in either case - that the person consuming the meal may well respond to the foods by thinking of the mother, having emotional reactions ("ah, mom's potato recipe is the BEST!"), and etc.  Or even if they don't know or think of the mother, they may connect the food flavors and etc. (play) to other experiences in their life.  And a good cook will know how to make that more likely to happen.  And a receptive diner will be more likely to do so.

You grant that the absent mother is "touching the lives" of the diner(s).  I'm willing to call that "social interaction," though I'll happily grant that it is a different kind of interaction than if the mother was there.  Having her able to immediately respond to what the diner(s) say instead of, maybe, imagining what they might say and preparing the food appropiately for that, provides a different experience.  But I see them as different flavors of the same thing, rather than two entirely different things.

Let me try something - here's what you posted about what a solo designer does:
"When a designer writes a solo, do they ask their fans what choice they want? No. They attempt to imagine what choices a player would want to make. Who is this player the designer is imagining making these choices? It is themselves."

Here's my rewrite for a conventional GM preparing for live, see-you-across-the-table play:
"When a GM prepares for play, do they ask their players what choices they want? No. They attempt to imagine what choices their players would want to make. Who are these players the designer is imagining making these choices? It is their understanding, their "imagining" of those players."
(Note that the GM *could* specifically ask their players what choices they specifically want, whereas the solo designer can not (though general feedback might inform how they design their NEXT solo adventure).  But most GM's I've played with don't ask, at least not bluntly and not often.)

Again, the claim isn't that these are the same in all ways, or that it's bad/wrong to want/like the immediate feedback of live play (hell, I haven't played a solo P&P game in a decade, and only rarely play computer games nowadays).  I just don't see "social interaction" as entirely absent from solo play.  The social interaction with a solo game designer(s) is less flexible, reliable and diverse than that with a (skilled and  known by the player) live GM/group, but that doesn't mean it is absent.

Gordon

[M. J. Young]

Jack, it suddenly occurs to me (and I think Gordon was on the edge of this) that by your definition, you've almost certainly excluded Trailblazing from role playing games, and probably also Illusionism and Participationism.

If I sit down with module, whether one I bought or one I created myself, there's a tacit assumption that everything that might happen is covered in those pages. My reaction as referee is to reveal what happens, based on my understanding of what's in those pages. If you wander from the trail, all I can do (if I'm true to my Trailblazing technique) is let you wander out of the story and into nothing, or possibly into another module. If you were supposed to save the world, and you missed it, oh well--the world's lost. At no point does what the players do cause the referee to adjust things; he's only revealing them. In that sense, we could indeed replace him with a computer, provided we've got a program that can understand all the actions players might take and produce appropriate responses. If it's one player and a module, with Trailblazing play, the referee's role is little more than to ensure that the player is given the information he has earned, and he's not more relevant than a choose your own adventure book or CRPG, but that we assume he understands your information requests a bit better.

Similarly, with Participationism and Illusionism we accept that the referee is revealing the story, and it doesn't matter what the players do, beyond that they lend color to it.

Thus the question is, if the referee does not alter anything he intended or expected to do based on player choices, is it still role playing by your understanding? You seem to require that there be mutual interaction between the player and the referee, and you exclude solo play based entirely on the fact that the referee in that case (author of the scenario) does not and cannot react to the player. Yet if (as in Trailblazing, Illusionism, and Participationism) the referee is already committed to non-reactive presentation of prescripted information, how is that different?

--M. J. Young

[AnyaTheBlue]

Just to muddy the water a little bit.

When reading a newspaper, or a work of fiction, or a biography, there is an unspoken and unstated compact between the author and the reader which is also refered to as a Social Contract.  It covers, among other things, what specific literary techniques and genre conventions are being used.

The reader and the author never meet, never know each other, just as in a Solo RPG situation.

Communication, however, has occured.  One way, to be sure (Author to Reader).  But communication is still a kind of social interaction.  In a Computer RPG the communication is exactly the same, from the author(s) to the players, but instead of being mediated in the form of a book or module, it's on a CD-Rom (or floppy, for us oldsters).  Still a one way communication, a social interaction governed by social rules, concepts, and contracts.

