So as far as definitions go, what do we call the Venn Intersections?

RPGs without OOC mechanics - Roleplaying Games
Roleplaying Games with OOC mechanics - Genre RPGs, Storytelling RPGs, Narrative RPGs, Tactical RPGs - the key definer here is WHY it is OOC. (I suppose technically then some RPGs with OOC elements might lie outside this intersection, but I'd need to see the example).
Storytelling Games without Roleplaying - Storygames

A lot of people are going to have a problem with this, because once you decide to add specific OOC elements to mechanically support a playstyle they like, then you are, by definition, addin non-roleplaying mechanics into a roleplaying game.  That should not happen without a change in descriptive language. Period.  Sorry.

I am not saying that you're not roleplaying.
I am saying that you're not *just* roleplaying.

I think there's something to be said for this three-way split, but I think there is an oddity about defining one split based only on Out-of-Character *mechanics*, but it seems like that other lines aren't based purely on mechanics.

From what I can gather, the line between non-roleplaying game and roleplaying game isn't based primarily on mechanics. For example, there are single-figure wargames like Gladiator or Melee/Wizard, and there are also solo adventure books - like Choose-Your-Own-Adventure but using RPG mechanics. I think this line is defined more by what the players choose to do rather than the mechanics. If the players try to act out their characters, then its role-playing, but if they're just trying to win, it could be a wargame.

So I'd suggest a possible alternative, where the line to mixed center category (roleplaying/storytelling/gaming) is not based on mechanics. If the people at the table are making choices that are based on what would make a good story, then its mixed. If they aren't trying for story, then its just roleplaying and game.


Also, I'd point out that a lot of out-of-character mechanics aren't based around story, but rather are more about game balance or game flavor. For example, D&D4 was criticized for having a lot of out-of-character mechanics.

Quote from: CRKrueger;912685If your understanding of your native tongue is that limited, so that simple definitions elude you; you are best off looking at assisted suicide, maybe?

Seriously, I understand the storytelling hooks and the drama.  Faced with a Lovecraftian monstrosity, as your mind crumbles, you rely on the strength of your human connections to save you and let you fight on.  But, in the end, it leaves that relationship, that memory somewhat tainted.  The Mythos might be uncaring, but surviving it is a cruel irony.  It's an old technique used again and again in narrative.  How many times did Sam get Frodo to keep going on by invoking the memory of the Shire.  In the end though, Frodo saved the Shire...for all Hobbits except himself and he sailed into the West.  In the novel Christine, after surviving that horror together, Dennis and Leigh break up despite their love, because that horror is shared, and as long as they are together, the memory doesn't fade.  It's powerful storytelling.

The POINT is though, the character isn't deciding any of that, the player is.  Therefore it's an Out of Character mechanic, and when I invoke it, I move from roleplaying my character, to telling stories about my character.  Therefore the Bond Mechanic is a Storygame mechanic, narrative mechanic, whatever you want to call it.

What I call "roleplaying" is roleplaying your character.
What you call "roleplaying" is roleplaying your character and telling stories about your character.
Sorry, your definition is imprecise and overbroad.  It's like calling Rocky Road ice cream "chocolate".  No, that definition will not do.

If the original Delta Green (without any OOC mechanics) was a roleplaying game, then the new Delta Green (which adds in non-roleplaying mechanics) is also a roleplaying game?  At what point are we going to accept that...
1. A roleplaying game without any OOC mechanics at all.
and
2. A roleplaying game with core OOC mechanics.
...are not quite the same thing?

I like your analysis, it certainly serves to drive the discussion forward, but I do think it's flawed.

At Gen Con this year I played NSDM (the Cold War variant). You (and eighty other individuals) each get a person/job/faction.

You then spend the next four hours running around trying to achieve your objectives via pure negotiation with the other players. But we aren't ourselves, we are absolutely roleplaying the person/job/faction we've been assigned.

While there was some scoring, it was purely nominal. The rules were entirely there to enable the referees to coordinate logistics.
I didn't need to know any rules.

Was it a roleplaying game? Was it a LARP? Well it doesn't easily fit into either of those categories. But it was live, and it was roleplaying, and it was most definitely a game.


As for my Delta Green example, it wasn't meant to derail the discussion .
But I stand by point, I think you are misinterpreting what is possible with that game mechanic of Bonds.

