"Rules - an option for solo games." Topic
10 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please don't make fun of others' membernames.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Solo Wargamers Message Board
Areas of InterestGeneral
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Recent Link
Featured Showcase ArticleIs there finally a gluestick worth buying for paper modelers?
Featured Workbench Article
Current Poll
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Early morning writer | 05 Mar 2015 9:07 p.m. PST |
While rummaging about TMP, I saw some thread that lead to this thought: why in the world does a solo gamer need any sort of rules at all? You can't really cheat yourself since you know what you are going to do, have done, and are doing. I figure solo gaming works by just applying a wee bit of thought. Okay, maybe – and only maybe – a firing chart might be useful. But can't everything else be left to a wee bit of imagination? Certainly worked for me when I was a kid, entertained myself for lots of hours. So why not just do that now? And, yes, I'm serious about the question, not trying to be strident at all. Curious what the solo gaming group has to say. I see myself playing more solo games in the future, part of what drives the question, too. |
Temporary like Achilles | 05 Mar 2015 10:31 p.m. PST |
Interesting. I like plenty of structure for my solo games, but I guess you could throw that out the window and just make it up as you go along. Might be worth a try for something different. Cheers. Aaron |
normsmith | 05 Mar 2015 11:43 p.m. PST |
Reasons for not doing it might be that one hopes the author has better or more accurate knowledge of the subject matter and that the rules will have had a lot of play testing to bring a fine tuned game to the table. I think most of us just surrender ourselves to a rule system because that is how we have always played and as a consequence, we tend to buy the rules that meet our needs most i.e. fast play, detailed, complex or fun etc. Games like Commands & Colors sell by the bucket load for their playability, not their realism or solitaire attributes. The bit I don't get is why some players struggle to play an ordinary two player game solitaire when it does not have any mechanics that actually get in the way of playing solitaire. Posts seem to suggest that they will favour one side (perhaps the attacker) and they need something to manage the other forces. Perhaps it is just the way we are wired up or perhaps those lucky enough to have gaming friends have never had to develop a solitaire approach to gaming – whatever, it all adds into the pot as to why most of us need the structure of gaming systems to work within. I think if I were doing something on the hoof using my own imagination, I might need the discipline of a rule set and combat chart to reflect the slim chance that something that I want to do cannot be done for an unexpected reason, like the unit has suddenly gone out of ammo – this is what the dice is doing in our games. Many rule systems start with an ethos that the player already enjoys an unrealistic control of all that goes on and good systems try to wrest that absolute control from players – it is the basis of Command and Control rules. I have just bought a new WWII battalion level system and a big part of my pleasure of that purchase will be exploring how the designer has gone about doing things – I will play it a bit and then probably decide it is not the Holy Grail and wait patiently for the next rule set to come along and the cycle begins again :-) Someone posed the question that surely enough rule systems already exist – so why publish more and perhaps what deep hidden truths lay behind that answer would best answer this thread. |
Mute Bystander | 06 Mar 2015 4:03 a.m. PST |
The Unknown, especially in a campaign mode. Using Two Hour Wargames there may (for example) be three PEFs (Possible Enemy Forces) on the board which may be: 2 "Just Nerves" (ramping up the tension – +1 die to the next encounter result) and an enemy force. 1, 2 or 3 enemy forces who may be road bumps, challenging, time to consider falling back, or overwhelming – depending on the scenario investment level for the enemy – forcing you to make tactical decisions that you may not have wanted to make. Of course THW games are designed for the same scenario allowing competitive, co-op, or solo play plus variations in replay. |
warwell | 06 Mar 2015 5:38 a.m. PST |
Rules insert randomness into the situation, leading events in a way not thought of by the solo player. |
Col Durnford | 06 Mar 2015 6:52 a.m. PST |
Unexpected results. I've played a lot of Zulu war games. The Zulu's have basically one option – charge. The rules make the outcome unknown. A few lucky die rolls and Brits have a bad day. I have also set up a full table with no intention of ever having a battle. It's just set up for the spectacle of the thing. |
Rhoderic III and counting | 06 Mar 2015 9:47 a.m. PST |
OP: by your token, there's really no need for rules in non-solo games, either. Multiple "players" could just treat the "game" as a joint story-telling exercise, couldn't they? I'm not saying solo gaming and non-solo gaming are the same, but they're not different in the sense of one being more conducive to being played out as a story-telling exercise (as opposed to actual gaming) than the other. In a solo game, you're just sometimes using different mechanics for introducing uncertainty and surprise than the mechanics you would use in a non-solo game. |
zoneofcontrol | 06 Mar 2015 9:52 a.m. PST |
In solo gaming a rule set can insert an amount of "unknown" that might not otherwise be available without an opponent. Random (chit draw) activations and/or limited activation/command points can limit, restrict or even prevent a game from being too predictable. Teamed with the die rolls for morale, combat, melee, etc. a certain amount of Fog of War can still be had. All of this depends on playing the game fairly even though by yourself. I like to play historical scenarios with goals and objectives for both sides. Play each side with their particular tactics while aiming to achieve the scenario specified victory conditions and you can be your own worthy opponent |
Early morning writer | 06 Mar 2015 7:19 p.m. PST |
First: V Carter – I foresee a lot of your second bit, just setting up for the spectacle going forward for me. For the others, I think a set of random event cards can cover the unpredictability side of things. Of course, do keep in mind I have an ultra-hyper imagination (writer, afterall) combined with an innate need for fairness. Thus it might just be a lot easier for me to travel my OP road. I think a game played for its narrative, the story-telling line, wins hands down – in orders of magnitude – against all other forms of miniature gaming. Those games with such components I've played over the years live much longer and stronger in my imagination than most others. The only others that compete are when I engaged in 'brilliant' tactical or strategic actions that lead to a memorable win. ; ) |
Cambria5622 | 07 Mar 2015 3:58 p.m. PST |
It sounds like you're not bothered about trying to introduce excitement or tension into your solo games, which is fine, but won't create the sort of game I try to play when I play solo (normally using one of THW rulesets). |
|