Solo Gaming

[Gordon C. Landis]

Hey Callan -

Just a quick msg - I think I basically agree with you, that's why I've tried to point out the ways in which there are important, fundamental similarities.  But *IF* Jack and others want to persue the differences (which I think they do, having been through this before in some of the linked threads), I think that's ALSO perfectly cool.  The two lines always exist, but their shape/size/feel (and who has control over that) of 'em makes a HUGE difference in play.  Details about 'em vary somewhat in group vs. solo play, but sure, they're always there.  I don't think we have to lose the similarities in order to discuss differences, so if we can get enough agreement about similarities maybe the discussion can move on.

That's my hope, anyway,

Gordon

[Scourge108]

Well, I've given this some thought, and while I have come up with all kinds of ideas for creative writing games, it still really doesn't qualify as roleplaying to me.  I think the social element is a necessary part of roleplaying.  There are many computer games and CYOA books that mimic roleplay, but there still is no socialization going on.  By definition, a roleplaying game involves someone adopting a role.  And as any sociologist will tell you, a role can only exist in a social context.  A role you take on exists only in relation to other people with their own roles.  You can sit and pretend to be whatever you want, but it doesn't become a role in the sociological sense until it is in a social context.  You might be able to argue that the interaction of reader and author is a form of socialization, and it is.  But I still think it's still a far cry from the sort of socialization we're talking about, since the role the individual readers take is still only personally acknowledged by the reader himself.

[M. J. Young]

By definition, a roleplaying game involves someone adopting a role.  And as any sociologist will tell you, a role can only exist in a social context.  A role you take on exists only in relation to other people with their own roles.  You can sit and pretend to be whatever you want, but it doesn't become a role in the sociological sense until it is in a social context.

Let me play devil's advocate here. I am not persuaded either way at this point, but this seems worth challenging.

I run a forum game. Six days a week, barring interruptions, I stop in once and read the posts left by up to maybe half a dozen current players (the number has fluctuated over time) and post my responses. I have met one of these players outside of the Internet, because he made a point of routing his vacation through a game store at which I was running a demo (I was very flattered, as he did this instead of one of the major conventions, although I think part of it was the cost difference). One of them sends me Christmas cards each year, although again we haven't met. I have corresponded with a couple of them, but generally about the game.

One of those players has just recently said that the forum game is about the only "real roleplaying" he manages to work into his life; clearly the players believe they are in a role playing game, despite the unusual pacing problems of the medium.

By your definition, then, there is social interaction happening here, or they are mistaken and this is not a role playing game.

That means at some point they are playing a role in relation to someone else--presumably me, each other, and the others on the forum who read the posts.

At what point does their action become playing a role?

From what you say, it would seem that they are not playing the role until someone reads the post; yet at that moment, they aren't doing anything of the sort--they may be asleep for all I know (and probably are, given my outrageous schedule). The logical alternative is that they are playing the role when they post; but in that case, since it is within the realm of possibility that no one will ever read the post (e.g., the site could crash and take the post with it) there is no significant difference between what they do and similar actions in a solo game.

The only feature I see that distinguishes the two is that those who post in the forum game do so with the expectation that they are conveying the information to me. That seems a rather subjective means of distinguishing the two--but it may be significant. Is it the case that solo games are not role playing games because information is conveyed in one direction only?

Is that a sufficient basis for the distinction?

--M. J. Young

[Scourge108]

By your definition, then, there is social interaction happening here, or they are mistaken and this is not a role playing game.

That means at some point they are playing a role in relation to someone else--presumably me, each other, and the others on the forum who read the posts.

At what point does their action become playing a role?

I would definitely see PBEM and play-by-post games as a form of social interaction, in that there is communication going on between 2 specific people, who acknowledge each others' communication.  Obviously it's not quite the same as being face-to-face, but there still is a definite interaction that just takes longer between messages.

From what you say, it would seem that they are not playing the role until someone reads the post; yet at that moment, they aren't doing anything of the sort--they may be asleep for all I know (and probably are, given my outrageous schedule). The logical alternative is that they are playing the role when they post; but in that case, since it is within the realm of possibility that no one will ever read the post (e.g., the site could crash and take the post with it) there is no significant difference between what they do and similar actions in a solo game.

I see your point, and this is where I think the definition of roleplay dissolves into some gray area.  In an allegedly typical PBEM game, the act of writing a post would qualify as roleplay.  The player adopts the role, writes the post in character, and sends it out.  It is not read, acknowledged, and responded to until much later, but the fact that it is read, acknowledged, and responded to puts it firmly in the category of roleplaying.

