Quote from: Kanye Westeros;669527All fiction is lumped into the same category, fiction. Genre is based on a set of codes and conventions, at least in media studies, a sub-genre is only created when there is significant divergence from it's root but even so, it is not divorced from that root. Meaning, it becomes a sub-genre not a totally different genre.

Fantasy, space opera etc are all speculative fiction. These games we talk about are all roleplaying games. If you wish to split them up into "sub-genres", the that is your deal but to try a split them up into different hobbies is absurd, just as your analogy is misunderstood.

Whatever works for you. Of course games that aren't up front regarding what they are about get treated like movies that won't show you what the hell the movie is about in the trailer- it gets mentally tossed into the wait for video bin.

There is far too much being offered in all forms of entertainment media for vague content to get much traction.

EDIT:  What I am talking about DOES involve sub-genres. A narrative based rpg is still an rpg. The difference is in the nature of the role adopted by the player. Is the player assuming the role of an inhabitant of a fictional world (traditional rpg) or the role of co-storyteller based on the perspective of an inhabitant of a fictional world (narrative rpg)

I find that claim very hard to swallow and I don't see the connection between vague trailers and roleplaying games. The success of a film has little to do with the focus of it's trailer.

Also, just because something doesn't conform to your connotations, does not mean it is vague. That is your judgemental value and not a fact.

I reject your statement that traditionally roleplaying is the inhabitation of a fictional world. I maintain that all these "sub-genres" have always been apart of the hobby. You can see this in the decisive split in the approach of Arneson and Gygax.

Besides, this whole shit-storm wasn't started for commercial reasons. The forge, much like the pundit, was pseudo-academic. They took playstyles and decided that they could create a framework in which better games could be designed.

Quote from: Kanye Westeros;669533Besides, this whole shit-storm wasn't started for commercial reasons. The forge, much like the pundit, was pseudo-academic. They took playstyles and decided that they could create a framework in which better games could be designed.

Better games? Fuck no.

Different games yes.

Well if you are of the opinion that the forge produced objectively better games than any that had come before I can abandon all attempts at logic and reason and ignore your ramblings.

Sure, you can bow out by trying to paint yourself the bastion of logic and reason but I am not the forge, I was never a member of the forge. Stating the forge's intentions is not a claim, objective or otherwise.

The Forge is dead, and inconsequential. It has no relevance to the real world, and you can take that to mean real life or the future of the RPG hobby. Yes, I know people are still all butthurt that some Indy game designer decided to hijack threefold theory and turn it into an exercise in pseudo-intellectual online circle-jerking, but still bawling about it this many years later is just a form of self-righteous masturbation in and of itself.

'I was never a member of the communist party, Mr. MacArthur, no sir.'
'Then how do you explain all your monopoly game pieces being painted...red?!'

Quote from: Kanye Westeros;669537Sure, you can bow out by trying to paint yourself the bastion of logic and reason but I am not the forge, I was never a member of the forge. Stating the forge's intentions is not a claim, objective or otherwise.

Ok fair enough, you are not a forge-ite. Garden variety idiot will have to suffice I suppose.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;669542Ok fair enough, you are not a forge-ite. Garden variety idiot will have to suffice I suppose.

Youre out of arguments. Ok, we got it.

Quote from: Skywalker;668979For some RPGers, the use of player engagement can have a positive impact on the IC play by strengthening the bond between the player and character. For example, there have been OOC mechanics of a tactical nature that directly translate tension and excitement of the character in combat to the player. There have been OOC mechanics of a narrative nature also, providing dramatic editing, conveying genre, avoiding sensitive issues like untimely character death, and improving player/GM communication. There has also been developments for OOC methods to help immerse a player in their PC, such as handouts, music, costuming and (on a mechanics level) LARPing.    

Examples?
Re-reading the OP I'm not sure both sides of the argument here even have the same definitions of 'in-character' and 'out of character'.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;669602Examples?
Re-reading the OP I'm not sure both sides of the argument here even have the same definitions of 'in-character' and 'out of character'.

