Quote from: CKRuegerYou've never played AD&D, so you wouldn't know that "leveling up" in AD&D isn't like DW where you just play the Level Up move after having played the End Session move, but your character actually has to seek out a trainer in-game, hire the trainer in-game, pay the trainer in-game and then spend in-game time training. You tell me, Rainman.

In Shadowrun (and a lot of other games) you dont need to seek nor pay trainers in-game to apply your experience points/Karma.

Isnt Shadowrun an rpg ? :eek:

Hey, CRK. FWIW I am jiving with what you are saying

Quote from: CRKrueger;668125Such games are a specific Hybrid of RPGs and STGs as they divide the gameplay between IC and OOC.

I have a question though about your quote above. Does OOC or mechanics you engage with OOC mean that they are story-game mechanics? I am not sure the two things equate. To give an example, in a tactical RPG, the tactics are often engaged with OOC (more than IC anyway) but aren't about giving the player any authorial power. They are about engaging and entertaining the player direct.

Bringing it back to a DW example you gave, does the fact that you level up at the end of a session rather than following IC description of training etc, make it a story-game mechanic? It's less of a roleplaying focus, yes, but is the spectrum really that binary, that less roleplaying means story-gaming?

Actually, this may be better as a seperate thread.

Quote from: silva;668133In Shadowrun (and a lot of other games) you dont need to seek nor pay trainers in-game to apply your experience points/Karma.

Isnt Shadowrun an rpg ? :eek:

There you go.  At least think a little bit when you post.  

Lots of games have "downtime phases" that are abstracted and not played IC and a lot of games have a "luck point" mechanism that probably, was the first OOC narrative control mechanic in RPGs.

However, when playing 1/2e Shadowrun or 1e WFRP, aside from the single "Luck Point" mechanic, the rest of the game mechanics are straight IC task resolution.  (I would argue Shadowrun 3/4e oddly follow D&D in varying levels of OOC tactical and narrative elements added in, but that's a different thread).

So yeah, Shadowrun is an RPG, not a Narrative RPG.  For example, in Shadowrun the player doesn't decide when he runs out of bullets.
DW is a Narrative RPG, or Hybrid RPG if you prefer.

Quote from: Skywalker;668137Hey, CRK. FWIW I am jiving with what you are saying



I have a question though about your quote above. Does OOC or mechanics you engage with OOC mean that they are story-game mechanics? I am not sure the two things equate. To give an example, in a tactical RPG, the tactics are often engaged with OOC (more than IC anyway) but aren't about giving the player any authorial power.

Bringing it back to DW, does the fact that you level up at the end of a session rather than following IC description of training etc, make it a story-game mechanic? It's less of a roleplaying focus, yes, but is the spectrum really that binary, that less roleplaying means story-gaming?

Actually, this may be better as a seperate thread.

No, narrative control mechanics are just a sub-type of OOC mechanics.  Tactical mechanics are another sub-type, that's why I advocate the sub-genres:

Tactical RPG - RPGs where players' decisions are frequently made OOC for the purposes of tactical challenge. (D&D4, WFRP3 is pushing it).

Narrative RPG - RPGs where players' decisions are frequently made OOC for the purposes of narrative control/authorship. (FATE, AW/DW, etc.)

Less roleplaying doesn't mean storygaming, less roleplaying means more OOC, that's all.

Cool. Thanks for the straight up answer.

Actually, I have another question/observation. What about RPG mechanics that engage both IC and OOC? For example, in regard to tactical combat systems, there is a very definite OOC engagement. But the tactics are normally based on IC actions and objectives i.e. win the fight through using certain combat actions.

To give another example from Double Cross, the relationship system is all explained and able to be engaged with from an IC perspective. Your PC knows that relationships hold back his decline into madness, and that breaking those relationships causes the Renegade virus to flourish for extra power. However, there is also a less obvious OOC engagement to encourage players to consider what's important to the PC, communicate that to the GM, and to then complicate his PC's life for added drama.

