TheRPGSite

The separation of RPGs between the Main Forum and Other Games has been hotly debated in the last few weeks. A lot of the disagreement has focused on defending certain RPGs. A criticism of that disagreement is that there seems to be a lack of recognition of any grounds for separation, making it seem like any RPG separated to Other Games are claimed to be an RPG as a matter of course.

Despite this, I actually think that most of those who disagree acknowledge that RPGs can be separated. This is my proactive attempt to find better grounds for separation, one which are just as certain in their application but less offensive to RPGers. Rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater, lets just put the baby in its cot.

In another thread, I summarized what I saw was the underlying issue with the current separation.

Quote from: SkywalkerIt seems more obvious that what has happened here is that a group of new games, story-games, initially caused offense a few years ago. I think that this was a relatively well understood sentiment. However, in order to try and separate the offending group beyond any argument, it saw every RPG that led to that group or is somehow related to that group also being separated, even if its not part of that group. Much like cutting away healthy tissue around a tumour due to its proximity, rather than it being tumorous.

The problem is that this collateral separation is being done inconsistently as the reason for the separation doesn't readily apply to them and the sentiment is less well understood. This result will be that "RPGs" end up, for a good number of people, being a lesser subset of its previous self.

OOC Mechanics
I don’t think that the core for grounds of separation is the element of mechanics interacted with on an OOC basis, which features so prominently here on TheRPGSite. This ground is part of what I criticized above in unnecessarily setting the battle line way out in front from where it needs to be, in an attempt to avoid argument without regard to collateral damage.

IMO RPGs are, and have been since their inception, a hobby where players sit down and inhabit their characters. Despite any immersion that may be achieved, the player necessarily engages with the mechanics as a player as well as in direct reference to their character.

As such, an RPG doesn’t stop being an RPG just because you as a player make decisions based on what you as a player think is the best, for whatever reason.  These kinds of OOC mechanics have developed along with RPGs in unison with those mechanics that defined what a character does in the world they inhabit.

For some RPGers, the use of player engagement can have a positive impact on the IC play by strengthening the bond between the player and character. For example, there have been OOC mechanics of a tactical nature that directly translate tension and excitement of the character in combat to the player. There have been OOC mechanics of a narrative nature also, providing dramatic editing, conveying genre, avoiding sensitive issues like untimely character death, and improving player/GM communication. There has also been developments for OOC methods to help immerse a player in their PC, such as handouts, music, costuming and (on a mechanics level) LARPing.    

OOC Competition
So where is the line drawn? I think the core for the better grounds for separation is the element of competition and contestation between players (including the GM). In fact, I think that the defining feature of RPGs in the field of gaming is that the players aren’t in competition or contestation with each other. Though there are rules, these are used to translate player decisions into actions, effects and results of the character and the world they exist in. They don’t act to set a level playing field from which the players can compete or contest with each other.

Before exploring this, it must be noted that players can act competitively in an RPG. However, there is no level playing field between players or ability for players to compete through the rules, except IC.

Likewise, it is possible for players to collaborate in a game with competitive rules. Competition doesn’t mean playing to win, just as two competing businesses don’t look to “win”, just to gain advantage. I have seen people do this kind of collaboration in a competitve game like HeroQuest, or other dungeon crawling style board games. The same can be said of a story-game like PrimeTime Adventures, where the players are collaborative in their storytelling. However, despite there being collaboration or a lack of “win” condition, the players are given equal authority and contest with each other to play the game. No one player can simply bypass this element without unbalancing the basis on which the game is being played.

Story-Games
In the late 1990s, the story game movement introduced new developments to the RPG hobby. The most significant of these was the ability of all players to contribute to story directly. Though this is a natural extension of narrative mechanics, there is IMO a fundamental difference. That was the introduction of competition or contestation. Once you give players overlapping narrative authority, you need a way to adjudicate conflict. This led to the reduction of the GM’s previous role as ultimate arbiter and shifted that role to the mechanics themselves.

In practice, this new form of gaming was a shock to many RPGers, myself included. GMs suddenly found themselves in contest with their players and this changed the dynamic considerably. So much so, that I agree that this created a new form of gaming with different concerns and developments.

Now, given its roots in narrative RPGs, its natural that after story-games arose they would feedback to RPGs. It is true that we have seen a resurgence in both OOC mechanics and, in particular, narrative mechanics. For example, making games more explicit and engaging to players are common in modern RPGs. However, I don’t think these feedback developments necessarily change a game that was previously an RPG into a story-game. If they ultimately lack the concept of competition between players, then its an RPG albeit a narrative RPG or a modern RPG.

D&D4e/Marvel Heroic
To illustrate this separation, here is an analysis of D&D4e and Marvel Heroic focusing on their tactical play (hopefully avoiding the narrative RPGs may help keep emotion out of the equation). D&D4e and MHR both have a strong element of OOC tactical play and are influenced by the recent rise of OOC mechanic focus in RPGs. However, despite whatever criticisms people have of D&D4e, most seem to agree its an RPG. MHR, however, is a clear borderline case. Yes, this represents me changing my mind on it thanks to CRKrueger.

Why do the two feel different? D&D4e has a lot of mechanics for the GM to create a balanced combat and an appropriate tactical challenge. Once the challenge is laid down, the GM is meant to abide by the rules of that challenge. However, it never becomes a contest as between GM and player. The GM doesn’t gain anything from beating the players or even doing better than the players. Fundamentally, the GM in D&D4e is acting as any GM of an RPG does, despite the players being engaged very clearly by the mechanics on an OOC level.

MHR differs. It also has a tactical combat system, but inside that system the GM’s resources (the Doom Pool) are limited. The players are trying to reduce it and the GM is trying to increase it. Not only is the GM meant to abide by the rules, like in an RPG, but what the GM can do is limited for the game to play as intended. For example, the GM can’t do certain things without spending these resources, such as bringing scenes to an end, granting any form of modifiers based on the world and bringing in reinforcements etc.

Oddly, from a narrative perspective, MHR is much less competitive. The GM pretty much creates the story elements as they do in an RPG, outside of a few very limited circumstances like players spending XP on milestones. This is the reason why I think MHR is a border line case. MHR is not an RPG in terms of its tactics. It is closer akin to a wargame or board game once the fighting starts. However, in terms of story, I think its more akin to an RPG. On balance, I could go either way.

Conclusion
This leads on to another interesting observation. If the players compete on a tactical level, you move from an RPG to that of a wargame or board game. If the players compete on a narrative level, you move from an RPG to that of a story-game.  If players compete on an immersive level, you are in a pure re-enactment, MMO or large scale boffer LARP. If you lack any competition between players, then there is a good chance that you have an RPG given its a relatively unique attribute in the field of gaming to RPGing.

To finish up, the above explains why IMO Tenra Bansho Zero, The One Ring, and Dungeon World are RPGs as they lack the player competition I identify. In each of these, they have mechanics that engage the players direct, common in many modern RPGs. These OOC mechanics may even allow a player to think on the character in a limited authorial role for a variety of purposes as has been in RPGs since the early 80s. But none of them involve any level of competition between the players and/or GM. None of them restrict the GM’s traditional role as the arbiter of the mechanics and primary creator and driver of story. And none of them usurp or corrupt RPGs as we have known them for decades.

You make one critical mistake, a common one.

Mechanics that are simply simulationist, physics engine types of mechanics are entirely character-based.  As a player, I can choose to do the following:

1. Make all mechanical decisions as my character would.
2. Make some mechanical decisions as a player for OOC reasons.
Now these reasons could be:
A. Tactical - I decide to get bonuses or use the game system in way my character may not know.
B. Narrative - I may decide to have my character make a decision based on what I as a player think would be an interesting story or would make for better character development even if the character would not want to do such a thing.
C. Social - I decide to have my character help the new guy more then he normally would because I want the new player to feel welcome.
D. Genre emulation - Yeah my guy might not really want to do this, but he's a Hero dammit!
D. Misc Metagame - My character drawing on Player knowledge etc...

WHY I'm making the decisions, no one knows but me.  That's been the advantage of D&D and other games over the years, they supported all playstyles by NOT having mechanics for them.

Now if I specifically construct mechanics for OOC metagame reasons to enable playstyles to better support Tactical, Narrative, Genre Emulation, or even Social styles of play, then I specifically lessen the support for IC immersion.

IC and OOC are mutually exclusive.  Any given individual reason can be either IC or OOC, not both.  Now there may be more then one reason that goes into any decision, but even if there are 14 reasons I am making the decision, each one is either IC or OOC.

The difference is mechanics without such OOC metagame mechanics allow for as much IC immersion as possible.  Mechanics with such OOC metagame mechanics limit the IC immersion in proportion to the sheer number of OOC decisions.

As the narrative control, tactical game challenge, or genre emulation mechanics increase, the level of IC immersion decreases, that is simple fact.

Now people may not recognize this because when they play they always have OOC chatter going on, talk OOC about stuff before they say stuff IC and generally don't get too deep into IC Immersion, which is fine, and I realize that's probably the majority of the hobby.

But for those people who like the option of immersing freely without any forced OOC mechanics yanking you out of IC, then these types of games, don't really feel like "Role-playing games".  Why?  Because they are specifically designed to deliver a play experience that interferes with deeper IC immersive roleplaying.

In other words, Dungeon World does not seem any different then other RPGs to you, because the OOC narrative control mechanics don't interfere with your level of immersion.  That does not mean that those OOC narrative control mechanics are not there.

At every single one of our tables, there are some who are light roleplayers, some might be a little heavier, some like more tactical minigame stuff, some like more narrative storytelling approach, yet we've all played bog-standard D&D, RQ, Traveller, etc for years in some cases with each other.

Well now there are games that if you like a specific type of playstyle you will love the game, if you don't care about that playstyle it won't make any difference, but if you don't like that playstyle, then we're back to how much shit in a sandwich makes it a shit sandwich.

I'd be fine with saying X-world games, Fate games, Cortex+ games are narrative RPGs, and possibly make a forum for them or not.  It's not my site.

As to the competition part, that is interesting.  It kind of rolls into my earlier statement.  For example take a game like Shadowrun.  Everything except karma is character-based.  If the players want to have their characters kill each other for player-based reasons they can, but usually character conflict in Shadowrun ends up being character-based.

Something like Dogs in the Vineyard has conflict at both the character and player level mechanically enforced.

It seems like if there are OOC tactical decisions, then the game is more of a RPG/Wargame Hybrid and if there are OOC narrative decisions, then the game is more of a RPG/Storygame Hybrid.

