This is something that may seem pretty basic on the face of it, but actually implies something downright brutal.  Here's a common chain of events for RPG-play coming into existence, straight from a game text.

1. The text inspires "solo play".
Solo play might mean making up a character just to screw with the rules.  Or just reading the rules and thinking about them, trying to puzzle out how they work.  Or drawing dungeons on graph paper.  Or...   You get the idea?  Crap you do by yourself, away from the table.

2. Personal play creates group play.
One person, having done some personal play, states their desire to run a game.  Or demands that someone else run it.  Or whatever.

3. Group play feeds back into personal play and pushes more group play.
Actually playing the RPG as a group inspires someone (or several) to do their own stuff.  Make up towns, level up characters, draw up plans for more magic items.  It also raises group momentum to play again.  

......Simple enough?   Okay.  Here's the brutish part, the thing-this-can-mean:

The quality of solo play often matters more to actually getting a game than the quality of group play.

Think about it for a second.  Then, hit me.  True or not?  Why?

Levi, when I first saw this I thought it was probably horseshit. Since then I've looked it over and back and think you're on to something. Now that I think long and hard about it, all the must successful games I've run have come from systems where I've been enthusiastic about fiddling solo. As you say, drawing maps, making characters, whatever. This might be a good insight into why sandbox games need more lovin', too -- they (generally) have a richer set of tools for the proto-GM to fiddle with.

Certainly I've spent many hours generating subsectors and animal encounters with Traveller, and the fun that generates for me has spun off actual games and rubbed off on others, creating new GMs.

I have to say, though, that that's a gruesome graphic.

Edit: money where your mouth is and all that.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenThe quality of solo play often matters more to actually getting a game than the quality of group play.

Think about it for a second.  Then, hit me.  True or not?  Why?

I think it depends on the person and the group.  For example, I often buy games for inspiration and ideas and never actually intend to play them.  My group tends to prefer systems that fade into the background and while I can enjoy the solo play aspect with regard to learning a rule system, I don't really find the solo play a source of long term enjoyment.  

I guess if I had to summarize, I think it depends on whether you are talking about people who enjoy playing with rules or people who see rules as a necessary evil that they want to stay out of the way as much as possible during actual play.

Quote from: HalfjackLevi, when I first saw this I thought it was probably horseshit.

Oddly, when I first thought about it, I really, really hated the idea.  For two reasons I couldn't articulate - both associations I really don't like.

First, (which Rob Donoghue managed to articulate) because solo play is often linked up in RPG discussions with activities and people that get sneered at - the wannabe novelist and the total rules twink.  Which gives all solo play the veneer of a bad image.

Second, some people use a somewhat similar chain of logic, running it backwards, to try and say that games that obviously play just fine are somehow crappy, because they excel at providing between-game tinkering.  That line of thinking ties into the idea that some games are optimised for solo, rather than group, play (which might be true), and then simply assumes that being built that way is by definition inferior.

...

The topic is weird, and often oddly-looked-upon.  But I think it merits thought and discussion.

Quote from: John MorrowI think it depends on the person and the group.  For example, I often buy games for inspiration and ideas and never actually intend to play them.  My group tends to prefer systems that fade into the background and while I can enjoy the solo play aspect with regard to learning a rule system, I don't really find the solo play a source of long term enjoyment.  

I guess if I had to summarize, I think it depends on whether you are talking about people who enjoy playing with rules or people who see rules as a necessary evil that they want to stay out of the way as much as possible during actual play.

Ever write a really in-depth character background for a setting?

Quote from: Levi KornelsenEver write a really in-depth character background for a setting?

No, not really.  I'm more of a Develop-In-Play player.  Most of the games I've run as a GM were also run with a minimum of prep.  The exception was the D&D 3.5 campaign I ran a little while ago and I found the "solo play" prep work more tedious than enjoyable.

(ADDED: I don't think anyone I've regularly played with writes up really in-depth character backgrounds.)

Quote from: John MorrowNo, not really.  I'm more of a Develop-In-Play player.  Most of the games I've run as a GM were also run with a minimum of prep.  The exception was the D&D 3.5 campaign I ran a little while ago and I found the "solo play" prep work more tedious than enjoyable.

Cool.  So, let's hack at this idea a bit.  You aren't doing much solo stuff...

...Are you the one that pushes for play?  Calls up the group and says "we need to try out X / play X again?"

And, if not, think about the person or people that do 'push for play' most.  From what you know, do they engage in a fair bit of solo stuff - including being amused or enjoying their prep as a GM, if applicable?

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen...Are you the one that pushes for play?  Calls up the group and says "we need to try out X / play X again?"

Yes.  I was one of the primary system people on the various homebrew systems my group used for years, the person who got my group to try out Fudge, helped people understand how to use Fudge when they wanted to run their games with it, who offered to run the D&D 3.5 game that I ran because I wanted to see how it played, and so on.  I'm not the only one who does that and it's not always my choice (though I did demand on using Fudge for the game that I used to get people to try it), but I do push for certain things.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenAnd, if not, think about the person or people that do 'push for play' most.  From what you know, do they engage in a fair bit of solo stuff - including being amused or enjoying their prep as a GM, if applicable?

Well, one of the people I started role-playing with recently is one of the authors of Castle Whiterock and he did a ton of setting and adventure prep for the D&D 3.5 game that he ran and I played in, to the point of writing box text for certain scenes and the beginnings or endings of certain sessions and knowing how nearly NPC was related to every other NPC in the village the campaign centered on, but I don't think that's the norm for my group, at least half of which GMs.  Usually what I see is "just enough" prep meaning that enough setting material and adventure ideas will be fleshed out to run the game.  What that suggests to me is that while people find a certain amount of enjoyment doing setting creation work and coming up with NPCs (even I do, though I'm not all that fond of rendering my ideas into rules to, say, stat out an encounter), that's not necessarily the main attraction nor do the rules getting involved in that aspect of the game necessarily help, unless they are optional idea tables.  

