Quote from: soviet;624150I'm not sure you do decide how you are thinking to the extent that you say. Or at least, I don't think that most people do. It's a pretty herculean feat of immersion or whatever to totally ignore the 300 page rulebook in front of you and make your decisions entirely from an in-character, rules-agnostic point of view. All those rules and procedures can't help but make a difference. And again, I want to reiterate that it's perfectly possible (and common) to have two separate thought processes in your brain at the same time. Thinking about system-based tactics doesn't mean you aren't also thinking about what your character wants to do.

It's interesting that you bring up 4e and dissociation because I play and enjoy 4e (albeit it's not my favourite edition). I don't find that the combat system drives me out of an in-character perspective any more or less than other combat systems do. I can see why it would have that effect for other people, but for me it doesn't. Maybe my brain is more easily able to rationalise the decision to use Come and Get It or trip an ooze in an in-character way, but for me personally those things are not jarring. Just like some people can think about game tactics without it breaking them out of a primarily IC POV, I can think about failure stakes or power descriptions and still keep roleplaying.

For someone who can't do that, or doesn't want to, those things are jarring as fuck. But  for some of us they're not. I don't reject your experiences but I don't share them either, so I don't think they should be treated as an objective measure of whether something is or isn't an RPG. If I can roleplay happily in HeroQuest but you can't, is it really correct to say that HQ isn't an RPG?

I am impressed by your persiverence, but saddened by it as well. I'm sure you have better things to do than read cliched, repititious and inappropriate references to child molestation all day.

Quote from: Warthur;623924the War Of Ideas

Ah that might fit, I've been trying to come up with a title to describe the simmering conflict ongoing between Neo Nigeria and the NAfricaPact nations, and that would do nicely. About the only useful thing to come out of the shared narrative gang in this thread.

Quote from: estar;623803Yes they are. Because if you were really in the setting of those game as that character you would have no concept of "heropoints" or any idea of how to spend them.

Which means that XP is also a storygame mechanic. So D&D is a hybrid. So the term is meaningless.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;624160What are they from?

Warhammer.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;624160What are they from?

Warhammer 3rd. They do exactly what I've been attempting to do for a while: keep the dice rolling and funky dice but reducing the numbers. I adapted them to FASERIP (as the scale used by both games is essentially 1-10), and would love to see FFG do a game using just this mechanic without the trappings. Unfortunately, based on what I've seen of their Star Wars RPG, instead of simplifying they've gone the route of rules glut.

Quote from: TristramEvans;624171Which means that XP is also a storygame mechanic. So D&D is a hybrid. So the term is meaningless.

XP represents abstractly the development of the characters. It very much tied to the emulation of the setting. The XP rewards reflect what actions D&D authors feel would allow the characters to develop further. Which in the case of D&D boiled down to killing things and taking their stuff.

Quote from: estar;624177XP represents abstractly the development of the characters. It very much tied to the emulation of the setting.

Just as Hero points/karma pointsForce points represent abstractions of how a characters motivation/determination./spirituality exerts an influence on their physical actions in certain genres, and is essentially "spendable XP".

Quote from: soviet;624150If I can roleplay happily in HeroQuest but you can't, is it really correct to say that HQ isn't an RPG?

Well, again, here's the thing.

You admit yourself that what you're doing in a session of what you call roleplaying consists of lots of stuff - many different thought processes.  In other words, even though it's a "Roleplaying Game" and we're talking about "Roleplaying", in actuality we are doing a lot of things that can be boiled down to...
1. Roleplaying
2. Non-Roleplaying
and we switch back and forth between them as we "roleplay".

Here's the TL;DR version of what's to follow:
You can accept a much smaller percentage of actions that are roleplaying and still call the overall activity roleplaying then I can.

What it comes down to is I'm talking about specific processes, you're talking about the combination of a lot of processes.

Let's look at the smallest possible definition for a second, just define the verb.  If you have to go to OED or Webster to come up with an alternate definition grossly different from this, well that explains it all, we're done right there, but I think anyone who actually calls what they do roleplaying shouldn't have too much problem with this.
Roleplaying = playing a role, ie. pretending you are someone who is not you.