Kind of like

Wargame - All tactics
Wargame Hybrid - Tactics w/some Roleplay
Tactical RPG - Roleplaying Game w/strong OOC Tactical elements
RPG - All or most mechanics IC
Narrative RPG - Roleplaying Game w/strong OOC Narrative elements
Storygame Hybrid - Narrative game w/some Roleplay
Storygame - Pure Storytelling, almost all authorial stance concerning characters.

I'm not suggesting each as a label, but since we're always talking about a spectrum, these seem like decent "colors" to me.

I apologise for the unnecessary troll post, but the title of this thread makes it impossible for me to pass on this opportunity:

So, should we start singing "In RPGsiteland we'll take our stand"?

Quote from: CRKrueger;669004You make one critical mistake, a common one.

Mechanics that are simply simulationist, physics engine types of mechanics are entirely character-based.  As a player, I can choose to do the following:

1. Make all mechanical decisions as my character would.
2. Make some mechanical decisions as a player for OOC reasons.
Now these reasons could be:
A. Tactical - I decide to get bonuses or use the game system in way my character may not know.
B. Narrative - I may decide to have my character make a decision based on what I as a player think would be an interesting story or would make for better character development even if the character would not want to do such a thing.
C. Social - I decide to have my character help the new guy more then he normally would because I want the new player to feel welcome.
D. Genre emulation - Yeah my guy might not really want to do this, but he's a Hero dammit!
D. Misc Metagame - My character drawing on Player knowledge etc...

WHY I'm making the decisions, no one knows but me.  That's been the advantage of D&D and other games over the years, they supported all playstyles by NOT having mechanics for them.

Now if I specifically construct mechanics for OOC metagame reasons to enable playstyles to better support Tactical, Narrative, Genre Emulation, or even Social styles of play, then I specifically lessen the support for IC immersion.

IC and OOC are mutually exclusive.  Any given individual reason can be either IC or OOC, not both.  Now there may be more then one reason that goes into any decision, but even if there are 14 reasons I am making the decision, each one is either IC or OOC.

The difference is mechanics without such OOC metagame mechanics allow for as much IC immersion as possible.  Mechanics with such OOC metagame mechanics limit the IC immersion in proportion to the sheer number of OOC decisions.

As the narrative control, tactical game challenge, or genre emulation mechanics increase, the level of IC immersion decreases, that is simple fact.

Now people may not recognize this because when they play they always have OOC chatter going on, talk OOC about stuff before they say stuff IC and generally don't get too deep into IC Immersion, which is fine, and I realize that's probably the majority of the hobby.

But for those people who like the option of immersing freely without any forced OOC mechanics yanking you out of IC, then these types of games, don't really feel like "Role-playing games".  Why?  Because they are specifically designed to deliver a play experience that interferes with deeper IC immersive roleplaying.

In other words, Dungeon World does not seem any different then other RPGs to you, because the OOC narrative control mechanics don't interfere with your level of immersion.  That does not mean that those OOC narrative control mechanics are not there.

At every single one of our tables, there are some who are light roleplayers, some might be a little heavier, some like more tactical minigame stuff, some like more narrative storytelling approach, yet we've all played bog-standard D&D, RQ, Traveller, etc for years in some cases with each other.

Well now there are games that if you like a specific type of playstyle you will love the game, if you don't care about that playstyle it won't make any difference, but if you don't like that playstyle, then we're back to how much shit in a sandwich makes it a shit sandwich.

I'd be fine with saying X-world games, Fate games, Cortex+ games are narrative RPGs, and possibly make a forum for them or not.  It's not my site.

As a definition of the kind of RPGs you like, this is all fine. Make a label for them if you want - immersion-focused games or the like.

The problem comes when you seek to define your way of roleplaying as the only way of roleplaying, and things other than your preferred method as a different hobby altogether.

OK so some RPGs like AD&D allow you to make all of your decisions from a solely in character point of view. So what? You acknowledge yourself that this is a largely theoretical thing, and that most players will still make at least some of their decisions based on metagame factors or from an authorial or mechanical stance. Old Geezer's accounts of playing with Gary say that at least in the early days they acted almost entirely from a metagame/puzzle solving POV.

So already your definition of roleplaying excludes most actual instances of people playing a roleplaying game, including the very creator of the hobby and his group.

Now let's look at some other traditional RPGs past and present. D&D 4e has things like martial encounter powers, come and get it, and action points, that are all very difficult to explain from a solely in-character point of view. WFRP 1e has fate points. Cyberpunk has luck points. Vampire has willpower points. So now your definition also excludes many if not most published examples of roleplaying games.

Quote from: soviet;669013WFRP 1e has fate points.

I rest my case.

Quote from: One Horse Town;669015I rest my case.

Facts sure are inconvenient aren't they.

Quote from: soviet;669026Facts sure are inconvenient aren't they.

http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=668880&postcount=13

I'm surprised it took you so long.

Quote from: One Horse Town;669031http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=668880&postcount=13

I'm surprised it took you so long.

Mentioning facts that conflict with your world view is spoiling for a fight, got it. Are you going to ban me now for 'site disruption'?

Quote from: One Horse Town;669031http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=668880&postcount=13

I'm surprised it took you so long.

Quid erat demonstrandum.

Quote from: soviet;669013As a definition of the kind of RPGs you like, this is all fine. Make a label for them if you want - immersion-focused games or the like.

The problem comes when you seek to define your way of roleplaying as the only way of roleplaying, and things other than your preferred method as a different hobby altogether.

How wonderful for me then that I've never done that.  Look back and you'll find a couple years ago I suggested:

Immersive RPGs
Tactical RPGs
Narrative RPGs

as descriptors we could use for discussion.  All holy hell broke loose on the word immersion, coming then from the 4e crowd who objected to 4e being suggested as a Tactical RPG.

If all you're going to do is lump everyone together with Pundit as the enemy, and start to chop down the Strawman that everyone says "RPG or not", then you're going down the path of the ideologue, and you'll start to make asinine statements simply because your side is right, so winning by any means necessary is the only goal.  Then you'll make yourself look like a disingenuous douchebag for attempting to get by the laughable suggestion that a single mechanic of Fate Points in WFRP1 is on the same scale as something like a full-blown usage of Aspects, Fate and Compels in FATE.

First of all, Fate in WFRP1 is defined in the game as the will of the gods.  You're not just any Rat-Catcher, you're a Rat-Catcher who the gods have in mind for something.  As such, Fate is represented in the setting itself.

Secondly the only thing the Fate Points are used for is to get out of death.  The player can't use them for anything else.

Thirdly, they are limited.

Fourthly, you can excise them if you want and have Zero effect on the rest of the game.

However, because I am not an ideological douchebag, I will admit that Fate Points are a Player-driven mechanic, the character does not choose to use them.  Really, the Player doesn't even choose to use them unless he wishes to die, so not really designed to give much Narrative Control, which makes sense because that's not what they were designed for, unlike Narrative Control mechanics designed specifically for that purpose.

So...don't be a disingenuous douchebag.

As to the "so what"?  

Well if you admit that a "physics engine" game allows you to roleplay without interference even if you don't choose to do so, and these types of games came first, then later came games which introduced new mechanics that specifically sacrificed the ability to roleplay, doesn't it seem like we might need to look at the definition of RPG a little bit and maybe come up with some new terms?

Isn't the umbrella a bit too wide?  

I mean the whole reason someone designs a game with narrative control mechanics or any type of mechanic is to deliver an experience to people who want those types of mechanics, I mean "System Matters", right?

So why the objection to terms like Narrative RPGs?  Again, I'm not the Pundit.

I don't object to Dungeon World being called a Hybrid RPG or Narrative RPG, I object to it being called an Old School Traditional RPG, which is the line they're selling at awfulpurple, something you yourself have said is wrong.

To paraphrase Inigo Montoya:

The person you are arguing with is not the person you think you are arguing with.

Quote from: CRKrueger;669005Wargame - All tactics
Wargame Hybrid - Tactics w/some Roleplay
Tactical RPG - Roleplaying Game w/strong OOC Tactical elements
RPG - All or most mechanics IC
Narrative RPG - Roleplaying Game w/strong OOC Narrative elements
Storygame Hybrid - Narrative game w/some Roleplay
Storygame - Pure Storytelling, almost all authorial stance concerning characters.

I might nitpick on the particulars of each definition, but I basically agree that you could represent the spectrum using such terms.

Quote from: soviet;669033Mentioning facts that conflict with your world view is spoiling for a fight, got it. Are you going to ban me now for 'site disruption'?

This has got fuck all to do with my world view or even my view on roleplaying games. :rolleyes:

You've been here long enough to know where to post most things - as have most of the other posters here, which you knew full well before you decided to play your hysterical little strawman above.

The rest is all just whistling in the wind.

Pundit pays money for the privilege of having people piss and moan at him for the distinctions he decides to make on his forum. Our entitlement stops with him.

The problem I have with the whole 'hybrid distinction, is I personally think any description of D&D, of any tsr edition, that labels the game as a hybrid RPG, makes the distinction absolutely meaningless. That OD&D or Car Wars could be considered 'hybrid-tactical rpgs' isn't a meaningful distinction that I could conceive of a reason the distinction would ever need to be made. I mean it doesn't facilitate any discussion of that game. I do see the value in separating games where game play is 'you are this character and go on many adventures' vs 'you are the author of this character and their adventures'. That, to my mind, describes two very different experiences of play. I don't find the other or further distinctions meaningful except in reference to that distinction. No, I don't like 4th ed. Calling it a tactical RPG or war game hybrid erves little purpose, IMO, though. Its a 'crunchy RPG. Like Hero. Lite vs crunchy tells me all I need to know. I'm fine calling both just rpgs.

I think the OP was spot on on several observations, but I also think its futile to try and reason with Pundit on such things once he's made up his mind. As others have said, its his site. Won't stop me from bitching or pointing out hi hipocrisy, but I don't expect him to suddenly go 'oh, hey, I was being an ignorant ass, you're perfectly free to discuss DW in conjunction with other rpgs.' and for my part I have no intention of deliberately starting any threads in the RPG forum about a game that Pundit has arbitrarily relegated to 'other games (would be nice to have a seperate forum for video games though).

However, I think that the whole 'GM has less power or is relegated to the role of player is a tangential defined of story games. For one thing, it simply has nothing to do with 'story in and if itself. If you're going to call a type of game a 'storygame' than at the very least the term should be distinguishing the games primarily on the basis of 'story. Hence author view play vs role play.

Quote from: Skywalker;668979The separation of RPGs between the Main Forum and Other Games has been hotly debated in the last few weeks.

Only by yourself and a handful of other partisans.

The rest of us only give a fuck about this gaming ideological crusade when it interferes with otherwise interesting conversations.

