So what's the deal with solo gaming?

[BenjaminPey]

Not a fan of no prep either, but that term has been used to describe a variety of games that strongly feature narrativist mechanics.

Well, maybe it's not for you, then. But even so, that's a good way to be sure your solo-gaming will be full of surprises. A pbta engine for instance always works great. But anyway, my point is: solo gaming can be (and is) full of surprises. Even when you're following written modules, surprises will certainly arise, from your tools as well as from the depth of the fiction you produce (an unusual depth, for a roleplaying game; I play rpgs since the end of the 80s, have thousands of games under my belt and I'm yet to see any game that goes even half as deep as the shallowest solo-game I've played).

I don't think so. Inhabiting a character to write them or play them on stage is not the same thing as roleplaying.

I think.

Oops, sorry, my French betrays me here: let rather say "add an element of game", than an element of play (same word in French). Wouldn't it work for you, then? With the "game" part added?

 

[Reynard]

Oops, sorry, my French betrays me here: let rather say "add an element of game", than an element of play (same word in French). Wouldn't it work for you, then? With the "game" part added?

I don't think that is the factor. After all, we call them roleplaying games, which strongly suggests that roleplaying is a thing independent of the game part. After all, we can roleplay with out therapists and our SOs, with needing dice.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, maybe it's not for you, then. But even so, that's a good way to be sure your solo-gaming will be full of surprises. A pbta engine for instance always works great. But anyway, my point is: solo gaming can be (and is) full of surprises. Even when you're following written modules, surprises will certainly arise, from your tools as well as from the depth of the fiction you produce (an unusual depth, for a roleplaying game; I play rpgs since the end of the 80s, have thousands of games under my belt and I'm yet to see any game that goes even half as deep as the shallowest solo-game I've played).



Oops, sorry, my French betrays me here: let rather say "add an element of game", than an element of play (same word in French). Wouldn't it work for you, then? With the "game" part added?

The best solo game experience I've seen recently was SoloDark, based on the Shadowdark rules.

 

[BenjaminPey]

I don't think that is the factor. After all, we call them roleplaying games, which strongly suggests that roleplaying is a thing independent of the game part. After all, we can roleplay with out therapists and our SOs, with needing dice.

Then I'm at loss as to why you don't see any roleplaying in solo games.
You're responding to inputs, internal and external.
You're acting, making decisions in character.
You're trying to get immersed in a story.
You're trying to get immersed in the head of your character.

The only thing missing is, well, other people and their actions obviously, and while I totally get why this would be thought of and felt of as a crucial part of what one's seek in RPGs, in other words while I do understand why solo gaming is not to everybody's liking, I'm at loss as to why this shouldn't be considered as proper roleplaying.

 

[GMMichael]

The only thing missing is, well, other people and their actions obviously . . .

This can be a big part. I'll do a "role-playing" run-through of Skyrim, trying to do what my character would do instead of just completing all the tasks necessary to finish the game. I still consider it video-gaming instead of role-playing, but there's a role-play element there.

If anyone's interested in getting on exactly the same page: try my (our) solo RPG on Easy Mode. Play the Beginners' Cave quest. Come back here and report your findings - specifically, were you role-playing or not?

That'll provide some common ground, and of course, get me some feedback for improvement

EAMODOS

www.enworld.org