Essentially you are correct, the DM tells you that you take 5 points of Mad from seeing the Strange Thing, and you (the player) can offset that against [say, your character's marriage]. Mark up your character sheet and move on to saving the world. I imagine that's exactly how it will be played in one-shots.

However it doesn't have to be as cold as that, especially not in longer campaigns.

You (and the DM) can roleplay out, it can lead to other IC interactions. For example, as the game unfolds, you can develop, and subsequently put stress on, Bonds with other PCs.

That's fun. Brutal, but fun.


Ruleswise? You know that your character's relationship with his mentor in the FBI is going to take a huge hit. The severity (only) has already been determined by a die roll. But you can then roleplay out that scene, and it can go in a number of directions, and can lead to any number of new directions and consequences for the character, and the game. Yes, you are telling a story, but you are not only telling a story. You are directly roleplaying your character, playing out deep interactions with NPCs and PCs.

Not sure where that fits in your scheme of things?

Quote from: Motorskills;912719You (and the DM) can roleplay out, it can lead to other IC interactions. For example, as the game unfolds, you can develop, and subsequently put stress on, Bonds with other PCs.

That's fun. Brutal, but fun.


Ruleswise? You know that your character's relationship with his mentor in the FBI is going to take a huge hit. The severity (only) has already been determined by a die roll. But you can then roleplay out that scene, and it can go in a number of directions, and can lead to any number of new directions and consequences for the character, and the game. Yes, you are telling a story, but you are not only telling a story. You are directly roleplaying your character, playing out deep interactions with NPCs and PCs.

Not sure where that fits in your scheme of things?

I never said you were *just* storytelling.  Here's the mental flow (this assumes your definition of roleplaying means an IC-POV)

1. You are roleplaying your character and meet an Eldritich Horror or something else that triggers the game's Sanity Mechanics.
2. You stop roleplaying your character, and now, as a player, engage the mechanic Projecting Onto a Bond to choose how the character's life will be affected by the psychological fallout.
3. You go back to roleplaying your character as you deal with the effects.

Lets compare with traditional CoC sanity.
1. You are roleplaying your character and meet an Eldritich Horror or something else that triggers the game's Sanity Mechanics.
2. The GM uses the Sanity Rules to determine the outcome and informs you of the new state of your character's psychology.
3. You roleplay your character as you deal with the effects.

Do you see the difference?  In the traditional method, the GM informed me of the change, just as the GM informs you that you take a wound, or you fail to pick the lock, or you find the text.  It's a simple formula.
Character's actions produce input-->Rules and GM determine output-->Character deals with new situation.

Of course any type of personality mechanic carries with it issues, whether insanity or charm/fear spells or the like.  The big difference between the two is that the traditional method I can stay in character and not stop roleplaying.  In the new method, I must join the GM in deciding from the third person, how this effects my character, and then drop back inside the character to continue.

Some people, that's how they always have roleplayed, half in-half out, always a dual first/third perspective.  For some people, switching back and forth is what they enjoy, which is fine - but they are switching.

So it comes back to the idea that games which have mechanics that force you to switch, and those that do not, have a fundamental difference within the context of roleplaying that is worthy of classification.

Not so that the Pundit can become Drumph's RPG Czar and declare what games get put on the fire, or whatever other dire consequence people think is going to occur, but so we can simply talk about games honestly without having to be always, every single time, going to the mattresses over terminology as a deliberate stonewalling tactic.

Quote from: jhkim;912711I think there's something to be said for this three-way split, but I think there is an oddity about defining one split based only on Out-of-Character *mechanics*, but it seems like that other lines aren't based purely on mechanics.

From what I can gather, the line between non-roleplaying game and roleplaying game isn't based primarily on mechanics. For example, there are single-figure wargames like Gladiator or Melee/Wizard, and there are also solo adventure books - like Choose-Your-Own-Adventure but using RPG mechanics. I think this line is defined more by what the players choose to do rather than the mechanics. If the players try to act out their characters, then its role-playing, but if they're just trying to win, it could be a wargame.

So I'd suggest a possible alternative, where the line to mixed center category (roleplaying/storytelling/gaming) is not based on mechanics. If the people at the table are making choices that are based on what would make a good story, then its mixed. If they aren't trying for story, then its just roleplaying and game.


