Quote from: Pseudoephedrine?

? He's even listed a few possible concequenses in his first post, such as games getting selected more by their "soloing" rather than what they bring to the "group", and there are other outcomes listed in the other posts before yours.

My point is that it's obtusely phrased. Levi has a tendency to do that, and I've been giving him shit about it for what - three, four years now? I'll keep on doing so until he can state things clearly.

As for everything else, yes, individual enthusiasm, and the ability to pursue individual projects related to the game are important and can be as much a source of enjoyment as actual group play. For an interesting implementation of that in practice, see Malcolm Sheppard's game "Codex" from 2006 which incorporates multiple levels of "bluebooking" to encourage engaging with the game away from the table, or De Profundis by Michael Oracz, which is a roleplaying game done entirely through epistles written from player to player. Both are hard to find, but I actually own a copy of Codex (bought it straight from the author) and Shep has .pdfs of it available that I'm sure he'd love to sell.

Bluebooking?  You mean like a style guide for people to follow when on their own?

EDIT: LOL, ironic given your first paragraph but that's not my point. I'm just not certain of what term you are referencing.  Oh and how would you say it played out at the table? Does the process of building up the bluebooking/guide involve much overhead?

Quote from: blakkieIf 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.

True for both points. During the campaign, it's more of planning/reacting to what the players do.

(A short trek. Shared narrative control during the game, is something I(we) don't do often. A couple of my players find it difficult (but enjoyable) to play this way and I've noticed a weird kind of meta-narrative that is created during play between those of us who embrace this style of play which excludes those who are not really into it)

QuoteYou 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? How did it end like that? Is that common?

Well, I'm the one who usually pitches a setting and if there's any interest am the one who gets down to working on it with input form my players. IHW is a good example (for my group at least) of the whole system matters deal. Obviously what we discussed, what we wanted to accomplish as a group was better served with IHW than with my GURPS version. It was not so much "my" vision of the game which was rejected but rather IHW was the better vehicle for "our" vision, if you get what I'm trying to say....

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

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing.

Regards,
David R

"Bluebooking" is when you write stories about your RPG character's adventures that you don't play out. It generally implies that you want the story to be taken as part of the game world despite that.

I haven't played Codex, just read it, so I can't speak to how it runs in play, but  the idea is that players can bluebook during downtime for XP, while the DM runs a "redbook" of common material relating to the NPCs, and the group as a whole "greenbooks" - which is a sort of repository of interesting facts about the world. The amount you write isn't that onerous - less than half a page is expected, and it doesn't have to be glowing prose (the occasional bullet point list is fine, frex).

I imagine it might be a bit confusing during play - MS built it as a test of the statement (more common during the early 2000's) that many RPG players were frustrated writers.

I don't think this works:

1. The text isn't isolated to just the initial 'getting things going.'  The text continues to spur play through neat ideas and fun mechanics.  I also think a supplement treadmill, if it's considered as part of the text under this model, can spur further play.  "Hey guys, Complete Awesome Guy is out.  Let's add in some of that."

2. Solo play isn't necessary.  I've picked up games, read them once, and started playing with no solo play whatsoever.  Some games don't even push a person back to solo play.  Nothing for me to really do with FATE 2E - I know the rules so I just sit down to play.  Maybe I sketch out interesting events and such, but that's not engaging the text in any way.

3. Solo play happens most when a person is already sold on the game.  The game has inspired them enough to make the reader want to play with it.  Solo play is incidental - whether it would have occured or not this person already wants to play this game.

I think what you're left with is fun group play feeding more fun group play.  I certainly can't argue with that

Quote from: C.W.RichesonI've picked up games, read them once...

He's including that. You said "let's do this based on me reading it". Which is why I think the use of the word "play" is a bit confusing.

QuoteMaybe I sketch out interesting events and such, but that's not engaging the text in any way.

If I'm reading correctly he's including that too, and he's not saying the text has to feed that.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineHow 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."

Hrm.   Well, I'd add the ideas (one obvious, one implied):

"Some one person must like a game, alone and outside of play, personally, before it will see play."

And...

"A given game, either as-written or as-approached, can be better or worse at inspiring individual projects."

...And then we're pretty much there.

EDIT: Oh, and I'd add "Personal enthusiasm, while it does create play, does not necessarily improve play."

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen3. 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.  

What are the mechanical safeguards that ensure the gameworld doesn't get atomized into individual pet projects?

