Quote from: CRKrueger;770277It's even simpler then that.

1. In Character Decision
2. Out of Character Decision

IC could be decided upon based on many different motivations, but those motivations are of the character, not the player.

OOC likewise could be decided upon based on many different motivations, but those motivations are of the player, not the character.

But not all characters are utterly alien to their players! Indeed, it is in my experience not the exception but the rule that a character reflects some aspect of the player's own personality. To deny that seems just, well, "in denial."

Quote from: CRKrueger;770277It's even simpler then that.
1. In Character Decision
2. Out of Character Decision

IC could be decided upon based on many different motivations, but those motivations are of the character, not the player.

OOC likewise could be decided upon based on many different motivations, but those motivations are of the player, not the character.

Too simple for my purposes.

For one thing, it lumps the play style of the original Lake Geneva gamers (which was pretty much the same as the way as my friends and I separately decided to play OD&D back in 1974) from people who play the newer style dramatic logic games. Which seems rather odd and not at all useful.

It also lumps the twerpy, asshat behavior I have occassionally seen in play with a more immersive (and to me satisfying) style of play.

Quote from: Phillip;770279But not all characters are utterly alien to their players! Indeed, it is in my experience not the exception but the rule that a character reflects some aspect of the player's own personality. To deny that seems just, well, "in denial."

Indeed it would be difficult to play a character with which one shared no aspect of personality.

One might be able to do that with a Pendragon-traits and passion system. Indeed, it seems to me that the trait and passion system was originally invented (or at least was first published) as a way of simulating the utterly-alien-to-humans Dragonewts of Glorantha.

That last issue of Wyrm's Footprints is where I first encountered it, anyhow, if memory serves.

And that's a relatively unobjectionable (to me) step in the direction that thoroughgoing insistence on the supremacy of character simulation leads. If players as real, living sentient beings are regarded as a problem, the solution is to replace them with mechanical algorithms that have no inconvenient fun-seeking minds.

"It became necessary to destroy the town to save it."

I've always leaned more towards descriptive, but I'll often use the "I" pronoun. I'll speak out short dialogue sometimes, but I don't really like to act out a character.

I guess I don't really submerge myself into the character even though I did identify with it. In my mind's eye, I always looked at it as an audience member in a movie theater.

Quote from: Phillip;770279But not all characters are utterly alien to their players! Indeed, it is in my experience not the exception but the rule that a character reflects some aspect of the player's own personality. To deny that seems just, well, "in denial."

I feel blessed then, that not only did I not say anything even remotely close to characters being utterly alien to their players, I said pretty much the exact same thing you did.

"The absolutely key, distinctive element is that if, for instance, my role is a 19th c. division commander, I do not have a bird's eye view of the whole battlefield, nor do I control such things as every battalion's deployment of companies and every battery's selection of ammunition each minute."

In other words, if you are roleplaying the "19th c. division commander who does not have a bird's eye view of the whole battlefield", you can make limited choices based on information that only the character knows (IC) or you can make unlimited choices based on information that the player knows (OOC).

Quote from: Bren;770280Too simple for my purposes.

For one thing, it lumps the play style of the original Lake Geneva gamers (which was pretty much the same as the way as my friends and I separately decided to play OD&D back in 1974) from people who play the newer style dramatic logic games. Which seems rather odd and not at all useful.

It also lumps the twerpy, asshat behavior I have occassionally seen in play with a more immersive (and to me satisfying) style of play.

A decision is not a playstyle.  You can break down OOC motivations into as many categories as you want, feel free, but they are still OOC motivations.  Tactical and Narrative are certainly two of them, but not all of them.

The "I'm only doing what my character would do" guy fucking with the party isn't using IC motivations, he's using OOC motivations of wanting to fuck with people and using roleplaying as a cover.

Quote from: CRKrueger;770294A decision is not a playstyle.  You can break down OOC motivations into as many categories as you want, feel free, but they are still OOC motivations.  Tactical and Narrative are certainly two of them, but not all of them.

The "I'm only doing what my character would do" guy fucking with the party isn't using IC motivations, he's using OOC motivations of wanting to fuck with people and using roleplaying as a cover.

yes, I could easily funnel Bren's 4 pieces into "IC" or "OOC".  Not saying that his options were invalid, just that they were one level up.

Quote from: Phillip;770279But not all characters are utterly alien to their players! Indeed, it is in my experience not the exception but the rule that a character reflects some aspect of the player's own personality. To deny that seems just, well, "in denial."

I think the debate is as resolvable as how does actor acts. Everybody approaches it in their own way with varying results.

I am pretty good at roleplaying different personalities however from experience that what I do in order to roleplay doesn't always works for others. And vice versa.

The best approach is to experiment with a variety of methods until you find what works for you. Because we are talking about a shared leisure activity that includes what fun for you and your fellow players.

I will see say that first-person i.e. active roleplaying on average leads to a more immersive campaign. Also that roleplaying a different personality is not equivalent to active roleplaying. You can roleplay yourself as a character in a fantasy setting and still active roleplay.

Finally that by and large that the only out of game or metagame consideration a player should take into account in his roleplaying is whether it violates Wheaton's law (i.e. don't be a dick).