Now you and I are sitting at the table, we're playing Shadowrun.  If you and I are talking about whether the 49ers or Ravens are going to win the Superbowl, that's obviously an OOC discussion. So even though someone asked me later "What did you do Saturday?" I would answer "Roleplaying": during that conversation about the Superbowl, we are not roleplaying. Period.  It is not something that is a blend of yes and no, there's not a complex mix of motivations.  
It's really damn simple.

There is no way our characters could be having a conversation about who is going to win the Superbowl tomorrow because:
In the game world, it's March 7th, 2050, a Monday.
Baltimore Ravens aren't an NFL team in the world of Shadowrun.
It is quite literally impossible to be having that conversation IC.

So we could be roleplaying with a very high percentage of "table talk" or not.  However, when we are actually "tabletalking" we are not roleplaying our characters.  
***You cannot roleplay from an OOC POV.  Period.Full.Stop.
If you disagree with that last sentence then there is no point going further and it makes sense why you say all this stuff is actually roleplaying, because for you roleplaying is anything you want to shove under the umbrella of time where you've said "now I'm roleplaying".

Assuming you're still with me, then now lets take what we just did with the conversation and apply it to game structures and decisions.  In a classic RPG, the action flow is as follows:
1. The player declares what the character is going to attempt.
2. The rules as interpreted by the GM dictate the probability chance of the attempt succeeding or failing.
3. The player uses a randomizer to resolve that probability.
4. The results determine success, failure and degree according to the rules of the system.

So lets break it down:
1. Now in a classic RPG am I roleplaying when I am declaring intent?  This could be yes or no.  My choice as to whether to fire or what I am firing at could be due to a lot of things.  For example, my friend's kid might be playing with us for the first time, and even though my character would probably attack a different orc, I'm gonna fire at the one charging the kid's character because I don't want him to die yet.  A completely 100% OOC decision that no one but me can identify as such.  Choosing to fire at that particular Orc was not roleplaying.  IC POV had nothing to do with that decision.
2, 3, 4. Since no one has a Supercomputer with all the laws of physics including chaos theory programmed into it to just figure out whether I hit or not, the rules determine probability.  I've decided to do A, let's see if A happens.  I may have initiated the task resolution process from an IC POV or not, but once the task resolution has started, there is no further input from character into the process, just like an olympic archer uses all their training to line up the perfect shot, but once they release, it's the Laws of Physics that determine success or failure.  Rules are the Laws of Physics in an RPG.

Now some games might add in metagame elements representing luck, narrative control, what have you, but whenever the rules are anything other then raw laws of physics, there is metagame involved.  If there is a choice to further affect the outcome of the action, where does the choice come from?
If the character within the world has some further way to affect the outcome, like invoking a magical charm, then that is an IC way to aid the shot.
If the character does not have some way to affect the outcome, but the player does, through Luck, Bennies, whatever, then that is an OOC way to aid the shot.
Just like the conversation about the superbowl, when I am deciding whether or not to use a Hero Point, I am not roleplaying at that time.

Now lets assume we have a game where there the rules, no matter how well they succeed, attempt merely to provide the laws of physics necessary to determine outcomes.  That game doesn't have to be played from a 100% IC POV, but you could.  Sure there could be lots of tabletalking, but when the game engine is engaged, when we are determining outcomes of characters we can do it from 100% IC POV.

A game like Dungeon World, I simply cannot.  The rules actively prevent me from being 100% IC when I fire a bow.  It's really really hard to call such a game a "Roleplaying Game" without qualifier, because the rules have been specifically designed to not be just a Laws of Physics engine, but to provide an additional level of narrative control my character does not have.  It's not a Hero Point system I could use or not, it's baked into the rules for firing a bow.

A book is not a book on tape.  Amazon quite clearly delineates them because listening is not reading. Period.  Now if someone asked me "Have you read Game of Thrones?", I might say "Yes" even though I didn't read it, but listened to it.  The exact form probably doesn't pertain to the reason they asked the question, just like instead of "Well I engaged in an activity consisting of both IC roleplaying and OOC social interation", I simply say "I roleplayed last night".

When you start adding up all the individual, binary decisions and actions that are either IC or OOC and you end up with a rules system that really doesn't allow you to be IC for a lot of them, then is saying "I was roleplaying" really what you were doing?  If I bought such a game expecting to be able to sit at the table and be IC whenever I wanted and found out I couldn't would I be upset to the same degree I would if I ordered a book and got a book on tape?

