Any roleplaying game system is designed to allow people to play individuals who are radically different from their OOC selves. To take combat systems as an example, if you aren't fit and trained with weaponry suitable to the period, the Dungeons & Dragons combat system (and any combat system which doesn't involve LARP weapons) allows you to play a mighty warrior regardless of that. A more abstract combat system – as seen in, say, Wushu – can even take away the need to think tactically, if you aren't very good at that. The same is true for magic, social interactions, and any other aspect of a game which could conceivably be modelled in the rules.

Let's focus in on social interaction for a moment there, because it's a controversial topic. It is common to see arguments online as to how to handle social mechanics; some people insist that players should play through their attempts at discourse and speak in-character to NPCs, while many players say "but my character is better at this sort of thing than I am, why can't I just make a roll?" To my mind, this situation is precisely analogous to combat: some game systems allow you to abstract out social interactions to varying extents, and it's a matter of personal taste precisely how much abstracting you do. The people who are saying "my character is better at this than I am" are requesting more abstraction in a particular area of the game, because they don't want to rely on their OOC skills to tackle the problem. At the same time, those who prefer to act out social interactions are explicitly stating that they enjoy the OOC challenge of portraying their character.

These OOC challenges are an inevitable part of any roleplaying game. The decision-making process can only be abstracted so far, and at some point players must actually take charge of their character and make decisions on their behalf - "my character knows more than me" only goes so far - and many games allow IC bonuses for exciting OOC descriptions and so forth. I would also contend that these OOC challenges shouldn't be regarded as a necessary evil, but should be embraced: in a well-designed system they should provide a large part of the OOC enjoyment and satisfaction gained from participation. This has the following consequences:

- It is a great advantage to a game designer to be aware of what OOC challenges they are presenting in the systems they design and to make those challenges clear to consumers. I would not say that this sort of self-awareness will save a game from poor design decisions, but I do think it will help to ensure that the strengths of a game are brought to the fore.

- It is even more important that GMs appreciate what the OOC challenges are when choosing a system, and are aware of what challenges they are posing their players with their own particular GMing style, and ensure that players are aware in advance of what OOC skills will be tested in a campaign.

- Lastly, it is crucial that players have a clear idea of what sort of OOC challenge will be encountered in a campaign, as a result of the system and the decisions of the GM. Many frustrating gaming experiences come about because players are subjected to challenges which they simply have no interest in.

I think the Modus Operandi 24 Hour RPG contest, which I discussed recently in the "So I designed a game" thread, is a good example of this. The three winning games (as well as many of the other competitors - and it was a pretty close contest) all have well-defined OOC challenges associated with them. The Sun Never Sets requires a certain amount of freewheeling improvisation on the part of player and GM alike, as players must think of useful ways to exploit the Flashback mechanics and GMs must incorporate those flashbacks into the game. Grunting is based entirely around the OOC problem of communicating in cavespeak, a language players are unlikely to be fluent in at first. And Dictatus Papae expects players to come up with brilliant Machiavellian schemes to get the better of their opponents - whether these be their fellow players or some GM-provided adversary - whilst maintaining their character's air of respectability.

It is absolutely crucial, when examining a game, to identify the OOC challenges inherent in the system. Certainly, you could say "hey, I shouldn't have to use cavespeak in Grunting, because my Grunting character is more familiar with cavespeak than I am", but if you did you'd be missing the point. Of course on a purely IC level your caveman should be more conversant with cavespeak than you are, but if the players in a Grunting game could just speak English instead of having to work out their plans in cavespeak the game is ruined. The system is even designed so that it's very difficult to fail once you've agreed on a plan, because the implicit assumption is that the challenge is in agreeing on a plan in the first place, not in enacting it.

As a consequence, it is imperative that game designers actually bother to identify which OOC skills are going to be taxed by the systems they design. The first edition of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons is brilliant in this regard: the introductions and prefaces, the example of play, the various essays on gamemastering style and campaign management and play tactics, all of these things serve to communicate the kind of game - and the kind of challenge - Gygax expects most players and GMs to be experiencing. I hope I've succeeded to the same extent in Dictatus Papae.

What are people's thoughts?

Quote from: WarthurWhat are people's thoughts?

I like them, provided they're not as jarring as gigantic chessboards in a dungeon.

Seanchai

Fascinating article.

Quote from: WarthurIt is absolutely crucial, when examining a game, to identify the OOC challenges inherent in the system.

I'll admit that I've never considered this much, to the detriment of Icar. I'm going to have to think a lot about the OOC challenges and try and describe how they might be met.

As a GM, I normally solve the problem of the player not knowing something the character does by asking the player to give it a go and then roll for the skill. The player can then get Roleplaying Points for giving it a good try and the skill can be used to ultimately decide success. This is a warm-and-fuzzy style but I think the less capable players in the past have appreciated it.

The opposite is also true. If a player has the gift of the gab and the character is not then the roll should be made first and the challenge is then for the player to play the level of success of the roll.

I'll need to think more about this for Icar because it's a big (and important) topic. I'll get back to you. Thanks for posting!

Quote from: Rob LangFascinating article.

Hi Rob! Welcome to The RPGSite!

-clash