Quote from: CRKrueger;669004You make one critical mistake, a common one.

I am not sure I made a mistake. I essentially agree with you that the use of OOC mechanics provides a point of difference in RPGs. My disagreement is that they are a point of distinction for what is and is not an RPG.

As you say, the mechanics of the very first RPGs did have very little in the way of direct OOC engagement. But that engagement was there for many RPGers, allowed in the implementation of the flexibility of RPGs and even appearing both as a tactical legacy from the wargaming roots and narratively as a necessity in certain edge cases like character creation and advancement. I am pretty sure in OD&D players were choosing weapons for their PC based on the stats given to them by the designer, and not simply on an IC basis.

As OOC engagement is a part of RPGs, it seems to me that its a natural development to attempt to use this OOC engagement through mechanics and in fact this was the case as early as the early 1980s. Just for clarity, I am not saying that you have to use mechanics that engage players OOC or that its a necessarily a better approach. This is a matter of preference. The only point is that the existence of such attempt doesn't stop an RPG from becoming an RPG, it may just make you like it more or less.

In fact, this whole thing is not really new argument at all. I remember arguing with a GM friend when WFRP1e came out that he hated Fate points, as they broke immersion. There was equally a wave of disagreement over the growth of personality mechanics in RPGs such as Pendragon and Storytelling games from White Wolf.  Some people didn't like that OOC engagement, so they argued against them.

The only thing new here is that a group of those with one preference (of many) in RPGs are trying a new tactic of saying that those RPGs that use OOC engagement in the mechanics are not RPGs at all. This is based on the development of a new type of game, story-games, where the use of OOC mechanics took on a whole new level. This is a problematic tactic as it just doesn't hold up. This can be seen by the growing number of specific and arbitrary seeming patches like trying to distinguish "genre" mechanics from "narrative" mechanics, despite both engaging on an OOC level. Or how integral Aspects are to FATE.

So, just to be clear, the use of OOC mechanics for tactical, narrative or other reasons is a point of difference in RPGs, and one which you can validly have a strong preference for or against. It is just not a point of difference for what is or is not an RPG.

Quote from: CRKrueger;669039The person you are arguing with is not the person you think you are arguing with.

You know what? Fair enough, I misread you based on half-remembered previous discussions. Sorry about that.

FWIW I don't object to your three categories (although I can't help but think that it looks suspiciously like G/N/S...). However I don't agree that full immersion is the sole definition of 'roleplaying', and I don't agree that games that feature tactical grid-based combat or author stance stuff like spending metagame points are 'sacrificing the ability to roleplay'. They are to some extent sacrificing the ability to fully immerse in the character, OK, but that is not the sole definition of roleplaying. For you full immersion is the main source of enjoyment, for me it is only a part.

The point of the WFRP thing is that OOC mechanics are a matter of degree. Very few games are completely free of them, and different people have different tolerance levels. I think you overestimate how significant they are - even in storygames like Other Worlds the vast majority of gameplay is still spent talking and acting in character, and at least half of our dice rolling/system use revolves around decisions that can be made in character as well. D&D 4th edition would come out about the same. And with either game, that bit that isn't done in character we find we can take in our stride without feeling like we have been prevented from roleplaying somehow. We're still in character the majority of the time and that's enough. Just like you can probably ask for a slice of pizza and then get straight back into the game, I can set some stakes of failure or whatever and then get straight back to the game. We just have different levels of tolerance for that stuff, that's all.

Quote from: Skywalker;669064So, just to be clear, the use of OOC mechanics for tactical, narrative or other reasons is a point of difference in RPGs, and one which you can validly have a strong preference for or against. It is just not a point of difference for what is or is not an RPG.

Well said.

Quote from: CRKrueger;669005As to the competition part, that is interesting.  It kind of rolls into my earlier statement.

The more I think about recent issues I have had with certain RPGs and those on the forums here, the more I think that the presence of OOC competition is an important distinction, and maybe even that its lack is a defining feature of RPGs.

For example, lets take Car Wars, over which there was recent debate. I think it is true that Car Wars can be played as a wargame. Its is set up to be balanced, so that players compete to win the battle. Plain and simple. It is also true that there was enough support for it to be run as an RPG, with players playing PCs and a GM running a story and adjudicating rules. What's the difference? The presence of OOC mechanics or OOC competition?

FWIW I also think this is one of the reasons why D&D4e caused some people such a vitriolic reaction. You could run it, and it was often officially presented in Dungeon Delves, as a wargame, though it could also clearly be run as a RPG.

Let's take a spectrum case with games using narrative mechanics. Burning Empires is clearly a story game. You have GM and player turns and both side have specific rights and restrictions in respect to developing the story. Mouse Guard is an edge case, as though its runs primarily as an RPG, there are player turns where the players have the right to author story in a wide sense. Its much less often and specific than in Burning Empires, so you could read them up or down to allow players to compete for story or use them much like downtime in an RPG. The One Ring is clearly an RPG as despite having player turns, these turns simply codify the downtime aspects that have been in RPGs for decades.

Quote from: TristramEvans;669057The problem I have with the whole 'hybrid distinction, is I personally think any description of D&D, of any tsr edition, that labels the game as a hybrid RPG, makes the distinction absolutely meaningless.

I think that's a valid point. There are OOC tactical mechanics in OD&D as a legacy of its wargaming roots. I have seen RPGers argue to death that D&D is more a wargame than an RPG as a corollary of that. Though I agree that there is a level of tactical OOC engagement in D&D, I don't see this as making it not an RPG for the same reasons given above. Its just an RPG with a certain flavour (as all RPGs are).

Quote from: TristramEvans;669057I think the OP was spot on on several observations, but I also think its futile to try and reason with Pundit on such things once he's made up his mind. As others have said, its his site. Won't stop me from bitching or pointing out hi hipocrisy, but I don't expect him to suddenly go 'oh, hey, I was being an ignorant ass, you're perfectly free to discuss DW in conjunction with other rpgs.' and for my part I have no intention of deliberately starting any threads in the RPG forum about a game that Pundit has arbitrarily relegated to 'other games (would be nice to have a seperate forum for video games though).

FWIW I don't expect to convince Pundit either (nor do I see any reason to break the forums rules here). But, as you say, it doesn't stop me from attempting to present a better point of separation between these two forums.

Let's take another example, Fate. Fate is IMO an RPG, though a strongly narrative RPG. However, what if the rules were changed so that the GM only had a specified and limited the number of Fate Points he could use? I think this change would provide a strong argument that Fate was a story game as it creates OOC competition over directing and impacting the story through the introduction of mechanism for gaining advantage on an OOC level.

Roleplaying is just that, playing a role, inhabiting a persona that is not you.
When I sit down at a table, a lot of stuff happens.
When I bullshit about my week at work, I'm not Roleplaying.
When I look up a rule in a book, I'm not Roleplaying.
If I'm talking to another player about stuff our characters don't know, I'm not Roleplaying.
If I'm building the world through other then character actions, I'm not Roleplaying.
If I make decisions based on OOC reasons, I'm not Roleplaying.
At the end of the night someone asks me what I did, I'd say "Roleplaying".

Roleplaying as a general catch-all term for the hobby and Roleplaying meaning IC Immersion as a playstyle, as opposed to OOC playstyles are not the same thing.

FWIW, you are way overstating the levels of OOC engagement in earlier games, Skywalker, to the point of sophistry.  You might as well say choosing to wield a two-hander instead of a dagger in AD&D1 is CharOp like the idiot Denners used to.

Your mistake and it is indeed a mistake, is a common one.  In advocating for a playstyle you enjoy, you are attempting to give it unneeded false legitimacy by claiming that it was present from Day 1 in some form.  Specifically OOC engagement, in other words developing mechanics that clearly were not designed to be played from an IC perspective, because they were designed to deliver something in addition to attempts at simple simulation, were not present in RPGs really until genre emulation games came along.

You don't need the hedge language and supporting rhetorical points to give games that feature both Roleplaying and non-Roleplaying mechanics a historical place they did not have in order for the rest of your points to have merit.

Quote from: CRKrueger;669083Your mistake and it is indeed a mistake, is a common one.  In advocating for a playstyle you enjoy, you are attempting to give it unneeded false legitimacy by claiming that it was present from Day 1 in some form.  Specifically OOC engagement, in other words developing mechanics that clearly were not designed to be played from an IC perspective, because they were designed to deliver something in addition to attempts at simple simulation, were not present in RPGs really until genre emulation games came along.

You don't need the hedge language and supporting rhetorical points to give games that feature both Roleplaying and non-Roleplaying mechanics a historical place they did not have in order for the rest of your points to have merit.

I would say ooc mechanics have been with the hobby from day 1 ( well, the published side of things, the hobby started well before d&d ). XP (particularly XP for gold) , levels, alignment mechanics, class restrictions that come up in play, D&D was certainly never totally immersion-based, and even by the time of ad&d 2 e, it was largely the non-immersive and prevalent disassociativè mechanics that led my game group to become overwhelmingly dissatisfied and look to other rpgs.

I also personally think the notion of 'legitimacy' applied to anything to do with rpgs is a misnomer. There's no legitimacy to this hobby whatsoever, whether your a Hipster playing or&d retroclones or a grognard playing in the 30th year of a Tekumal campaign. D&D has no legitimacy. Its a very silly game for adults who like to play make pretend. The very silliest story game is no less legitimate than the most ocd old school d&d game, because zero x zero always remains zero. That said, in the 70s every group played rpgs differently. The idea that somewhere out there people weren't running story games or genre games seems unlikely to me, as up until Holmes and AD&D there was no one claiming there was a 'right way to play. It was literally a cargo-cult free-for-all, where 7 games on the same college campus would be played in 7 entirely different styles and the idea of 'R.A.W.' would have been laughed out of the den.

Quote from: CRKrueger;669083Roleplaying as a general catch-all term for the hobby and Roleplaying meaning IC Immersion as a playstyle, as opposed to OOC playstyles are not the same thing.

Roleplaying games is the general catch-all term for the hobby, not just roleplaying. And roleplaying games include a necessary interaction by the player with game elements to inhabit a PC.  

As an aside, I think there is an argument that live action roleplaying games developed largely to cater for RPGers with a strong preference for immersion/roleplaying above other elements. I have LARPing friends who argue that that form of RPGing creates stronger immersion by reducing the amount of things translated via game mechanics.

Quote from: CRKrueger defines roleplaying;669083Roleplaying is just that, playing a role, inhabiting a persona that is not you.
If I make decisions based on OOC reasons, I'm not Roleplaying.

Quote from: Someone asks Old Geezer a question about how Gary used to play D&DTo what extent were character decisions driven by tactics and player knowledge as compared to characterization?