As a counter-example, I'll use my own anecdotal experience of PBEM and play-by-post forum games.  Typically, there are a group of people ready to play in this game.  The GM makes the first post.  One or two people go next.  Then there's an eerie silence for a week or more.  I wait and wait for my post to be read, acknowledged, and responded to.  Eventually, the one or two of us still playing will start writing everyone asking what the hell is going on, and we'll get "oh, I never check my e-mail.  Just count me out," and "I just don't have the time to get involved in roleplaying right now," etc.  So everyone loses interest before it even gets a chance to start.  Now, when I made my first post, it felt like I was roleplaying when I did it.  But never getting a response took that feeling away.  Then it was just essentially talking to myself.  I have to say, roleplay actually never happened.  I just wrote an extremely short story from a first-person perspective.  With no conclusion.

The only feature I see that distinguishes the two is that those who post in the forum game do so with the expectation that they are conveying the information to me. That seems a rather subjective means of distinguishing the two--but it may be significant. Is it the case that solo games are not role playing games because information is conveyed in one direction only?

Is that a sufficient basis for the distinction?

--M. J. Young

I think that very well may be it.

[Walt Freitag]

Sorry to weigh in so late in the thread. I've been following it all along, and I think the discussion has been generally on the mark -- that is, facing the crucial questions, if not necessarily resolving them.

My perspective as a tabletop (primarily) player/GM and a computer (solo and non-solo) game designer, is just a little bit different. I admit I sometimes think of the computer program or solo paper game as a sort of bottled essence-of-me-as-GM that goes out and has a dialog with the player. But there are two problems with that, the obvious one and the slightly less obvious one.

The obvious problem is that the finite system cannot "invent new stuff" at runtime. The machine cannot author. This is the one that everyone obsesses about, such as whether the "walls" necessitated by that fact are acceptable or not, whether the limited number of options available to a player-character are sufficient or not, and so forth.

The slightly less obvious problem is that the finite system cannot validate "new stuff" invented by the player. The machine cannot criticize. My personal view is that this is a much more important issue than the first. In other words, the biggest difference between solo play and tabletop RPG play is not the lack of an inventive GM (or inventive fellow players), but the lack of a critical audience.

Take a look at one very simple example of this principle in action: the naming of player-characters by players. Players new to CRPGs usually put some thought (if not always much creativity) into player-character names. Players often use names of the player's past tabletop RPG characters, favorite characters from fiction ("Frodo"), mythical figures, real-world acquaintances, made-up pastiche names ("Thrombar the Barbarian"), names with at least a modicum of meaning for the player. Check in with the same player creating new characters after a few sessions of play. What are they named now? Most likely, things like "Point Man," "aaa," "Frodo9," or "fuckhead." The player has learned (at a deep emotional level) that the "system" doesn't care what the character's name is.

(I wonder, sometimes, about the possible cumulative effects of those kids' educational TV shows and videos that invariably say [cheerful singsong]"verrrrry goood"[/cheerful singsong] whether or not the child has pointed to the blue circle as requested.)

Interestingly, when playing a new CPRG, I've seen a lot of players temporarily revert to serious character names, as if hoping that somehow this time the system will recognize or reward being "serious about the role playing." But systems can't do that.

Solo computer game designers, to complete a vicious cycle, are aware of this. The inevitable reaction: "We know players don't really care about playing in character, our focus groups showed that 68% of them don't even give their characters real names."

While I cannot invent systems that do the so-far-impossible, I've been experimenting with solo text adventure structures that ask the player to do some of what the system cannot, and provide self-criticism of a sort that affects play. It's only a slight shift in focus. For example, instead of:

If you try to bluff the guard outside the gate by pretending to be a superior officer with new orders, go to 91.

If you try to bluff the guard outside the gate by yelling "Warn the garrison, but for god's sake don't open the gate, there are a thousand armed rebels coming this way. Your life and mine are a small price to pay for keeping the fortress safe," go to 92.

If you try to bluff the guard outside the gate by pretending to be a wounded messenger, go to 93.

We could have:

You have [in the previous decision that got you here] decided to try to bluff the guard at the game. Decide exactly what you plan to do and say, and then go to 46.

[at 46] If your bluff involves mostly direct confrontation and spoken argument, go to 111. If it involves physical drama or props, go to 112. If it involves reverse psychology, go to 113. If more than one of these things at the same time, choose which one will be most important in determining its success.

