Solo Gaming

[Jack Spencer Jr]

the thing is, it might not matter. I think the "solo gaming is not an RPG" people sort of have a point, in that they know there's a qualitative difference between playing solo and playing in a group. to them, the social aspect of group roleplaying is so different from computer games or interactive fiction that they define "roleplaying" in terms of social behavior -- a definition which may be debatable.

Yes.

My reasoning for the distinction is that there is a definate, recognizable difference between group roleplaying and solo roleplaying. Is this difference reason to consider them separate, if related, activities? I think so. Not only does the social aspect of roleplaying make for a peculiar dynamic, but design of a solo roleplaying game should, IMO, be fundementally different from a group-designed system.

That is, I don't thing a "rules-lite" group system played by one's self works very well. I have played Tunnels & Trolls and I find it mind-crushingly tedious, especially the character creation portion. Fighting Fantasy's I roll then he rolls combat system, which is not unlike a group RPG, is also tedious. No, the best solo RPG I have found are the AD&D solo gamebooks from TSR.

Oddly enough, one of the better series in this respect are the AD&D solo Gamebooks AKA Super Endless Quests. Odd because of the general vibe I get about TSR's abilities as a game design house yet they put out one of the more forward-thinking solo series. Talent is where you find it.

How it worked is simple. In combat you are given a target number on 2d6. If you missed, you took the damage described and rolled again. Yes the monster automatically hit you back. If you made the roll, you were instructed to turn to a passage where you read a prose description of how the battle went.

This made comabts a bit more interesting than the typical I roll to hit, he rolls to hit, repeat format of other solos. This format may work in group play, but by yourself it can be mind-numbingly tedious.

In at least two of the previous threads I said "but the AD&D Solo gamebooks weren't perfect, mind you," so, but the AD&D Solo gamebooks weren't perfect, mind you, just a step in a direction that I think would make for better solo roleplay.

[Callan S.]

Yeah, I'm for changing the the definition from talking about a "Shared Imagined Space" to talk about an "imagined space that has to be shared amongst all participants." If that's just one, that's fine. Might be stretching the definition a tad, but I think solo play has enough similarities that it counts.

the thing is, it might not matter. I think the "solo gaming is not an RPG" people sort of have a point, in that they know there's a qualitative difference between playing solo and playing in a group. to them, the social aspect of group roleplaying is so different from computer games or interactive fiction that they define "roleplaying" in terms of social behavior -- a definition which may be debatable.*snip*

So where does that leave that PBEM game I run? I've never met them and I mostly interact with their PC's, not them.

I don't believe judging it by quality is healthy. You judge quality by how well it met the goals it was seeking. The goals of something are more important when it comes to determining what it is.

Also, by checking what an activities goals are, you can find what is necersary part of it and what is just an add on. Is getting together to chat a goal of roleplaying? Or is it a side element that can make it better, but isn't part of it? Otherwise a movie isn't a movie without popcorn and a car isn't a car without go fast stripes.

Something that makes an activity more fun, isn't necessarily an actual part of that activity.

Note: Many edits.

[M. J. Young]

I think the "solo gaming is not an RPG" people sort of have a point, in that they know there's a qualitative difference between playing solo and playing in a group. to them, the social aspect of group roleplaying is so different from computer games or interactive fiction that they define "roleplaying" in terms of social behavior -- a definition which may be debatable.*snip*

So where does that leave that PBEM game I run? I've never met them and I mostly interact with their PC's, not them.

I don't believe judging it by quality is healthy. You judge quality by how well it met the goals it was seeking. The goals of something are more important when it comes to determining what it is.

First, I think we're using "quality" in two different senses here. A qualitative difference is generally taken to mean a difference in kind rather than a difference in degree (which would be a quantitative difference). Thus we don't mean that one is better than the other, but that it contains an identifiable quality that the other lacks. That quality, as proposed here, is social.

The PBEM is still social in this sense. The shared imaginary space is created between players. It's not a difference in kind, but a difference in degree--you're still interacting with others with whom you must come into some sort of agreement regarding the content of the shared imaginary space for the game to continue. The argument regarding solo play is that it is lacking this quality: no one has to agree about anything for it to become part of the imagined space, which is now not shared because only one person has it. It is thus a qualitative difference, a difference in kind, based on the absence of this quality.

Helpful?

