Quote from: BalbinusHistorically many rpgs were designed to allow solo play, in the same way many wargames permit solo play.

I'm thinking D&D, Traveller, T&T, I'm sure there were others.

That side of the hobby has largely died out, but it was part of the hobby and not at all seen as an odd part.

Just thought I'd mention that, otherwise, great thread title.

Thanks. EDIT: And thanks for everyone participtating.

Now that you mention it I do seem to recall buried somewhere in my AD&D 1e book some sort of random dungeon generator that might function in a solitare mode (though I think it was billed as GMless so you and a buddy could form a party and beat down mooks). I looked at it and thought "hrmm, that looks a lot like a CRPG but without even a hint of intellegent design to the dungeon....pass!"  I've never known anyone to do it though. Maybe the practice was already defunct by the time I started playing in the late 80's.

Yeah, I know a lot of historical wargames have solitarie play, basically intended as simulators so you can study why a battle likely had the outcome it did and then run though some historical what-ifs. I figured it had never really made the crossover though.

P.S. Thanks for the [disturbing] info on state of developers. I guess.  Funny you should mention CoC, because I'd read somewhere once that HP Lovecraft did NOT enjoy the playing of games. Whether or not that was just a reflection of the games of the time I'm not sure, but that strikes me as an interesting possible correlation.

Quote from: blakkieThanks.

Now that you mention it I do seem to recall buried somewhere in my AD&D 1e book some sort of random dungeon generator that might function. I looked at it and thought "hrmm, that looks a lot like a CRPG but without even a hint of intellegent design to the dungeon....pass!"  I've never known anyone to do it though. Maybe the practice was already defunct by the time I started playing in the late 80's.

Yeah, I know a lot of historical wargames have solitarie play, basically intended as simulators so you can study why a battle likely had the outcome it did and then run though some historical what-ifs. I figured it had never really made the crossover though.

P.S. Thanks for the [disturbing] info on state of developers. I guess.

I think the arrival of computer games killed it by and large, a computer just does that sort of thing better.  

The developer stuff is depressing, it's why I absolutely welcome the Forge and general indie emphasis on actual play.  A game sold by a designer who didn't play it is, IMO, sold on false pretences.  If I buy an adventure, I expect the writer to have run it a few times.  If I buy an rpg, I expect the designer to have run it by the rules as written.

If I buy an indie game generally those expectations will be fulfilled, same actually for D&D come to think of it (AFAIK), but not for everything else sadly.

Damn, I wish I'd mentioned solo play, then I could have gotten a thank you.

Quote from: James McMurrayDamn, I wish I'd mentioned solo play, then I could have gotten a thank you.

Well I EDITed in one for you. You'll have to share though.

Nope, sorry. If I can't get the credit for the first mention of solo gaming, I just don't want it.

Now where's that "stomp foot petulantly" emote when you need it?

Quote from: James McMurrayNope, sorry. If I can't get the credit for the first mention of solo gaming, I just don't want it.

Now where's that "stomp foot petulantly" emote when you need it?

:muttering: <--- would this work?

Then once you are done you can come over and join me, Zachary and JimBobOz.  :grouphug:

Gentlemen, this thread has veered dangerously off topic!  Now, I seriously must know:  am I a lawncrapper and/or moron*?
 
 
*If so, can I be the lovable type rather than the makes others uncomfortable by his mere brain-dead presence smearing melted chocolate on shop windows and hooting while playing with his junk at the mall type?

Quote from: Zachary The FirstGentlemen, this thread has veered dangerously off topic!  Now, I seriously must know:  am I a lawncrapper and/or moron*?
 
 
*If so, can I be the lovable type rather than the makes others uncomfortable by his mere brain-dead presence smearing melted chocolate on shop windows and hooting while playing with his junk at the mall type?

No, you are not.  blakkie is though.

That's not melted chocolate!

It's not? Whew! I was wondering what kinda wierdo would put corn in their chocolate.

Quote from: blakkieThe difference being that one is socially orientated and the other is not.  Not that doing things that aren't inherently social is bad. I don't drive around throwing empty beer bottles at people jogging in the park. Usually. :deflated:

What the fuck? Rolling up characters you'll never use is equivalent to throwing empty beer bottles at people in the park?

blakkie, there's a thing you need to learn about - it's called "the fallacy of the excluded middle." That's where you assume that only extremes are possible. Either we must execute all criminals, or we must let them all go; either I must be a slave to my wife, or I must beat her daily; either there must be no laws whatsoever, or we must live in Nazi Germany. Those are "fallacies" - that's fancy-talk for "load of old bollocks." The truth is that there's an infinite number of ways to live in between those extremes.

