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.