In terms of just the OOC tactical mechanics:

I think D&D4e is an example of this. The combat system is a tense and exciting tactical exercise for the player (some of it relates specifically to the character but a lot of it doesn't). Fans of the approach would feel that the tension they feel brings them closer to how their character may feel in that situation. Alternatively, a player may feel dissociated from the character using a dicefest combat system with no tension at all.

A more subtle example (and possibly more narrative one) is Double Cross, where there is IMO a great resource management mechanic that the PC pushes over the line during the game for greater power. However, if the PC can't get it back under 100% after a period of time, the PC is lost to madness. At the end of the session, there is a series of choices for the player regarding pulling back from the brink, but its always risky to do so. The mechanics are translating the feeling of risk OOC of losing the PC into a similar feeling of IC risk of the PC losing sanity.

A more extreme example is Dread that uses a Jenga tower to create a tension at a player which some players feel that it gets them closer to the actual tension felt by the character.

If you want to include the OOC narrative mechanics that come next on the list, then there are a whole lot more. They include "genre mechanics" which assist a player in playing a character consistent with the genre for the RPG.

I consider 'IC' to be any desicion made in character, taking the game world as 'real into account, and ignoring all knowledge of The Game.

I consider OOC any point in the game when I'm thinking of it as a game or with any awareness of the rules.

In fact its a lot like The Game...

Quote from: Skywalker;669605In terms of just the OOC tactical mechanics:

I think D&D4e is an example of this. The combat system is a tense and exciting tactical exercise for the player (some of it relates specifically to the character but a lot of it doesn't). Fans of the approach would feel that the tension they feel brings them closer to how their character may feel in that situation. Alternatively, a player may feel dissociated from the character using a dicefest combat system with no tension at all.

A more subtle example (and possibly more narrative one) is Double Cross, where there is IMO a great resource management mechanic that the PC pushes over the line during the game for greater power. However, if the PC can't get it back under 100% after a period of time, the PC is lost to madness. At the end of the session, there is a series of choices for the player regarding pulling back from the brink, but its always risky to do so. The mechanics are translating the feeling of risk OOC of losing the PC into a similar feeling of IC risk of the PC losing sanity.

A more extreme example is Dread that uses a Jenga tower to create a tension at a player which some players feel that it gets them closer to the actual tension felt by the character.

If you want to include the OOC narrative mechanics that come next on the list, then there are a whole lot more. They include "genre mechanics" which assist a player in playing a character consistent with the genre for the RPG.

What I was thinking of, when you mentioned it, was the old practice of rolling dice behind the GM screen while chuckling evilly. Hopefully helping the players feel some in-character tension, albeit using dice rolls which the character isn't aware of.

4E is tricky in that even if you feel more excited/tense and that feeling is in character, you're simultaneously losing the ability to have in-character decision making, for the most part, since fundamentals like how often a power can be used aren't explicable in character (or fully applying that explanation gives results at odds with the rules).

In that respect it may look good compared to dull 'I attack the orc' type combat, but, this is more showing that combat of that type is problematic because it also removes a bunch of in-character decisions or problems (such as damage to hit locations), hiding them beneath the abstraction level of the system. A lot of the old school people would, I imagine, spice up D&D combats with many more circumstance-based or ad hoc rulings as necessary; myself I'm very fond of the Fighter's Handbook in 2E.  

Dread I will have to reserve judgment on. The tower seems like it would help build tension but the game itself must be quite limited in scope if tension is inevitably going to escalate.

Anyway, I'll grant mechanics can help build mood or feeling that's character-appropriate - on occasion - I'd still dispute that 'dramatic editing' can do this - more likely the reverse.
I don't know that I'd call handouts, music, costuming or LARPing ooc exactly. Certainly not in any way that excuses narrative editing or the like. I'm not sure you can explicitly define mechanics or things as IC/OOC without saying in respect to what (decision making being perhaps the main thing getting discussed with respect to Volley or the like).

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;669616What I was thinking of, when you mentioned it, was the old practice of rolling dice behind the GM screen while chuckling evilly. Hopefully helping the players feel some in-character tension, albeit using dice rolls which the character isn't aware of.

