Quote from: SkywalkerI 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.

This.

By the time you roll the dice (or cards, or rock-paper-scissor, or any other props) here in real-life, youre already OOC.

By the time you engage with mechanical concepts that are divorced from the fiction - XP, Thac0s, Prestige Classes, Tactical options, etc youre already OOC.

By the time the game obligates you to consider that same fiction-abhorrent concepts here in real life, youre already OOC.

So, while I CRKrueger analysis is spot on - AW/DW is really a "new school" game that mixes a lot of concepts - I disagree with his conclusion that its "not an rpg", because every criteria he picked for separating the two, is already present in the old school rpgs. Even the OOC stances.

And here we go back to why videogames immerse me more than tabletop rpgs - because the "man-fiction-interface" in a videogame is much more direct and instinctive than a tabletop game: in a videogame Im actually "seeing" and "hearing" the shared imagined space directly with my senses and Im moving myself with neural commands to my fingers, I dont need to "imagine" how a gunshot would hear, nor the way an npc express himself nor how it feels like to shoot a gun, nor do I need to "declare" that my character is walking towards the door - all this is directly in front of me; I dont need to re-compile/re-interpret system numbers into fiction and vice-versa everytime I must take an action or analyse a situation, nor do I need to go OOC and freeze time to take tactical considerations.

So, TL;DR:

All rpgs will have OOC stances, because its "man-fiction-interface" is poorly equiped to do otherwise. Videogames are a much better "man-fiction-interface" because it feeds your senses directly and make the interaction barrier much lower, so it facilitates immersion much more.

Is it worth looking further at how/why some mechanics are more of a problem for in-character roleplaying?
I hope this doesn't derail what seems to be a productive discussion for you guys but you can look at interference as occurring in a number of ways. E.g.:

*straight up time division: time you're spending rolling dice or computing numbers are time when the player is distracted from being in-character.

*strategic decision making: rules can have an impact on in-character decision making by generating incentives or disincentives that should be unknown to the character. A character might know that a called shot to the knee is difficult (-4 to hit) and that can be factored into their combat decision making in character, while knowing that they shouldn't pick up a club and keep using it because it costs plot points, can't be an in-character decision.

In part this is one of the ones that's more variable between players because some people are better at finding creative interpretations for how some random rules artifact can be justified (see every "4E dailies suck" power argument ever). On the other hand, some people are more judgmental about whether a rule generates sensible results (e.g. I'm particularly prickly about why if my 4W attack requires an 'opening' for use, I can't whack unconscious people with it), and there's probably subjectivity here as well as to how much interpreting a player wants to do vs. how much description they feel is the GMs prerogative.
Players also over time get used to certain rules which feel less jarring and just get accepted as 'rules of physics' after awhile.
This issue comes up with DW in reference to a lot of its decision mechanics because it being conflict-resolution, it seems there sometimes isn't an in-character decision at all, or it happens after the fact. You roll the dice and that tells you if you decided to jump down and shoot 17 arrows into them, instead of choosing the action first.

*in-character decision load: maybe someone can think of a better term, but how much the fiction around a situation needs to be described to arbitrate what occurs. DW is interesting here in that stuff has to be hashed out between the player and GM to determine what move applies (i.e. exact circumstances can determine whether an action is hack and slash, defy danger or auto-damage?). Its vagueness seems similar to how in D&D a player might get a better chance of doing something by describing exactly what they're doing. Some ruleset effectively insulate a player from dealing with things in-character by having lots of codified procedures that eliminate the need to consider such things (a player needing to think about their 10-ft-pole is more engaged that one rolling a Search check).  
This one is tricky because its often gained as a flip side from complex combat rules and the like. So you lose time rolling hit locations for bullets, but the players also worry about wearing torso armour in a more in-character way

*tension: some players want danger, others don't. Luck point mechanics reduce the feeling of vulnerability to the player; they also directly generate a disconnection between the player's experience and the character's experience because the PC shouldn't be aware they have re-rolls available.