The biggest difference between a Solo RPG, a CRPG, and a Tabletop (or IRC/Online) RPG is one of feedback.  In the Solo RPG, there is a preprogrammed feedback loop, based upon the options the designer provided.  With early CRPG, it was the same.  Currently, though, there can be a local feedback loop, but it's still limited in what sorts of choices it can understand and respond to.  Finally, there's having a human GM (either in person or through e-mail/post/chat/videoconference) who can excercise dynamic and variable feedback between the planned game information, the rules, and the players.

It's a spectrum, a continuum, not a set of discrete states.

I think, anyway.  In the solo case, it's largely preprogrammed (although there are ways to randomize it -- see the Dungeon generation system in the back of the 1st ed DMG).  In the computer RPG, you have the same penumbra of options as you do with solo RPG play, except that you don't have to worry about making it tedious, because the computer is good at doing tedious stuff, so you can really do elaborate preprogrammed feedback loops if you want, with lots of randomizing and clever decision trees.  Finally, with human-mediated play, you can have the full gamut from completely programmed play (ie, tournament scenario play or having a GM mediate a solo module (TFT did some of this explicitely, IIRC), to completely spontaneous play (winging it off the cuff completely).

Another obscuring data point.

Waaay back in the mists of time, my brother and I got our first computer,, an Apple IIe.  We saved up our allowance, and spent a week deciding which computer game to buy.  We settled on Wizardry I because, well, it was like D&D.

When we played (and when we played with friends, too) we would generate our own characters and 'own' them.  We'd put our party together, go down into the dungeon, and then we'd discuss where to go (using the maps we'd drawn out) and when we got into combat we'd individually decide what our characters would do and what spells they'd cast based on who 'owned' the character.  And we'd split up magic items exactly like we did when playing D&D -- who can make the best use out of what.

It was pretty Gam/Sim rpg play with explicit Pawn stance, and with the computer and it's feedback loops standing in for a person doing the GMing.  There was even explicit face to face social interaction between the various players.  All of us playing were D&D players, and we'd take turns 'driving' and doing the keyboard entry.  It was effectively group D&D where nobody had to do the prep work of being the DM.

Where does that fit?

[Jack Spencer Jr]

I'm going to be honest, I am thoroughly frustated with this thread. I am frustrated and yet I still keep coming back, and not just because my name's in the subject line.

I had said that this would have to be a matter of disagreeing to disagree on the first page, but no one, especially me, is doing so. It has unfortunately become attempting to convert the other to your way of thinking. I am twice as guilty as anyone else.

But I am most frustrated because I not only had been stating my position, but also my reasons why. I have a purpose. It's not just a matter of "this is the way I think so everyone else must think the same way Har Har Ho Ho" It more about this is the way I see it and I had to make myself see it this way because this perspective allows for this, this, this and this.

To put it another way, were we discussing the English language and someone had piped in "Hery the language is composed of words and some words are nouns and some are verbs. And they are different because of this and this."  And then someone else says "But are they both made up of syllables and spelled out with letters? They are basically the same." Cornered by these undenible facts, the first person must concede and the language remains a jumble of words and no knowledge is gained.

I mean, sure social interation or whatever is not completely absent in solos but to point it out is a stretch. As big a stretch as it is to point out the social aspect of having an heirloom acquired by a long dead and forgotten ancester. As big a stretch as it is to note how by turning on a light bulb allows Thomas Edison to touch our lives.  

And there are grey areas. Of course there are. These things simply are and we are trying to understand them. But what is the purpose of pointing out the grey area to poke holes the whole structure of understanding?

This is how I feel about this whole thing. I sorry if I was getting defensive, but I feel like I had been put on the defensive. I would also feel better if it was for some purpose that the line between group and solo roleplay is being discredited. Is there a purpose that will lead to better understanding of roleplaying?

[Gordon C. Landis]

Jack,

For what it's worth, there's no reason to be frustrated from where I sit - this forum interaction can be darn inconvienent, but I've slowly seen more details get teased out here and I consider that very productive.  I will admit, I'm not clear exactly what you see as the purpose behind excluding solo play from the "RPG" category, so I'd love to see you clarify that a bit.

But for me, the main purpose for a while in posting specifically to you (as opposed to the general thread auduence) has been to be sure we know what it is that we agree to disagree about.  I think it's "social interaction" - I do NOT think the social aspect involved in solo play is the same as the social aspect of having an heirloom acquired by a long dead and forgotten ancestor.  Not even close.

