Hello all, me again.
Right now I am looking at what makes a successful solo game.
I am mostly looking for what you look for in a solo game, especially a card game. I personally love solo games, as I don't have a group to play with that often.
I like games that still hold a sense of tension in single player, and believe Press Your Luck mechanics work well for that.
I also do not like having large numbers of things to track, as that detracts from the experience of the game. (If I'm constantly having to check them against things)
Direct conflict is something I dislike in games. I like the idea of the Call of Cthulhu card game where players are trying to win things out from under other players, rather than directly attacking each other.
It is also less exciting in a solo game, in my opinion, because there is less of a feeling of head-to-head battle.
What do you like in solo games? What don't you like?
Beware, long winded answer ahoy!
@devaloki
1. Why would you say that a hard limit is a bad thing?
In my experience having to do something in a time limit really adds to the tension of the game, and can make it feel a lot less draggy.
Obviously not every game would benefit from a hard limit, but surely some games would be more interesting with one?
2. Most certainly a lot of options is a good thing. That makes it feel strategic and engaging. But also having all (or at least most) of those options seem viable every turn. There is no reason to have ten things you /can/ do, if only two of them are ever useful.
3. I agree with this. I feel in solo games it is even more important to achieve balance than in multiplayer, as there is only the one player to mitigate anything odd happening in the game.
4. Agreed! Special circumstances /are/ fun! As long as they aren’t /all/ special circumstances, making none of them feel special, of course.
5. I’m not sure I agree with this entirely. I agree there is a need to track a certain number of things, or the game feels too linear, but there is certainly a threshold, and that can be different with everyone. I would be okay with tracking two or three characters that have up to five things each, but much more than that is too much for me. One character with fifteen seems too much for me, even though it is the same number of things, technically. There has to be a balance.
6. Yes. I like that most every play through would feel different, right down to how you won. But again there is a threshold. Too many ways to win and it feels easy. As for side quests, as long as they are not the focus of the game, or required for the most part (Like, complete three side quests is fine as a victory condition, but complete Find the Hidden Egg isn’t) I think there can be a whole lot of them, making the game a lot more variable.
7. I agree with this. It makes the game last longer in the long run.
8. I also agree with this. There is a threshold (again.)
Exceptions for exceptions sake are obviously bad. unless an exception is going to be used regularly I don’t think it needs to be included. This works especially well in card games where the exception is written directly on the card, making the need to look at the rules moot.
@The Chaz
I believe a game that plays equally well with 1 player as with more is a rarity. Pandemic supposedly did this (though I haven’t played yet).
I think the social aspect /is/ all that separates a solo game from a co-op one. If you didn’t have the social aspect you may as well be playing by yourself.
Unless there is some bonus that makes the game easier/harder/different that you can only do with other players, but then you could play as more than one player…
I guess if each player has hidden information is the only real way I can think of that soloing would not be better, in a co-op game. But that seems against the grain of a co-op game.
@X3M
I saw your post about the solo wargame. I agree that some games will just never work well in a solo version.
I think this is crucial in a game that doesn’t have a hard limit, and harkens back to balance. If the player never grows a bit stronger than the game, the player will only win by fluke.
Yes. If you can choose to do everything, there is little point in choosing.
I’m not sure a hard limit of 50/50 is always best, but certainly close to there. If I can win 4/10ths of the time, I feel accomplished, like I’m challenged. A game that you can learn how to beat is the game I would want to avoid, as that is less a game, and more a puzzle to be solved.
8. I don’t know the math, but that sounds good.
9. Agreed! It reminds me of Tales of Arabian Night’s Enscorcelled effect. the other players get to move your character for you until you could win a die roll. Mixed with another card that let another player pick your die roll, it was completely unfun for the player, as they lost all sense of control.