Quote from: Old Geezer's response describing how the original RPG was played100% the former.

Link (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?633165-So&p=15592324#post15592324)

Oh please, this useless bullshit again.  I don't even play D&D anymore, but Christ.
There is a difference between abstraction that still attempts to model what is going on in the setting (even if not very well), and an OOC mechanic that has no in setting, in character function.

Abstraction is not Dissociation.  Please don't shit up Skywalkers thread with the Hit Point discussion again.  Let him take that shit himself if he wants to.

Quote from: soviet;669092Link (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?633165-So&p=15592324#post15592324)

Right, as I said in another thread, Old Geezer is a poster child for not Roleplaying while playing Roleplaying games.  That's the only reason he's still at awfulpurple, so they can trot him out now and then when needed, and put him out to pasture with a temporary ban when he says something embarrassing. The actual process of Roleplaying is different from the generic hobby title which I just said earlier.

Thanks for restating my points I guess?

Or maybe you want to post something other then Drive-By Moldy Oldies?

Quote from: TristramEvans;669057However, I think that the whole 'GM has less power or is relegated to the role of player is a tangential defined of story games. For one thing, it simply has nothing to do with 'story in and if itself. If you're going to call a type of game a 'storygame' than at the very least the term should be distinguishing the games primarily on the basis of 'story. Hence author view play vs role play.

That's a good point and one that I really have to front up and answer.

My answer is that when you create an OOC competition regarding story or narrative, you are turning the creation of the story itself into a game. Quite literally a "story-game". An obvious example of this is Happy Birthday Robot where you play a game to create a story. However, it also applies to the likes of PrimeTime Adventure where the mechanics are focussed on allowing the players to contribute to and contest the story and not playing characters. There is the act of roleplaying in PrimeTime Adventures, but the mechanics don't deal with that roleplaying.

I see both of these as distinct from how RPGs, even narrative RPGs, approach story IMO. The use of Fate points in WFRP are there to avoid the sensitive issue of untimely PC death arising from roleplaying a character, not to contest story or usurp the GM's role as arbiter of the rules or primary driver/creator of the story. Bennies that grant dramatic editing are about reinforcing roleplaying in a specific genre appropriate fashion. The Fate cycle in TBZ is there to improve communication between players/GM to and, by doing so, the roleplaying.

Quote from: CRKrueger;669093Oh please, this useless bullsht again.  I don't even play D&D anymore, but Christ.
There is a difference between abstraction that still attempts to model what is going on in the setting (even if not very well), and an OOC mechanic that has no in setting, in character function.

Abstraction is not Dissociation.  Please don't shit up Skywalkers thread with the Hit Point discussion again.  Let him take that shit himself if he wants to.

Well, no one in this thread has mentioned hit points yet besides yourself, and I agreeabstraction does not necessarily equal disassociation, but it can. And when it comes to XP, it largely does, especially the further back in editions one goes.

If your definition of roleplaying excludes the way that most people play roleplaying games, including the inventor of the hobby himself, then it seems to me your definition is probably wrong.

Quote from: TristramEvans;669096Well, no one in this thread has mentioned hit points yet besides yourself, and I agreeabstraction does not necessarily equal disassociation, but it can.

No. Correlation does not become causation just because you really, really, really, really want it to.

Quote from: Skywalker;669088Roleplaying games is the general catch-all term for the hobby, not just roleplaying. And roleplaying games include a necessary interaction by the player with game elements to inhabit a PC.  

As an aside, I think there is an argument that live action roleplaying games developed largely to cater for RPGers with a strong preference for immersion/roleplaying above other elements. I have LARPing friends who argue that that form of RPGing creates stronger immersion by reducing the amount of things translated via game mechanics.

Did you "play a Roleplaying game" or were you "Roleplaying".  The generic sense of Roleplaying being used to also cover processes that are not Roleplaying was the point which I'm sure you are aware of.  

Clever, but adding game doesn't mean that all mechanics are inherently OOC, thus those that can be engaged IC are no different the those that have to be engaged OOC.  Again, the Day1 thing is a non-starter.  Simply not true.

Most LARPers I knew in the Halcyon WW days didn't think there was much IC immersion, there was too little you could do because of the constraints of the medium, as well as it usually being a one-shot or short series.  The whole "living an alternate life" thing of deep IC immersion just wasn't there at all.

Quote from: Skywalker;669095That's a good point and one that I really have to front up and answer.

My answer is that when you create an OOC competition regarding story or narrative, you are turning the creation of the story itself into a game. Quite literally a "story-game". An obvious example of this is Happy Birthday Robot where you play a game to create a story. However, it also applies to the likes of PrimeTime Adventure where the mechanics are focussed on allowing the players to contribute to the story and not playing characters. There is the act of roleplaying in PrimeTime Adventures, but very little mechanics dealing with the roleplaying.

I see both of these as distinct from how RPGs, even narrative RPGs, approach story IMO. The use of Fate points in WFRP are there to avoid the sensitive issue of untimely PC death arising from roleplaying a character. Bennies that grant dramatic editing are about reinforcing the roleplaying of a character in a specific genre appropriate fashion.

I think you're correct on that one, in that there's no way a story game as a rules set can exist without rredistributing the GM's power, though perhaps then simply the CT of 'story-gming' exists sepertely from story games, in that its possible to play d&d as a story game, even without specific support from the rules (meaning the DM maintains authority and duties, but the players themselves are making decisions entirely from the pov of 'what's works best or the story rather than 'what would I do if I was this character in this situation.'. But I think you're correct this alone cant distinguish one game from another, as its equally true of the 'dungeon swat team style, I guess it comes down to what a rules set enforces or prohibits, rather than what it allows or encourages.

Quote from: soviet;669098If your definition of roleplaying excludes the way that most people play roleplaying games, including the inventor of the hobby himself, then it seems to me your definition is probably wrong.

And the definition of Roleplaying you would use includes mechanics that force you to not roleplay and weren't even present when the hobby was invented.  That makes sense though right, simply because you like it.

Quote from: CRKrueger;669100Did you "play a Roleplaying game" or were you "Roleplaying".

Playing a roleplaying game. A part of that hobby, possibly even its main goal, is roleplaying.

Quote from: CRKrueger;669100Clever, but adding game doesn't mean that all mechanics are inherently OOC, thus those that can be engaged IC are no different the those that have to be engaged OOC.  Again, the Day1 thing is a non-starter.  Simply not true.

I am not arguing that roleplaying games must engage players through mechanics. There are many mechanics that are designed to solely evaluate IC actions. You can dial it up and down considerably. The point I am trying to make is that such mechanics aren't antithetical to roleplaying games, such that their inclusion makes them not roleplaying games anymore.

The concept of developing mechanics to engage a player OOC is a natural development of what RPGs are, but I agree it is not a necessary one. Its just one flavour of RPGs.

Quote from: CRKrueger;669100Most LARPers I knew in the Halcyon WW days didn't think there was much IC immersion, there was too little you could do because of the constraints of the medium, as well as it usually being a one-shot or short series.  The whole "living an alternate life" thing of deep IC immersion just wasn't there at all.

Yes, a lot of WoD Larping was pretty casual :) but they are not necessarily representative of LARPing as a whole. The LARP movement around here spend months on costuming, props, set dressing, developing un-intrusive rules, character backgrounds and increasing the length of their games to increase their levels of immersion. Its not something I am interested in, but their methods and reasons are logical.

Quote from: CRKrueger;669103And the definition of Roleplaying you would use includes mechanics that force you to not roleplay and weren't even present when the hobby was invented.  That makes sense though right, simply because you like it.

I don't define roleplaying as simply method acting, so no.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;669099No. Correlation does not become causation just because you really, really, really, really want it to.

It's a good thing it has nothing to do with what I want, or even really really really want Rpg Spice, and my statement is based on plain , undeniable reality then. "I'm the bestest swordsman in the world because I has the most gold" that's not an abstraction of reality nor does it correlate to any reality I've ever lived in.

Quote from: Skywalker;669105Playing a roleplaying game. A part of that hobby, possibly even its main goal, is roleplaying.



I am not arguing that roleplaying games must engage players through mechanics. There are many mechanics that are designed to solely evaluate IC actions. You can dial it up and down considerably. The point I am trying to make is that such mechanics aren't antithetical to roleplaying games, such that their inclusion makes them not roleplaying games anymore.

The concept of developing mechanics to engage a player OOC is a natural development of what RPGs are, but I agree it is not a necessary one. Its just one flavour of RPGs.

Now we're back to where JKim and I were with the percentage of shit in the sandwich, ketchup in the wine or what have you.   How many anti-roleplay mechanics does a game have to have in order for it to be not an RPG?  I don't care about that.  However, it is very hard for me to buy calling a game in which fundamental core mechanical decisions are made OOC as a traditional Roleplaying game, or a Roleplaying game in the same class as Traveller or Runequest.
People have asked me about Dungeon World, I tell them it's an RPG with narrative mechanics to better facilitate a type of collaborative storytelling based on old school dungeon exploration.  I've not read a single word in the book that contradicts that definition, and every page I've read has reinforced it through the author's own words and the mechanics itself.
Is DW a Storygame? No.
Is it a traditional or old school game?  Not by any possible stretch of the definition.

Quote from: soviet;669106I don't define roleplaying as simply method acting, so no.

What you mean is you don't define role-playing as playing a role.  Cool Story Bro!

Quote from: CRKrueger;669113What you mean is you don't define role-playing as playing a role.  Cool Story Bro!

Is an actor playing a role if he makes decisions based on what the director said or what he thinks will be most interesting rather than based on what the character itself would definitely do?

Quote from: CRKrueger;669112How many anti-roleplay mechanics does a game have to have in order for it to be not an RPG?

I don't think there is an answer to that question. If the purpose of the game is for players to play a character, then I don't think the use of OOC mechanics prevent it from being an RPG, no. It can be a flavour, even a strong flavour of an RPG.

Quote from: CRKrueger;669112Is DW a Storygame? No.
Is it a traditional or old school game?  Not by any possible stretch of the definition.

I agree. Its an RPG with modern rules.

Back to the separation: we both know on this site there will be no change. Pundit gives people a place where they can talk about non-traditional RPGs and doesn't give a shit if no one likes it.  As Ramon said, on this site it matters less then any other due to the forumless New Posts section.

Even if we did get Pundit to open up a new forum for Narrative RPGs, people would still go apeshit because he wouldn't put FATE there.  Why?  Because you chop out all narrative OOC stuff from FATE, there is still a perfectly useable game system there.  You remove the OOC mechanics from MHR, there is no game left.