I find this important because I think there is much about the generic category "creating stories" that can be applied to RPG play, and P&P solo games are an interesting mid-step between a normal, solo-authored book and standard group RPG play.  I think we can learn interesting things by looking at the way an imaginitive space is built when reading a book, compared to what happens in solo play, compared to what happens in group play.  They have differences, but they also have simularities - and for me, the introduction a new form/level of social interaction in solo play (as can also happen in what I'll blithely and probably inaccurately label post-modern experimental fiction) makes 'em particularly interesting.

Does that make sense?  

Gordon

[AnyaTheBlue]

I agree with Gordon.

There isn't any reason to be frustrated by this.  Since there isn't a real solid agreed-upon definition of RPG, it's inevitable that it has to get brought up and hashed out again every once in awhile.

I think part of what is frustrating you is terminology.  I think you need to let go of saying solo games are not RPG, and simply say that they are a different kind of RPG, a kind that does not interest you, and a lot fewer people would take issue with your division.

I certainly don't directly equate solo play with face-to-face play.  But I see them as related (as I think you are willing to admit).  Solo play is distinct from, but not entirely alien to, cooperative 'real-time two-way interactive' group play.

I, for one, am glad this thread popped up.  I'm fairly new to the Forge, and this is the first thread about these topics that I've taken part in.

[ejh]

OK, Jack, we've got: "according to my definition of RPGs, solo games are uncontroversially not RPGs, because they are not social, and RPGs must be social."  That's fine.

Even if we grant that, to me, it remains an interesting question to ask: why have at least some gamers considered it uncontroversially true that solo games like the T&T solos *are* rpgs?

It's kind of like with grammatical "errors" -- I often find it interesting to explore the reasons people consistently make certain sorts of grammatical "errors" while others are never made.  It is usually an illuminating exercise.

In that spirit, I find it interesting, to say "if it seems patently, axiomatically obvious to you that solos aren't RPGs, then why has it historically been so inobvious to others?  What implicit criteria about what an RPG is and isn't might justify some people in listing solos as RPGs?"

I think the answer is this, and it does touch on the Lumpley Principle --

One thing that is unique to an RPG is that it involves a movement back and forth between explicit rules that involve explicit tokens (e.g. attributes, skills, points of damage, and so on), and "freeform" rules which involve a world which is defined verbally.

When we talk Lumpley principle, we usually discuss the "consensus" which underlies that verbal definition, but I'd like to step back a pace from that and simply examine the fact that it's a freeform verbal stipulation of a situation.

In a solo gamebook, as in a face-to-face RPG, you have that movement back and forth between resolving things with explicit rules and tokens ("Make a third level saving roll on luck; if you fail, go to 14F") and resolving things by verbal definition ("if you ask the ogre for a light, go to 16B; if you insult his girlfriend, go to 23D").

It is this symbiotic alternation between freeform verbal definition and rules-based simulation which exists equally in solo gamebooks and in face to face play.

If we were to take that as criterial for a roleplaying game, we would find that solo RPGs are indeed RPGs, and perhaps "ruleless" freeform games are not RPGs anymore (because they *only* have the freeform definition of what happens; nothing is articulated by explicit rules and tokens).

Noting this, BTW, helps generate an explanation of why forms of solo RPG-like play *besides* the T&T-style gamebook have never really surfaced.

According to this criterion of what an RPG is, we need to have an ongoing verbal description of what's going on.  In face to face play, that verbal description is provided ex tempore, out loud.  In a gamebook, that verbal description is written down in the gamebook.  But for solo play without a gamebook, what happens?  Do you keep a written log of what happens?  that's a bit slow and tedious.  Do you speak what happens out loud?  That's going to get you strange looks on the subway, and it's also fairly ephemeral compared to group speaking, because there's only one person to remember. Do you say it in your head?  That's incredibly ephemeral.

Anyway, I'm not trying to convince you to abandon the "social interaction is criterial" definition of RPGs if it's useful to you.  I just find it interesting to try to figure out why, historically, people *have* sometimes considered things to be RPGs which do not measure up to that definition, and to figure out what definition must have been involved in that case, whether it's "right" or not.

[M. J. Young]

I will start by apologizing to Jack for singling him out with this thread. I found his stance on this particularly intriguing, and having just recently realized how much I missed his column over at Gaming Outpost knew that he would be quite able to defend his position.

