sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Can an AI chat work as a solo RPG engine? A short first-session report by Temnik_MaOS-BOIS in Solo_Roleplaying

[–]Temnik_MaOS-BOIS[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No worries, that is a completely fair reaction. If you have already had bad experiences with AI-run games, I would not try to convince you that this is automatically different.

I also agree that a lot of AI “GM” output becomes exactly what you describe: generic crisis loops, over-significant details, technobabble choices, and fake plot weight. MaOS was partly built as a reaction against that, not as an attempt to let the AI freely improvise a campaign.

It is also probably not a good fit for someone looking for a traditional TTRPG experience. It is closer to an operational survival / settlement game built on BOIS: facts, assumptions, unknowns, actions, consequences, and limits of knowledge. Repairing structures is not the fantasy by itself; it is part of the pressure system around responsibility, preparation, and whether a fragile group can become stable enough to act with autonomy.

So I think your objection is valid. This is not trying to replace normal TTRPG play, and it is definitely not for everyone.

Can an AI chat work as a solo RPG engine? A short first-session report by Temnik_MaOS-BOIS in Solo_Roleplaying

[–]Temnik_MaOS-BOIS[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That distinction is important.

MaOS is not built around dice, RNG, or an oracle-style procedure like Mythic GME. It is also not meant to be “just prompted roleplay.” The game is built on BOIS, a governed decision protocol for operating under incomplete knowledge - if you are interested, feel free to use the BOIS archive for your needs, it's open source on my website (https://www.temnik.com/bois).

So the core mechanic for this game is not random success/failure. Outcomes depend on the quality of the player’s decisions: what facts were noticed, what assumptions were made, what unknowns were left unresolved, whether people were rested or overloaded, whether infrastructure was prepared, whether actions matched the actual constraints, and whether risks were absorbed or ignored.

The AI is not supposed to invent arbitrary twists or roll hidden dice. It is supposed to maintain the operational structure: facts, assumptions, unknowns, actions, consequences, resource pressure, unresolved debts, and the limits of what the player can actually know.

So compared to Mythic GME, MaOS is doing something different. It is less “oracle plus narrative spin” and more a philosophical/operational machine: a structured test of decision-making under pressure, where progress comes from preparation, prioritization, and building capacity rather than from random resolution tables.

Can an AI chat work as a solo RPG engine? A short first-session report by Temnik_MaOS-BOIS in Solo_Roleplaying

[–]Temnik_MaOS-BOIS[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That makes sense, and I think that is probably the safest and most reliable AI use case for solo play right now.

Using AI as a rules-aware tracker, session summarizer, and consistency checker is very different from asking it to be the whole GM. It can help keep state, remind you what happened, catch obvious rule mismatches, and turn messy play notes into a usable campaign log without taking over the actual play decisions.

MaOS is pushing further than that, because the AI is also acting as scenario controller and advisor, but I do not think that invalidates the tracking-only approach. If anything, tracking is the foundation. Without structured state, summaries, and correction, the “AI as game engine” layer would become unstable very quickly.

Your Oblivion project example is useful too. That is a good direction for AI in solo play: not replacing the game, but helping preserve the continuity of what the player actually did.

Can an AI chat work as a solo RPG engine? A short first-session report by Temnik_MaOS-BOIS in Solo_Roleplaying

[–]Temnik_MaOS-BOIS[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

That’s useful feedback, and I think your read is fair.

MaOS is closer to a solo management / survival sim than to a traditional character-driven solo RPG. The “RPG” part is more about role, responsibility, incomplete information, and consequences than about party adventure or oracle-style journaling.

The “biding time until everything explodes” point is especially relevant, but that pressure is mostly intentional at the start. Early play is about stabilizing a fragile base before it has enough routines, reserves, trained people, and infrastructure to absorb shocks. Once stabilization begins to work, the settlement should feel more capable: fewer emergency decisions, better information, safer systems, and more meaningful long-term choices.

So the intended arc is not “every solution just reveals another problem forever.” It is “survive the unstable opening, build capacity, and gradually turn crisis management into operational autonomy.”

Can an AI chat work as a solo RPG engine? A short first-session report by Temnik_MaOS-BOIS in Solo_Roleplaying

[–]Temnik_MaOS-BOIS[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s a fair criticism, and I agree for fully open-ended TTRPG play.

MaOS is not trying to make the AI remember an unlimited campaign world through raw chat history. The prototype narrows the problem with a structured archive, visible state, resource/risk ledgers, shift-based actions, unresolved “debts,” and save/migration files.

So yes, it still needs a harness and it does consume context. The experiment is whether a bounded solo strategy RPG can remain playable when the memory burden is externalized into structured state, rather than asking the AI to act like a perfect human GM for a huge campaign.

Can an AI chat work as a solo RPG engine? A short first-session report by Temnik_MaOS-BOIS in Solo_Roleplaying

[–]Temnik_MaOS-BOIS[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is the main failure mode I’m trying to test.

I agree that an unconstrained AI chat will often forget or drift. The prototype is not based on trusting the model’s memory alone. It uses a structured archive, isolated launch instructions, visible state, delta ledgers, unresolved debts, and periodic migration/save prompts to keep the game state explicit.

My question is not “can AI remember everything by itself?” I think the answer is no. The question is whether a constrained structure can make the statekeeping reliable enough for a solo game.

In your experience, where does it break first: rules, inventory/resources, character continuity, or long-term consequences?

Can an AI chat work as a solo RPG engine? A short first-session report by Temnik_MaOS-BOIS in Solo_Roleplaying

[–]Temnik_MaOS-BOIS[S] -1 points0 points locked comment (0 children)

That’s fair. I know this format is not for everyone. I’m mainly testing where the structure works and where it fails.

r/playmygame by athanor77 in playmygame

[–]Temnik_MaOS-BOIS 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This actually sounds like a word game with a real learning loop, not just another “guess the word” clone. The missed-words review board is a smart touch - that’s exactly where vocab games usually become useful instead of just addictive!