OK. Thanks for the discussion, anyway, has been interesting.

Quote from: TristramEvans;669607I 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...

I prefer

Quote from: TristramEvans;669540The 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.

As dead as it is, there are still very many people (on this very thread in fact) who want to subscribe to its utterly failed theories and ram them down other gamers' throats. Trying to turn the Forge's "winter of discontent" into a glorious summer of playing the "Forge is dead, what are you whining about" card as a way to discredit anyone who tries to stop them from pretending their forge-born storygames are mainstream RPGs that need to be embraced and who's mechanics should be insinuated and culture and mentality transplanted into the hobby.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;669916As dead as it is, there are still very many people (on this very thread in fact) who want to subscribe to its utterly failed theories and ram them down other gamers' throats. Trying to turn the Forge's "winter of discontent" into a glorious summer of playing the "Forge is dead, what are you whining about" card as a way to discredit anyone who tries to stop them from pretending their forge-born storygames are mainstream RPGs that need to be embraced and who's mechanics should be insinuated and culture and mentality transplanted into the hobby.

RPGPundit

Yes, I understand that's your crusade to protect the 'purity' of RPGs, but in the last ten years yours is honestly the only voice on the matter I've heard one way or the other. The cabal of Snidely Whiplashes out to destroy the hobby is not something  I've ever come across and the supposition of their existence doesn't strike me as incredibly plausible. So that's a battle I'm abstaining from taking any part in, frankly. I know whati like and whati want from an rpg, and even though I am one who will distinguish between an rpg and a story game,I'm satisfied with my own criteria for judgement on that matter, as it's based on logic and direct knowledge of the games. As for the ongoing influence of  The Forge, I'll start worrying the moment one of Edward's cult manages to create a profitable rpg.

Quote from: TristramEvans;669923Yes, I understand that's your crusade to protect the 'purity' of RPGs, but in the last ten years yours is honestly the only voice on the matter I've heard one way or the other.

So I guess in all this time you've never once read Ron Edwards, Vince Baker, Chris Chinn, Luke Crane, etc. etc. ad nauseum?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;669933So I guess in all this time you've never once read Ron Edwards, Vince Baker, Chris Chinn, Luke Crane, etc. etc. ad nauseum?

RPGPundit

I read two of his essays way back at a time I think you were still posting on rpgnet. I didn't find them particularly interesting, but they didn't bother me in the same way trainspotters don't bother me. I read his fantasy heartbreaker essay one or two more times after that when the subject reared its head from time to time. I do think alot of the statements made about him or attributed to him are exaggerated, but I have no interest in defending him. What I took away from it is that he was a guy that liked thinking about rpgs more than playing them, and nothing that he said/theorized about the play style I would be described by his criteria to embody, was even remotely correct. The guy didn't understand nor even 'I suspect conceive of, what immersive role playing entails. But I found him rather well-spoken otherwise, if pretentious as,  well, any of us I guess.

Don't know any of the others except...is Luke Crane the one who did Burning Wheel? And I've heart Vincent Baker's name on these forums in regards to AW and that Mormon game.

The only thing I can think of that originated at The Forge and is still a bit of a meme on the forums today (mostly rpgnet) is that annoying 'social contract nonsense. But I take it there's quite a few gamers posting online that actually are grateful for the blatant codification of basic unspoken principles of socialization.

There's also the,  shall we say, "anti-GM movement", in that in recent years it seems we've gotten # lot of new games designed on the hopeless principle of 'protecting players from bad GMs, but I don't that has any especial connection to The Forge, I think there's just a number of gamers who had crappy GMs and naively think they can solve that problem via the game's rules. I'd put BW in that category.

Quote from: SkywalkerIn fact, I think that the defining feature of RPGs in the field of gaming is that the players aren’t in competition or contestation with each other.

So, the earliest 'RPGs' -- such as Arneson's Blackmoor and Gygax's Greyhawk -- were not really RPGs? I can't accept any definition that excludes those (as well as a lot of other classic games).