Also, I'd point out that a lot of out-of-character mechanics aren't based around story, but rather are more about game balance or game flavor. For example, D&D4 was criticized for having a lot of out-of-character mechanics.

Roleplaying is a mental state.  I can roleplay my gangers in Necromunda, choosing what they do based on their personality, not what would be tactically expedient.  I could do the same with many games.  In that Wick/Zak video, Wick points to his right hand which contains everything that makes a game a roleplaying game, he said he couldn't identify what was in that hand.

That's because there can never be such a thing as a Roleplaying Mechanic.  It cannot exist, because you could always choose to invoke it for some other reason (like hoping to get laid because there's a new hottie at the table).  At best, the mechanic can be neutral, which allows you invoke it as a character.

There can, however, be such a thing as a non-Roleplaying Mechanic.  A mechanic that cannot be engaged by the character, the choice to engage it must be made by the player.

So what is a Roleplaying Game? (See Brendan, I told you this topic was Roleplaying related.)

A roleplaying game is a game that allows the player to roleplay a character in a world, and contains rules and mechanics that allows the character to make any choice that character could make, and resolve the outcome.
 
That's why Necromunda isn't a Roleplaying Game.  There are lots of choices the gangers could make on the battlefield that they cannot choose, and of course, you don't roleplay the gangers off the battlefield at all, you find out what happens to them from the third person.

BTW, all these definitions I'm throwing out are obviously drafts, the whole point of this is people proposing their own.

I understand where you're going with the "Reason people are playing this game" or "motivation for their choice", Rosen is of a similar idea, but the problem is, you guys are kind of doing that from a Forge position of coherence.  
I can play OD&D from a tactical point of view, always choosing rules optimum decisions.
I can play OD&D from a roleplaying point of view, always staying in character.
I can play OD&D from a storytelling point of view, always doing what makes for what I think is dramatically interesting.
I can play OD&D from a social point of view, always supporting what everyone else is doing and helping out.
So what type of game is that?

No, I'm convinced you have to focus on mechanics, and since we are talking specifically about the central area where Roleplaying and Storytelling mix, any classification or definition should include whether such games possess non-Roleplaying mechanics.

Now you do have a point in that OOC mechanics are not all Storytelling based.  Some are there to give tactical depth, to make the combat play more problem-solving, more wargamey or boardgamey for lack of a better term.  So there's probably another smaller circle to put in there, I wouldn't call Venn Diagramming a particular specialty.

No definition or model will ever be perfect, but I think from a lot of the responses so far from different sides of the "Eternal War" there's something there, and it seems like we know it when we see it, but can we define it?

Looking at that Venn again.

In this context, we're definitely talking about an imaginary person in an imaginary world (yeah an imaginary copy of you in a "real world" with time travel or zombies still applies ) and when you get right down to it, there's really only two ways you can deal with this imaginary person and that imaginary world.
First Person - In Character - As that person - Roleplaying
Third Person - Out of Character - About that person - Storytelling
Then you add Gaming in, because we're talking about Games.

Roleplaying and Storytelling by themselves with no Gaming I think are fine.
Gaming without Roleplaying and Storytelling I think is fine.

I guess the issue is defining the intersections rather than listing the activities that exist in those intersections, that's where I mixed things up, isn't it?  I guess in proper Venniquette, the activities would have their own smaller circles.

The biggest issue I guess is that Roleplaying Games with OOC mechanics could also exist in the intersection between Roleplaying and Gaming as well as the intersection of all three.  It depends why the mechanic is OOC.  Which brings us back to the Rosen/Kim/Anon opinion of player motivation being key, what is the player after?

But as I pointed out above with OD&D, in defining games, it really doesn't matter what the player is after - unless that goal is mechanically supported.  Which bring us back to mechanics.

At least I think...Rosen did point out a game which he thinks is obviously a Storygame, but has no actual mechanical support for it.  I'd like to hear more about how the game supports story through convention and rules without mechanics.

Quote from: CRKrueger;912796So what is a Roleplaying Game? (See Brendan, I told you this topic was Roleplaying related.)

A roleplaying game is a game that allows the player to roleplay a character in a world, and contains rules and mechanics that allows the character to make any choice that character could make, and resolve the outcome.
 