If playing the game I find myself, because of limitations in the rules, not being IC, is it a roleplaying game?

Quote from: TristramEvans;624179Just as Hero points/karma pointsForce points represent abstractions of how a characters motivation/determination./spirituality exerts an influence on their physical actions in certain genres, and is essentially "spendable XP".

What is your Strength in a game system if you were making you in the rules?  Well you know roughly what it is, see how much you can lift, look in the rules to see what Strength that gives you and then assign the number.

What is your skill in whatever you do for a living?  Well compare that loosely to the different skill levels in the game and you'll be in the ballpark.

Is it exact? No.  Is it abstract? Yes.  Is it metagame? No.  It's purpose is to model something inside the setting.

Now if you're a Jedi, the Force exists in the setting.  You have a connection to it, calling on the Force requires effort, stamina, focus, and as you do it, you get tired and exhaust your ability to keep using it.  Abstract measurement of a spiritual experience, but not metagame, completely in setting.

If I have James Bond Points to represent the ability of James Bond to do things in the movies, then some here would argue that's the same thing as Force Points.  I disagree.  There's a difference between playing in the world of James Bond, which is our world, and the movies of James Bond in which he can do James Bond stuff no one else can.  James Bond Points are metagame.

It's a case by base basis.

Quote from: CRKrueger;624184If I have James Bond Points to represent the ability of James Bond to do things in the movies, then some here would argue that's the same thing as Force Points.  I disagree.  There's a difference between playing in the world of James Bond, which is our world, and the movies of James Bond in which he can do James Bond stuff no one else can.  James Bond Points are metagame.

It's a case by base basis.

Isn't playing in the movie world of James Bond a viable option for an RPg though? I mean, it is a distinction between genres but I don't think a rule used to emulate a genre convention vs a real-life convention is necessarily a metagame mechanic. Especially in a case like FASERIP, where thesystem is basically a resource allocation game where the stats merely provide a bonus to this, rather than the other way around. Would any resource based game vs a randomizer mechanic then inherently be a metagame? What about a game like Amber or Marvel Universe (the "Stones" game)?

Quote from: TristramEvans;624171Which means that XP is also a storygame mechanic. So D&D is a hybrid. So the term is meaningless.

XP (in the original D&D context) is a strategy game thing: role-playing / war-game hybrid.

That's one reason I like 1 gold piece = 1 x.p.; freebooters are certainly aware of gold!

The conversion into improved abilities is at a higher level of abstraction than, for instance, buying training in RuneQuest. A lot of things are more abstract in D&D than in RQ!

In a context raised (IIRC) in the 2nd Ed. AD&D books, x.p. awards can in theory motivate players along a DM's plot line. In my experience, though, players usually don't get enough advance information for that to work very effectively; it's more a matter of finding out after the fact how the DM scored things. YMMV, of course.

Quote from: TristramEvans;624186Isn't playing in the movie world of James Bond a viable option for an RPg though? I mean, it is a distinction between genres but I don't think a rule used to emulate a genre convention vs a real-life convention is necessarily a metagame mechanic. Especially in a case like FASERIP, where thesystem is basically a resource allocation game where the stats merely provide a bonus to this, rather than the other way around. Would any resource based game vs a randomizer mechanic then inherently be a metagame? What about a game like Amber or Marvel Universe (the "Stones" game)?

I'll admit 100% it's a fine line and a lot of people disagree with me on this one.  For me though, genre emulation is a 4th wall kinda thing.  Conan doesn't know he's in a Sword and Sorcery tale, but we the readers do, so we kinda know within the ballpark what's gonna happen.  

Same with James Bond.  We know he's not gonna die, we know the bad guy's gonna capture him at some point, we know at the lowest point he's gonna bust out some crazy tech or skill to save the day.  We know that, but supposedly he doesn't. If he did, then it would be like Moonlighting, where Bruce Willis talks to the audience sometimes.

Genre emulation is self-aware.  Presumably, the actual character in the game we're playing isn't aware of the genre, so a mechanic to emulate the genre is by definition metagame because the character has no knowledge of it.