--M. J. Young

[talysman]

thanks, M. J., that is what I meant, indeed. I wasn't judging the quality of anything, but talking about the presence or absence of certain qualities. also, my main point was that I think the issue of whether solo gaming is roleplaying is irrelevant, because what really matters is studying many forms of gaming to understand techniques better and get new ideas. I tend to be more focused on the shallow details of gaming (does this work? what would happen if we changed this? what do people mean when they say this?) and less on the deep issues.

anyways, I'm glad we resolved this issue before anyone spotted that statement about "interacting with their PCs". (whew! that was close!)

[Callan S.]

I think the "solo gaming is not an RPG" people sort of have a point, in that they know there's a qualitative difference between playing solo and playing in a group. to them, the social aspect of group roleplaying is so different from computer games or interactive fiction that they define "roleplaying" in terms of social behavior -- a definition which may be debatable.*snip*

So where does that leave that PBEM game I run? I've never met them and I mostly interact with their PC's, not them.

I don't believe judging it by quality is healthy. You judge quality by how well it met the goals it was seeking. The goals of something are more important when it comes to determining what it is.

First, I think we're using "quality" in two different senses here. A qualitative difference is generally taken to mean a difference in kind rather than a difference in degree (which would be a quantitative difference). Thus we don't mean that one is better than the other, but that it contains an identifiable quality that the other lacks. That quality, as proposed here, is social.

The PBEM is still social in this sense. The shared imaginary space is created between players. It's not a difference in kind, but a difference in degree--you're still interacting with others with whom you must come into some sort of agreement regarding the content of the shared imaginary space for the game to continue. The argument regarding solo play is that it is lacking this quality: no one has to agree about anything for it to become part of the imagined space, which is now not shared because only one person has it. It is thus a qualitative difference, a difference in kind, based on the absence of this quality.

Helpful?

--M. J. Young

The latter half of my post delves into this. One model of car that has go fast stripes and another of the same make don't need different names. By that use of the word qualitive, though, there is indeed a qualitive difference.

Shared imaginative space: I've already discussed this on the first page (responding to a post of yours, actually), true shared space is a missconception. Aiming toward shared space is fine, but saying each player has achieved it between them is painful. Each has an imagined space and they allow each other to influence each others space in an attempt to have a shared one, but each really only has a variable copy.

Even more importantly, when they try to effect each others imagined space, they will never effect it perfectly (if they could then everyone could share a perfect copy). To effect someone elses space, you make a guess at what would do it the way you want. It will still fail to affect perfectly.

Once you realise its a guess, it makes the temporal part irrelevant. If I'm guessing, I could be doing it while I'm talking to you or ten years ago. If I'm guessing, in play feedback can only improve my guess. It will not change it from a guess into something else.

This means someone writing a book ten years ago can guess how to create attempts at shared space with a user and guess how to manipulate the others shared space, just as much as someone who is sitting across from them at a table. The guy at the table might make more informed guesses, but its still a guess.

The guy who wrote the book/computer game some time ago is attempting to share imagined space with the user.

Really the best way to realise that solo gaming is roleplay is identify that solo play doesn't really exist. In the vital elements that matter, your not actually alone, so your not playing solo.

Which helps seperate it neatly from daydreaming, which truely is just one person agreeing on what exists in the shared space.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

The guy who wrote the book/computer game some time ago is attempting to share imagined space with the user.

But the interaction is mostly one-way and, more to the point, what a designer makes will be built using different criteria and different tools that a game designed for group play. This is what I'm on about, what MJ call qualitative difference. Same deal with computer games IMO

[Callan S.]

The guy who wrote the book/computer game some time ago is attempting to share imagined space with the user.

But the interaction is mostly one-way and, more to the point, what a designer makes will be built using different criteria and different tools that a game designed for group play. This is what I'm on about, what MJ call qualitative difference. Same deal with computer games IMO

Interaction only improves the guess...it doesn't change the beast into something other than a guess. As long as your dealing with guesswork to attempt to create and shape shared space (which never really exists anywhere), it's roleplay (until psionic mind bonds come to exist for face to face games...new, from Sony enterprises).

What I'm on about is the cited qualitive differences here don't define whether something is roleplay or not. Interaction, different criteria and different tools are all great...but lets not get so used to them being there that it clouds our judgement and we think they simply must be there or it's a whole different beast. Particularly when due to media used (PBEM) or lack of GM skill, there's plenty of examples of roleplay happening out there with missing or broken bits of these elements mentioned. Some people (quite small) believe it can't be roleplay without dice...certainly they have let their belief in what qualitive differences say X is an RPG and Y isn't, drift very far.