I think he has defended his position admirably. I'm not persuaded, but I do understand it, I think. I would have liked to have seen his consideration of Trailblazing, Participationism, and Illusionism (as forms of role playing in which the feedback to the referee is irrelevant), but he's right--whatever your definition of role playing game you're going to have some things that are gray areas. Jack requires that there be minimally two human beings interacting with each other, such that the decisions of each impact the decisions of the other. I, being rather introverted by nature with a long history of active daydreaming in my youth in which I imagined as much "play" as I've ever done in games with others, think it sufficient if one person is making decisions that create story, with no particular end point in view.

I would perhaps include that as one of my distinguishing factors. When I sit down to right a story as an author, I have a pretty good idea of where the story is going to end--not exact, not in complete detail, but the framework thereof. Further, I build on that ending in my mind even as I create the pieces that will lead to it. My novels are always headed toward the predetermined conclusion. My games never are--I have no idea where my games, or my daydreams, will lead; and thus I equate role playing with daydreaming, in which others may (or may not) be involved.

Neither my definition nor Jack's is going to be fully inclusive of everything put forward as RPG on these forums, nor fullly exclusive of everything that would be refused that designation. So, as Jack said, now perhaps that we've got a better understanding of each other, we can agree to disagree.

I'm happy. Any last words?

--M. J. Young

[Jack Spencer Jr]

I will start by apologizing to Jack for singling him out with this thread.

No harm, no foul.

I would perhaps include that as one of my distinguishing factors. When I sit down to right a story as an author, I have a pretty good idea of where the story is going to end--not exact, not in complete detail, but the framework thereof. Further, I build on that ending in my mind even as I create the pieces that will lead to it. My novels are always headed toward the predetermined conclusion. My games never are--I have no idea where my games, or my daydreams, will lead; and thus I equate role playing with daydreaming, in which others may (or may not) be involved.

Interesting. In Stephen King On Writing, he described that often he writes like how you play. He even spent time describing how Misery grew from his initial inspiration and his original intention for a short story where basically the pig eats him to the full-length novel it is today.

I have written this way as well. Ask James West about it. I had just kind of let the story grow organically, starting with a situation and seeing what happens.

So I find the daydreaming, as you had called it, to be a creative method. So, what happens when you let others into the daydream? You get results completely unexpected. This is the effect that has caused me to draw this line.

I would have liked to have seen his consideration of Trailblazing, Participationism, and Illusionism (as forms of role playing in which the feedback to the referee is irrelevant), but he's right--whatever your definition of role playing game you're going to have some things that are gray areas. Jack requires that there be minimally two human beings interacting with each other, such that the decisions of each impact the decisions of the other. I, being rather introverted by nature with a long history of active daydreaming in my youth in which I imagined as much "play" as I've ever done in games with others, think it sufficient if one person is making decisions that create story, with no particular end point in view.

It may come as a shock, but I am also very introverted. At one time, I might have agree with this word for word, you see. But I have learned pretty much the hard way that letting other people into the mix will invariably derail the train, so to speak. I tried demostating freeform roleplaying in a chat room once. I set up a typical tavern and put a troll in the rom, figuring there'd be a fight. The other person started talking to the troll like they were old friends. Totally unexpected, but we ran with it. It was a fun bit of impromptu roleplaying.

Hence why I make this distinction. I'm looking at big chunks here. Adding even just one other person opens a pandora's box not only in play but in the fellowship with other human beings.

And about these styles of play, illusionism et al, I have two minds.

First, when these styles of play are not healthy, when they're called railroading, I think it may be a similarly introverted GM running the game. They had imagined the game but for some reason forgets or refuses to let the players have any but minimal input into the game.

But if it is healthy, if the players all understand and agree to it, then it's great. I still see the social aspect. It may have only a minimal effect on the proceedings, but it still have the fellowship going on. Much like if the players were playing Trouble. There is little for the player to do in that game but pop the bubble and move their pieces. But while playing, they talk about other thing or just enjoy each other's company.

On a related note, I asked the wife one time why she plays console RPGs like Final Fantasy X. She complains to no end about having to find the clues or figure out what she is supposed to do, and don't even get her started about the constant random combats. She replied that she likes to experience the story. I asked if it would be better to just see a movie. SHe said no because it's not interactive.

So for the "railroading" styles, I am reminded of something Ron once said around here. Not everyone has a desire to create stories. This, I think, is true. Otherwise Illusionism et al would never be a good way to play. But everyone can appreciate story.