*control of stakes: something Vulmea's ConTessa post made me consider. From a pure min/max standpoint, why would I choose to do a lengthy campaign to destroy the Scarlet Brotherhood, when I could eliminate them by voting them down in the world-design stage?
Having a simpler shortcut makes the whole exercise seem pretty pointless.
 (By the same token I feel that often even a 'seek vengeance on the slayers of your parents' type character background can lack pathos because its again a problem you chose for yourself. I think the storygamers have a term for this as well).
Down this line of thought, Apocalypse World is actually baffling me somewhat since its meant to exude doom and despair, while it actually seems to be giving the players a reasonable amount of freedom, albeit between hard choices.

Quote from: silva;668202And here we go back to why videogames immerse me more than tabletop rpgs - because the "man-fiction-interface" in a videogame is much more direct and instinctive than a tabletop game: in a videogame Im actually "seeing" and "hearing" the shared imagined space directly with my senses and Im moving myself with neural commands to my fingers, I dont need to "imagine" how a gunshot would hear, nor the way an npc express himself nor how it feels like to shoot a gun, nor do I need to "declare" that my character is walking towards the door - all this is directly in front of me; I dont need to re-compile/re-interpret system numbers into fiction and vice-versa everytime I must take an action or analyse a situation, nor do I need to go OOC and freeze time to take tactical considerations..

I think whether one finds video games more immerssive, versus rpgs, or movies more than books, is going to vary a lot from individual to individual. Saying one is objectively more immersive than the other seems like a flawed position to me. I am sure for you, and of some others, video games are more immersive. For me they are not immersive at all, because there are serious limits on what you can do and how you can interact. I have long found that the degree of immersion I get from table top rpgs is much more impactful and rich than any other medium I've experienced. My very first time playing an rpg, the thing that jumped out at me, was it felt like the real world vanished and I was on another world, assuming the identity of a cyborg travelling through a post apocalyptic landscape. Even movies never made me feel that way before.

Quote from: Brad;667551Vampire isn't a storyteller game in the same sense as Dungeon World because there exists a GM who isn't collaborating with the players and instead acts as a referee. Just like Ars Magica has a "troupe method" of play, yet retains a ref to adjudicate conflict.
.

Fuck me, do you really think that a GM/DM/ref is neutral and an adjudicator in an rpg? But let that lie for now!

I'd say that DW is an rpg. There is a game, and the ref follows the flow of the dice rolls, in fact in some ways it is more of a 'game' than many trad games if you follow the process, the GM is presenting his box of tricks as and when the dice say so. The GM also has to do some some prep, have some idea of a dungeon, an opposing force (Front), and the monsters, traps and so on that are at hand to be deployed against the players in response to the dice.

But the proactive element is the player, the GM reactive, but the tools and outcomes are really very similar in play.

Skywalker, CRKrueger this exchange has been very interesting, and all the more for being cordial.

Quote from: CRKrueger;668171FWIW, 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.

I think this way of looking at specific mechanics is very useful, because that can be used for future game designs.

Quote from: Brad;667602SW d6 is firmly an RPG because the goal of the game is to beat the Empire. If the goal was to "see what happens to Rebels when put into strange and dangerous situations", with no emphasis on success, it'd be a story game.

Well bloody hell. RPGs are about success? So the bit about there being no winners or losers in so many rpgs since the hobby started is all wrong bad fun?

I take it you have never played a SW game where you were morally ambiguous scoundrels?

So, what is the goal of the Traveller rpg? Or is that not an rpg as well?

Quote from: fuseboy;668219Skywalker, CRKrueger this exchange has been very interesting, and all the more for being cordial.

.

I have to agree. The two of them have both been doing a great job having an actual conversation on the subject. I enjoyed reading both their responses to each other.

Quote from: tzunder;668221Well bloody hell. RPGs are about success? So the bit about there being no winners or losers in so many rpgs since the hobby started is all wrong bad fun?

I take it you have never played a SW game where you were morally ambiguous scoundrels?

So, what is the goal of the Traveller rpg? Or is that not an rpg as well?

