The separation of RPGs between the Main Forum and Other Games has been hotly debated in the last few weeks. A lot of the disagreement has focused on defending certain RPGs. A criticism of that disagreement is that there seems to be a lack of recognition of any grounds for separation, making it seem like any RPG separated to Other Games are claimed to be an RPG as a matter of course.

Despite this, I actually think that most of those who disagree acknowledge that RPGs can be separated. This is my proactive attempt to find better grounds for separation, one which are just as certain in their application but less offensive to RPGers. Rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater, lets just put the baby in its cot.

In another thread, I summarized what I saw was the underlying issue with the current separation.

Quote from: SkywalkerIt seems more obvious that what has happened here is that a group of new games, story-games, initially caused offense a few years ago. I think that this was a relatively well understood sentiment. However, in order to try and separate the offending group beyond any argument, it saw every RPG that led to that group or is somehow related to that group also being separated, even if its not part of that group. Much like cutting away healthy tissue around a tumour due to its proximity, rather than it being tumorous.

The problem is that this collateral separation is being done inconsistently as the reason for the separation doesn't readily apply to them and the sentiment is less well understood. This result will be that "RPGs" end up, for a good number of people, being a lesser subset of its previous self.

OOC Mechanics
I don’t think that the core for grounds of separation is the element of mechanics interacted with on an OOC basis, which features so prominently here on TheRPGSite. This ground is part of what I criticized above in unnecessarily setting the battle line way out in front from where it needs to be, in an attempt to avoid argument without regard to collateral damage.

IMO RPGs are, and have been since their inception, a hobby where players sit down and inhabit their characters. Despite any immersion that may be achieved, the player necessarily engages with the mechanics as a player as well as in direct reference to their character.

As such, an RPG doesn’t stop being an RPG just because you as a player make decisions based on what you as a player think is the best, for whatever reason.  These kinds of OOC mechanics have developed along with RPGs in unison with those mechanics that defined what a character does in the world they inhabit.

For 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.    

OOC Competition
So where is the line drawn? I think the core for the better grounds for separation is the element of competition and contestation between players (including the GM). In 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. Though there are rules, these are used to translate player decisions into actions, effects and results of the character and the world they exist in. They don’t act to set a level playing field from which the players can compete or contest with each other.

Before 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.

Likewise, it is possible for players to collaborate in a game with competitive rules. Competition doesn’t mean playing to win, just as two competing businesses don’t look to “win”, just to gain advantage. I have seen people do this kind of collaboration in a competitve game like HeroQuest, or other dungeon crawling style board games. The same can be said of a story-game like PrimeTime Adventures, where the players are collaborative in their storytelling. However, despite there being collaboration or a lack of “win” condition, the players are given equal authority and contest with each other to play the game. No one player can simply bypass this element without unbalancing the basis on which the game is being played.

Story-Games
In the late 1990s, the story game movement introduced new developments to the RPG hobby. The most significant of these was the ability of all players to contribute to story directly. Though this is a natural extension of narrative mechanics, there is IMO a fundamental difference. That was the introduction of competition or contestation. Once you give players overlapping narrative authority, you need a way to adjudicate conflict. This led to the reduction of the GM’s previous role as ultimate arbiter and shifted that role to the mechanics themselves.

In practice, this new form of gaming was a shock to many RPGers, myself included. GMs suddenly found themselves in contest with their players and this changed the dynamic considerably. So much so, that I agree that this created a new form of gaming with different concerns and developments.

Now, given its roots in narrative RPGs, its natural that after story-games arose they would feedback to RPGs. It is true that we have seen a resurgence in both OOC mechanics and, in particular, narrative mechanics. For example, making games more explicit and engaging to players are common in modern RPGs. However, I don’t think these feedback developments necessarily change a game that was previously an RPG into a story-game. If they ultimately lack the concept of competition between players, then its an RPG albeit a narrative RPG or a modern RPG.

D&D4e/Marvel Heroic
To illustrate this separation, here is an analysis of D&D4e and Marvel Heroic focusing on their tactical play (hopefully avoiding the narrative RPGs may help keep emotion out of the equation). D&D4e and MHR both have a strong element of OOC tactical play and are influenced by the recent rise of OOC mechanic focus in RPGs. However, despite whatever criticisms people have of D&D4e, most seem to agree its an RPG. MHR, however, is a clear borderline case. Yes, this represents me changing my mind on it thanks to CRKrueger.