OOC methods for IC effect have been around as long as RPGs have. OOC mechanics followed soon after and are a development of those methods IMO.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;6696164E is tricky in that even if you feel more excited/tense and that feeling is in character, you're simultaneously losing the ability to have in-character decision making, for the most part, since fundamentals like how often a power can be used aren't explicable in character (or fully applying that explanation gives results at odds with the rules).

It depends. If you can closely align the OOC mechanic with IC decision making, or such that its not related to the IC decision making (being tense isn't a part of the character's decisions in combat), you can gain more than you lose IME.

Tolerance to these methods has, as always, been a personal matter. They work for some people and others find them distracting. The only point really made in this thread is that the method itself is not antithetical to RPGs.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;669616Anyway, I'll grant mechanics can help build mood or feeling that's character-appropriate - on occasion - I'd still dispute that 'dramatic editing' can do this - more likely the reverse.

I guess it depends on the extent of that editing. Most dramatic editing is limited to try and add an element of "cool" that exists in some genres but not in the real world like pulp.

The example that first pops into my head is the one in Dying Earth RPG where a player gets to create witty retorts which they give to the GM before the session. The GM is encouraged to try and provide opportunities for these to be used in game. The mechanic is definitely OOC (and IMO overly intrusive and not well designed). But I can see how it trying to help create the mood of the Dying Earth setting for playing characters Say what you will about the mechanic though, again the only point being made is just that IMO these methods and mechanics don't make an RPG not an RPG.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;6696164E is tricky in that even if you feel more excited/tense and that feeling is in character, you're simultaneously losing the ability to have in-character decision making, for the most part, since fundamentals like how often a power can be used aren't explicable in character (or fully applying that explanation gives results at odds with the rules).

Not really. Everyone has limits, that goes double when we're talking about physical exertion. Power limits can definitely be understood in character. This analogy is only strengthened given the Second Wind mechanic, which can represent breaking through that exertion temporally.

Quote from: Skywalker;669619It depends. If you can closely align the OOC mechanic with IC decision making, or such that its not related to the IC decision making (being tense isn't a part of the character's decisions in combat), you can gain more than you lose IME.

Gain more than you lose compared to what? Its very easy to imagine a combat system giving reasonable tactical options and tension without the bizzarities of totally abstract hit points and arbitrariness of 1/use encounter powers. I don't particularly want just rolls to hit and 5 minute combats either, but these ooc elements aren't necessary and represent an undesireable line of development, IMHO.

Again, doing a full comparison of 'oocness' compared to traditional D&D isn't necessarily that useful. If a character wants to do something like, say, feinting a blow at an opponents' head and then, as they raise their shield to block, stabbing them in the leg, there's no rules support for this action in traditional D&D, so unless the GM is willing to make something up its unlikely to be used - so there's a disconnect being what the character does and mechanics through lack of detail.
4E quite possibly would have a power that does it somewhere, which would be good, except it'd then be something that gets used in every combat, and probably on gelatinous cubes mostly.
(Or something like Savage Worlds would do it and probably handle it as a Smarts trick, but now raising questions about if the player can just say 'I do a Smarts trick' and get the results when doing so is mechanically advantageous, without needing any in-character explanation or justification).

QuoteSay what you will about the mechanic though, again the only point being made is just that IMO these methods and mechanics don't make an RPG not an RPG.

I get your point, I think, though I'd say its a matter of degree.
EDIT: Also, I would probably class Dying Earth as a storygame anyway, due to the way dice pools run out.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;669633Gain more than you lose compared to what?

Sorry for the vague response, but the overall experience for the player playing his character. You may lose some immersion by needing to be OOC but it may mean that you become more engaged in playing that character or have a more satisfying experience in someway.

Its all a balancing act and given everyone gets different things from different ways from RPGing, any single balance won't work for everyone.

FWIW I agree that D&D should not be used as a baseline here as I don't think its the most immersive IC RPG out there, nor was it ever intended to be.