TheRPGSite

(http://members.shaw.ca/LeviK/CreatingPlay.jpg)

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.

(http://www.phreeow.net/images/ltheory.png)

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.

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. :o  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? :D

Quote from: Kyle AaronIf somebody read them, then they wouldn't be "solo play", would they? :D

Nope - and that's kind of the thing.  As soon as those personal projects start having an audience in the group, whether in play or out, that grooves, that's when (my experience) there's a payoff.

Basically, if the stuff one person does solo actually hits the group later, it helps the whole game.  Unless the person doing it is, really, being a complete monkey.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenBasically, if the stuff one person does solo actually hits the group later, it helps the whole game.  Unless the person doing it is, really, being a complete monkey.

Complete monkeys don't help much. :) But even vaguely generally competent tend to gunk stuff up if that write-up is a bunch of answers instead of questions. Generally the longer you write the more answers you give.

Quote from: blakkieComplete monkeys don't help much. :) But even vaguely generally competent tend to gunk stuff up if that write-up is a bunch of answers instead of questions. Generally the longer you write the more answers you give.

You know how many game books (All the White Wolf ones, Dark Heresy, quite a few others), have that long list of questions about your backstory?

I think that list, where it's used, should be a quarter of the normal length, maybe three or four questions, with the clear stipulation that something should be unresolved for each one.

And I don't mean necessarily the extra-pathos-story kind of unresolved (though, whatever, that's fine too); ordinary plot-hook unresolved would be dandy.

I have to say that I started skimming about half way down, any post longer than a line or two.


that said:  I think you've got one to many bubbles.  Solo play, fine I get it.

Group play, yeah, thats logical.

More group play? Isn't that just part of Group play?






I'm guessing you did it that way because you wanted the loop thing to be more obvious or somesuch.  Or I just don't get diagrams.

Quote from: SpikeI'm guessing you did it that way because you wanted the loop thing to be more obvious or somesuch.  Or I just don't get diagrams.

No, you've got it.

The thread title was kind of a halfassed joke, to me - it's one ugly picture, but I totally think in terms of weird-looking structures like that, so it was the easiest way for me to put it out there.

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."

?

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

Close the thread, issue solved.

Must be nice to be able to identify 'how you think' so clearly. All I can do is establish that I DON"T think in pictures. Or words.  


In fact, the more I think about the less certain I am that I think at all. I just sort of spew whole, or partly digested, ideas more or less from the aether. Its a little disconcerting, actually.

I'm not sure if this counts but I often find myself writing entire Campaign Settings (that never get released) to help define my game. It's solo play, in a sense, building on the universe to help tighten the fluffy edges.

So, you could argue that in game design, solo play is a requirement.

I do get players doing solo play stuff and then emailling it to me, normally in small nuggets of background evolved during play. Because it's served in small bits, everyone gets to read and understand as they go - you might end up with 21 pages of backstory but its interwoven with the campaign as a whole so it doesn't seem that big. They are solo play, though.