I also know that plenty of people in my group, when they play, take their character out of a folder to play and put it back into the folder at the end of the session and don't take it out again until the next session.  In fact, that caused a certain amount of trouble in our last Hero System game because players would spend experience points at the start of the session and we could waste an our or two on what might normally be thought of as solo play because not everyone grokked or wanted to grok the Hero System enough to understand how to buy and build powers.

The bottom line is that I don't want you to make the mistaken leap that just because people enjoy some prep that they'll want more of it, or that getting the system involved in those elements of the game will improve them.

While I don't mind sketching out character concepts and eventually run characters that are quite deep, rules that try to force a certain sort of solo play on me with respect to character creation make the game less fun for me.  While I had some fun drawing dungeons for the D&D 3.5 campaign that I ran, I found statting everything out to be tedious and unenjoyable.  And don't assume that everyone plans because they enjoy planning.  I did the planning that I did for my D&D 3.5 game largely as a means toward the end of actually running the game and making it fun for the players.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenEver write a really in-depth character background for a setting?

Generally I loath them. As a player. As a GM. Both in my character and in others. They tend to get in the way and the player comes to the table with expectations that lead to a lot of disappointment, or the GM comes to the table with a lot of baggage that the players have to deal with.


I will say though that recently I effectively skipped the solo play step. Because I and the rest of the group agreed to play something sight-unseen. Had no idea what the play material was about before it hit my inbox the morning of the evening session. I spent some time before the first session printing out the rules and supplemental documents for the group and about 10 minutes getting the barest grasp of the setting, as in "WTF is this?".

Character creation and rules learning was done at the table. It was an interesting experience, and I think the experience lends credibility to your picture as what typically happens. I think you are onto something in that generally to get a group together one or more people need to say "hey, let's do THIS!" It is sort of a typical requirement of organizing people, which usually requires some sort of motivation and selling.

That said I have occationally run stuff or played something because I or someone else had [group] played prior. Or is that what is supposed to be represented by the More Group Play circle? Even so I think that represents an alterantive route that isn't rooted within Solo Play, at least for any member of that particular group.

I think there's some truth to what Levi's saying. That solo play, the ideas and enthusiasm you get from it, really add to the group's game.

In the current campaign I'm running, I wasn't sure how regular the players would be, so I asked to hold onto their character sheets, to make sure we always had their stats and notes. Levi's comments have made me think this was a mistake - it stops them doing "solo play" in between sessions.

That's the strength of a detailed setting or system, it gives the players something to do between sessions!

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen[IMG]
3. Group play feeds back into personal play and pushes more group play.
Actually playing the RPG as a group inspires someone (or several) to do their own stuff.  Make up towns, level up characters, draw up plans for more magic items.  It also raises group momentum to play again.  

......Simple enough?   Okay.  Here's the brutish part, the thing-this-can-mean:

The quality of solo play often matters more to actually getting a game than the quality of group play.

Think about it for a second.  Then, hit me.  True or not?  Why?

I'm not too sure about this last bit.

Players actively engaged in creating part of the setting - which would be the group play feeding into the personal play aspect - has worked really well for my group. As for solo play - or the way it's defined here -  it's had very little impact in my group.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RPlayers actively engaged in creating part of the setting - which would be the group play feeding into the personal play aspect - has worked really well for my group.

If I catch where Levi is coming from, his reaction to the picture, is that he'd feel more at ease if such things were more group orientated.  I was actually thinking about you specifically when looking at this thread, and wondering how you saw it because I gathered from past posts that:
1) you do a fair amount of prep work offline before the start of a campaign (but during?)
2) you solicit player input to feed that work.

You might also be a little more accepting of tossing that solo work if it came out bad?  Think back to the GURPS work that you did and then tossed because the players wanted to play IHW. How did that feel? How did that play out? Is that common for your group? How do you think it came to that end?

QuoteAs for solo play - or the way it's defined here -  it's had very little impact in my group.

I'm having a little difficulty with calling it solo "play" the with what he's including in it. Such as reading the rules.

Quote from: Kyle AaronI think there's some truth to what Levi's saying. That solo play, the ideas and enthusiasm you get from it, really add to the group's game.

Enthusiasm by itself, fine.

What I've seen is it depends on how far people go developing the ideas and concepts, how vested they become. If they become very vested in them, whether written out or not, it becomes much more difficult to fit them all together in the group. EDIT: If something's got to give, to heavily vested ideas conflict, the enthusiasm seems to rebound as a like negative.

I've got one player that has a real habit of doing that, as GM and player. Maybe if he was better atuned with the other players at the table it wouldn't be as much an issue? Sort of "solo with the group"? But even then I suspect it'd end up feeling to me like he'd played the game for me in my absense.

QuoteIn the current campaign I'm running, I wasn't sure how regular the players would be, so I asked to hold onto their character sheets, to make sure we always had their stats and notes. Levi's comments have made me think this was a mistake - it stops them doing "solo play" in between sessions.

That's the strength of a detailed setting or system, it gives the players something to do between sessions!

Can you expand on the specifics of what do you see players doing, or envision them doing, between sessions that requires the player sheet.

How is this distinct from, or more useful than, the statements:

"Enthusiasm on the part of individual players for playing the game is both necessary to the success of a group and contagious."

"One way players build and maintain enthusiasm for a game is by pursuing individual projects related to the game when they are not at the table."

?

Also, stop drawing pictures and coming up with silly ways of explaining them after the fact. Think first, draw second.