Quote from: soviet;669092

Quote from: CRKrueger defines roleplayingRoleplaying 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.

This is an old conflict between advocates of a "thespian" approach and those who take the older "persona" approach. I see it as a difference in the composition of the role, not one of R-P vs. Non-RP.

Both approaches are notably different from an "authorial" mode, in which one is trying to shape a narrative rather than respond to a situation from a particular character's localized frame of reference.

Quote from: Phillip;670808So, the earliest 'RPGs' -- such as Arneson's Blackmoor and Gygax's Greyhawk -- were not really RPGs? I can't accept any definition that excludes those (as well as a lot of other classic games).

From what I know of those earlier attempts, they would be considered RPGs by the separation I set out. To quote myself in the paragraph directly below the one you quoted:

Quote from: Skywalker;668979Before exploring this, it must be noted that players can act competitively in an RPG. However, there is no level playing field between players or ability for players to compete through the rules, except IC.

Quote from: Phillip;670810This is an old conflict between advocates of a "thespian" approach and those who take the older "persona" approach. I see it as a difference in the composition of the role, not one of R-P vs. Non-RP.

Both approaches are notably different from an "authorial" mode, in which one is trying to shape a narrative rather than respond to a situation from a particular character's localized frame of reference.

That is a an excellent observation and I think it shows one of the major mistakes here i.e. thespians being equated with authors.

Quote from: SkywalkerFrom what I know of those earlier attempts, they would be considered RPGs by the separation I set out.

Now I see that you allow players to compete IC. Why not drop the claim about competition, then, and stick with the idea that an RPG focuses on IC actions?

Don't expect sharp-edged purity without cognitive dissonance, but if we can get real enough to deal with fuzzy spectra, I think there's enough in the difference in focus to make reasonable distinctions.

Not that I agree with the way the terms RPG and STG are used hereabouts, but I can accept it.

Quote from: SkywalkerThat is a an excellent observation and I think it shows one of the major mistakes here i.e. thespians being equated with authors.

As I meant it, the "persona" players (e.g., Old Geezer) would be the ones Soviet was trying to equate with "authorial" players.

The implication was that using tactics and player knowledge was "not role-playing" just as much (or little) as narrative-focused play, and therefore either the latter kind of story-game is also an RPG or Gygax's D&D was not an RPG (Zing!).

A "thespian" fundamentalist would agree that early D&D was "not proper role-playing," but I don't know whether CRKrueger is of that ilk.

Quote from: Phillip;670837Now I see that you allow players to compete IC. Why not drop the claim about competition, then, and stick with the idea that an RPG focuses on IC actions?

One of my main contentions is that the mechanics of an RPG can be engaged with both IC and/or OOC. The later (which is often used here as a dividing line) doesn't prevent an RPG being an RPG.  For example, a game where the player can spend a benny for limited dramatic editing (which goes beyond IC actions) doesn't prevent the game from being an RPG.

Quote from: Phillip;670837..."persona" players..."authorial" players..."thespian" fundamentalist...

Ah cool. I misread your comment.

Quote from: Skywalker;670814That is a an excellent observation and I think it shows one of the major mistakes here i.e. thespians being equated with authors.

Story-games (I think its from) did have a useful categorization here:
Actor stance: making character decisions based on character POV
Author stance: making character decisions based on story needs
Director stance: altering world or scene details
Pawn stance: moving the character entirely with regard to player desires.

The 10ft pole players operate largely in Pawn, while the hardcore immersionists view anything other than Actor as undesirable. Story first people sometimes like Director as being preferable to Author (that is, they would prefer to rearrange world details so that 'acting in character' doesn't break the story), rather than acting out of character to further the story.

As long as RPGPundit pays for the website, I am cool with his definition of what goes in what forum. Its his playground so he can set the rules.

And I do find the "Storygames = Bad, Amber = Good" to be hysterical, but he does have Amber in its own forum so why not put what he sees as Not-RPGs into Other Games where he is cool with it.

If we were paying for site upkeep or paying a monthly a membership fee, then I'd care more about WTF definitions were being used.