Hi all!

I've heard a lot of good things about The Forge. Happy to finally be here!

As for my thread... There's been a lot of talk regarding gaming systems (GNS) and picking the right one for the group (Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastering), but I haven't really seen any discussion about the more general mechanic -- group play vs. individual play. Two epic examples from the literature are The Lord of the Rings and A Song of Ice and Fire -- one focuses on a group of individuals making their best efforts and other has different characters affecting the world individually.

If the characters act as a single group, it tends to be that they try to resolve a common goal, making one big plotline (with possible sub-plots). However if there is no "party" and each character has his/her individual plotline, this makes a much complex story if the individual plotlines intertwine.

At first I figured this had to be modeled by GNS already, but when I started to think about it... GNS doesn't really differate group from an individual, and so doesn't Robin D. Laws (in any real depth).

I guess what I'm really doing here, is turning to RPG-theorists and asking... What's the real significance of these methods in play? How can I explain the difference without going yapping "what I like" or "prefer". Is this discussed somewhere before? If so, please link it. If not, what's your take on it?

Hi Higgins and welcome to the Forge!
What's your first name, if you don't mind?

Your best bet if you want to delve into this discussion is to present some actual play in the appropriate forum. In this way, we know where you come from and can engage better with your ideas. It has happened way too often that people thought they were talking about the same thing when really they weren't. Placing your questions into the context of your experience gives discussion a solid foundation.

Nevertheless I think I can help with a superficial reply for starters.
GNS looks at how the group of players engage in a social dynamic across the different levels of activity that form play (pretty abstract without some actual examples, right?)
This could be something like "being good at the game, overcoming challenges and bragging about it" (perhaps surprisingly, this is not to be read pejoratively at all). Going from there, either of the methods you describe might be used (in D&D a party sets out against monsters, but another game might have the players control powerful lords that wage wars and conduct alliances amongst themselves, vying for the throne, their characters being separate most of the time). Depending on what other methods (usually referred to as Techniques in this forum, just in case it crops up later on) are featured in a given game and what the designer aims it towards, some combinations might work out better than others, though. That's a point were we need more context to really help you in a meaningful way.
Historically, I think it's safe to say that lots of RPGs were party-oriented, whereas contemporary "forge-inspired" games tend to throw away the concept. Both "types" support a variety of satisfying gaming experiences.

I'm not too familiar with Robin D. Laws' player typology, but I gather it rather works on a psychological level. Player A likes X, so he is a Gamma. I'm not very comfortable with these kind of approaches, because it doesn't tell me that, actually, people of different psychological profiles can get along quite well when there is a shared group dynamic.

To sum up, I don't think it's quite possible to talk about the two methods in absolute terms (and that's a common stance around here). However, the Forge-community can offer you quite a lot of support as soon as you delve into the context of an actual play experience or a game development. We need to know on what terrain your plant is growing and what its neighbours are like to help you fashion a nice garden, so to speak.

Does that make sense?

Personally, I love solo games. I'm a GM for a Dragonlance campaign with one player. He play an evil priest of treachery. This game is probably the one he love the most (and he played with me for over 15 years now). How could he play with other players when he keep pretending to be a good guy (and lying, cheating, stealing all the while...)
However, I have 3 NPC with him. The rules of Dragonlance are made to consider the group and you can't survive an adventure in pure solo if your Storyteller use traps, magic and hulking monsters.
I think it would be boring to just tell a story with one player playing one character. No real depth could be involved...I also tried one player with two characters and you mus use NPC if you want some talk (I think players hate speaking to themselves in front of a "silent godlike-curious")

Hi everyone,

For those who don't know me, I'm Ron, co-founder of the Forge and content moderator.

I'm signing in here to welcome Higgins and to underscore Christoph's point: everything he says is right on target for how this thread ought to go. Higgins, that's not about forcing you to prove your point or anything like that. Actual-play descriptions orient everyone toward exactly what you mean and help keep discussions here from degenerating into "a crowd of single voices."

Notice, I said this thread. Let's keep the discussion here for now, in First Thoughts, and then when it gets to be a bit more about Actual Play, I'll shift it into there. No reason to start up a new thread when the reason for the discussion is so nicely laid out.

Best, Ron

Hi my name is Xavier. (Yes real name, I'm Spanish. Well actually we write it Javier but that would just make you pronounce it wrong, well the ones of you who don't speak Spanish.)

Hi Ron, welcome to the Forge! LOOOOL
Sorry.

I'll most likely be testing this because I plan to play soon (actually to playtest a new sketch system of mine), and I've got one friend more than confirmed but it's likely that I won't find more. I also plan to post about it in the Actual Play section soon, for the sake of the system playtesting as well. I already played solo once (I was player not director) and there was nothing wrong about it, really.