Looking at the DW example you gave, about the player deciding when his PC runs out of ammo, we get the same OOC/IC split. The rule can be engaged with IC. In order to get in a difficult shot, the PC has to decide whether to move out of position, fire extra arrows, or just take a weaker shot. But, as you say, there is an OOC element as well in balancing those options.

In DW, its possible to interact with nearly all the mechanics from an IC perspective if you want to do so. FWIW we have "neutral" testimony from Silverlion who says he never felt he approached DW from an OOC perspective more than most other traditional RPGs he has played. However, I also agree that DW does also have mechanics that are also designed to engage the player. That's possibly the "new school" element referred to in DW's tagline, but this player engagement doesn't necessarily mean a story-game focus.

I guess where a lot of confusion is happening is that many RPG mechanics engage on both an IC and OOC perspective to some extent and have always done so. I am sure some people play RPGs and try to immerse in their PCs as completely as they can, but I don't think any RPG has ever really supported total separation. In fact, LARPing would seem to get the closest to doing so.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;668027Right. So a key example of a "hipster game" would be the 1st edition of AD&D?

I'm not very familiar with it, so I couldn't say.

Quote from: Skywalker;668150Actually, I have another question/observation. What about RPG mechanics that engage both IC and OOC?

A mechanic designed as pure "physics" can be engaged with IC or OOC, you engage with it however you want.  Mechanics that add in other, specifically Player-driven agendas, cannot be engaged strictly IC.  As such, they hamper roleplaying from an IC perspective, which is why games that contain such mechanics shouldn't generally be lumped in with RPGs that don't.

Quote from: Skywalker;668150For example, in regard to tactical combat systems, there is a very definite OOC engagement. But the tactics are normally based on IC actions and objectives i.e. win the fight through using certain combat actions.

But you have something like 4e, with it's famously dissociated mechanics, then it becomes really hard to engage from an IC perspective when it is clear that there really was not even the smallest attempt to design it as such.

Quote from: Skywalker;668150To give another example from Double Cross, the relationship system is all explained and able to be engaged with from an IC perspective. Your PC knows that relationships hold back his decline into madness, and that breaking those relationships causes the Renegade virus to flourish for extra power. However, there is also a less obvious OOC engagement to encourage players to consider what's important to the PC, communicate that to the GM, and to then complicate his PC's life for added drama.

Eh, I'd argue the classification of relationships as Lois or Titus, each one having specific mechanical "uses" is more then less obviously OOC, it's blatantly OOC.  The idea that one sacrifices human contact as one chooses to become a monster is strongly an IC concept, unfortunately, from descriptions I have read (I do not have the rules) the implementation is a typical player-focused narrative control mechanic.

Quote from: Skywalker;668150Looking at the DW example you gave, about the player deciding when his PC runs out of ammo, we get the same OOC/IC split. The rule can be engaged with IC. In order to get in a difficult shot, the PC has to decide whether to move out of position, fire extra arrows, or just take a weaker shot. But, as you say, there is an OOC element as well in balancing those options.

Right, except if as a player, I never choose that option or roll low enough for the GM to use a "Hard Move" and lower resources, I can sit up on a hill overlooking Thermopylae and Volley the entire Persian Army to death, and don't tell me I can't according to the rules.

Also let's not get into the "I don't have a good shot so get to shoot 4 times and hit, Fred doesn't have a good shot and so jumps down off a ledge to get off a shot and hit and you hit and get to to shoot once and not move in the exact same time frame based on player choice" time-warp problem that the Usual Suspects will cry isn't there.

Quote from: Skywalker;668150In DW, its possible to interact with nearly all the mechanics from an IC perspective if you want to do so.

I disagree, as we've been over quite a bit.

Quote from: Skywalker;668150FWIW we have "neutral" testimony from Silverlion who says he never felt he approached DW from an OOC perspective more than most other traditional RPGs he has played.

