I was on another forum, actually in terms of browser game design, and I decided to write a post that pitched a sort of situation and I asked what people from the forum would do (and then I'd take that and try and shape code around it)

Now one person was kind enough to respond and they said they'd climb a tree to survey the area around for dangers.

Okay, fair enough.

But in coding this - whether it applies to making a table top game or browser game - I'm at a complete blank.

And it made me realise how much the creative ball is in the hands of a player when they describe their character doing stuff. Because I don't know how to make climbing a tree interesting. And I'm presuming the player (in this case the forum person giving a responce) does find it interesting, but in what way? Like in table top gaming I think I've been there many a time "Okay, your doing X now...and?" and you look to the player for them to pursue what they actually find interesting about declaring fiction along the lines they did.

I dunno if it's excuse making, but it perhaps explains why I'm often up against a writing block in terms of game design. I just don't find climbing that tree exciting - if I were to code it, it's click to climb, no, no baddies around, click to come down. Similar for table top design. Doesn't sound thrilling to me. But if some players doing it, well I'm down with trying to see and importantly, carry some of what makes it exciting for them, even if it's not huge for me. Obviously when your sitting there trying to make up a game by yourself, your suddenly detached from A: the sorts of things other people are inclined to do and B: why they are excited about that stuff.

Anyone else hit that writers block? Is this too esoteric for first thoughts?

I will say that one thing about RPG's, is that if you've ever used 'the band' analogy (some of you have!), well the thing about RPG's is that each musician in a band can actually play their instrument by themselves and enjoy it. They don't need others to create music and enjoy it. In roleplay - how many actual single person RPG's are out there? How much is it accepted for someone to sit utterly alone and roleplay? Yet creatively and socially that's an important, perhaps vital part of how musicians and bands work.

I dunno, maybe I've been chasing some acclaim from my group and others to make up for some long, lost thing. But it's just making me lose more, as in losing time creating nothing, in trying to make up for it.

Again, I dunno, but just as a general thought for anyone it might be a really bad idea to try and engage what other people find exciting when they are not going to be there to help you actually make something about it in the end. It's like trying to tango for them. Unless they are going to write out rules, they just get in the way of making something. So, screw what other people find exciting, and cease trying to carry it. I guess a band analogy is that you can carry someone elses idea if you jammed with them as they play an instrument too, but if they don't actually pick up an instrument and just yammer about what they find exciting about music, it's a waste of time. I think I've been doing alot of listening to people yammer about music, and then trying to write music, so to speak.

Bit meandering there. Possibly didn't need to post it, but I've done a hell of alot of posts here and it's kind of on topic to that, atleast. And true solo RPG's - quite an idea (not a new one, but quite an idea to pursue).

I think the major difference between the application in a CRPG and a tabletop is that there's a GM or group of other players in the tabletop arena sitting there ready to provide color to any situation.

Player - "I climb a tree."

CRPG - "Top of tree. From here you can see the fields. Exits: down."

Tabletop - "Ok, as you start to boost yourself up to the top of the tree, youmanage to scramble up fairly handily. But as you come closer to the top, you wobble as the thin branches waver under your weight. Your stomach lurches, but you regain your balance, and fight down the rush of adrenaline. You look out across the fields before you, separated by low rock walls, and see naught but farmlands stretching to the horizon. Atop a nearby hill you can see the village you've just come from, smoke rising lazily from the myriad of chimneys."

The advantages here in being able to narrate on the fly are obvious. Particularly because of the character decides to JUMP down you can deal with it in a tabletop game. In a CRPG you suffer from them only being able to climb back down.

So the issue you're having, really is that you have to try and guess at what people might do, and then put in systems to cater to that. We had a big chart up on the wall highlighting the different aspects of play which appealed to people, and the design specs for the game incorporated a subset of the things on that chart. Not every thing on the chart was in the game.

Why? Because it's too much work to cater to everyone. That's true in tabletop and even moreso in CRPGs, where you have to tell the computer how things should be done, whereas in tabletop you have to THINK about what needs to be done.

I'd agree that you need to not cater to everyone. And with the fact that a solo RPG is a fun idea. I've got one of those designs sitting on the back burner too. (So many designs, so many burners, why has my apartment not burned down yet?) :D

So the issue you're having, really is that you have to try and guess at what people might do, and then put in systems to cater to that.

So are you saying that narration without any mechanical results is nothing, but that narration that opens up meaningful choices within the game's mechanics is something?

I think I see what you're saying, but I halfway feel like those "nothing" things- like somebody saying they jump down out of a tree- are sort of like the RPG equivalent of people saying "uh" or "umm" in conversation, since they're usually followed by something more.  You could focus down to only the parts that reference back to the game, but it wouldn't be as "conversational" if that makes any sense.

In solo role play, how would you know that what you were doing was "something?"  Would that just be defined by if you're maintaining interest or not?  Would it matter?  How could you accommodate guests who played if your "somethings" are different?

So are you saying that narration without any mechanical results is nothing,

but that narration that opens up meaningful choices within the game's mechanics is something?

I think I see what you're saying, but I halfway feel like those "nothing" things- like somebody saying they jump down out of a tree- are sort of like the RPG equivalent of people saying "uh" or "umm" in conversation, since they're usually followed by something more.  You could focus down to only the parts that reference back to the game, but it wouldn't be as "conversational" if that makes any sense

In solo role play, how would you know that what you were doing was "something?" Would that just be defined by if you're maintaining interest or not?  Would it matter?

From the Online Etymology Dictionary:

O.E. gamen "joy, fun, amusement," common Gmc. (cf. O.Fris. game, O.N. gaman, O.H.G. gaman "joy, glee"), regarded as identical with Goth. gaman "participation, communion," from P.Gmc. *ga- collective prefix + *mann "person," giving a sense of "people together." Meaning "contest played according to rules" is first attested c.1300. Sense of "wild animals caught for sport" is late 13c.; hence fair game (1825), also gamey "having the flavor of game" (1863). Adjective sense of "brave, spirited" is 1725, from the noun, especially in game-cock "bird for fighting." Game plan is 1941, from U.S. football; game show first attested 1961.

I role-play solo all the time.

Of course most people call it "talking to himself, what's that weird bastard up to . . ." but hey, I'm ROLEPLAYING. :)

In all seriousness, it depends on what you define things as. Is "playing a role" something which requires you to speak in character? Half the gaming groups I've been in aren't role-playing if that's the case.

If, on the other hand, it is taking control of a fictional construct and exploring a made-up world through them, well, that's a lot closer to 100% . . . and that probably is something you can so solo.

I have a bundle of solo adventures for various systems sitting around here. Eventually I'll make myself clear some time on the schedule to play them. :)

Are you thinking of this as a bug, rather than a feature?

I think I know what your talking about and I'll say I don't work at that level, nor do I think (as per my peaches example above) think it exists to work at. Someone playing solitare has with each card layed, done something (layed a card). Game end conditions met, even more so. To check if I do know the subject your talking about : How do you know when somethings done?