Could things be separated better, sure, but that would be on a site that was set up to cover the whole hobby, not set up as a reaction against a civil war started within the hobby.

I think a better way to go about it might be to see what games people would put in different categories and why.

Quote from: CRKrueger;669113What you mean is you don't define role-playing as playing a role.  Cool Story Bro!

I think the act of role-playing' is literally playing a role. I think role playing games comprise much more than that, otherwise system would be unnecessary. I can sit around and method àct with friends for hours without once playing an RPG. I think rpgs are what happens when method acting meets wargamming, and its not totally one thing nor the other, just as I think a game like Smallville is not simply a variation of Once Upon a Time or Baron Munchausen. Sô I guess it çeases to be an RPG for me, not because a game includes elements besides method acting, but when it completely excludes that element.

I think I agree with you, TE.

My only comment is that the "exclusion" of the element can't mean that it doesn't exist as you can roleplay your Barbarian in HeroQuest, for example. It is more likely to be an exclusion of that element in terms of the mechanics and/or in the purpose of the game itself.

Quote from: soviet;669114Is an actor playing a role if he makes decisions based on what the director said or what he thinks will be most interesting rather than based on what the character itself would definitely do?

An actor is acting, and there are different schools, ask Alexander, he's a professional.  BTW, Scorcese is famous for letting his actors get into the characters and just go for it, and he's not alone.

If you're tired of trying to declare Roleplaying as not playing a role, maybe you want to join in on the actual discussion in the thread.

Quote from: CRKrueger;669123An actor is acting, and there are different schools, ask Alexander, he's a professional.  BTW, Scorcese is famous for letting his actors get into the characters and just go for it, and he's not alone.

If you're tired of trying to declare Roleplaying as not playing a role, maybe you want to join in on the actual discussion in the thread.

You are trying to define method acting as the only valid form of acting and you are wrong.

Quote from: CRKrueger;669117Back to the separation: we both know on this site there will be no change.

I totally agree. :)

FWIW the point of this thread was simply to present an alternative for people to consider, rather than just have this forum being about defending specific RPGs.

Quote from: CRKruegerEven if we did get Pundit to open up a new forum for Narrative RPGs, people would still go apeshit because he wouldn't put FATE there.  Why?  Because you chop out all narrative OOC stuff from FATE, there is still a perfectly useable game system there.  You remove the OOC mechanics from MHR, there is no game left.[\quote]

That's a distinction I'd have no issue with. Its that Pundit's distinctions don't follow any universal rationale that I can perceive that causes me to bitch. Futilely, I'm aware, but the same goes for any geek bitching, whether its about superhero films or the descent of rpgnet into a haven for entitled emotionally-stunted wankers. Sometimes its just fun to vent.

QuoteCould things be separated better, sure, but that would be on a site that was set up to cover the whole hobby, not set up as a reaction against a civil war started within the hobby.

Does that civil war exist outside of the Pundit's imagination?

QuoteI think a better way to go about it might be to see what games people would put in different categories and why.

I agree that might be interesting. I'm going to get to work on my list. As I only p include games I've read/played it certainly won't be an exhaustive list of non-rphough.

Quote from: TristramEvans;669119I think the act of role-playing' is literally playing a role. I think role playing games comprise much more than that, otherwise system would be unnecessary. I can sit around and method àct with friends for hours without once playing an RPG. I think rpgs are what happens when method acting meets wargamming, and its not totally one thing nor the other, just as I think a game like Smallville is not simply a variation of Once Upon a Time or Baron Munchausen. Sô I guess it çeases to be an RPG for me, not because a game includes elements besides method acting, but when it completely excludes that element.

I first heard Roleplaying described as playing pretend with rules.  The first iteration was a man-to-man wargame really, but by the time we started calling it Dungeons and Dragons we had a setting of fantasy trappings that made it easy to take on the persona of a character in that world and mechanical rules to determine the outcome of tasks.

Sure a Roleplaying game is more then just Roleplaying, it is also the game.  But when you start having a game where more and more rules are used OOC while not Roleplaying... I know you see where I'm going.

Quote from: soviet;669124You are trying to define method acting as the only valid form of acting and you are wrong.

Yeah that's why I mentioned different schools of acting, and said actors act, not roleplay.:rolleyes:

To extend the useless analogy, No, actually you're trying to include not acting into the definition of acting. ;)

Quote from: Skywalker;669122I think I agree with you, TE.

My only comment is that the "exclusion" of the element can't mean that it doesn't exist as you can roleplay your Barbarian in HeroQuest, for example. It is more likely to be an exclusion of that element in terms of the mechanics and/or in the purpose of the game itself.

Yeah, hat reminds of one fellow on rpgnet arguing that one 'could roleplay their piece in Monopoly. Perhaps then the divider is something along the lines of where 'role playing isn't the primary purpose of the game. Again, though, that might be tricky to define specifically. In MHR is one spending less than 50% of their time role playing their character? This could easily vary from group to group even playing R AW.

Quote from: CRKrueger;669130I first heard Roleplaying described as playing pretend with rules.  The first iteration was a man-to-man wargame really, but by the time we started calling it Dungeons and Dragons we had a setting of fantasy trappings that made it easy to take on the persona of a character in that world and mechanical rules to determine the outcome of tasks.

Sure a Roleplaying game is more then just Roleplaying, it is also the game.  But when you start having a game where more and more rules are used OOC while not Roleplaying... I know you see where I'm going.

Yeah, I think we just arrived at the same spot I just mentioned. Role play should be the primary purpose of an RPG, but that's going to be tricky to determine with any exactitude.

Quote from: CRKrueger;669131Yeah that's why I mentioned different schools of acting, and said actors act, not roleplay.:rolleyes:

To extend the useless analogy, No, actually you're trying to include not acting into the definition of acting. ;)

No, I'm not. Let's bring this back to roleplaying.

Three people are playing in a D&D game. A bunch of orcs come round the corner and start a fight. Each player says some dialogue in character, describes some cool action or manoeuvre, and rolls the relevant dice. To an outside observer all of the dialogue and description was of the same standard.

Player A ran in and charged orc 1 with his spear primarily because that's what he thought his character would do based on his personality and background.

Player B ran in and tripped up orc 2 with his morning star primarily because that's the most mechanically efficient thing to do in a fight like this.

Player C ran in and smashed a nearby urn over the head of orc 3 primarily because he thought it would be a cool and cinematic thing to do.

Again, all of the players provided a convincing bit of dialogue and description, and to an outside observer (including the GM and the other players) they were of the same quality. Their exact motivations are unknown to anyone else.

Which of these people do you think were roleplaying?

Quote from: TristramEvans;669133In MHR is one spending less than 50% of their time role playing their character? This could easily vary from group to group even playing R AW.

I agree, but I am happy to examine and argue each game, rather than making sweeping statements to avoid arguments :)

In terms of MHR, I think that narratively it is an RPG. Where it may be distinguished, if anywhere, is in its tactical combat system. Though you continue to play characters whilst engaging with the combat system, the combination of mechanical advantages to be won by the players and the GM's restriction a limited resource mechanic changes the purpose of the mechanics. The players and Watcher are now encouraged mechanically only to compete against the opposing player/Watcher to obtain "in-game" advantage. There is no such advantage for just playing their character (though the player can chose to do so). This is analogous to playing a board game like Descent.

My experiences with MHR support this in that though I enjoyed running/playing it, there was a definite shift during each combat that didn't sit well with me at the time.

FWIW the main reason I am reluctant to use CRK's term "Hybrid" for Tactical RPGs and Narrative RPGs, is that there are games where they may actually switch purpose like this during play. This is what I would consider a true Hybrid game.

The problem is these fictional lines in the sand are entirely arbitrary. I play OD&D with no supplements, which makes a lot of rulings OOC. My players add rulings, it's totally collaborative. We have no defined world pre-game and the story is whatever the player decide at the time. It's totally improvised. By all the bullshit definitions this style of OD&D is a storygame. If something can be played as an "rpg" and "story game" then that's a playstyle not an entirely different game.

FWIW your approach to OD&D would be an RPG IMO for reasons set out above and not a story-game. But I think your example supports the idea that OOC engagement alone is an arbitrary point of distinction given how RPGs have been played for decades.

Quote from: Kanye Westeros;669162The problem is these fictional lines in the sand are entirely arbitrary. I play OD&D with no supplements, which makes a lot of rulings OOC. My players add rulings, it's totally collaborative. We have no defined world pre-game and the story is whatever the player decide at the time. It's totally improvised. By all the bullshit definitions this style of OD&D is a storygame. If something can be played as an "rpg" and "story game" then that's a playstyle not an entirely different game.

See I sort of agree and that's what I was referencing when I mentioned 'storygaming' as a way of playing earlier. When I think of story games as a word to describe something separate from rpgs, and not in a derogatory manner, I'm talking about things like Baron Munchausen ( which is really a drinking game that parodies rpgs of the 90s) and Smallvillee ( which is a nifty excercize in soap opera metaplot development, but if any role playing is taking place its at best incidental to the rules). I assume there must be more games like that out there, since they seem to intimidate certain 'traditional roleplayers' ( meaning, for the most part, 'the way I roleplayed with my friends in the 80s, and obviously our tree fort was the best). But honestly I've encountered very few myself, unless we include a bunch of free 'avant-garde' rpgs online that I tend to doubt ever got played or were intended to be, but were rather clever nonetheless.

Quote from: TristramEvans;669133Yeah, hat reminds of one fellow on rpgnet arguing that one 'could roleplay their piece in Monopoly. Perhaps then the divider is something along the lines of where 'role playing isn't the primary purpose of the game. Again, though, that might be tricky to define specifically. In MHR is one spending less than 50% of their time role playing their character? This could easily vary from group to group even playing R AW.

There was a moderately interesting thread on story-games.com a few weeks back where they put up a good point re. that one: Monopoly fails to be an RPG because no matter how good your silly voice is, your pyromaniac tycoon can't burn down hotels to cost the competition rent - the fiction layer doesn't affect the mechanical layer (because that is so limited).

Quote from: Skywalker;669165FWIW your approach to OD&D would be an RPG IMO for reasons set out above and not a story-game. But I think your example supports the idea that OOC engagement alone is an arbitrary point of distinction given how RPGs have been played for decades.

The difference of course being that since OD&D has no specifically tailored OOC mechanics, you can play it any way you choose, which I said a ways back.  Games with specifically tailored OOC mechanics force the issue and do not allow you to be IC when engaging them, which is fine, because that's why they were designed that way, to stress the OOC mechanics that game uses.  Now we're back to a game that is designed for certain reasons to force a non-immersive stance when engaging the mechanics being called an RPG the same as a game which can be played 100% IC.