True, but Tim definitely prefers a narrative mix in the games he designs, I wouldn't expect him to get thrown off from the obvious narrative layer.

Quote from: Skywalker;668150However, I also agree that DW does also have a lot of mechanics that are also designed to engage the player. That's possibly the "new school" element referred to in DW's tagline, but player engagement doesn't necessarily mean a story-game focus.

No, OOC mechanics targeting player engagement do not necessarily mean a narrative focus as I said earlier.  The author's constant referencing things in narrative terms using new school narrative language does that.

Quote from: Skywalker;668150I guess where a lot of confusion is happening is that many RPG mechanics engage on both an IC and OOC perspective to some extent and have always done so.

Again, a mechanic designed to be engaged IC can be engaged IC or OOC.  A mechanic designed to be engaged OOC cannot be engaged IC.  There's the difference.  For people who regularly enjoy a hybrid of IC/OOC with a narrative stance, DW will feel no different from any other game, except maybe more satisfying which is why all the new school guys are trumpeting it's the "D&D that works for them".

Quote from: Skywalker;668150I am sure some people play RPGs so to immerse in their PCs as completely as they can, but I don't think any RPG has ever really supported that total separation. In fact, LARPing would seem to get the closest to doing so.

Any game with mechanics that are simple "physics engine" type task resolution 100% completely support roleplaying from an IC stance...or not as you choose.

Quote from: CRKrueger;668159Any game with mechanics that are simple "physics engine" type task resolution 100% completely support roleplaying from an IC stance...or not as you choose.

Enlightening response, CRK.

It's seems like the separation that is being attempted here is less about seperating out story-games from RPGs, and is more about creating a subset of "roleplaying games" as many people have experienced them since their inception. It kind of feels to me like an attempt to redefine what an RPG is based on a modern anti-OOC mechanics sentiment.

Please don't take that as a criticism. You have provided food for thought and explained your position and thoughts well.

Quote from: CRKrueger;668159Right, except if as a player, I never choose that option or roll low enough for the GM to use a "Hard Move" and lower resources, I can sit up on a hill overlooking Thermopylae and Volley the entire Persian Army to death, and don't tell me I can't according to the rules.

Specifically on this, of course, you are right. But the abstraction of ammo as a concept isn't a strong argument for this being an OOC only mechanic, or that it grants the player an authorial position.

Quote from: Skywalker;668160Enlightening response, CRK.

It's seems like the separation that is being attempted here is less about seperating out story-games from RPGs, and is more about creating a subset of "roleplaying games" as many people have experienced them since their inception. It kind of feels to me like an attempt to redefine what an RPG is based on a modern anti-OOC mechanics sentiment.

Please don't take that as a criticism. You have provided food for thought and explained your position and thoughts well.

Actually, I'd consider it an attempt to prevent the redefinition of what an RPG is based on new OOC player-driven agendas.  Or, if you prefer, all the games under the RPG umbrella are getting too divergent and targeting too many different playstyles to have the simple term RPG be meaningful.

It's really no different from calling D&D a fantasy RPG, Traveller a sci-fi RPG, CoC a lovecraftian horror RPG, and A&8 a western RPG as I see it.

Quote from: CRKrueger;668162Actually, I'd consider it an attempt to prevent the redefinition of what an RPG is based on new OOC player-driven agendas.  Or, if you prefer, all the games under the RPG umbrella are getting too divergent and targeting too many different playstyles to have the simple term RPG be meaningful.

Yeah, I understand the counter position.

The issue becomes if you use the term "traditional" as the point of seperation then it becomes difficult to excise ideas that have been around for almost as long as the tradition itself started*. By preventing the term RPG from being redefined by excising these concepts, it's easy to see how it can be seen as just doing exactly the same in reverse for a lot of other RPGers. Especially when you add inflammatory statements like "not an RPG", which I think is something you wisely avoid.