Or we could even have:

[at 46] If the bluff you've come up with is lame, go to 122. If it's pretty convincing as long as the guard isn't very attentive, go to 123. If it would fool anyone no matter how perceptive or duty-minded, go to 124.

The problem, of course, is that while the system now provides (self-)criticism of their ideas, it doesn't (and cannot) provide any criticism of their self-criticism! So I'm not sure if this really gets us off square 1 solo-role-playing wise. But it should be an interesting variation to try out, in any case.

If your character has the name of a legendary hero or past ruler that would be recognized by almost everyone (but is not actually that person), go to 100. If your character has a name that indicates high status or high ambition to achieve a high status, go to 101. If your character has a popular or traditional name, go to 102. If your character has a mysterious or frightening name, go to 103. If your character has a name that caused him to be picked on by the other kids as a child, go to 104.

- Walt

[Emily Care]

How much difference would there be between a one-player game of Shadows, with or without a gm?

(The token mechanic would be obsolete with just one player, of course)

--Emily Care

[Callan S.]

Scourge108:

I would definitely see PBEM and play-by-post games as a form of social interaction, in that there is communication going on between 2 specific people, who acknowledge each others' communication.

I would say the key difference you cite here between for example, a fighting fantasy book and a table top game is the acknowledgement of each others communication.

Which means illusionism isn't roleplay. When going left or right at an intersection means you fight a dracula regardless, there's no acknowledgment of communication. It didn't matter what you communicated.

If in the PBEM the GM says there's a small child to save and the player replies that he does, and the GM goes on with the next challenge...well, what happened if the GM never read the players responce.

Personally, I find the key factore isn't in recognition of communication. It was in being presented with sitation and making my characters choice. My characters choice itself is most important, more so than whether he suceeeds or fails, or if anyone else anywhere ever knows what he did.

Roleplay can just be 'situation X happened, what would you choose to do as role Y?'. Influencing latter situations with your characters choice is just icing on the cake, not a fundimental requirement. Same with having witnesses.

Communication only needs to be one way, for you to make a choice.

That is, unless players can not explore character, without the assistance of witnesses who saw/heard what he did. That would involve not being able to judge something oneself and relying on how others judge the evidence. Clearly though, if they are able to judge, so are you and your judgement is just as valid.

[Callan S.]

Walt Freitag
In terms of new stuff, your actually not talking about new stuff...a GM who reads me situation after situation he wrote is giving me new stuff. You refering to 'new stuff in responce to the choices I made'. But I'll move on to your main point now.

On to criticism and names. What you have there is simply disfunction. They give a good name, then look externally for reward for it. They get none and give a crap name next time.

The problem is that they are looking externally for reward, not anything else. They wouldn't look for external reward for not cheating in a game of solitaire, but they do it here? That is absurd!

Personally I'd say its an urge not to be 'silly' and not put effort into 'a silly name no one cares about/will give me something for it'. It's merely a maturity issue. External criticism isn't changing anything, it's just muting immaturity.

[Walt Freitag]

Callan,

I'm very reluctant to call the phenomenon (the character-names thing being just the specific example I chose of the more general phenomonenon) "dysfunction." When we speak of dysfunction here it's invariably a social issue between participants.

In this case, there's a designer (most likely a team of people, possibly a large one, but that's irrelevant), and there's a player. Is the designer dysfunctional, because he's failed to do what no one has figured out how to do and might not even be possible? Or is the player dysfunctional, for wishing the product would reward role playing better than it does? I prefer not to think in those terms at all. Players want what they want; scolding them or insulting them for wanting it is counterproductive.

Think of me as a guy who sells frozen dinners. I find out that a high percentage of people who eat my frozen dinners throw away the side dishes because they come out bland. I have many choices of how to react. For instance, I could decide that all those people are crybabies for expecting a frozen dinner to taste like a normal meal. I could, I suppose, rename the product "Of Course It's Bland, It's A Frozen Dinner, You Moron." Or I could get all philosophical and decide that my product actually doesn't quite meet my own preferred definition of "meal" at all, and therefore no comparison between it and any other type of food could ever mean anything. But if my livelihood were in any way connected with providing frozen dinners that please my customers (and metaphorically speaking, it is), I wouldn't want to do any of those things.

What I would probably do instead (but this is just me) is investigate what the exact differences are between a frozen dinner and a freshly prepared one, addressing questions like: What unavoidable damages to flavor, nutrition, and texture occur during freezing, storage, and heating? What choices of ingredients fare better or worse than comparable alternatives? Do users follow the preparation instructions correctly and if not, where do they deviate and why?

