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

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

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.