That's why Necromunda isn't a Roleplaying Game.  There are lots of choices the gangers could make on the battlefield that they cannot choose, and of course, you don't roleplay the gangers off the battlefield at all, you find out what happens to them from the third person.

That definition may work for Necromunda, but I don't think it works more generally. Although none of them have had market success recently, there are refereed wargames where players can do anything that they want tactically. The referee is there to judge how those actions would work. In Prussia this was called "Free Kriegspiel".

There are two qualities here: (1) having anything possible by using a referee; and (2) acting out what your character would do. Like chocolate and peanut-butter, these work well together - but they aren't intrinsically linked.

To take two examples:

1) An ongoing Call of Cthulhu game which has gone on for years, with characters marrying and having children, and otherwise having detailed lives. There are several game sessions where no dice are rolled, spent all in in-character discussion - and most mechanics are ignored anyway.

2) A tournament Tunnels & Trolls game played for how many points the team can accumulate over the four hour time span. There is nothing about personality at all for the characters, and the players don't care.

I think that these are really two pretty distinct activities, but both operate purely by adjudicated in-character actions.

There are useful distinctions to be made about mechanics, but I don't think that's the whole picture.

Quote from: jhkim;912843Although none of them have had market success recently, there are refereed wargames where players can do anything that they want tactically. The referee is there to judge how those actions would work. In Prussia this was called "Free Kriegspiel".

And one might play Kriegspiel while roleplaying or while not roleplaying. I'm confused by your use of terms. When you say, "players can do anything they want tactically" are you referring to a player who is playing an armor company commander or a regimental commander taking any action that an officer in that situation could take or are you referring to some nebulous, 3rd person semi-omniscient overhead view where the player moves units on a board without any need to issue orders or have those orders carried out (or messed up) by an intermediary at a lower level in the command structure?

QuoteThere are two qualities here: (1) having anything possible by using a referee; and (2) acting out what your character would do. Like chocolate and peanut-butter, these work well together - but they aren't intrinsically linked.

The distinction is not acting out what your character would do, it is taking actions as your character and reacting to the adjudicated outcome as your character. (Here I'm using the word "adjudicated" to cover either a simple mechanistic process as well as a referee moderated determination of outcome.)

Quote1) An ongoing Call of Cthulhu game which has gone on for years, with characters marrying and having children, and otherwise having detailed lives. There are several game sessions where no dice are rolled, spent all in in-character discussion - and most mechanics are ignored anyway.

I'm confused what you mean by playing a game of Call of Cthulhu where "most mechanics are ignored." That sounds like it might be what Krueger is calling storytelling+roleplaying-gaming. But you might mean something else. As I said, I am confused by your terminology.

Quote2) A tournament Tunnels & Trolls game played for how many points the team can accumulate over the four hour time span. There is nothing about personality at all for the characters, and the players don't care.

Sounds like a game played from a 3rd person, out of character perspective. Or what Kruger is calling Wargaming-roleplaying.

QuoteI think that these are really two pretty distinct activities, but both operate purely by adjudicated in-character actions.

Again, it is unclear to me that your first example is using any sort of rules adjudication or even whether it uses any sort of referee adjudication. It sounds like shared storytelling. A verbal version of a shared writing exercise.

And it is unclear to me whether anyone is operating in-character in your second example. It sounds more likely that all conversation is occurring out of character, that tactics are out of character, and that the mechanics are providing the only in-character action. Also, this sounds like a bizarre edge case to me, but that may well be a matter of my lack of experience. I've never played Tunnels & Trolls or attended a T&T focused con. Is this sort of thing popular or even just something that occurs regularly among T&T players?

QuoteThere are useful distinctions to be made about mechanics, but I don't think that's the whole picture.

Mechanics seem a more fruitful area to examine for distinctions than either 3rd party subjective assessments of player agendas or some sort of self reporting method of players describing their own agenda(s).

Kinda with Bren, not sure those are really showing unique outliers.

I will say, John, you and Rosen are selling me on their being other axes we can base definitions on, but also remain convinced that when talking about a Roleplaying Game, then Roleplaying (IC) Game Mechanics vs. Non-Roleplaying (OOC) Game Mechanics must remain the primary axis of definition, even if it must, due to other axes, allow for further classifications.

Quote from: jhkim;912843To take two examples:

1) An ongoing Call of Cthulhu game which has gone on for years, with characters marrying and having children, and otherwise having detailed lives. There are several game sessions where no dice are rolled, spent all in in-character discussion - and most mechanics are ignored anyway.