Conteur wrote: I think it would be boring to just tell a story with one player playing one character. No real depth could be involved...I also tried one player with two characters and you mus use NPC if you want some talk (I think players hate speaking to themselves in front of a "silent godlike-curious")

Hi Javier and everyone,

Let's see what Higgins tells us about his actual play experiences before continuing.

Best, ron

Hi again!

Sorry for the lack of introduction, my name is Henri.=)

As for the thread and Actual Play... I didn't quite get what you meant, but I'm going to clear one thing up... This thread isn't really about game design. I would have posted it into RPG Theory, but that forum seemed locked (as the latest threads were more than two years old).

Christoph wrote: I'm not too familiar with Robin D. Laws' player typology, but I gather it rather works on a psychological level. Player A likes X, so he is a Gamma. I'm not very comfortable with these kind of approaches, because it doesn't tell me that, actually, people of different psychological profiles can get along quite well when there is a shared group dynamic.

Christoph wrote: To sum up, I don't think it's quite possible to talk about the two methods in absolute terms (and that's a common stance around here). However, the Forge-community can offer you quite a lot of support as soon as you delve into the context of an actual play experience or a game development. We need to know on what terrain your plant is growing and what its neighbours are like to help you fashion a nice garden, so to speak.

Hi Henri,

The reason that the RPG Theory forum is closed is because topics like this one lead to poor discussions.

I am now telling you, as moderator, that unless you post about an actual play experience of your own which illustrates the features of play you're talking about, I will close this thread. Theory discussions at the Forge are now required to include such accounts of experiences.

This may seem draconic and arbitrary to you. It is not. It is born of seven years of experience of constantly moderating this forum, and learning what does and does not work.

The actual play experience does not have to be recounted in every last painful detail. It should illustrate what you're calling group play or what you're calling individual play, or provide one of each. It would be good to know what game system was used, how many people were involved, generally what happened with or to the characters, and how the real-live people enjoyed or did not enjoy the experience.

The points you've raised are interesting and worthy of discussion. But they must be grounded for the readers of the thread in an account of play as I'm describing.

Best, Ron

Sorry for the long pause. I try explain more througly what spawned this question of mine.

I started roleplaying when a friend of mine bought a 3rd ed PHB. My first games were about traveling groups of fantasy heroes solving quests by fighting monsters and hauling magical equipment afterwards. Then I met people who were into low fantasy and along with the absence of magical equipment and decreased spell capabilities came more gritty combat rules. With the main hauling elements cut off, our games started to focus on goals of the party -- fighting or helping organsations/people by the sympathies of the group.

Then a change came into my life and I was forced to play online with my buddies, as we weren't able to meet face-to-face as regularly as we would have liked to play. We soon discovered that unlike with live gaming, it was a piece of cake to deal with separated characters online. Basically, players could easily follow their own goals outside the group, without having the rest of the players to wait. Soon enough, we didn't even have groups. Teaming up with other players became a voluntary and character based desicion.

At first I thought this kind of organisation weren't feasible for live games, but a friend of mine just came along and did it successfully. So, the difference wasn't just about the means, but of method. Which is why I switched "online vs. live" in my mind to "group play vs. individual play". I had never seen such categorisation before. So, being familiar with "System Does Matter" and accounting my experiences, I also feel that "Method Does Matter".

My first instinct would be to say that group play is restrictive to character freedom and is better suited to group character creation, where everyboy knows from the start that the characters will be working as a team (Werewolf: The Forsaken and Stargate are excellent examples) and therefore much more simpler goals (everybody needs to go along, if everybody want to play) and big general plotline, while individual play would be more suited for sandbox method, separate entwining plotlines with a backdrop plot (majority of the published games, really).

So, what's your take on the significance of these methods in play? How can I explain the difference without going yapping "what I like" or "prefer".

-Henri

P.S.
If my explanation is not sufficient to keep this thread open, please explain me what is missing.

Hi Henri

I see a fruitful reflection that you're having based on your play history and insofar as we all know that, I think it's safe for you to voice your preferences. It's not like you were crashing into somebody's thread with an empty "I prefer group play" one-liner, never to participate again. So, rather than asking other people just to tell you what they prefer, which amounts to an opinion poll with little possible depth in discussion, I'd encourage you to develop the parts of the subject that you find interesting, so as to keep the thread focused.

