I do quite a bit of solo gaming. Last week, on holiday from work, I had just played a really exciting solo game of Flying Lead, in a universe of my own creation that it is slowly unfolding with the help of Five Parsecs from Home and my own imagination. I have become fond of the characters, the planet they are on, the story that they, me, the dice and the rules are weaving.
At the end of the game, however, I felt suddenly empty, and it was not the first time. I am having a bit of a rough year, but it wasn't that; I don't know why, I just felt weird about what I had just done. Did it seem strange for a grown man to be pushing toy soldiers around all by himeslf, in his games' room ? A social norm thing ? Was it perhaps that I have always planned, when I can finally stop working myself to death, to spend a lot more time doing solo gaming, but I am afraid it is a somewhat empty and rather silly thing to do ?
I set up the scenario again anyway, because my team had just gotten thoroughly trounced and I thought I would give them a second chance ; )
It so happened that my daughter then walked in. I play a lot of Rangers of Shadow Deep with her. She saw the game, asked if friends were coming over, so I replied that no, I would be playing the game by myself.
"Oh", she said. "I sort of imagine you really sad, playing all by yourself !"
It was said in an open and honest way, and it was as she said, the way she imagined things, not how she thought it actually was. We joked a bit about it, and I put it aside. The following day I thought more about it, with the idea of talking about it again.
It is clear I am troubled by some sort of "social norm". In the last decade or so, it has become generally accepted that grown men have a right to play with toys. In the company of other men (or women), that is. Playing with them alone remains a bit "weird". I certainly don't think it is the sort of thing I would admit to strangers.
Of course I am not saying that because there is a social norm, one has to stick to it; but transgressing norms can be a source of tension, especially so if external events are already casting doubt on oneself or one's life choices. I am not saying either that I have to justify myself to the outside world - in the privacy of my own home I could even push toy soldiers around butt-naked if I so choose (for the public good, there will be no photos of that), but I do feel the need to feel at ease with what I am doing.
So I did some thunking, and it didn't take too long to realise that, in truth, a considerable number of adults, perhaps the majority, are involved in solo gaming, without thinking of it as such. They do it when they play games on a computer, or on a mobile phone. The computer system itself gives the illusion of being another player - in the sense of an opponent - but of course it is not. It is just a system that you are playing through, and as a matter of fact a generally repetitive one. This principle could extend to a lot of multiplayer online games as well, where the opponents are actually human, but, unless it is a group of friends playing, are such complete and utter strangers that they might just as well be elements of the system.
On a different level, most board games, including some reasonably mainstream ones, now have a built-in "solo mode", so there is definitely some sort of slow change in mentality as well.
I discussed this with my daughter - who does like playing computer games - and she found it to be true, and that it cast a different light on things. What seems a bit "weird" is actually quite a mainstream thing to be doing, just with different material.
Which means that, driven by a need to be a rebel against the system, I will now stop solo gaming. Just kidding.
In truth, these simple ideas make me feel a whole lot more comfortable about it. Which is also why I wanted to share these brief thoughts, which may be useful to others.
The question might still be asked, why solo game ? Unless of course you are living in the middle of nowhere, there are generally opportunities to meet up with other wargamers.
I do indeed play with other wargamers, not quite once a week but almost. While I would certainly not frown upon or judge anyone who only did solo gaming, I do think the two are very complimentary activities. So much so, that I actually don't think I would want to do the one without the other.
The pleasures of "social gaming" are obvious, so I won't list them, but what of solo gaming ? Why do I do it ?
First up, it is the opportunity. Social gaming requires at least one other person being available, generally on a Friday evening; solo gaming can be done any time, especially if one has the good fortune to have a dedicated games room. On a similar theme, social gaming generally requires playing games that can be finished in, say, 4-5 hours at most, whereas you can set up a solo game that will last for 10+ hours (looking a you, large scale 6mm games of Battlegroup Northag, Soldiers of Napoleon, or ASL).
Then there is what I call "intensity". Social gaming will not generally stay focused for long on a narrow number of rules sets or periods, partly because new challenges are sought for, also because each member of the gaming group has different centres of interest and different collections they want to share, and we all (happily) get caught up by the "oooh, new, shiny" trends. I, however, am very much in to both campaign games (of the sort that might last for 20 games or more), and into the gradual creation of true gaming universes which might grow, in time, to quite epic proportions, as you can see from the links to my secondary blogs, populated by growing numbers of characters and baddies with stories that come to span dozens of games. I also have a certain interest in combining history and fantasy/mythological elements which is not everyone's cup of tea. Solo gaming tailors well to this aspect of my wargaming passion, without for that matter preventing the hosting of "social gaming" in those very universes, providing fun for all and an added layer of pleasure for me. It is of course possible to do this through social gaming - my daughter and I have played so much Shadow Deep that her ranger has almost reached level 20 - and I have seen some epic campaigns on others' blogs, sometimes spanning decades, but that does remain uncommon.
