Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Greetings,

Welcome back to another exciting edition of Wargames Design Discussion. We have covered a number of topics in the previous threads and I thank those of you who have read and contributed in the past. We have talked about the role of GMs, Campaign Games, Card Mechanics, and more!

Today, let's talk about Solo-Play games. This seems to be more prevalent in card games and board games than in wargames. However, Two-Hour Wargames seems to have made their own little niche in this area. Typically, in a wargames version the enemy are blips or encounter markers that are revealed when the player does X or Y action.

The Two-Hour Wargames solo-mechanics are heavily influenced by dice rolling charts to determine a randomized process of activation. In board games, I have seen Enemy "Decision Trees" of if/than statements, and finally I have seen reaction/action rolls to determine if the player or the AI gets priority in solo-play Force-on-Force games.

What solo-play mechanics have you seen? What games are they in? Which do you prefer and why? Is solo-play a growing niche in the wargames market? how can it work in other games such as cards, board, or even RPG games? Discuss!

Tusk is a game where you hunt mammoth or dinosaurs etc and it gives the animals a "reaction roll" when certain events happen.

Animals react to fire, attack, noise etc differently so depending on the situation they will react differently.

Using this set up you can play solo since the enemy simply react to what you do depending on the situation.

The game is a lot more fun in groups of players hunting though. But the option for solo play is there.

I have played solo play X-Wing using this web-based app.

Arkham Asylum is one game I've played that allows for solo-play. Although, technically, you would have to play as several of the PCs, as playing with only one is a guaranteed loss. But, the game's NPC aspect is controlled by the event card you draw each turn (symbols on the card indicate which monsters move and such).

While I own Mage Knight, I haven't played or read the rules yet, but I know it is also capable of solo-play.

Magic Realm, a wonderful classic, is also a game where the NPCs are run by the rules, allowing for solo-play as well. It's an old school D&D style of game, where the rules function as the DM. That description doesn't really do it justice, though.

I have played a few games with solo rules in the past, few been the key work.

I strongly dislike two hour wargame rules, my main argument is usually that the game play itself and players are there to move pieces and roll dice, this also stands for the solo play.

Unfortunately I do not have much input for this tread, the last week I started experimenting with solo play rules and my research sample and experience is minimal at the moment, the initial impression I get though is that making a really good solo experience is quite difficult and many of the solo variants seem to be what the game designer did to check his game solo.

I can theorize that looking at computer games and the experience they have accumulated over the years in delivering a solo play experience in a variety of genres can be quite insightful on how to deliver an interesting solo play experience, especially in the player input part of it.

I enjoy solo play for games, both as an alternative to using them as their normal multiplayer versions, and games designed only for solo play

The first I really came across was table based using % dice

https://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/4556/pattons-best

I still play it now and then and have only 'won' rarely

but the problem with random rolls is that it can lead to the 'idiot opponent' where they rolls force them to do something totally pointless (unless there is some clever design) which can wreck your immersion in the game

I now prefer the 'tree' based games (either card or dice tables) where there has been an attempt to solve this,

the AI cards for the creatures in Kingdom Death: Monster look to be a good example of this

The best one I've played is Zombiecide. Whether you have 1 or more players the Zeds still act the same.

Back in the day I used to have Chainsaw Warrior and Advanced Heroquest. I enjoyed both immensely though the first was a boardgame and the latter was rather table dependent.

I was seriously considering a co-op mode for my game, it couldn't be played with the exact same rules, but the idea was to allow every single miniature to be used in co-op.

This would allow for some more casual play for people who don't play competitively.

However, solo play never appealed to me for miniature games since if I wanted to play something solo I would just play a PC game. Wargaming is mainly social to me.

Well from a designer standpoint what players will play and why is quite important too.

I am delving in it, because at the moment I cannot think of a clever way to make a stealth game versus without going the hidden movement path.

Which is valid, good and tested, but it is not where I would like to go.

I've played a number of solo boardgames, including B17, Patton's War and RAF. I have a copy of Space Infantry tucked away that I bought a couple of years ago and have not got around to playing. I also have a copy of the Space Angels Marines card game that came out a few years ago. This can be played solo or with a group. I think it works better as a solo game. Finally I have a copy of Silent War, which simulates the Allied submarine warfare campaign against Japan 1942-45. I have never played this because it takes many hours and I don't have space to leave it out, until the next time the wife goes on holiday for a couple of weeks.

The way all these games work is a semi-random mechanism to generate the enemy behaviour. In B17 and Patton's War it is roll-up tables, RAF and SM Angels use cards, and Space Infantry uses chits drawn from a cup. Silent War also uses chit pulling. RAF and Silent War use maps. B17 uses a map and an abstracted tactical layout. Patton's War uses an abstracted tactical layout.

B17 doesn't give the player a lot of decisions to make. Your decisions are limited to which incoming fighters to shoot at, which guns to man if any crew get hit, whether to descend below 10,000 feet if part of the plane loses its oxygen, and whether to bail out over the sea, or land, or try to fly your crate back to the UK. I still found it a tremendously fun game and play it many times, sometimes with pals. We would each take different crew positions and do the dice rolls relevant to those roles.