IC, OOC, one of these things is not like the other.

You're never gonna slip the idea past that specifically designed OOC mechanics can't or shouldn't be a classification point in RPGs, which unless you're going with Bizarro definition, should at least allow IC roleplaying.

Keep trying though.  Maybe the 15th time, I'll miss it. ;)

Quote from: CRKrueger;669182The difference of course being that since OD&D has no specifically tailored OOC mechanics, you can play it any way you choose, which I said a ways back.  Games with specifically tailored OOC mechanics force the issue and do not allow you to be IC when engaging them.

I addressed this in my OP, and I don't think we disagree on this point (I think there are a number of arguable edge cases even in the earliest RPGs).

However, I certainly don't think Kanye's approach to OD&D is an unnatural or distinct way of approaching OD&D or RPGs in general.

I have to congratulate Skywalker; the OP is a really brilliant example of manipulation and control of language; subtly attempting to set implicit parameters and definitions right from the start (saying, without every explicitly stating it, that Storygames are RPGs, for example; and creating an excellent strawman in the way he expresses the correct distinction between RPGs and Storygames), so that any attempt to address the OP on its terms requires already conceding all of the major ground in the rhetorical battle.

I have to say, you're much better at this than most of the guys on your side in these recent threads; I bet you've groaned internally once or twice these past few days when one of their clumsy tactics just sets your whole side up to take a hit...

Even so, not good enough.  Controlling language only works if no one on the other side realizes that's what you're trying to do; and since its been the only real weapon in the Story-Swine arsenal for something like a decade now, that particular jig is long since up.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;669178There was a moderately interesting thread on story-games.com a few weeks back where they put up a good point re. that one: Monopoly fails to be an RPG because no matter how good your silly voice is, your pyromaniac tycoon can't burn down hotels to cost the competition rent - the fiction layer doesn't affect the mechanical layer (because that is so limited).

Well that's a good point. Honestly I didn't make it past the 'sentient sèlf-mobile shoe that owns property.

Quote from: CRKrueger;669182The difference of course being that since OD&D has no specifically tailored OOC mechanics, you can play it any way you choose, which I said a ways back.  Games with specifically tailored OOC mechanics force the issue and do not allow you to be IC when engaging them, which is fine, because that's why they were designed that way, to stress the OOC mechanics that game uses.  Now we're back to a game that is designed for certain reasons to force a non-immersive stance when engaging the mechanics being called an RPG the same as a game which can be played 100% IC.

IC, OOC, one of these things is not like the other.

You're never gonna slip the idea past that specifically designed OOC mechanics can't or shouldn't be a classification point in RPGs, which unless you're going with Bizarro definition, should at least allow IC roleplaying.

Keep trying though.  Maybe the 15th time, I'll miss it. ;)

That's crap. So if I publish my houserules that enable me to play the way I like then it should not be called an rpg? Mechanics are tools, they don't force anything.

IC/OOC is just about perspective. What you consider a mechanic with no fictional or character rationalisation, someone else might. 4E is a great example of that. There are a number of ways powers can be interpreted.

Quote from: Rincewind1;669011I apologise for the unnecessary troll post, but the title of this thread makes it impossible for me to pass on this opportunity:

So, should we start singing "In RPGsiteland we'll take our stand"?

Pretty much.

Quote from: RPGPundit;669189I have to congratulate Skywalker; the OP is a really brilliant example of manipulation and control of language; subtly attempting to set implicit parameters and definitions right from the start (saying, without every explicitly stating it, that Storygames are RPGs, for example; and creating an excellent strawman in the way he expresses the correct distinction between RPGs and Storygames), so that any attempt to address the OP on its terms requires already conceding all of the major ground in the rhetorical battle.

I have to say, you're much better at this than most of the guys on your side in these recent threads; I bet you've groaned internally once or twice these past few days when one of their clumsy tactics just sets your whole side up to take a hit...

Even so, not good enough.  Controlling language only works if no one on the other side realizes that's what you're trying to do; and since its been the only real weapon in the Story-Swine arsenal for something like a decade now, that particular jig is long since up.

RPGPundit

Yup. IC/OOC mechanics aside, when looking at a game as a whole, what is the main focus/goal of play beyond " have fun" that can be implied for any leisure activity?

Are players primarily trying to construct a narrative or story through the medium of the game? If so then its a narrative rpg/storygame.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;669284Yup. IC/OOC mechanics aside, when looking at a game as a whole, what is the main focus/goal of play beyond " have fun" that can be implied for any leisure activity?

Are players primarily trying to construct a narrative or story through the medium of the game? If so then its a narrative rpg/storygame.

That's my standard evaluation, with the caveat that it matters if a game just says that's the stated goal (white wolf), or if the rules actually are designed around that premise. The former is so common among even trade rpgs, that its almost inconsequential. The latter is so rare I can count those games I've encountered on one hand thus far.

I feel like I just wandered into a session of the Cosmic Enlightened Gentlemen arguing with the Celestial Exaggerated Gentry over the metaphysical rules of Ancient Atlantis mixed with jelly.

In other words, "WTHF* are you guys talking about?!!"

This is the most confusing thread I've ever read.

* - What The Holy Fark (can we curse on these boards?)

Quote from: KJDavid;669473* - What The Holy Fark (can we curse on these boards?)

Curse away and welcome! :)

Quote from: Kanye Westeros;669224That's crap. So if I publish my houserules that enable me to play the way I like then it should not be called an rpg? Mechanics are tools, they don't force anything.

Yes. Mechanics are just tools. The decision to tailor yours towards playing a traditional rpg or a narrative/storygame one is yours alone. You can choose to make them loose enough to leave it open ended (much like published OD&D) or bring one style or the other into sharp focus. Its really just a question of what you enjoy most.

Quote from: Kanye Westeros;669224IC/OOC is just about perspective. What you consider a mechanic with no fictional or character rationalisation, someone else might. 4E is a great example of that. There are a number of ways powers can be interpreted.

Some mechanics are borderline. Others (like action points) are purely metagame constructs and send the game they are attached to right into narrative country.

WTF is a "martial power source" anyway? Is there a way that a character could understand it without it just being magic with the bar code filed off? When a fighter uses "Come and get it" how does it operate as the character understands it?  Constructs without a brain come running, as do mindless undead and slimes without enough of a brain to even be self-aware so it can hardly be a taunt.

ITS MAGIC!!!!   But fighters aren't wizards so that can't be. Oh my!

Its simply a jarring implementation of mechanics before world in action.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;669491Yes. Mechanics are just tools. The decision to tailor yours towards playing a traditional rpg or a narrative/storygame one is yours alone. You can choose to make them loose enough to leave it open ended (much like published OD&D) or bring one style or the other into sharp focus. Its really just a question of what you enjoy most.



Some mechanics are borderline. Others (like action points) are purely metagame constructs and send the game they are attached to right into narrative country.

WTF is a "martial power source" anyway? Is there a way that a character could understand it without it just being magic with the bar code filed off? When a fighter uses "Come and get it" how does it operate as the character understands it?  Constructs without a brain come running, as do mindless undead and slimes without enough of a brain to even be self-aware so it can hardly be a taunt.

ITS MAGIC!!!!   But fighters aren't wizards so that can't be. Oh my!

Its simply a jarring implementation of mechanics before world in action.

But it doesn't matter it's magic since wizards can cast fireballs, get with the program you locker - stuck nerd. Why do you hate jocks so much?

Yes, what I enjoy most not a question of rpg or 'story game'. Action points provide the same mechanical purpose that fate points or drama points do. This mechanic can be interpreted IC 'fate of the gods' or otherwise. It does not change the function of the mechanic.

All throughout these discussions, I've seen people taking a mechanic like warhammer's fate points and be accused of 'reaching', well now what is to stop me from doing the same here with come and get it? Is that all you got?

A martial source is easily justifiable in character. Anybody who has experience with physical violence can attest to that. There is a well you tap into, when you need it. In my youth I practiced muy thai and although the experience is hard to articulate, there is a definitive power-source. Some people call it heart, some people call it will, some call it qi, etc

Or a martial source is just a mechanic framework which allows the fighter-types to do cool things while on the combat grid both to promote tactical options and keep things interesting for the player moving the piece around on the grid.

Whichever way you take it, it is perspective.

Quote from: Kanye Westeros;669519Yes, what I enjoy most not a question of rpg or 'story game'. Action points provide the same mechanical purpose that fate points or drama points do. This mechanic can be interpreted IC 'fate of the gods' or otherwise. It does not change the function of the mechanic.

All throughout these discussions, I've seen people taking a mechanic like warhammer's fate points and be accused of 'reaching', well now what is to stop me from doing the same here with come and get it? Is that all you got?

A martial source is easily justifiable in character. Anybody who has experience with physical violence can attest to that. There is a well you tap into, when you need it. In my youth I practiced muy thai and although the experience is hard to articulate, there is a definitive power-source. Some people call it heart, some people call it will, some call it qi, etc

Or a martial source is just a mechanic framework which allows the fighter-types to do cool things while on the combat grid both to promote tactical options and keep things interesting for the player moving the piece around on the grid.

Whichever way you take it, it is perspective.

You may certainly call your home rules whatever you wish. When publishing a game/ rules with the intention that others will use them, proper identification of game type is more important in order to reach the intended audience.

In the same way we tag games with a given genre, such as fantasy or space opera, it is helpful to identify the feel of a game based on the role the players assume. Is the game primarily about cooperatively creating stories or not?  This helps prospective players find the games that might appeal to them easier without wasting their time.

If I am out looking for a game in the pulp genre that will give me the feel of Raiders of The Lost Ark at the table then I am looking for a particular experience and a narrative rules focused game is more likely to give me that.

Without knowing which games provide that kind of focus I may end up wasting time combing through games filled with simulationist rules that may be fine games........just not what I'm looking for.

Putting all types of rpg into the same bin would be like a bookstore putting ALL fiction in one section (fantasy, science fiction, mystery, romance) and not alphabetizing by author.

All fiction is lumped into the same category, fiction. Genre is based on a set of codes and conventions, at least in media studies, a sub-genre is only created when there is significant divergence from it's root but even so, it is not divorced from that root. Meaning, it becomes a sub-genre not a totally different genre.

Fantasy, space opera etc are all speculative fiction. These games we talk about are all roleplaying games. If you wish to split them up into "sub-genres", the that is your deal but to try a split them up into different hobbies is absurd, just as your analogy is misunderstood.