*I think it's this that makes parallels between the distinction between wargames and RPGs inaccurate as the two didn't develop together like the concepts we see here.

Quote from: Skywalker;668163Yeah, I understand the counter position.

The issue becomes if you use the term "traditional" as the point of seperation then it becomes difficult to excise ideas that have been around for almost as long as the tradition itself started*. By preventing the term RPG from being redefined by excising these concepts, it's easy to see how it can be seen as just doing exactly the same in reverse for a lot of other RPGers. Especially when you add inflammatory statements like "not an RPG", which I think is something you wisely avoid.

*I think it's this that makes parallels between the distinction between wargames and RPGs inaccurate as the two didn't develop together like the concepts we see here.

You have a point in that narrative control mechanics and theory about Story have been around for a long time and Greg Stafford and Robin Laws were doing narrative-focused design long before the Forge existed.  I think however, as a design movement, narrativism is really coming into its own.

 Did you read Black Vulmea's blog article about that ConTessa discussion?  The idea of collaborative world building isn't new, but incorporating it fundamentally through mechanics is.  That's the difference.

Old school games may have dealt with these concepts, but they were a single mechanic or two in many cases easily excised.  New school games are codifying and incorporating things usually done between players and GM into the rules themselves.  For people who always preferred to roleplay with the addition of authorship or narrative control and never had mechanical support, this must seem like a cultural revolution, in fact, to hear awfulpurple tell it, it is.

For me though, it just ain't what I call role-playing.  I get it, I just don't like it much and would prefer if people stopped blowing smoke saying there is no difference between a RPG with no OOC mechanics and one designed with core OOC decisions in mind.

I enjoy world building, plot-designing and story-telling, it's why I GM, noy why I play.  I play to roleplay my character as my character.  Yank me out of role-playing too many times and I ask myself "Is this a RPG or something kinda different?"

Quote from: CRKrueger;668169You have a point in that narrative control mechanics and theory about Story have been around for a long time and Greg Stafford and Robin Laws were doing narrative-focused design long before the Forge existed.  I think however, as a design movement, narrativism is really coming into its own.

The design movement is just the tip of the iceberg though. Leaving aside formalisation of pure OOC mechanics, a lot of the concepts we see now (many of the being used in DW) were being used in RPGs by RPGers before then. Its how some RPGers saw best to approach playing RPGs and, arguably, its an approach you can validly take with the game (not just the rules) as written.

I understand it may not be RPGing to you and others, and I have some sympathy with your position as certain RPGs with entrenched OOC mechanics rub me up the wrong way too. There are lines to be crossed. But, for me and other RPGers, the way it's implemented here feels like the exact opposite.

In any case, I think we have understanding. Hopefully, Dale doesn't feel this thread has been derailed too far

FWIW, part of the reason I got into trying to define aspects of RPGs is due to all the hullabaloo and bad blood about D&D4 and WFRP3.  Early criticism of both was similar "Not an RPG", "boardgame", "card game", "MMOGs on paper".  These incorrect criticisms were part of the reason why the debate got so heated, although there were many other reasons.  Ok, so someone thought 4e didn't feel like D&D, why?  To his credit, JA came up with a good term for one of the main criticisms, dissociated mechanics.

So someone says DW isn't an RPG.  That's an incorrect criticism, but why do they feel that way?  What's happening that's making someone say it's not role-playing? Well, simply put, I think in many cases it's the core conflict resolution mechanic and the potentially OOC nature of many of the moves.  It doesn't feel like a game where you pretend you are a character in a living breathing world,  it feels like a game where you are controlling a character in a fictional story.  The incessant use of the word fiction instead of setting or world, completely reinforces that view, as does all the advice on plot structure as opposed to world-building.

In essence, DW is a RPG, it's an RPG designed to facilitate collaborative storytelling.  It's what WW games claimed they were but weren't.