Can't remember a lot about Patton's War as I didn't play it so much.

RAF is a recreation of the Battle of Britain. You are Fighter Command. Your job is basically to shuffle your available squadrons around to try and attack the maximum number of German raids while losing the least number of your own planes. If you get this balance right and are lucky, the Germans will start to get more worn out than your squadrons. You then try and form a big wing and bounce a big, tired German raid and cause crippling casualties.

Space Infantry is an Aliens type scenario.

Space Angels Marines involves forming a convoy with your Terminators, with hopefully the best distribution of weapons, because you can only move in single file.

The interesting thing about these games is that they present the player with the kind of choices that you would have in real life, which actually are quite limited. As a B17 crew all you could do was to fly to the target, shoot as well as possible at attackers, and hope for luck. As Fighter Command, you have a difficult job balancing the various priorities with your limited resources. Your job is partly to avoid disaster and endure.

Thus, the interest of these game is not the taking of lots of interactive decisions. You have to do the best you can with rather limited options.

No-one has yet mentioned solo adventure books, as published by Games Workshop or before them, Flying Buffalo Games (Tunnels & Trolls.) Of course in these games your path is predetermined. You can only choose the branches, which either kill you or return to a node.

I have played some miniatures games solo, but it never worked well for me, because I was trying to use rules designed for multiple players. It should be possible to take the rules from dedicated solo boardgames and adapt them to a miniatures game if you wanted to do it. To a significant degree, computer games have replaced solo games in the same way they replaced board wargames. (Though interestingly board war-games have made a bit of a comeback in the past 15 years.)

GW's recent Assassination Force game can actually be played solo. It's a cooperative game where you play against the scenario. The enemy models move randomly in the sense that they move D6" or 2D6" (I forget which) and follow paths on the ground. There are little red arrows letting you know which way to move. Sometimes there are multiple arrows with something like 1-3 under one and 4-6 under the other. If that happens, you roll a D6 to see where they go. If a player model is in line of sight, they take specific actions.

It's actually a ton of fun and I would buy new scenarios/maps/unit cards for other factions in a heartbeat. The game was overpriced because of the models, but could be sold as a supplemental game without models for cheap.

I bought my copy without models off eBay for maybe $10.

Thought about it, but I feel its a really underwhelming experience, that been said the idea is NOT bad, the execution is.

The old-school board game Star Fleet Battles has some solitaire scenarios, usually pitting the player's starship against a monster of some kind. There are also a few other scenarios that are easily adapted for solo play. Pretty much the only way I can play SFB since no one else I know plays.

I haven't seen anyone mention one of the main producers of solitaire wargames yet, Dan Verssen Games www.dvg.com. In particular, the games of the Leader series usually put you in the role of an aircraft squadron commander conducting a campaign. You need to decide what pilots, aircraft, and arms are needed to accomplish a particular mission, what approaches to take, etc. Then you play out the mission, and move on to the next one in the campaign. The systems make heavy use of cards and chits to keep track of things, so there is not a lot of paperwork. Usually just one master log sheet to keep track of pilots and progress.

Overall, it has more of a decision making process than say B-17. While an interesting game, B-17 just feels like you are along for the ride, and whatever happens, happens. You don't get to make a lot of decisions in it, just react to what happens.

Something else that can be soloed is DVG's Warfighter. This is a tactical card game of modern ground special forces type actions, In many respects, it feels like an adaptation of a video game like Call of Duty. An important part of the game is deciding what soldiers and specialists to take on the mission, and how to kit them out to accomplish the goal. Poor choices in regards to soldiers, skills, and equipment can doom a mission before you even play it.

Star Fleet Battles had a few solo play missions, mostly facing a monster with some automatic rules, or a swarm of them again on automatic.

The swarm mission for the PFs confused the hell out of me..

Also a missile defence mission which was a fun little game and a very good way to learn drone defence.


Some games adapt reasonably well, with a bit of common sense, e.g. a naval air strike against a few warships, the ships assumed not to move, and can fire on automatic - more a way to learn the rules though.

Also played the old 'Aliens' board game, or bored game as it tended to go, especially for the Alien player who wasn't really needed.


Have set up a few more normal games to be solo player, again typically to try out the rules, give the 'other side' a significant advantage to represent the 'dumb' way they will play then go for it.

Space Hulk had rules for solo play, as did Advanced Heroquest. In both cases, the reduction in tactical play from the genestealers/monsters was counterbalanced by simply adding more of them.

In both cases, I think the solo element was an afterthought - to give you something to do when you're stuck indoors on a rainy bank holiday Sunday, probably.

Solo play games are pretty much the progenitors of video games!

I am a huge fan of cooperative play games. I also like the THW rules because the models do not act as perfect agents and instead behave in a more autonomous way guided by their own reactions/ situation. Plus, you have Stars if you want to micro everything.

Solo games largely rely on the quality of the non player (NP) mechanics. NPs should resolve quickly (minimize player downtime), believably (not necessarily realistically unless it is a sim), and offer interesting, meaningful decision opportunities.