Quote from: Kanye Westeros;669527All fiction is lumped into the same category, fiction. Genre is based on a set of codes and conventions, at least in media studies, a sub-genre is only created when there is significant divergence from it's root but even so, it is not divorced from that root. Meaning, it becomes a sub-genre not a totally different genre.

Fantasy, space opera etc are all speculative fiction. These games we talk about are all roleplaying games. If you wish to split them up into "sub-genres", the that is your deal but to try a split them up into different hobbies is absurd, just as your analogy is misunderstood.

This.

Quote from: Kanye Westeros;669527All fiction is lumped into the same category, fiction. Genre is based on a set of codes and conventions, at least in media studies, a sub-genre is only created when there is significant divergence from it's root but even so, it is not divorced from that root. Meaning, it becomes a sub-genre not a totally different genre.

Fantasy, space opera etc are all speculative fiction. These games we talk about are all roleplaying games. If you wish to split them up into "sub-genres", the that is your deal but to try a split them up into different hobbies is absurd, just as your analogy is misunderstood.

Whatever works for you. Of course games that aren't up front regarding what they are about get treated like movies that won't show you what the hell the movie is about in the trailer- it gets mentally tossed into the wait for video bin.

There is far too much being offered in all forms of entertainment media for vague content to get much traction.

EDIT:  What I am talking about DOES involve sub-genres. A narrative based rpg is still an rpg. The difference is in the nature of the role adopted by the player. Is the player assuming the role of an inhabitant of a fictional world (traditional rpg) or the role of co-storyteller based on the perspective of an inhabitant of a fictional world (narrative rpg)

I find that claim very hard to swallow and I don't see the connection between vague trailers and roleplaying games. The success of a film has little to do with the focus of it's trailer.

Also, just because something doesn't conform to your connotations, does not mean it is vague. That is your judgemental value and not a fact.

I reject your statement that traditionally roleplaying is the inhabitation of a fictional world. I maintain that all these "sub-genres" have always been apart of the hobby. You can see this in the decisive split in the approach of Arneson and Gygax.

Besides, this whole shit-storm wasn't started for commercial reasons. The forge, much like the pundit, was pseudo-academic. They took playstyles and decided that they could create a framework in which better games could be designed.

Quote from: Kanye Westeros;669533Besides, this whole shit-storm wasn't started for commercial reasons. The forge, much like the pundit, was pseudo-academic. They took playstyles and decided that they could create a framework in which better games could be designed.

Better games? Fuck no.

Different games yes.

Well if you are of the opinion that the forge produced objectively better games than any that had come before I can abandon all attempts at logic and reason and ignore your ramblings.

Sure, you can bow out by trying to paint yourself the bastion of logic and reason but I am not the forge, I was never a member of the forge. Stating the forge's intentions is not a claim, objective or otherwise.

The Forge is dead, and inconsequential. It has no relevance to the real world, and you can take that to mean real life or the future of the RPG hobby. Yes, I know people are still all butthurt that some Indy game designer decided to hijack threefold theory and turn it into an exercise in pseudo-intellectual online circle-jerking, but still bawling about it this many years later is just a form of self-righteous masturbation in and of itself.

'I was never a member of the communist party, Mr. MacArthur, no sir.'
'Then how do you explain all your monopoly game pieces being painted...red?!'

Quote from: Kanye Westeros;669537Sure, you can bow out by trying to paint yourself the bastion of logic and reason but I am not the forge, I was never a member of the forge. Stating the forge's intentions is not a claim, objective or otherwise.

Ok fair enough, you are not a forge-ite. Garden variety idiot will have to suffice I suppose.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;669542Ok fair enough, you are not a forge-ite. Garden variety idiot will have to suffice I suppose.

Youre out of arguments. Ok, we got it.

Quote from: Skywalker;668979For some RPGers, the use of player engagement can have a positive impact on the IC play by strengthening the bond between the player and character. For example, there have been OOC mechanics of a tactical nature that directly translate tension and excitement of the character in combat to the player. There have been OOC mechanics of a narrative nature also, providing dramatic editing, conveying genre, avoiding sensitive issues like untimely character death, and improving player/GM communication. There has also been developments for OOC methods to help immerse a player in their PC, such as handouts, music, costuming and (on a mechanics level) LARPing.    

Examples?
Re-reading the OP I'm not sure both sides of the argument here even have the same definitions of 'in-character' and 'out of character'.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;669602Examples?
Re-reading the OP I'm not sure both sides of the argument here even have the same definitions of 'in-character' and 'out of character'.

In terms of just the OOC tactical mechanics:

I think D&D4e is an example of this. The combat system is a tense and exciting tactical exercise for the player (some of it relates specifically to the character but a lot of it doesn't). Fans of the approach would feel that the tension they feel brings them closer to how their character may feel in that situation. Alternatively, a player may feel dissociated from the character using a dicefest combat system with no tension at all.

A more subtle example (and possibly more narrative one) is Double Cross, where there is IMO a great resource management mechanic that the PC pushes over the line during the game for greater power. However, if the PC can't get it back under 100% after a period of time, the PC is lost to madness. At the end of the session, there is a series of choices for the player regarding pulling back from the brink, but its always risky to do so. The mechanics are translating the feeling of risk OOC of losing the PC into a similar feeling of IC risk of the PC losing sanity.

A more extreme example is Dread that uses a Jenga tower to create a tension at a player which some players feel that it gets them closer to the actual tension felt by the character.

If you want to include the OOC narrative mechanics that come next on the list, then there are a whole lot more. They include "genre mechanics" which assist a player in playing a character consistent with the genre for the RPG.

I consider 'IC' to be any desicion made in character, taking the game world as 'real into account, and ignoring all knowledge of The Game.

I consider OOC any point in the game when I'm thinking of it as a game or with any awareness of the rules.

In fact its a lot like The Game...

(http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/you-just-lost-the-game.jpg)

Quote from: Skywalker;669605In terms of just the OOC tactical mechanics:

I think D&D4e is an example of this. The combat system is a tense and exciting tactical exercise for the player (some of it relates specifically to the character but a lot of it doesn't). Fans of the approach would feel that the tension they feel brings them closer to how their character may feel in that situation. Alternatively, a player may feel dissociated from the character using a dicefest combat system with no tension at all.

A more subtle example (and possibly more narrative one) is Double Cross, where there is IMO a great resource management mechanic that the PC pushes over the line during the game for greater power. However, if the PC can't get it back under 100% after a period of time, the PC is lost to madness. At the end of the session, there is a series of choices for the player regarding pulling back from the brink, but its always risky to do so. The mechanics are translating the feeling of risk OOC of losing the PC into a similar feeling of IC risk of the PC losing sanity.

A more extreme example is Dread that uses a Jenga tower to create a tension at a player which some players feel that it gets them closer to the actual tension felt by the character.

If you want to include the OOC narrative mechanics that come next on the list, then there are a whole lot more. They include "genre mechanics" which assist a player in playing a character consistent with the genre for the RPG.

What I was thinking of, when you mentioned it, was the old practice of rolling dice behind the GM screen while chuckling evilly. Hopefully helping the players feel some in-character tension, albeit using dice rolls which the character isn't aware of.

4E is tricky in that even if you feel more excited/tense and that feeling is in character, you're simultaneously losing the ability to have in-character decision making, for the most part, since fundamentals like how often a power can be used aren't explicable in character (or fully applying that explanation gives results at odds with the rules).

In that respect it may look good compared to dull 'I attack the orc' type combat, but, this is more showing that combat of that type is problematic because it also removes a bunch of in-character decisions or problems (such as damage to hit locations), hiding them beneath the abstraction level of the system. A lot of the old school people would, I imagine, spice up D&D combats with many more circumstance-based or ad hoc rulings as necessary; myself I'm very fond of the Fighter's Handbook in 2E.  

Dread I will have to reserve judgment on. The tower seems like it would help build tension but the game itself must be quite limited in scope if tension is inevitably going to escalate.

Anyway, I'll grant mechanics can help build mood or feeling that's character-appropriate - on occasion - I'd still dispute that 'dramatic editing' can do this - more likely the reverse.
I don't know that I'd call handouts, music, costuming or LARPing ooc exactly. Certainly not in any way that excuses narrative editing or the like. I'm not sure you can explicitly define mechanics or things as IC/OOC without saying in respect to what (decision making being perhaps the main thing getting discussed with respect to Volley or the like).

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;669616What I was thinking of, when you mentioned it, was the old practice of rolling dice behind the GM screen while chuckling evilly. Hopefully helping the players feel some in-character tension, albeit using dice rolls which the character isn't aware of.

OOC methods for IC effect have been around as long as RPGs have. OOC mechanics followed soon after and are a development of those methods IMO.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;6696164E is tricky in that even if you feel more excited/tense and that feeling is in character, you're simultaneously losing the ability to have in-character decision making, for the most part, since fundamentals like how often a power can be used aren't explicable in character (or fully applying that explanation gives results at odds with the rules).

It depends. If you can closely align the OOC mechanic with IC decision making, or such that its not related to the IC decision making (being tense isn't a part of the character's decisions in combat), you can gain more than you lose IME.

Tolerance to these methods has, as always, been a personal matter. They work for some people and others find them distracting. The only point really made in this thread is that the method itself is not antithetical to RPGs.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;669616Anyway, I'll grant mechanics can help build mood or feeling that's character-appropriate - on occasion - I'd still dispute that 'dramatic editing' can do this - more likely the reverse.

I guess it depends on the extent of that editing. Most dramatic editing is limited to try and add an element of "cool" that exists in some genres but not in the real world like pulp.

The example that first pops into my head is the one in Dying Earth RPG where a player gets to create witty retorts which they give to the GM before the session. The GM is encouraged to try and provide opportunities for these to be used in game. The mechanic is definitely OOC (and IMO overly intrusive and not well designed). But I can see how it trying to help create the mood of the Dying Earth setting for playing characters :) Say what you will about the mechanic though, again the only point being made is just that IMO these methods and mechanics don't make an RPG not an RPG.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;6696164E is tricky in that even if you feel more excited/tense and that feeling is in character, you're simultaneously losing the ability to have in-character decision making, for the most part, since fundamentals like how often a power can be used aren't explicable in character (or fully applying that explanation gives results at odds with the rules).

Not really. Everyone has limits, that goes double when we're talking about physical exertion. Power limits can definitely be understood in character. This analogy is only strengthened given the Second Wind mechanic, which can represent breaking through that exertion temporally.

Quote from: Skywalker;669619It depends. If you can closely align the OOC mechanic with IC decision making, or such that its not related to the IC decision making (being tense isn't a part of the character's decisions in combat), you can gain more than you lose IME.