Playing in the world of James Bond means trying to play as an MI:6 agent in our world without being self-aware.
Playing in the books or movies of James Bond means being self-aware of genre conventions and knowing that I'm gonna be doing stuff that probably wouldn't be possible for an MI:6 agent in our world, but this isn't our world, it's James Bond ™.

Now can you roleplay within that genre awareness?  Of course you can, but you know me, if someone asked me if James Bond was a RPG, I would say it's an RPG with genre emulation rules.  They'd say what do you mean?  I'd explain, and they'd have a better sense of whether or not it was their thing.


As far as resource vs. randomizer, for me that would be case-by-case I guess.  If the resource is something the character has knowledge of, or is just an abstraction representing a complicated system then it doesn't have to be metagame.

Again, not that there's anything wrong with metagame in an RPG.  Almost every RPG has had metagame to some extent, even if just a single mechanic.  It's just at some point, when the metagame becomes very prevalent and unable to avoid in simple task resolution, I'm needing additional words then RPG to adequately describe it.

Quote from: TristramEvans;624179Just as Hero points/karma pointsForce points represent abstractions of how a characters motivation/determination./spirituality exerts an influence on their physical actions in certain genres, and is essentially "spendable XP".

I think the issue is what you can buy.

D&D hit points are pretty abstract. However, since part of what they represent is a fighter's skill and energy, there's a rationale for -- as a game variant -- player choice either to spend them or to take some ghastly injury. (Of course the PC doesn't know the numbers, but that's true of a lot of other numbers in the game as well.)

If you've got a rationale for how Jimmy Joe is able to choose that event x happens, then you're still in role-playing mode.

If the player is controlling something over which J.J. has no control, then something else is going on.

"Story telling" might not be any more accurate than in the case of a wargamer acting as general of the division, brigadier and colonel -- but that does seem to reflect a common aim these days.

Quote from: CRKrueger;624191I'll admit 100% it's a fine line and a lot of people disagree with me on this one.  For me though, genre emulation is a 4th wall kinda thing.  Conan doesn't know he's in a Sword and Sorcery tale, but we the readers do, so we kinda know within the ballpark what's gonna happen.  

Same with James Bond.  We know he's not gonna die, we know the bad guy's gonna capture him at some point, we know at the lowest point he's gonna bust out some crazy tech or skill to save the day.  We know that, but supposedly he doesn't. If he did, then it would be like Moonlighting, where Bruce Willis talks to the audience sometimes.

Genre emulation is self-aware.  Presumably, the actual character in the game we're playing isn't aware of the genre, so a mechanic to emulate the genre is by definition metagame because the character has no knowledge of it.

Playing in the world of James Bond means trying to play as an MI:6 agent in our world without being self-aware.
Playing in the books or movies of James Bond means being self-aware of genre conventions and knowing that I'm gonna be doing stuff that probably wouldn't be possible for an MI:6 agent in our world, but this isn't our world, it's James Bond ™.

Now can you roleplay within that genre awareness?  Of course you can, but you know me, if someone asked me if James Bond was a RPG, I would say it's an RPG with genre emulation rules.  They'd say what do you mean?  I'd explain, and they'd have a better sense of whether or not it was their thing.

Fair point. I guess it comes down to that I'll (personally) accept a metagame mechanic as long as its something I can correlate to the setting/genre in some way, whereas what I tend to rail against are mechanics that exist only because its a game (such as restrictions based on maintaining "game balance").

Just as I'm also much more open to metagame mechanics in combat than I am any other part of the game.

Quote from: Phillip;624192D&D hit points are pretty abstract. However, since part of what they represent is a fighter's skill and energy, there's a rationale for -- as a game variant -- player choice either to spend them or to take some ghastly injury. (Of course the PC doesn't know the numbers, but that's true of a lot of other numbers in the game as well.).

A point of interest. The reason for hit points you gave is what was developed years after the release of OD&D. What hit points represented was simply how tough the fighter was in relation to the ordinary fighter. In Chainmail, a hero took 4 hits to kill, a super hero 8 hits. In OD&D hits to kill was expanded into hit dice from which you rolled your hit points. A hero was. 4th level fighter and a superhero a 8th level fighter. The hit point abstracting the difference in toughness.