To answer your question about explaining the difference, I think you've already done a good job by giving us an overview of your experience and how, in this context, you see those differences. For what it's worth, I agree with the two extremes you paint. I also believe that lots of nuances are possible in between, and that one might play very personal issue-exploration in group play (I can point you to some play of a game called Carry, which has characters fighting in the same squad in the Vietnam war). A game like Dirty Secrets doesn't even have multiple player characters in the traditional sense (it has one main character, a few important characters and some who are there just for colour). Others will have play where groups form and break up all the time. The variations on the theme are numerous.

Ultimately, I think that what you can extract and keep on applying to all sorts of games is the following: the way you define (or let open) the types of relationships between (player) characters has a major impact on play.
Why? Because all stories are based on relationships between people.
This realization took me quite some play, time and help from some helpful people around here, because overwhelmingly, mainstream RPGs focus on a group of player characters as their main or sole way of playing. It's neat that you've been realizing this through your own experience.

This does not mean that group-play is not interesting of course. It just can't be used for all premises you might want to explore. My best advice to continue from this point would be to always take a sharp look at how characters relate to each other in games and check if it works with what you're trying to achieve as players.

How does that sound to you? If you want some examples, check out some reports in the Actual Play section of the site. Even if the topic isn't explicitly about this issue, you will often see variations of it at work.

I see we are striding off into Actual Play territory, so if you have some specific experience you want to build upon, you might as well open a thread in that section, with a link back to this one.

Henri,

Thanks for the description of your experiences, I now have a much clearer idea of what you wanted to discuss.

higgins wrote:
We soon discovered that unlike with live gaming, it was a piece of cake to deal with separated characters online. Basically, players could easily follow their own goals outside the group, without having the rest of the players to wait. Soon enough, we didn't even have groups. Teaming up with other players became a voluntary and character based desicion.

higgins wrote:
At first I thought this kind of organisation weren't feasible for live games,

higgins wrote:
but a friend of mine just came along and did it successfully.

David wrote:

higgins wrote:
but a friend of mine just came along and did it successfully.

How?! 

Did certain players just get invited to certain sessions?  Please fill me in!

Ah, okay.  I was hoping you'd say, "No, everyone gets to play live regularly, we just..." or something.

I'll assume then that this scenario is specific to the (presumably vast) scheduling flexibility of the players involved and the fact that many of them are just as happy to play online if they don't get their live fix.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

As for your questions, they seem a little open ended, and I think Cristoph's suggestions point in a more focused direction.  For now, let me just offer some feedback on your formulation here:

higgins wrote:
My first instinct would be to say that group play is restrictive to character freedom and is better suited to group character creation, where everyboy knows from the start that the characters will be working as a team (Werewolf: The Forsaken and Stargate are excellent examples) and therefore much more simpler goals (everybody needs to go along, if everybody want to play) and big general plotline,

higgins wrote: while individual play would be more suited for sandbox method, separate entwining plotlines with a backdrop plot (majority of the published games, really).

higgins wrote:
So, what's your take on the significance of these methods in play? How can I explain the difference . . .

higgins wrote:
. . . without going yapping "what I like" or "prefer".

David wrote:
Ah, okay.  I was hoping you'd say, "No, everyone gets to play live regularly, we just..." or something.

I'll assume then that this scenario is specific to the (presumably vast) scheduling flexibility of the players involved and the fact that many of them are just as happy to play online if they don't get their live fix.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

David wrote:
Like Cristoph said, this depends on character relationships.  I've played in a game which successfully combined the following elements:
1) individual character creation with no knowledge of others' characters
2) contrived situation to force all the characters to interact with each other
3) missions where all the characters are allied against Evil
4) characters brainwashing and killing each other

David wrote: By "individual play", do you mean:
1) anything other than "group play" (possibly including #2 and/or #3)
2) 2 people together - 1 player, 1 GM
3) 1 player sitting at his computer and playing online

David wrote:
Perhaps the distinction you wish to discuss is:
1) play in which all characters must work together toward a common objective -- if they don't, fun play doesn't happen
2) play which can be (and is expected to be) fun without that

Parallel games!  Brilliant!  I might try something like this with some of my more stubbornly character-exploration-driven players someday.

It seems to me that you've succeeded in your purpose for this thread.  You've clarified a distinction and made some pertinent observations regarding different methods of running games.

From my perspective, I would just suggest that you acknowledge that people you play with may have plenty of valid "but what if..." counterpoints; nothing is set in stone, after all.  If you would like to see some character-driven games that are designed to work well with groups, ask, and I bet someone here (sorry, not my forte) can point you to at least one.

Christoph wrote: Ultimately, I think that what you can extract and keep on applying to all sorts of games is the following: the way you define (or let open) the types of relationships between (player) characters has a major impact on play.