I’ve been writing a new project. For lack of a better title at the time of composition, I have been referring to it as the Advanced Solo Sheets. The Solo Sheets were a game supplement I published last year that was designed to provide an “old-school” solo gaming experience through numerous tables, oracles and blank maps all located on two double-sided sheets. As that project grew “sophisticated,” I became more and more interested in attempting to turn it into its own game. Hence the working title.
A pretty large aspect I want to talk about here today is the driving factor of Encounters in the traditional tabletop role-playing game (ttrpg) vs. solo playing said games vs. something altogether more structured.
In the traditional approach, the Referee will introduce the encounter to the players. The players respond, so-on and so-on; the play is mostly dialogue within the confines a mechanical framework. Occasionally dice rolls will be used to reflect the stakes of those choices. With solo play, you may use the same exact encounter but rely on certain Yes / No oracles in place of the Referee’s agency. This is a very effective way to simulate the randomness that comes from hidden information. Solo players still have agency, the “machine” as Referee, though not choosing, is using randomness to prevent stagnation. This machine, can do a lot of lifting for the solo player. Heck, even in co-op play, a non-biased component like this can drive the play, each player taking turns rolling for the Oracles and random tables.
But as I work on the project, I continue to wonder about structure. See, one of the issues with this above-mentioned machine-based play, is it often relies on players to know what questions to ask. Do you need to know if the town is empty? Yes / No. Easy. But what do you do with that information. There are often these little gaps in the play, like the joined parts in kit-bashed models. They need filled first, otherwise the seams are always present, ruining the illusion. This is a skill. This takes time and patience to get used to. I see comments about how exhausting solo play can be, because you’re always on. You are playing and refereeing. It is a very non-passive form of play. And frankly, it’s very rewarding! Like running after being out of practice - the first few blocks are clunky, heaving, unregulated. But then, something happens, the muscles snap just a little better, the steps are less heavy, breaths come slightly smoother.
So why do I want to mess with this format? It’s tried and true, on full display in countless blogs and You Tube videos. Well, because the nature of the Solo Sheets was ease. Two sheets, a few dice, and a pencil, and you’re off to fantasy-gaming bliss! Without a group. And despite the numerous nested tables and connected paths, there was this double feature of GM and Player. But if we look at modern adventure board games, there’s the typical mechanical trope of encounter (usually draw a card), make your check, and do X or Y based on a pass or fail of the test. On its surface, this is the streamlining of the traditional ttrpg. It’s an all-in-one package of referee, narrative, mechanics, player. Instead of rolling on a loot table or adversary reaction table, the encounter card tells you everything. It often refers you to another card deck for the reward. And many players receive joy from this kind of play. Why? It seems so programmed. Passive. You’re just filling in a gap, right? Well maybe it’s not the mechanical aspect that’s important here. Maybe there’s something else that attracts players to these kind of adventure games. Something like narrative.
These board game encounters deliver a story to you, dressed up in genre, character art, bits, bobs, bonuses. But it’s a straight and rigid track some detractors will say. I agree, to a point. However, perhaps, this has more to do with labels. Many adventure games are called RPG. But are they really? Be it Final Fantasy video games or Arkham Horror board games, are you ROLE playing, or are you acting out someone else’s vision of an adventure story. Read a novel, and you paint a picture in your mind with the language and your previous references. But in pre-programmed games, you’re not even allowed to do too much imagining, because, for obvious reasons, video games aside, these board games often are heavily laden with the above-mentioned pieces. But the sweet side of this kind of play is you’re free to just be in the story. You don’t have to martial all your experiences to paint it, you just go with it. It’s a bit like an interactive novel. Yes, there’s choice, there’s randomization, there are expansions, so it’s not a railroad. It’s more like watching the latest super-hero show versus art film. The former is fun, easy, ridiculous; the latter can take time, be alienating, upset expectations, and for many, just be plain boring - in a word: work.
Solo gaming can sometimes feel like work. Of course, not always, and as I said above, it can be very rewarding.
Anyway, digression of comparisons aside, the thread I’m grasping at is one of programmed ease, minus boredom. I want to make the encounters have a form of structure that gives players some mechanical direction, while still allowing them to enjoy the particular tale that’s emerging. How to do this?
Well I believe structuring them like this. The encounters themselves are random, and each has two possibilities, but instead of rolling up NPC reactions and testing with oracles, the consequences are presented. Move on!
1. A caravan of nomadic herders crests the windblown hill:
[1-3] dancing and singing a cheerful song in unison.
• [WIS] to know the song; gain 3 Rations. [F]: they ignore you
[4-6] guarding an elaborate wagon that’s covered in wild flowers.
• [WIS] to know the ceremony; receive a Blessing. [F]: they ignore you
The original of this particular encounter had three possibilities. I cut it down, frankly for size considerations, but the original Sheets had three possible interactions, and I like that round number. Will probably go back to that.
In a perfect world, these kinds of encounters are open-ended
enough that players can still follow them up. In this case, you can still choose to follow the caravan, attack, steal, or simply follow the next procedure of play. This isn't ground-breaking stuff to be sure. Indeed likely not even worth this post. Games like Barbarian Prince or The Drifter implement these sort of narrative-driven, test-based encounters, and of course the aforementioned board games. Roque Romero, over at my Patreon, pointed out that even Scythe, a board game, that's not really an adventure game so much, but more of a resource management, area control type game, uses this kind of encounter. Simply choose one of the three options, gain something, and that's it. Again, lore, mechanics, and game narrative condensed into one moment. I think it can be very effective for offering solo players a way to keep going less fatigue. You don't have to always be on. The book is telling you, much like the GM would, what is required and what will happen. Then I ask myself, is this role-playing? Perhaps not.
I'm thinking of calling them Capsule Encounters. A little pill, easily ingested, loaded with possibilities. Yea, needs some work....
As I continue to develop the "Advanced Solo Sheets" they are taking on a new form. They are become a game unto themselves. A solo adventure game. One where you still get +1 swords and fights with baddies.
Now, can I write 100 interesting, pre-programmed, but still open encounters? Let's find out.