Gain more than you lose compared to what? Its very easy to imagine a combat system giving reasonable tactical options and tension without the bizzarities of totally abstract hit points and arbitrariness of 1/use encounter powers. I don't particularly want just rolls to hit and 5 minute combats either, but these ooc elements aren't necessary and represent an undesireable line of development, IMHO.

Again, doing a full comparison of 'oocness' compared to traditional D&D isn't necessarily that useful. If a character wants to do something like, say, feinting a blow at an opponents' head and then, as they raise their shield to block, stabbing them in the leg, there's no rules support for this action in traditional D&D, so unless the GM is willing to make something up its unlikely to be used - so there's a disconnect being what the character does and mechanics through lack of detail.
4E quite possibly would have a power that does it somewhere, which would be good, except it'd then be something that gets used in every combat, and probably on gelatinous cubes mostly.
(Or something like Savage Worlds would do it and probably handle it as a Smarts trick, but now raising questions about if the player can just say 'I do a Smarts trick' and get the results when doing so is mechanically advantageous, without needing any in-character explanation or justification).

QuoteSay what you will about the mechanic though, again the only point being made is just that IMO these methods and mechanics don't make an RPG not an RPG.

I get your point, I think, though I'd say its a matter of degree.
EDIT: Also, I would probably class Dying Earth as a storygame anyway, due to the way dice pools run out.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;669633Gain more than you lose compared to what?

Sorry for the vague response, but the overall experience for the player playing his character. You may lose some immersion by needing to be OOC but it may mean that you become more engaged in playing that character or have a more satisfying experience in someway.

Its all a balancing act and given everyone gets different things from different ways from RPGing, any single balance won't work for everyone.

FWIW I agree that D&D should not be used as a baseline here as I don't think its the most immersive IC RPG out there, nor was it ever intended to be.

OK. Thanks for the discussion, anyway, has been interesting.

Quote from: TristramEvans;669607I consider 'IC' to be any desicion made in character, taking the game world as 'real into account, and ignoring all knowledge of The Game.

I consider OOC any point in the game when I'm thinking of it as a game or with any awareness of the rules.

In fact its a lot like The Game...

(http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/you-just-lost-the-game.jpg)

I prefer (http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/_/36597609/Da+Game+Is+To+Be+Sold+Not+To+Be+Told+f0yt7d.jpg)

Quote from: TristramEvans;669540The Forge is dead, and inconsequential. It has no relevance to the real world, and you can take that to mean real life or the future of the RPG hobby. Yes, I know people are still all butthurt that some Indy game designer decided to hijack threefold theory and turn it into an exercise in pseudo-intellectual online circle-jerking, but still bawling about it this many years later is just a form of self-righteous masturbation in and of itself.

As dead as it is, there are still very many people (on this very thread in fact) who want to subscribe to its utterly failed theories and ram them down other gamers' throats. Trying to turn the Forge's "winter of discontent" into a glorious summer of playing the "Forge is dead, what are you whining about" card as a way to discredit anyone who tries to stop them from pretending their forge-born storygames are mainstream RPGs that need to be embraced and who's mechanics should be insinuated and culture and mentality transplanted into the hobby.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;669916As dead as it is, there are still very many people (on this very thread in fact) who want to subscribe to its utterly failed theories and ram them down other gamers' throats. Trying to turn the Forge's "winter of discontent" into a glorious summer of playing the "Forge is dead, what are you whining about" card as a way to discredit anyone who tries to stop them from pretending their forge-born storygames are mainstream RPGs that need to be embraced and who's mechanics should be insinuated and culture and mentality transplanted into the hobby.

RPGPundit

Yes, I understand that's your crusade to protect the 'purity' of RPGs, but in the last ten years yours is honestly the only voice on the matter I've heard one way or the other. The cabal of Snidely Whiplashes out to destroy the hobby is not something  I've ever come across and the supposition of their existence doesn't strike me as incredibly plausible. So that's a battle I'm abstaining from taking any part in, frankly. I know whati like and whati want from an rpg, and even though I am one who will distinguish between an rpg and a story game,I'm satisfied with my own criteria for judgement on that matter, as it's based on logic and direct knowledge of the games. As for the ongoing influence of  The Forge, I'll start worrying the moment one of Edward's cult manages to create a profitable rpg.

Quote from: TristramEvans;669923Yes, I understand that's your crusade to protect the 'purity' of RPGs, but in the last ten years yours is honestly the only voice on the matter I've heard one way or the other.

So I guess in all this time you've never once read Ron Edwards, Vince Baker, Chris Chinn, Luke Crane, etc. etc. ad nauseum?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;669933So I guess in all this time you've never once read Ron Edwards, Vince Baker, Chris Chinn, Luke Crane, etc. etc. ad nauseum?

RPGPundit

I read two of his essays way back at a time I think you were still posting on rpgnet. I didn't find them particularly interesting, but they didn't bother me in the same way trainspotters don't bother me. I read his fantasy heartbreaker essay one or two more times after that when the subject reared its head from time to time. I do think alot of the statements made about him or attributed to him are exaggerated, but I have no interest in defending him. What I took away from it is that he was a guy that liked thinking about rpgs more than playing them, and nothing that he said/theorized about the play style I would be described by his criteria to embody, was even remotely correct. The guy didn't understand nor even 'I suspect conceive of, what immersive role playing entails. But I found him rather well-spoken otherwise, if pretentious as,  well, any of us I guess.

Don't know any of the others except...is Luke Crane the one who did Burning Wheel? And I've heart Vincent Baker's name on these forums in regards to AW and that Mormon game.

The only thing I can think of that originated at The Forge and is still a bit of a meme on the forums today (mostly rpgnet) is that annoying 'social contract nonsense. But I take it there's quite a few gamers posting online that actually are grateful for the blatant codification of basic unspoken principles of socialization.

There's also the,  shall we say, "anti-GM movement", in that in recent years it seems we've gotten # lot of new games designed on the hopeless principle of 'protecting players from bad GMs, but I don't that has any especial connection to The Forge, I think there's just a number of gamers who had crappy GMs and naively think they can solve that problem via the game's rules. I'd put BW in that category.

Quote from: SkywalkerIn fact, I think that the defining feature of RPGs in the field of gaming is that the players aren’t in competition or contestation with each other.

So, the earliest 'RPGs' -- such as Arneson's Blackmoor and Gygax's Greyhawk -- were not really RPGs? I can't accept any definition that excludes those (as well as a lot of other classic games).

Quote from: soviet;669092

Quote from: CRKrueger defines roleplayingRoleplaying is just that, playing a role, inhabiting a persona that is not you.
If I make decisions based on OOC reasons, I'm not Roleplaying.

Quote from: Someone asks Old Geezer a question about how Gary used to play D&DTo what extent were character decisions driven by tactics and player knowledge as compared to characterization?

Quote from: Old Geezer's response describing how the original RPG was played100% the former.

This is an old conflict between advocates of a "thespian" approach and those who take the older "persona" approach. I see it as a difference in the composition of the role, not one of R-P vs. Non-RP.

Both approaches are notably different from an "authorial" mode, in which one is trying to shape a narrative rather than respond to a situation from a particular character's localized frame of reference.

Quote from: Phillip;670808So, the earliest 'RPGs' -- such as Arneson's Blackmoor and Gygax's Greyhawk -- were not really RPGs? I can't accept any definition that excludes those (as well as a lot of other classic games).

From what I know of those earlier attempts, they would be considered RPGs by the separation I set out. To quote myself in the paragraph directly below the one you quoted:

Quote from: Skywalker;668979Before exploring this, it must be noted that players can act competitively in an RPG. However, there is no level playing field between players or ability for players to compete through the rules, except IC.

Quote from: Phillip;670810This is an old conflict between advocates of a "thespian" approach and those who take the older "persona" approach. I see it as a difference in the composition of the role, not one of R-P vs. Non-RP.

Both approaches are notably different from an "authorial" mode, in which one is trying to shape a narrative rather than respond to a situation from a particular character's localized frame of reference.

That is a an excellent observation and I think it shows one of the major mistakes here i.e. thespians being equated with authors.

Quote from: SkywalkerFrom what I know of those earlier attempts, they would be considered RPGs by the separation I set out.

Now I see that you allow players to compete IC. Why not drop the claim about competition, then, and stick with the idea that an RPG focuses on IC actions?

Don't expect sharp-edged purity without cognitive dissonance, but if we can get real enough to deal with fuzzy spectra, I think there's enough in the difference in focus to make reasonable distinctions.

Not that I agree with the way the terms RPG and STG are used hereabouts, but I can accept it.

Quote from: SkywalkerThat is a an excellent observation and I think it shows one of the major mistakes here i.e. thespians being equated with authors.

As I meant it, the "persona" players (e.g., Old Geezer) would be the ones Soviet was trying to equate with "authorial" players.

The implication was that using tactics and player knowledge was "not role-playing" just as much (or little) as narrative-focused play, and therefore either the latter kind of story-game is also an RPG or Gygax's D&D was not an RPG (Zing!).

A "thespian" fundamentalist would agree that early D&D was "not proper role-playing," but I don't know whether CRKrueger is of that ilk.

Quote from: Phillip;670837Now I see that you allow players to compete IC. Why not drop the claim about competition, then, and stick with the idea that an RPG focuses on IC actions?

One of my main contentions is that the mechanics of an RPG can be engaged with both IC and/or OOC. The later (which is often used here as a dividing line) doesn't prevent an RPG being an RPG.  For example, a game where the player can spend a benny for limited dramatic editing (which goes beyond IC actions) doesn't prevent the game from being an RPG.

Quote from: Phillip;670837..."persona" players..."authorial" players..."thespian" fundamentalist...

Ah cool. I misread your comment.

Quote from: Skywalker;670814That is a an excellent observation and I think it shows one of the major mistakes here i.e. thespians being equated with authors.

Story-games (I think its from) did have a useful categorization here:
Actor stance: making character decisions based on character POV
Author stance: making character decisions based on story needs
Director stance: altering world or scene details
Pawn stance: moving the character entirely with regard to player desires.

The 10ft pole players operate largely in Pawn, while the hardcore immersionists view anything other than Actor as undesirable. Story first people sometimes like Director as being preferable to Author (that is, they would prefer to rearrange world details so that 'acting in character' doesn't break the story), rather than acting out of character to further the story.

As long as RPGPundit pays for the website, I am cool with his definition of what goes in what forum. Its his playground so he can set the rules.

And I do find the "Storygames = Bad, Amber = Good" to be hysterical, but he does have Amber in its own forum so why not put what he sees as Not-RPGs into Other Games where he is cool with it.

If we were paying for site upkeep or paying a monthly a membership fee, then I'd care more about WTF definitions were being used.