Yes, RPGs are about success. The characters have goals and pursue them. Otherwise, you're just simulating real life and might as well play The Sims. All that "there are no winners or losers" crap has been taking out of context to a ridiculous extreme. There's no conventional winner in the sense that the players are trying to achieve a common goal (unlike poker, for instance), but if your character dies and doesn't fulfill his destiny, well, you lost. In a story telling game, this is obviously not the case because the narrative is what's important; do you "win" or "lose" when reading a novel..? I suppose you can for some weird interpretations of those words, but this is why I don't think story telling games are RPGs.

And, no, I have never played a Star Wars game where the characters were morally ambiguous; that's not part of the genre, and especially not part of SW. All the "scoundrel" types in SW ended up being firmly good or bad, and that's the way it should stay. You can certainly play a game in the SW universe that goes against genre, but if that were the case, I'd rather play Traveller, since you brought that up.

To address the last point...seriously? The goal of a Traveller game is whatever the characters decide it to be. If you're a merchant, making money. A mercenary, fighting wars and making money. The difference would be this: if I have a merchant character in Traveller and think either selling all my cargo for a profit or getting fleeced are both excellent as they push a narrative, I'm playing a story telling game. If I think getting fucked over when selling cargo is a terrible idea because it goes directly against my goals of trying to make money, I'm playing an RPG because the ROLE of a merchant is to make money, not get involved in "interesting situations". One is looking at the game from an overarching meta perspective, the other from the view of a specific character.

Quote from: Brad;668224Y All that "there are no winners or losers" crap has been taking out of context to a ridiculous extreme. There's no conventional winner in the sense that the players are trying to achieve a common goal (unlike poker, for instance), but if your character dies and doesn't fulfill his destiny, well, you lost. In a story telling game, this is obviously not the case because the narrative is what's important; do you "win" or "lose" when reading a novel..?

You know, I must be a storytelling swine. Even when I played C&S I didn't mind when my pious priest died defending the group against impossible odds, or my evil sorceror went to the dark side and had to disappear into NPC-dom. I can enjoy a game where we don't succeed, I enjoy the story of failure just as much.

QuoteTo address the last point...seriously? The goal of a Traveller game is whatever the characters decide it to be. If you're a merchant, making money. A mercenary, fighting wars and making money.

A dilletante idly spending money and seeking new experiences? A wanderer who wishes to see, meet and enjoy new cultures? Are these story tellers or roleplayers?

Or a marine, defending an Imperial noble against rebel scum, knowing that they will have to lay down their lives for the cause? Swine or roleplayer?

Quote from: CRKrueger;668129but 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.  .

Well club me to death with a sausage! Have you actually played in a game of D&D where that happened? Or any rpg where that happened?

Quote from: tzunder;668243Well club me to death with a sausage! Have you actually played in a game of D&D where that happened? Or any rpg where that happened?

I have. Back when I first started this is how we played. eventually it mostly got dropped by the groups I was in. I also saw lots of people ignore it completely. For myself I like there to at least be a nod toward this sort of thing by the player to explain new powers in any edition of D&D. So in 3E if someone takes a rank in a new class, I would expect there to be some in game event to explain it. If they gain a new power or skill, something like at least mentioning you practice woodwork or seek someone to teach you is expected. It isn't normally 100% and not something the GM would normally enforce as a rule, just something players in the group tend to do.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;668210Is it worth looking further at how/why some mechanics are more of a problem for in-character roleplaying?

Johnson, that's very interesting: yes, I think it's worthwhile.

As you wrote this, I was halfway through writing out a list for myself of different modes of awareness - just as a way of giving myself a way of plotting how various mechanics encourage certain types of experiences.

For example, thinking about what you want, as a player is a different mode from thinking the desires of your greedy, cowardly character. Both of these are different from thinking about what's happening socially, (e.g. "John seems to be pissed at the GM,") and so on.

So, your comment made me realize that different people are distracted by different things.  I notice that - more than any mechanic - I'm much more likely to be distracted by something going on at the social level, whether as GM or player.  I find it's really important for me to be able to differentiate whether Cyril the Bloody's anger is from the character, or whether John (who is playing Cyril) is actually pissed off.