Re. bluebooking, as El Rabbito would no doubt point out, an old-school version of this is Midkemia Cities. It uses random tables to generate city-based quests (and XP for completing same) for the PCs of players who missed a session or three.

The idea was to bring PCs up to speed in terms of levels and in-game time ("What did your PC do over the last three months while the others busted the Thieves Guild?").

But if used imaginatively, MC can be far more than that--the NPCs and quests of the solo game can be fed right back into the group game. I.e., the solo PC ends up in prison -> rescue him.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityWhat are the mechanical safeguards that ensure the gameworld doesn't get atomized into individual pet projects?

I've never used any, myself - never needed 'em.

And, on the topic of "solo stuff engineered to feed back into play", here's a list from my journal, where we had a long discussion on this whole thing last week.

1. Pointedly Unresolved Backgrounds
I'm sure you've seen those long lists of questions in game books for creating character background, and been generally less-than-impressed.  Good idea, but it often doesn't go anywhere.  So, let's chop that up.  Imagine that a game instead had a background sheet that prompted you to create, say, three specific "turning points" in the life of your character...     And leave a dangling "loose end" with each one, something that the GM can drill straight into play.
--Example: You're a Kid in the Cog wars.  (1) You aren't with your family; what happened?  What wasn't resolved in that event?  (2) Something pushed you over the edge and ito rebellion; what happened?  What wasn't resolved in that event? (3) You've been through your first rebel action; what hapenned?  What wasn't resolved in that event?

2. Situation-Makers
I've been playing with a few of these in previous posts, as PDF toys, but still haven't pulled off anything that sings the way town creation in Dogs does.  But you get the idea - fiddly little adventure-makers for the GM, which "unfold" in play as resources, and are kind-of fun to do all on their own.  Never longer than a single page.  Maybe with random bits - maybe with questions to answer.  Maybe with selectable packages (I'm a big fan of selectable packages, but they aren't actually all that creative).  

3. Tokens & Maps
Imagine a map split into "areas" rather than squares.  So, maps good, tokens good - but no need for overly complex movement rules.  Okay, but where do you get the maps and tokens?  You make them.  You find toys and tools and tokens - everyone brings their own token; other than some size rule, it can be whatever.  Oh, and take a quick look at http://www.citycreator.com while you're thinking on it.

4. Letter-Writing
Correspond with your characters.  That is, give each player (or those with specific classes or jobs or just that kind of headspace) in-game-world pen pals, and write to them.  Rule that letters must be short, and only however many you can actually handle between games, and then go go go.  Ensure that the pen pals can actually show up, or also know people that do show up, and that the letters mention this, to ensure payoffs in play.

5. The Hideout System
Find, beg, borrow, or outright create a system through which one or more of the characters can manage a rules-fiddly group thingy that appears in play.  The Ars Magica chantry.  The Traveller ship.  Whatever.  Bliss them out with cool stuff they can get, and what it does in play - and then add the expenses to gain it to your selection of motives for action in actual play.

6. "Tales" and "Rundowns"
There are two kinds of Actual Play writeups done after the fact, and both should always be encouraged.  "Tales" are written from the perspective of 'turning the game into a fictional story', while  "Rundowns" are 'what was interesting and dull at the table and the interactions among the players'.  Reward both properly - which is to say, comment on them, give feedback, share them with the rest of the playing group, and so on.  Show special respect to reports that are snappy, short, hit the impotant points, and remain entertaining - concise writing in AP is underrated.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenOh, and I'd add "Personal enthusiasm, while it does create play, does not necessarily improve play."

It almost always does.

Sometimes the enthusiasm is a bit dorky, and sometimes it's  not welcomed when the enthusiasm is coming from a player who's new to a well-established and/or stagnating group, but really if you do try to accomodate it, then it helps the group.

Enthusiasm is the fire that makes the little engine of the campaign go.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenOh, and I'd add "Personal enthusiasm, while it does create play, does not necessarily improve play."

Can you show some of this? I'm having trouble thinking of an example of enthusiasm that fails to improve play except where the enthusiastic person has unrelated social issues that make his enthusiasm toxic.

Good to see you posting here again, CW

Regards,
David R

Quote from: HalfjackCan you show some of this? I'm having trouble thinking of an example of enthusiasm that fails to improve play except where the enthusiastic person has unrelated social issues that make his enthusiasm toxic.

The really obvious one:

Twenty-page character backgrounds that nobody reads.

If somebody read them, then they wouldn't be "solo play", would they?