I am reading a lot of solo game materials these days as a kind of research. I'm looking at patterns. My question is this. If you were going to make a checklist of features for solo rpgs, what would be on it? Here are some things I thought of.
[NOTE, I'm editing the root to include things as they come up.]
Format
[]CYOA text style
[]Mobile friendly
[]Bookmarked
[]Available in Print
[]Free or PWYW
Design
[]Designed for solo play
[]System (_______) dependent or...
[]System included
[]Pacing/scene mechanics
[]Examples included
[]Genre-specific (_______)
[]Supports multiple play styles
Generators
[]GM emulator
[]Plot/Mission generator (oracle)
[]NPC generator
[]Monster/villain generator
[]Map/Dungeon generator
[]Treasure generator
[]Location generator
Support
[]Has expansions
[]Supports hacking/expansions
Subjective
[]Innovative (design or theme)
[]Good design (works, intuitive, right-sized)
[]Good replayability
[]Good writing (clean, clear, and/or engaging)
[]Good art
Generators in general. I'm a sucker for them.
ReplyDeleteIt can't hurt to have focused GM emulators, if the RPGs have a specific theme or feel. Or at least to include Mythic style keywords to plug into emulator sthat work this way.
I think there is a scarcity of Barbarian Prince/Tales of the Arabian Nights like approaches. There is some good stuff like Journey to the Overland, but not much. That fits into the replayability box in a way, but also in the CYOA style (though not quite).
Pacing/scene management tools, mobile friendly, support different play styles, example play, support for expansions/hacks, oracle creation...
ReplyDeleteAlex Yari Just to be clear, I'm not asking what new ones should have. I'm just building a rubric for evaluation. Todd Zircher Good Stuff!
ReplyDeletefor my game I have a simple quest generator, enemy generator (basically make your own encounter tables) dungeon generator, trap generator and item generator.
ReplyDeleteThat is how I evaluate them.
ReplyDeleteJacob Ross I want to do the same thing but for Table Top.
ReplyDeleteI’d add location generator (e.g tavern generators), and oracles ala Mythic GME or IronSworn
ReplyDeleteThe Plot/Mission generator might be set in a way to work with a 3 Act story structure. Ask questions to help the player fill in the acts.
ReplyDeleteOh, another one: idea generator (e.g using icons, random verbs/adjectives/nouns, or similar)
ReplyDeleteTodd Zircher Give me examples of "support multiple styles of play" - examples of a style, I mean.
ReplyDeleteThredith Undomiel You mean like Rory's Story Cubes?
ReplyDeleteSure, multiple styles in my opinion refers to the output. It's the amount of detail that goes into the mechanics and how it is recorded. Something like Barbarian Prince is close to a board game and very structured while English Eerie favors a guided essay. I've done solo play as stories, log entries, something like a panel by panel presentation, in serial episodes and as a single continuous post, in both first and 3rd person views.
ReplyDeleteTodd Zircher So ... some solo systems allow you a variety of modes in which to express/record your play? (As opposed to having a singular, structured output.)
ReplyDeleteRay Otus Yes, although I was thinking more of the GameMaster’s Apprentice decks, which also have their own System (ALONe)
ReplyDeleteI think some complexity measure could also be useful: e.g. number of pages of the rules (or number of bytes / words); how many attributes define a character; some fuzzy indicator of "crunchiness", maybe like Weight on boardgamegeek?
ReplyDeleteThredith Undomiel Right, but I’m trying to reduce it to a fairly objective proposition. I already have ‘system included’ and both ‘good’ and ‘innovative’ design. So I’m looking for an understanding that allows me to look at a product and fairly certainly answer yes/no and be able to defend that.
ReplyDeleteRay Otus - Right. The general rule is that structured games are intended to be played one way while sand box open worlds tend to allow for many ways to play/create/format your story. Neither is right or wrong, but it is part of the design process you should consider. It's also why examples of play are an important element if you want to steer the player in a particular direction.
ReplyDeleteThe X's represent what I checked off.
ReplyDeleteFormat
[]CYOA text style
[]Mobile friendly
[X]Bookmarked
[]Available in Print
[X]Free or PWYW
Design
[X]Designed for solo play
[]System (_______) dependent or...
[X]System included
[X]Pacing/scene mechanics
[X]Examples included
[]Genre-specific (_______)
[X]Supports multiple play styles
Generators
[X]GM emulator
[X]Plot/Mission generator (oracle)
[X]NPC generator
[X]Monster/villain generator
[X]Map/Dungeon generator
[X]Treasure generator
[X]Location generator
Support
[X]Has expansions
[X]Supports hacking/expansions
Subjective
[X]Innovative (design or theme)
[X]Good design (works, intuitive, right-sized)
[X]Good replayability
[X]Good writing (clean, clear, and/or engaging)
[]Good art
James Smith For what? Were you evaluating a specific game?
ReplyDeleteRay Otus Mainly for what I would want in a game.
ReplyDeleteJames Smith Ah. Yeah, that's cool. For me this is about a way of evaluating games that exist fairly objectively. Have you ever seen the OSR Handbook? I'm thinking of doing something like that, where I compare works focused on solo play. Except that I also have a thought of setting up a community so that others can assess the same item and I could get an average (e.g. 8/10 say it has Good Replayability or even 5/10 say it has an NPC Generator). The last could be a confusing result and therefore somewhat undesirable, but I think it tells you something. Whatever is in there is something some see as an NPC maker and others do not. :)
ReplyDelete"Good replayability" matters only if you include gamebooks and I'm not sure they really are solo rpgs
ReplyDeletelino pang Four Against Darkness has a lot of replayability. If you added a better NPC or monster personality generator, you would really have something. As is, it's about half RPG half boardgame.
ReplyDeleteRay Otus not a surprise it is replayable. if replayability means that the mechanics hinder or promote to play the game multiple times then I cannot think of any example of not replayable RPG (a one-shot rpg?), if it means that replaying the game is less/more boring than the first time then it is subjective and hard to be a measurable parameter.
ReplyDeletelino pang Some CYOA formatted texts have pretty limited replayability, IMO.
ReplyDeleteRay Otus I agree but CYOA = gamebooks,
ReplyDeletelino pang Ok. And game books aren't solo RPGs - especially when they have stats/mechanics? I guess we will disagree on that. But I can see your point. As a rubric for assessment, I stand by it.
ReplyDeleteJust for fun, I'm going to re-post this link about a procedural CYOA game idea that I thought was pretty cool.
ReplyDeleteplus.google.com - People, Last week I found this amazing game called "Randori", by Todd Mauldn....
Ray Otus no problem: your home, your parameters :)
ReplyDeleteGamebooks have an interesting history parallel to that of RPGs but you can hardly define them as such. the category of gamebooks closest to RPGs are the adventure gamebooks and they are not defined as RPGs, for example Fable Lands gamebooks published in the 90s didn't describe themselevs as "RPGs" and in 2011 it has been printed a "Fable Lands RPG"
more info about CYOA here:
en.wikipedia.org - Gamebook - Wikipedia
I definitely think some CYOAs sit in a liminal space between RPG and books. But, for that matter, so does all of role-playing solo. If there is no one there to hear the tree fall, does it make a sound?
ReplyDeletelino pang In any case, my rubric still works. If I check CYOA under format, you could just ignore as not counting as an RPG in your view.
ReplyDelete