Some things are social, some things are anti-social, and some things are neither social nor anti-social. If I make dinner for my friends, it's social; if I take a dump on the dining table, it's anti-social; if I make dinner for myself and eat it alone, it's neither. If I lead a prayer gathering, it's social; if I stand up in the place of worship and yell profanities, it's anti-social; if I sit and meditate alone at home it's neither.

Likewise, if I roll up characters and make dungeons alone at home, it's neither social nor anti-social. It's just a solitary activity for amusement.

Learn about this fallacy of the excluded middle. It will save you much silliness and confusion. And people won't think you're a cocksmock.

Quote from: blakkieHowever directly linking RPGs to something that isn't social seems to undermine the thrust of RPGs being social. Which they are, right? Or am I off there? RPGs seem to be built for a group of people [...]

Roleplaying games are social, but they are not only social. They're also creative. They're a social creative activity. That's what rpg theorists are groping blindly for when they come up with silly phrases like "Shared Imaginary Space," or "collaborative fiction." A social creative activity.

We play roleplaying games in groups because we enjoy the socialising, and the creativity. We can have the socialising without the game - like when we have a DVD night, or the chat before the session starts - and we can have the creativity without the group - like when we roll up characters and dungeons we'll never use, or when we buy and read another rpg we know we'll never play.

Preparing characters and dungeons and game worlds we know we'll never use is an exercise of the creative faculties. They need exercise, or they wither away. I know this, because once I wrote poetry, and it was quite good - then I joined the army, didn't do it for years, and now can't. Likewise, when I was a teenager I was a very talented sketch artist, able to create fine portraits, and knowledgeable in anatomy; but I stopped, and didn't do it anymore, and now I'm hopeless. A roleplayer is the same - we have to exercise our creativity, or it'll wither away and die. The solitary dungeon-making and game-reading is that exercise. It is, indirectly, a preparation for future game sessions.

Seriously, you have to be told this stuff? That life is not made up of violent extremes, and that roleplaying is a social creative activity?

Quote from: blakkieWhat I meant there was that that the rules would likely be assembled for the purpose of them being played. If that wasn't the focus somehow I would expect less than enjoyably playable rules as accidentally nailing it seems very unlikely.

Bad assumption?

No.

But you would have made the point much clearer if you did not link activity other than play as being non-social or lawn crapping or whatever the term you kids use, these days.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: JimBobOzSome things are social, some things are anti-social, and some things are neither social nor anti-social. If I make dinner for my friends, it's social; if I take a dump on the dining table, it's anti-social; if I make dinner for myself and eat it alone, it's neither. If I lead a prayer gathering, it's social; if I stand up in the place of worship and yell profanities, it's anti-social; if I sit and meditate alone at home it's neither.

Likewise, if I roll up characters and make dungeons alone at home, it's neither social nor anti-social. It's just a solitary activity for amusement.

I like that bit right there particularly.  The examples are very well chosen.

Quote from: blakkieI missed it then. But if they did? Well flyingmouse apparently not, if you read his post in that thread. Others? Maybe. *shrug*

Like i said previously, i can't speak for others.

As someone who has moved from 'fan material' to writing professionally (at least part-time), this is something i've done. I can't imagine that many people have gone from nothing to published material in one bound. As i said, you have to have a certain enthusiasm to write RPG stuff, either for fun or professionally. Part of that (in my case anyway) has been writing stuff that hasn't seen the light of day at my table or anyone elses.

I've almost forgotten what the hell the point of all this was anyway.

Quote from: JimBobOzWhat the fuck? Rolling up characters you'll never use is equivalent to throwing empty beer bottles at people in the park?

Um, JimBobOz, in that example it is the lone jogger that are doing something that is largely non-social that I was talking about. Ummm, pretend that I mentioned a friend was driving the car I was in.  Then I'll just clip out the rest of that rant of yours since it's way the fuck off the path and get to...

QuoteSome things are social, some things are anti-social, and some things are neither social nor anti-social.

Note that I said non-social. NOT anti-social. So, umm, yeah I'm already there. Hellooooo, over here big boy!!!!!!!

QuoteLearn about this fallacy of the excluded middle.

How ironic. :rolleyes:

QuoteRoleplaying games are social, but they are not only social. They're also creative. They're a social creative activity. That's what rpg theorists are groping blindly for when they come up with silly phrases like "Shared Imaginary Space," or "collaborative fiction." A social creative activity.

The problem coming in when "playing" an RPG gets linked to the non-social, undercutting the social pitch. Getting "off message" as it were.

QuoteSeriously, you have to be told this stuff? That life is not made up of violent extremes...

Like someone going off half-cocked on a raging, bird-flipping, rant?

@One Horse Town

I think you are still going down a dead-end talking about something different.  Although sure, there could be people producing RPG material that have done and still do this. Sure. Every one of them?  We know at least one that doesn't.