Similarly, as GM, while world-simulating mechanics (e.g. the faction stuff in Stars Without Number) tickle me pink, when I'm running that way, I get this creeping sense of doubt that it's entertaining to the players, and so I find OOC comments about player enjoyment really useful.

So, perhaps oddly, I find "immersion-breaking" mechanics that deal with these concerns (e.g. player flags) play a role in helping me immerse, since now that my need is taken care of, I can let go of those other concerns and sink into the character.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;668210*straight up time division: time you're spending rolling dice or computing numbers are time when the player is distracted from being in-character.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;668210Players also over time get used to certain rules which feel less jarring and just get accepted as 'rules of physics' after awhile.

I think this is a big factor.  An OOC 'story point' mechanic is potentially immersion-breaking because it puts you into an author frame of mind rather than that of your character.  On the other hand, rolling to hit in Rolemaster is like doing your taxes, it's hilarious - there's nothing "in character" about it.  (I will grant that it doesn't put you in anybody else's shoes.) Whether it's distracting or not depends IMO entirely on familiarity and enjoyment. If I like the procedure, I'm still having fun, and I can resume an in-character mode without upset.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;668210You roll the dice and that tells you if you decided to jump down and shoot 17 arrows into them, instead of choosing the action first.

Superficially, quantitative damage is a bit like this.  When you take 9 hit points' damage, what's happened?  Did the spear go through your armor?  How far? Is there visible blood? The rules produce a number, and then you have to interpret that number.

I think it's less distracting for hit points because of a) familiarity, b) the fact that wound descriptions are non-authoritative.  The wounded fighter might now look pale and dizzy, but that's just transient color - when I go to heal him, I'm going to use Cure Serious Wounds or Cure Light Wounds based on the numerical damage, not the description.

On the other hand, when you do this for larger-scale matters (like a short fight sequence) it does put you in a different frame of mind, because it involves talking about the success and failure of the actions of others as well (they failed to dodge your 17 arrows).

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;668210*control of stakes: ... (By the same token I feel that often even a 'seek vengeance on the slayers of your parents' type character background can lack pathos because its again a problem you chose for yourself. I think the storygamers have a term for this as well).

I've heard this described as the Czege principle - it's unsatisfying to be responsible for both the problem and its resolution (or something like that).

The word I used to use was 'striving'.  As a player, I like to strive for things, to try.  Relating this to the previous point, when you're describing how you kicked ass in battle, you're no longer striving - which could feel weird, given the high stakes nature of conflict (conflict being when striving happens most).

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;668210*control of stakes: something Vulmea's ConTessa post made me consider. From a pure min/max standpoint, why would I choose to do a lengthy campaign to destroy the Scarlet Brotherhood, when I could eliminate them by voting them down in the world-design stage?

Cute! To me, this relates to different modes of thought (player prefernces vs. character preferences).  As a player going into a game, I have preferences about who I play, and about the opposition I face. Sometimes they're intertwined, like if I suggest we play a band of vampire hunters.  The player and character preferences are clearly different things when the game is being established, otherwise zombie survival RPGs wouldn't exist.

Players have different preferences for how far apart those two modes have to be.  Some players prefer to have as little input as possible into the opposition, which I think is about immersing in the character as soon as possible. Other players don't mind being aware of and expressing their player preferences while the game is underway.

Quote from: tzunder;668243Well club me to death with a sausage! Have you actually played in a game of D&D where that happened? Or any rpg where that happened?

Yep.

Hell, I've even played WFRP where the career changes had to be done in-game.   Characters once planned a long complicated caper just to get one of their members to train with a Duelist so he could take the career.

I've been in a Warhammer campaign where this was an assumed rule (though there were careers that you did not need to do so, but you needed someone to teach you skills anyway), but also there was a notion that sometimes you could choose to change a career based on special circumstances - if you joined the mercenary company you could immediately switch to Mercenary career, for example, or there was a moment when an entire party had a chance to switch to a Spy career.

IABYK