[Scourge108]

Now I had a new thought, and I wonder if it's been done before.  Most of the examples of solo RP are from a position of the reader as player, and the author as GM.  What if the reader was instead put in a GM type position?  For example, they get a basic plotline and some characters, they have their own characters to put in the story, and they can describe the way the story plays out.  They may have a set number of "successes" and "failures" that they can place in any part of the story to build the dramatic effect desired.  Sort of like a partially written story that you fill in the blanks.

[Callan S.]

It certainly would be like GM'ing. It really depends on what your goals are though, rather than just applying it because its interesting.

If you take it that solo games are still an exploration of character, and that explorationn is your goal, then it's going to clash. Although anyone who's GM'ed knows, you can RP when you GM, sometimes quite well. But the god like powers a GM has ditract from actually experiencing a character so much as to almost be living it. The more GM powers you have, the more noise there is between yourself and living the moment with the character.

The other side is that it's potentially not really GM'ing. GM'ing is about trying to customising material for someone who wants to play a role. If the person who buys the book does go on to fill in the blanks in a way that would provide material for a role, he doesn't really get to get something out of the product until someone then plays it. Well, he could get satisfaction from designing it, but that's not as complete as someone who plays a fightinng fantasy book as a player. A little hard to describe, that.

And if they don't build it so its customised to someones role desires, then their not GM'ing. Their co-authoring a book.

[Gordon C. Landis]

In my opinion, here's the difference (and again IMO, MJ is on a good track in considering quantitative vs. qualitative - though let's not forget that deciding what is "just" a quantity and what is a "true" quality is often open to debate): group play means that what a player ACTUALLY does, right then as play is happening, can be taken by ANOTHER HUMAN and used as input to the creative process.

Both all-cap'd words/phrases are important, because solo play can certainly say "what a player does can be taken and used as input to the creative process."  So let's look at 'em in a little depth.  ACTUALLY is important in my view because of a variation on the "guessing" phenomena Callan talks about.  I use guessing here to mean "predicting/anticipating what the input will be", and a solo designer can never guess ALL the input someone is going to provide.  But ALL the input someone provides to the shared imagined space can be fully known if you're there when it happens.  Callan points out (it seems to me) that even though you "know" all of it, you're still guessing as to how to USE it.  So I'd say there is a slightly qualitative difference there (in terms of the nature of the input), but since that quality ends up getting processed anyway, in most ways it ends up as simply a quantitative difference.

ANOTHER HUMAN is important because you can have a "system" which is quite complex/sophisticated to respond to what is ACTUALLY provided by the player (computer games can be particularly complex/sophisticated in going about this).  The question as to whether the difference between what a human does with that input is qualitatively or quantitatively different from what a system does seems mostly unanswerable to me - though my opinion is that the most we can say about a quality unique to the human case is to use essentially circular logic.  E.g., there is (I'll stipulate) an observable quantitative difference in the resulting play when another human is involved, and that is (we might say) caused by the unique quality that there's literally another human right there as we play (rather than the representative of a human via a system/text of some kind).  But the PROCESS is in no quality different.  The RESULT can often be very different, but - again, whether that difference is in degree or kind seems mostly unanswerable to me.

So I'm torn on this.  I think it's valuable that we can see even in a stripped-down T&T solo module the very same process that occurs in all RPG play, but there's no denying that there are opportunities available when there is another human being present that are not there in solo play - or at least, they can not be as easily/reliably assumed by a designer to be fully present throughout play.  Therefore, I guess I'd say that which model (solo play is/isn't RPGing) is more useful will depend on what aspect of design you're looking at - 'cause the truth is, it both is and isn't.  To my eye, anyway,

Gordon

[Callan S.]

The problem here is that it's being percieved that with a computer program or fighting fantasy book there's no one else present.

However, someone else is present, and they are represented by their artistic creation, the program or the book. Those special mental functions are there, rendered into the product.

Let's break down a face to face encounter.
First, they are face to face and speaking.
Next, they can only communicate through typing to each other (like a PBEM)
Next, the GM can't respond to every little enquiry about what they can do (he's only online once a week, say). So, knowing them as best he can, he gives a list of options he guesses will be of interest and that fit with in the the framework he's imagining.
NOTE: This is just the same as someone who is face to face listening to what someone wants and say 'No, it wont work out'...then curses himself latter as he figures out a way it could have been used/could have applied. The GM himself was operating on a list of possible actions (substantial, yes), and yet it wasn't expansive enough. Just like a program or pick a paths list isn't expansive enough. It's not an error on the part of the GM, it's just natural limitations.