Reaction charts and tables are basically the forerunners of AI development. Generally, you will want a behavior chart that is consistent with expected behavior but has some fuzziness so that there is some unexpected behavior. So aggressive things, for example, generally advance and charge, but may linger or even withdraw or reroute.

I also tend to prefer elements of uncertainty in target identification. THWs PEFs do a good job of this. Essentially, they are markers that may be something (or nothing) and you don't resolve until the come into contact or LOS of something they can interact with. This leads to meaningful decisions- do you split forces to scout and reveal threats/non threats ASAP? Do you stay together and clear 1 at a time but risk potential poorer positions from non targeted PEFs and delay that could mean new PEFs? Do you advance or let them come to your forces? etc.

I think pure solo games seem to be kinda pointless nowadays, mostly because of video games.

However, coop games and semi coop games are going to continue to be a growing thing.

I would support this idea, but the amount of solo boardgames out there and the good reception they get is contrary to that.

They are a niche but a big enough to support development.

Video games are related, and may compete for resources, but have their own limitations. For example, most have a limited lifespan based on the engine, whereas board and miniature games can be replayed, republished, etc. pretty much indefinitely. Likewise, creating new scenarios, rules, pieces is often not supported or challenging unless a video game is designed around such a feature. And physical pieces do offer a tactile component that has a real psychological impact.

Well I would argue I sill play the original xcom, but the fact a boardgame can be developed by anybody were a CG needs some special skills for extra stuff to be created it expands the lifespan of a solo game easier when the publisher stops working on it.

 Compel wrote:
I think pure solo games seem to be kinda pointless nowadays, mostly because of video games.

However, coop games and semi coop games are going to continue to be a growing thing.

Except that those pure co-op games would be far better as a video game.

Robinson Crusoe, for example.

What a pure gak game that is. But the Eurogamers are all over it.

Should be a solitaire game on the iPad.

Why?
It appeals to a market segment that has specific taste for certain game mechanics it is decent at it and coop boardgaming add a social experience a digital game does not.

You cannot flatten games with the "it would better be a digital game" they introduce different aspects that consumers want.

Have you played Robinson Crusoe?

Unfortunately my experience of the game comes from watching live playthroughs and reading the rules.

Its a game that has not come to this country and I doubt I can make my playgroup play it.

I should better say though that, if I spend the time and effort to convince them I would rather convince them play time stories.

I mean solo games can be interesting, sort of like how choose your own adventure books could be considered a board game as I know of a few where you can choose a path and you have no idea where you are going. And there is no one else but you and the decisions you make will change the story up.

As board games do have the capacity to teach the player about themselves and what they choose to do. Most board games such as solo gmaes are reflective of peoples playstyles and why they choose to play games or how they play. It is inductive throughout what they choose to do.

I mean you could easily make a solo game rather quickly with pen and paper, and make an encounter based game where everything is randomized, including equipment and items, it will be random and thus could be compelling.

I think it happens to based on whether or not you are trying to achieve something or figure something out (Achievers and Explorers)

I mean when someone is playing a Solitare, they aren't playing it because they want to explore or see the deck they are obviously trying to get the cards and complete a puzzle.

Puzzles such as matching pieces can be considered board games as well, there is a sense of accomplishment on making the pieces fit together and spatial reasoning is being exercised whenever do use it.

Some great games are solo plays. But as someone brought video games have sorta of taken this role more. Such as a game hands of fate, which could technically be a board if you got rid of the combat bit and made it a dice game, instead you place cards down randomly and encounter things.

Its very much like dungeon crawlers where you the player face a randomized encounter and roll to see what happens. I don't know of any board games that do off the top of my head.

As from what I could discern it appeals to peoples sense of adventure or to peoples sense of accomplishment.

But eh thats just me on the matter. I don't study board games as much as I should.

OK, I've played RC in a group. As a co-op game, it's completely terrible, because it requires absolute agreement on actions. 4 players might as well be one.

And it's very fiddly, which is precisely what a computer does best.

So, combine the two, and the game is something that should be an iPad app, not a big printed thing.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
OK, I've played RC in a group. As a co-op game, it's completely terrible, because it requires absolute agreement on actions. 4 players might as well be one.

And it's very fiddly, which is precisely what a computer does best.

So, combine the two, and the game is something that should be an iPad app, not a big printed thing.

Which is probably a good reason why there are so few Solo games out there. It would be probably cheaper to make a video game make a solo game. It requires different skills but the concepts for game design remain the same, you are just using a different media.

Like Dwarf Fortress, technically you could do it with cards or pen and paper, but why would you?

The ease that a computer does things is light years ahead of what a human could do. It would also drag out everything and would be a pain to setup look through, where a computer is basically instanteous and grabs it from a library of data files.

You can say that for most co-op games, it is of little wonder that the main issue with co-op games game designers try to solve is the "Alpha gamer".

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
You can say that for most co-op games, it is of little wonder that the main issue with co-op games game designers try to solve is the "Alpha gamer".

Could you define that? I am not really sure what that is.

I know there are lots of classical game design that are encountering problems on a non-digital platform.