I decided not to hijack the GMless gaming thread to ask about this. I know I started with Choose-Your-Own-Adventure books before being introduced to D&D. I recall many different variations of them in the 1980's, including some that required an actual character sheet and dice. One even had a seperate spell book if you wanted to take a spellcaster through the adventure. Tunnels and Trolls put out a few solo modules, and I believe Basic D&D did this once too. 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?

Hello,

Here are some older threads to check out:

Questioning Jack Spencer Jr.'s view of solo play
Non-electric interactive solo entertainment
The limits of role-playing: solitaire
Waxing solo
d20 solo adventuring
Solo RPGs?

Best,
Ron

There are also lots of sites on the web about "interactive fiction."

You can start here: http://www.gamebooks.org/

Also important in terms of interactive fiction I think is www.skotos.com

Mike

An older, though poorly titled thread idea...

Here's a very well-organized links page, a thorough tour of all forms of interactive storytelling (except tabletop RPGs...):

http://www.quvu.net/interactivestory.net/links.html

- Walt

This is one of those topics that crops up every now and again. Most of my thoughts are in the previous threads.

I did find a different application recently with a D&D interactive DVD called Sourge of World. The wife played it for a bit, but put it down. She said that it gets boring after a while. That is, once you find all the possible story combinations, what do you do? So replay value is way, way down.
I imagine similar to CYOA books.

the only thing I have to add to this thread is that I think GMless gaming by all means should include solo gaming as an option, so I'm certainly going to look at some of the resources mentioned here and think about approaches to solo play. I've tried the CYOA books myself (although I thought that acronym meant something else at first, Jack...) plus I remember playing a bunch of solo dungeon crawls using the random tables in the back of the 1st edition AD&D DMG.

Mike Holmes: didn't you test some kind of solo play option for Fungeon? how did that work?

When I saw the title of this thread, I immediately recalled the debate Jack and I had some time back, in that wonderful first thread Ron cites; and I also realized that I've probably moved closer to him, as I've reconsidered the definition of role playing (a definition which I think did not clearly exist at that time, as that thread, I think, predates the Lumpley principle).

If I am correct that the definition of a roleplaying game (as presented on a definitive definition of roleplay?) requires the mutual creation of events in a shared imaginary space, then Jack is correct and I am mistaken: you must have to persons actively involved with each other to have a genuine role playing game.

I concede the point. Solo play, CYOA books, and other forms of individual imaginary activity don't fit the model. Either you can't play roleplaying solitaire, or there's a flaw in the current definition.

--M. J. Young

I guess I'd have to say that begs the question of why a participation of multiple people is a necessary part of the definition of a role-playing game. I'm not saying that I disagree, I'm just curious as to why it only seems to fit if there is someone else to share it. One person has a character and reacts to a world presented by a GM, who causes the world to react to the character. But you can also have one person who presents the world to react to a character of his. This is basically what is done when someone writes fiction. But this doesn't transfer to a game well. So is it that having a witness for the "shared imaginary space" legitimizes it, making it something more than just something in your own head? Is it to give the game some of that unpredictable spark of life that can only come from other people and their personalities instead of dice-rolling mechanics? Or is it because we're taught that if you play with yourself, you'll go blind?

M. J. Young wrote: When I saw the title of this thread, I immediately recalled the debate Jack and I had some time back, in that wonderful first thread Ron cites; and I also realized that I've probably moved closer to him, as I've reconsidered the definition of role playing (a definition which I think did not clearly exist at that time, as that thread, I think, predates the Lumpley principle).

If I am correct that the definition of a roleplaying game (as presented on a definitive definition of roleplay?) requires the mutual creation of events in a shared imaginary space, then Jack is correct and I am mistaken: you must have to persons actively involved with each other to have a genuine role playing game.

I concede the point. Solo play, CYOA books, and other forms of individual imaginary activity don't fit the model. Either you can't play roleplaying solitaire, or there's a flaw in the current definition.

--M. J. Young

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.

In this case, you have to find a way to distinguish the Imagined Space, from what it's like to imagine a book. For example, there's distinctly a difference between the space created by a novel and a choose your own adventure, IMO. Much less a game with full exploration enabled.

Mike

That distinction is an interesting one.

Here's an odd example. Say a GM has super mind reading powers. He mind reads the player and then goes away and writes. Then he hands over a bunch of pages to the player.

The player reads the starting scene, looks away and thinks for a moment about what he'd like to explore. He then looks back to the page, reading on and finding that the mind reader GM has written next just what he'd like to explore. He continues, and every time he wants to do something, it's been anticipated and already written.

It's really just a novel he's reading though. Yet it's been ultra customised to the particular exploration desires of that player.

More down to earth examples include flow chart like choices, which help customise material to the readers exploration desires (not as good as mind reading, but hey). More sophisticated methods involve having someone there to shape material at the moment rather than use a flow chart...GM and player, in other words. But it's all the same in that it's just customising material. The only difference is refinement of the process.

I was just interested in expanding on the idea, briefly. :)

Thanks to Callan and Mike; those are good points.

I agree that at some point the problem is going to be distinguishing role play from reading a novel, but since the definition of role playing game is still very much in the formative stages around here, it may be premature to insist that anything is or is not included based on that definition.

--M. J. Young

Mike Holmes wrote: 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.

talysman wrote: 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.

I wrote: 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.

talysman wrote:

Mike Holmes wrote: 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*

Noon wrote:

talysman wrote: 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.

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!)

M. J. Young wrote:

Noon wrote:

talysman wrote: 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

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

Jack Spencer Jr wrote:

Noon wrote: 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

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.

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.

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

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.

Noon wrote: 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.

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

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. :)

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?

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

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.

Scourge108 wrote: 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.

M. J. Young wrote: 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?

M. J. Young wrote: 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.

M. J. Young wrote: 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

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.

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.

[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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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..." ?

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

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.

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.