The next step is that the GM can only be there once a month, so he lists even more substantial lists of options, that lead to more options.

Finally, the GM can never be there in person. Only in the spirit, in a pick a path or a program.

He can only provide X amount of choices in those mediums, but even as in person he can only provide Y amount himself.

And given differences between GM's and their GMing skills, Y amount fluctuates wildly from human to human. I'd say some computer games provide a higher amount than some humans out there do. But this is really just a reflection of the designers own Y capacity, when they do.

As I said, solo isn't truely alone.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

However, someone else is present, and they are represented by their artistic creation, the program or the book. Those special mental functions are there, rendered into the product.

But not in their entirety, which continues to be my point. If it were, then there would never have been any complaints about railroading.

[Gordon C. Landis]

Jack (and all) -

But does it MATTER that they aren't there in their entirety?  After all, railroading happens with a "live" GM too.  And if it does matter, in what WAY does it matter?

That's what I think this thread and/or its' children/descendants would have to focus on to be useful beyond interesting theory - if (given that you/others accept this) there's no fundamental difference between the process in solo play (context provided and reinforced by an established and at-best "mechanically" self-revising system) and group play (context provided and reinforced by another person/people present as play occurs who can perform theoretically better "human-response" revision), what does that difference in the details (human-actually-there as opposed to human-by-proxy) imply?

I'm saying here that to me, it does NOT imply an entirely different sort of "thing" is happening - but it's also obvious to me that there are some differences.  It seems to me you want to say something about those differences - for which I don't think we need to accept that group is a different thing than solo, only that group has aspects that are different than solo.  E.g., "arguing" with a computer/text is not very productive (not that that always stops people from doing it :-), whereas it can be VERY productive in group play.  Potentially, the "disputing the system" thing is exactly identical in both approaches, but in solo play, it CANNOT produce immediate feedback outside of what might have already have been anticipated by the system - the BEST that can happen is you get a hold of the author/programmer and lobby for future changes.  Now, the other humans in group play may NOT respond any differently than the established text/system in solo play do, but POTENTIALLY, they can.  Not certainly (Callan's point about some computers/texts being better than some human GMs), but potentially.

Many threads have made some mileage out of the similarities between solo and group play - but even though IMO those similarities are many and deep, that doesn't mean that the differences are unimportant.

So - again, talking some more about those differences strikes me as possibly useful, but splitting hairs about whether or not those differences are fundamental doesn't.  Is there a particular difference beyond what the thread has already discussed that folks see as important?  Or a nuance of what's been discussed that needs to be developed further?  If so, let's talk about that,

Gordon

[Callan S.]

Jack Spencer Jr: A GM in his entirety simply provides a broader railroad. Those with good GM skills provide even wider roads (Note: I Read rail road to mean two lines in between which the GM accepts movement. Thus railroading still exits even when the players are comfortable with their bredth of movement, for me. Of course at that point, it isn't railroading as an issue, though)

Gordon C. Landis: I pursue this particular point, because when you want to really analyse something, you try to strip it down to its component parts. Trying to analyse everthing that's present leads to a big mess. So you remove part by part, checking each time that its still working. I think fighting fantasy and CRPG's are very stripped down. If we recognise that they are still roleplay, we have something very useful for analysis.

As it stands now, we try to analyse something then someone pipes in 'but it hasn't got booverwack, you have to look at booverwack to really understand anything'. I'd prefer to pave the ground that lets us use something simple to use when we analyse this crazy hobby. :)

[Callan S.]

For example, the original poster doesn't include CRPG's.

You don't see this sort of thing too often that I recall, except for video RPGs, which I really have to put in a completely different category. Not much creative input comes from the players. Which is, of course, one of the problems with this kind of setup. Any ideas of any RPGs that allow this sort of thing in any new ingenius way, or thoughts on how this might be done?

Anyway, in relation to solo gaming, lets look at the phrase 'creative input'. More to the point, how does a GM address creative input? Typically there are three responce types:
"Hey, that's wicked, it works and you get past the obstacle"
"Hey, that's good, do one (or more) dice rolls and get past the obstacle"
"That doesn't work"

You can see the specturm there...the auto pass, the 'I'm not sure, lets let the dice decide' and the plain flat NO.

Sorry, my eyes are drying up from too much time online, but I think its clear that an author/GM could decide just how he'd likes to evaluate it, but instead of just doing it, figure out how he does it and write down an abstraction of it.

I'll come back latter, on this.