If I had written this a few years ago, I would have added that solo gaming ensures that all players - because there is only one - have perfect knowledge of the rules, or at least are unaware or tolerant of their imperfect knowledge. There was a period where I got fed up of turning up for social gaming, and being the only player around the table who actually knew how the game worked, and then being unable to concentrate on the intellectual pleasure of gaming because I spent my evening explaining the rules to others, or making sure they were applying them properly. That has ceased to be an issue today. I am more laid back than I was, partly because of the wisdom of age, probably also due to a gradual transition from only playing 15mm battles over 4-5 hours, to playing more 28mm skirmish games over generally shorter periods. I have also been very positively influenced by the group I currently play with, to consider "worthy" not just epic massed battles, but also good skirmish games in good company, which can build quite astonishing stories. That said, I would not consider playing, say, ASL Red Barricades any other way than solo. This sorts of rejoins the "intensity" theme, because to have a decent level of mastery of complex games - and thus enjoy to the full the intellectual pleasure they can provide - you need to play them both often, and over a sustained period of time. Again, it is possible to find others willing to do that, but they remain fairly uncommon. You may also find such people, but not particularly get on with them, which further narrows down the options.
As to how to solo game, I won't get into that much, since there are many excellent ressources. I don't particularly like automated systems for solo play, although I do use them, especially for sword and sorcery gaming (Five Leagues, for example). I generally tend to play the game "as is", making a conscious effort, everytime I switch sides, to take a fresh look at the battlefield and ignore the plans I made on the other side of the table, particularly in mass battle games (Banner War, Art de la Guerre, Soldiers of Napoleon, ASL...), but also in some skirmish games that lend themselves well to it (Flying Lead, for example). Sometimes I throw in some "solo fog of war". When playing Command & Colours, for example, I sort the cards by order of priority, and roll a weighted D10 to determine which card actually comes out and then deal with that. I may also add in a fair number of random events to a game (Setting the East Ablaze,...) as these overturn plans and require constant adjustments.
To avoid overthinking, especially of the sort, if I do this, my opponent may do this, but wait, I am my own opponent...I might also impose a certain rhythm or time limit (Conan,...).
In games where some forward planning is needed - such as artillery barrages in Battlegroup Northag - I will add some uncertainty, for example by breaking the board up into large sections and simply deciding in which section the barrage will come down, and with a degree of weighted randomness as to exactly when.
It is important to accept that some games, whilst excellent for social gaming, are simply not appropriate for solo gaming (unless, perhaps, one develops for them an automated system with complex algorithms). That is of course a very personal issue, but for example I quickly stopped playing Saga as a solo game, as its attritional approach, combined with the way actions are prepared, makes it impossible to "forget" what you had planned for the side that is now the opponent. As for a game such as Irregular Wars, there is a certain element of chaotic fun that really needs social gaming to bring it out. Although I have never played Turnip 28, it is the sort of game whose wacky universe probably needs to be shared with others to be truly appreciated. Pulp Alley, based as it is on actual storytelling, is difficult to enjoy solo. A game such as Blitzkrieg, with its constant interactions, is not an ideal solo game as switching sides almost constantly due to reaction fire, means a need to constantly change perspective, which is quite exhausting. Black Ops relies on an inherent tension that really needs another player at the table. I singled out these particular games - all of which I love to play - to illustrate different aspects of games that render them less appropriate, or at least, enjoyable, for solo play.
Last of all, there is the question of "what side am I really playing". A solo gamer plays both, of course, but which one is his side and which one is the opponent. In certain games it is obvious - I am the Rangers in Shadow Deep / Five Leagues, the Ship's Crew in Flying Lead / Five Parsecs, and in Conan, whoever is not using the Overlord board.
In some games, there is a lack of bias, such as in my Setting the East Ablaze campaign, just a bunch of wack-jobs with crazy agendas running around in an obscure corner of the world. That is also the case in games played out of a campaign context, for example, Battlegroup Northag. It tends also to be the case in particularly complex games, such as ASL.
In other games, there is inherent bias which, after a while, I just chose to accept. That does not mean I play that side better, but I accept that I identify with them, whatever the reason. In my Banner War campaign, I play Pyrrhus, simply because I admire the guy, whoever he is up against is the adversary. When I play stand alone games of Command & Colours, I tend to attach to one side, for reasons that may be linked to my centres of interest in history, pure romanticism, or even the context of the scenario itself.
So there you go, I hope this sparked some interest, gave food for thought, and perhaps even helped anyone who may be questioning or worrying about their solo gaming choices. Let me know !