Hence, while I find angels/pinheads questions about whether solo RPGs do or do not conform to any particular adjective or noun to be interesting and thought-provoking (Are they "social?" Are they "functional?" Is there a "shared imagined space?" Are they indeed "role playing" at all?), in the end they drop away. Instead: What works? What doesn't? How can it be done better? And yes, what do those folks who play my games, silly and immature though they* may be, really want and how, by hook or by crook, might I give it to them?

- Walt

*the players, or the games, doesn't matter

[Callan S.]

Walt,

If someone turns up to a face to face RP session, then starts jumping up and down, shouting and playing video games, did it fail to be a roleplay session. Or did he fail to engage it?

Should the others reward roleplay in some matter so much that he stops climbing the walls? Is that their goal? Can they even achieve it?

Rewarding the engagment in roleplay is good, but is not a requirement. Someone can produce a reasonable character name without encouragement. To insist he needs encouragement might be seen as patronising.

What if they want reward? Does that make solo different because it doesn't give it for name creation and other elements? Well no, because your table top games will fail to give rewards for various elements too, when you discuss it with the GM. Some GM's will even fail to reward decent names in a face to face session.

Really, you might just want to look at solo and group as two seperate beasts, then continue the analysis from there. But I'm telling you, if your wrong about it, any further analysis is going to be skewed. Your telling me you don't want further arguement on what it is and I'm telling you you may as well not bother looking at solo RP if your starting from a IMO flawed assumption.

That's all I've got to say on it, from this point. Apart from what exactly do you mean by angels/pinheads in "Hence, while I find angels/pinheads questions about whether solo RPGs..." ?

[Jack Spencer Jr]

old riddle or saying "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

[Walt Freitag]

Callan, I'm sorry but I just can't figure out what you're getting at with all the questions in your first two paragraphs.

I can say for certain that if a player showed up at a role playing game I was running or playing in with a character named "fuckhead" or "nobody" or "aaa" (assuming we're not playing Kill Puppies for Satan or otherwise playing in such a way that such a name might be appropriate), I would discourage the player from using that character name. If the player could not be convinced, I wouldn't be willing to play with that player in that game, any more than I'd be willing to play poker with a player who puts raw chicken livers into the pot instead of chips. That's part of the critical social feedback I provide as a participant.

The solo game cannot provide such criticism or feedback. That lack is an important difference between solo games and other forms of role playing game. What happens with character names is only a symptom of that lack. (And the lack is still there even if the player continues to use "good" character names and otherwise behaves himself.)

Keep in mind that due to the nature of social feedback, when I say "reward" I also mean "discourage" or even "punish," and when I say "criticism" I also mean "appreciation." Hence, I disagree strongly with this:

Does that make solo different because it doesn't give it for name creation and other elements? Well no, because your table top games will fail to give rewards for various elements too, when you discuss it with the GM. Some GM's will even fail to reward decent names in a face to face session.

Practically all groups playing tabletop games provide social feedback on (that is, reward and punish, approve and disapprove, encourage and discourage) character names -- and pretty much every other aspect of player behavior too. Only occasionally will such rewards involve game mechanics (e.g. a GM saying, "Take a hundred experience points for having such a cool character name!") or even explicit statements, but the critical/appreciative dialog is always going on anyway. All it takes is for other participants to look or sound a little more excited or happy when another participant does something they see as cool, and a little more reserved or disappointed when another participant does something they see as lame.

Solo games don't provide this feedback. That's an important difference that needs to be considered when making comparisons between solo RPGs and conventional RPGs. That's the entirety of my point.

I'm not saying that solo RPGs and conventional RPGs are so different that no comparisons are possible at all, nor am I saying that solo and multi-player RPGs are so identical that distinguishing between them is unnecessary. I'm saying that understanding the differences is necessary in order to make use of the similarities.

What is the flawed assumption you think I'm making?

- Walt

[Callan S.]

Walt,

I had assumed from -

I admit I sometimes think of the computer program or solo paper game as a sort of bottled essence-of-me-as-GM that goes out and has a dialog with the player. But there are two problems with that, the obvious one and the slightly less obvious one.

That by problems being there with this idea, you ment 'these problems mean it isn't roleplay'. It was this perception that I was trying to tackle. If I was wrong in it, and you were just examining some missing elements on one side, then yes, they are missing and its worth a different discussion to the one I offered. I was focusing on the idea that these problems don't change the fundimentals. But if that wasn't what you were getting at, I've missed the point entirely, sorry! :(