Interview with Brian "SoloPlay Games" R. from BGG

One of the most prolific contributors to BoardGameGeek is Brian R. who goes by the handles "SoloPlay Games" and "GameRulesForOne" - both for good reason. For the last few years, Brian has designed and shared with the BGG community dozens of his own solo variants to popular multi-player board games, enabling fans of solo play to get a lot more mileage out of their board game collections when family and friends aren't around. With an eye for crisp layouts and an ear for precise language, Brian creates rules documents that are easy to understand and immediately ready to play. 

Recently, Brian was kind enough to answer a few questions from Solo Nexus to let us know more about his projects and process:   

Solo Nexus: Where does your tireless drive to create solo board game variants originate?

Brian R.: It is like another game to me. At first it was just meant to be a personal challenge so I could enjoy the many games that I had that were not getting played. As I began to develop more of the variants I wondered if others might have a similar interest in solo gaming. It was at that point that I started to "formalize" a process and then I played Ghost Stories. This is the game that changed my ideas on what a solo game should be. Now it became a challenge not only to devise the variant but to actually beat the game. So the drive comes from two different fronts, create a challenging game and then to see how I can beat the game.

SN: Do you need to see the original multi-player rules of a board game in action with a real group of players before being able to create a solo variant?

BR: Yes, but seeing is not the same as playing. I can't read a game's rules and devise a solo game. It would be sheer chance that it would play like the original. I don't need to see good players playing the game to devise a variant but having a good familiarity of the paths to victory is important. My thoughts on the design is that I have to devise a system that will challenge all levels of ability especially the top. Only through many hours of playtesting can this be accomplished.

SN: Are you compelled to preserve for the solo player as much of the multi-player experience of the designers' original intention as possible?

BR: Absolutely. Caylus, which was one of my early designs, showed me this. If you are going to leave out a core mechanic for the sake of the variant then you will no longer be playing the game. Each variant has to feel like the actual mutli-player game. Now this is not always possible to perform directly. Periodically, I will have to add minor little variations that make a core element relevant. An example of this would be how I handled the wall in Macao. Now the solo player still wants to advance on the wall but for a slightly different reason but the mechanic is still relevant and adds to the variant.

SN: When converting multi-player rules, how do you typically approach mechanics of player interaction (trading, pooling resources, etc.)?

BR: This is all a "feel" thing. Often the easiest method is to set a limit on the amount of materials that are available or the timing when they become available. As far as mimicking interactions I have learned to use a cause-and-effect through the active player's choice of actions. Where what the active player chooses to do to affects what the game player will do or make available. This will subsequently change the options for the active player in the next turn. So I try to create a perpetual game machine where the active player is in almost complete control of the outcome. You will not "play" both sides in my variants. You will play your game.

SN: Do you prefer solo variants with "automatic opponents" or with a "beat-you-own-score" objective?

BR: I actively dislike the beat-your-own-score solo games because while they use the same mechanics as the regular rules the play is totally unrealistic. Agricola's official solo game is particularly weak because you will never see 12 wood piled up on the board, etc. This teaches bad habits and actually hurts the player in the long run. As far as automated opponents goes, it is a tactic that I have used but in different ways. Very few of my variants use a fulltime AI (Blue Moon City and to an extent El Grande does). I like to use the opponents as a hinderance more than an opponent. This makes the experience less random. But of the 2 choices you mentioned the automatic opponents would be the preferred method.

SN: Which board game was the most challenging to convert to solo?

BR: Princes of Florence was the most challenging game because of the extreme importance on valuing the game items. This value changes based on the players' works which they have in their hands. In the solo environment most of this does not exist and so a completely different mechanic had to be designed. This process went through many phases and the balancing of the costs along with the variability in the pricing was crucial to making the solo game feel like PoF. Once I devised the method of availability and fluctuating values it came down to endless playtesting and constant tinkering with one aspect or another. Right up till the end I was finding ways to break the design making the game too easy to play (to me). It was a frustrating experience but one that I was glad to finish as the sense of accomplishment was very high. I marvel at the fact of how it "feels" like you are playing PoF. It seems so simple now but at the time it was an epic struggle.

SN: Which one of your solo variants is your favorite one to date?

BR: El Grande. I was disappointed with my original solo variant more than 4 years old now as it was too stilted and easy to break down (too mechanical). After finishing the Endeavor variant a light bulb came on and I now knew how I could make El Grande work. It was a lot of fun to put it together and I played it to death and then I started working on the expansions and it only got better because now I had more things to do and all the while the balance in the play remained. To me, it still is the most fun to play even with all of the other variants that I have put together. I am biased towards the game though.

SN:Should game designers actively pursue the creation of board games with a solitaire option or scenario built in?

BR: This is a good question. Since there are not that many solo gamers out there, at least that I can tell based on the interest in my variants, I would say that it would not be worth most of their time. But if any designer is going to invest time in a solo variant, he/she needs to ensure that it is challenging and worthwhile to play. Not just using the same mechanics to achieve your best score so that you can put a 1 on the box.

SN: Why bother with this solo board game business at all when there are plenty of perfectly good one-player video games out there?

BR: I don't compare these two things at all. As time goes on it seems to diverge more and more to me. Solo gaming is a tactile experience where if the variant is done right challenges your mind and allows you to pursue a leisurely experience without time pressure. I enjoy putting on a movie, pulling out a game and enjoying the whole experience. This is not possible with video gaming because you have to be so focused on the machine. Additionally, you are playing against an AI which will generally have some kind of pattern to it that once figured out renders the game too easy or samey. Back in the day I would enjoy the video gaming aspect but for me it has gone full circle. My limited experience without on-line gaming left me cold where all the other player is interested in doing is padding their stats. I like to play against my toughest opponent (me) and win my share of the games knowing that the next time it may not go my way and so I need to get better. VGs will play the same game again and again and again ... yawn.

Thanks, Brian!

To check out all of Brian's brilliant solo variants to games like Puerto Rico, Small World, and Dominion, follow THIS LINK to his BGG Files!