2) A tournament Tunnels & Trolls game played for how many points the team can accumulate over the four hour time span. There is nothing about personality at all for the characters, and the players don't care.

I think that these are really two pretty distinct activities, but both operate purely by adjudicated in-character actions.

There are useful distinctions to be made about mechanics, but I don't think that's the whole picture.

Just taking a stab at this, but I think example 1 falls under "no game." It is playing pretend, or mostly play pretend.  I don't mean that in a derogatory way. Some of the best sessions I have ever had were sans-mechanics and dice rolling.  The rules are there if you want them, but if you don't use them, is it a game?  Also I think when you enter the "no game" world of playing pretend, distinctions between IC and OOC become rather fuzzy and easy to transition between because there are no rules. If you watch kids "play pretend" they do so largely IC until one of them says "hay, let's be dinosaurs"  or something, at which point they are making that meta OOC decision. Either way, the play proceeds between IC and OOC quite naturally in play pretend.

Example 2 is "all game," I think.  Its not an RPG at all.  It resembles an RPG because the strategic pieces are characters.  Neither storytellyng nor roleplaying is part of the game. It's open-option refereed gaming, kinda like Tony Bath wargaming. Of course, a player is always free to imagine what he wants, act in character, or tell the events of the game as a story, but the roleplaying and storytelling has no impact on the game.  I used to play a lot of wargaming, and when I was pushing lead Napoleonics, I might sometimes start speaking French or acting like Napoleon, but in no way was it an RPG.

For me anyway, neither of these examples are RPGs.  They are examples of "no game" and "all game," and therefore the distinction between roleplaying and storytelling within them have little bearing on the conversation at hand. At least that's how I see it.

Quote from: Madprofessor;913249For me anyway, neither of these examples are RPGs.  They are examples of "no game" and "all game," and therefore the distinction between roleplaying and storytelling within them have little bearing on the conversation at hand. At least that's how I see it.

Whereas now I'm seeing you, me, and Kruger in our new clubhouse discussing what sort of hats club members should wear or maybe whose going out for a beer run.

If there is a stretch or even an entire session of "just role-playing" of social interactions in a campaign that is using RPG rules, but no one thinks to roll any dice for anything, I would say it is still an RPG. The players (I would assume) are still playing in the context of the campaign and their characters and the situation therein. Even if no one does anything that requires a roll, the situation still frames what happens and what makes sense and what doesn't, and it COULD switch to something that involves rolls and game mechanics at any time, as soon as someone decides to take an action that involves rules and rolls.

Similarly, I think an all-combat session is still an RPG and still "role-playing" as long as there are characters in the game who are acting as if they were people in that situation. In fact, that's one of my main interests. How do the characters handle dangerous high-stakes situations? I only think it's not role-playing when the players aren't relating to the situation and making decisions as the in-game people, but rather just as players with pieces and OOC thinking.

Quote from: CRKrueger;912794I never said you were *just* storytelling.  Here's the mental flow (this assumes your definition of roleplaying means an IC-POV)

1. You are roleplaying your character and meet an Eldritich Horror or something else that triggers the game's Sanity Mechanics.
2. You stop roleplaying your character, and now, as a player, engage the mechanic Projecting Onto a Bond to choose how the character's life will be affected by the psychological fallout.
3. You go back to roleplaying your character as you deal with the effects.

Lets compare with traditional CoC sanity.
1. You are roleplaying your character and meet an Eldritich Horror or something else that triggers the game's Sanity Mechanics.
2. The GM uses the Sanity Rules to determine the outcome and informs you of the new state of your character's psychology.
3. You roleplay your character as you deal with the effects.

It's a storygame if the player decides how it affects the character
It's a roleplaying game if the GM decides how it affects the character

Wow, more than one driveby, must have been a rough couple of weeks.  Swing by the "Behind the Curtain" thread, I'm sure you can give yourself a couple more chuckles on your way out.

"Roleplaying Game" is a term that came about more or less by accident.  There was a period of about two years where people were trying to come up with a term for this new kind of almost sort of not quite wargame, and when somebody said 'Roleplaying Game' the term was latched onto like a cow full of leeches.  The term did not come from intensive study and analysis.