In the right group being a backstabbing lying son of a bitch won't violate Wheaton's law. It still may have bad in-game consequence but out of game the group is OK with it. In other groups this would be a major social issue.

Quote from: Bren;770280Too simple for my purposes.

For one thing, it lumps the play style of the original Lake Geneva gamers (which was pretty much the same as the way as my friends and I separately decided to play OD&D back in 1974) from people who play the newer style dramatic logic games. Which seems rather odd and not at all useful.

I agree with CK on this. Both groups acting as if they were in the game as their character. For the former the characters are largely a reflection of their personality, for the latter they adopt a vastly different personality.

Since the mid 80s I successfully intregrated both types of players in my campaigns. With the following rules.

1) Act as if you are really there as your character.
2) Speak in first person when you interact as your character.
3) Keep out of game consideration out of in game decision except when it would be poor sportmanship.
4) Accept with good sportmanship the consequences of your decision.  

These days with younger players I remind them that sportmanship is the equivalent of Wheaton's Law of  Don't be a dick.

Quote from: Bren;770280It also lumps the twerpy, asshat behavior I have occassionally seen in play with a more immersive (and to me satisfying) style of play.

I don't see that in what CK said. Everything that is said about tabletop roleplaying has to be taken in the light that it is a shared social leisure activity. The only way it work is for the participants to respect each other sensibilities. And if you can't then it time to find another leisure activity or another group.

Quote from: LordVreeg;770297yes, I could easily funnel Bren's 4 pieces into "IC" or "OOC".  Not saying that his options were invalid, just that they were one level up.

Yeah...
1. IC
2a. OOC: Tactical
2b. OOC: Narrative
2c. OOC: Social
...covers a lot, and you can fine tune from there.

Quote from: Phillip;770258What I'm talking about is that ways of talking about it are what you're calling role-playing, and that's not the thing itself.

Duder, I paraphrased the examples from the basic rules because I had not heard those specific terms used before and wondered if they were new, not because I intended to rewrite what RP means. Take it up with Mearls if you don't like it.

Quote from: CRKrueger;770294A decision is not a playstyle.

Then it's a good thing I never said that it was. I just said looking at what paradigm people use to make their decisions is useful.

Quote from: CRKrueger;770294The "I'm only doing what my character would do" guy fucking with the party isn't using IC motivations, he's using OOC motivations of wanting to fuck with people and using roleplaying as a cover.

He quite possibly is using IC motivations if his character is a priest of Eurmal or a follower or incarnation of some other trickster deity. And after all it's not like we don't all encounter real people in the real world who seem to like fucking with the party as it were. It seems rather dubious to suggest that the real person isn't making an IC decision when deciding to act like a twerp. It seems similarly dubious to claim that every player decision to have a character act like a twerp is derived solely form OOC reasons.

Is the twerpy behavior more acceptable if he is acting from IC motivation?

Maybe, to you, but I doubt it is for most gamers. I suppose it might cause me to resolve the situation IC by having my Sword of Humakt separate the Eurmal twerp's soul from his body rather than me saying OOC "Stop doing that shit or go find somebody else to play with!"

Is the consensus that this particular jargon is somewhat new?

It beats the sweeping pejorative application of "powergamers" I seem to recall in C&S 2nd ed. (1983), anyhow.

Quote from: Bren;770303He quite possibly is using IC motivations if his character is a priest of Eurmal or a follower or incarnation of some other trickster deity. And after all it's not like we don't all encounter real people in the real world who seem to like fucking with the party as it were. It seems rather dubious to suggest that the real person isn't making an IC decision when deciding to act like a twerp. It seems similarly dubious to claim that every player decision to have a character act like a twerp is derived solely form OOC reasons.

It is one of those things that fall under "I know it when I see it."

The basic trait that distinguish the two situations is whether the person continues to act similarly out of game.

I played plenty of asshole characters including one in a current campaign. Even got player killed a couple of times (and the character rightly deserved it). But what prevented it from being a social problem was that not how I acted out of game. It was very obvious from my behavior that who I am in-game is not the same as who I am out of game.

And even with that it gets uncomfortable for a group. One example was from the current D&D campaign where  I am playing a Thief with a 6 charisma. Pretty much a rude right royal asshole with very little in the way of redeeming traits.

Most of the guys in the group I known for about six years or so. Middle age gamers that I became friendly in the wake of my blogging and publishing. One of them however is one my oldest friends that I known and gamed with for 30 years.

There was an early session of the campaign where his character caught my character stealing from the party treasure. He roleplays a cleric that a bit of a hardass and preceded to lay down the law. I roleplayed my character like the social retard he was which included among a lack of regard for the threat my friend's character poised.

After the exchange was finished there was silence and my friend asked "What up guys, why are you all quiet." And one of them said very seriously "Do you guys want to continue to playing?". My friend and I busted out laughing and explained that we were just roleplaying and it was all good. That what in-game is in-game.

The big problem with people getting bent out of shape about roleplaying is that they get invested in their characters. More invested than it is healthy. It is pretty much the original sin of RPGs and an issue that largely defied any resolution other than to learn how to display good sportmanship even when your 15th level fighter wielding a hackmaster class sword does a faceplant and dies.