Why do the two feel different? D&D4e has a lot of mechanics for the GM to create a balanced combat and an appropriate tactical challenge. Once the challenge is laid down, the GM is meant to abide by the rules of that challenge. However, it never becomes a contest as between GM and player. The GM doesn’t gain anything from beating the players or even doing better than the players. Fundamentally, the GM in D&D4e is acting as any GM of an RPG does, despite the players being engaged very clearly by the mechanics on an OOC level.

MHR differs. It also has a tactical combat system, but inside that system the GM’s resources (the Doom Pool) are limited. The players are trying to reduce it and the GM is trying to increase it. Not only is the GM meant to abide by the rules, like in an RPG, but what the GM can do is limited for the game to play as intended. For example, the GM can’t do certain things without spending these resources, such as bringing scenes to an end, granting any form of modifiers based on the world and bringing in reinforcements etc.

Oddly, from a narrative perspective, MHR is much less competitive. The GM pretty much creates the story elements as they do in an RPG, outside of a few very limited circumstances like players spending XP on milestones. This is the reason why I think MHR is a border line case. MHR is not an RPG in terms of its tactics. It is closer akin to a wargame or board game once the fighting starts. However, in terms of story, I think its more akin to an RPG. On balance, I could go either way.

Conclusion
This leads on to another interesting observation. If the players compete on a tactical level, you move from an RPG to that of a wargame or board game. If the players compete on a narrative level, you move from an RPG to that of a story-game.  If players compete on an immersive level, you are in a pure re-enactment, MMO or large scale boffer LARP. If you lack any competition between players, then there is a good chance that you have an RPG given its a relatively unique attribute in the field of gaming to RPGing.

To finish up, the above explains why IMO Tenra Bansho Zero, The One Ring, and Dungeon World are RPGs as they lack the player competition I identify. In each of these, they have mechanics that engage the players direct, common in many modern RPGs. These OOC mechanics may even allow a player to think on the character in a limited authorial role for a variety of purposes as has been in RPGs since the early 80s. But none of them involve any level of competition between the players and/or GM. None of them restrict the GM’s traditional role as the arbiter of the mechanics and primary creator and driver of story. And none of them usurp or corrupt RPGs as we have known them for decades.

You make one critical mistake, a common one.

Mechanics that are simply simulationist, physics engine types of mechanics are entirely character-based.  As a player, I can choose to do the following:

1. Make all mechanical decisions as my character would.
2. Make some mechanical decisions as a player for OOC reasons.
Now these reasons could be:
A. Tactical - I decide to get bonuses or use the game system in way my character may not know.
B. Narrative - I may decide to have my character make a decision based on what I as a player think would be an interesting story or would make for better character development even if the character would not want to do such a thing.
C. Social - I decide to have my character help the new guy more then he normally would because I want the new player to feel welcome.
D. Genre emulation - Yeah my guy might not really want to do this, but he's a Hero dammit!
D. Misc Metagame - My character drawing on Player knowledge etc...

WHY I'm making the decisions, no one knows but me.  That's been the advantage of D&D and other games over the years, they supported all playstyles by NOT having mechanics for them.

Now if I specifically construct mechanics for OOC metagame reasons to enable playstyles to better support Tactical, Narrative, Genre Emulation, or even Social styles of play, then I specifically lessen the support for IC immersion.

IC and OOC are mutually exclusive.  Any given individual reason can be either IC or OOC, not both.  Now there may be more then one reason that goes into any decision, but even if there are 14 reasons I am making the decision, each one is either IC or OOC.

The difference is mechanics without such OOC metagame mechanics allow for as much IC immersion as possible.  Mechanics with such OOC metagame mechanics limit the IC immersion in proportion to the sheer number of OOC decisions.

As the narrative control, tactical game challenge, or genre emulation mechanics increase, the level of IC immersion decreases, that is simple fact.

Now people may not recognize this because when they play they always have OOC chatter going on, talk OOC about stuff before they say stuff IC and generally don't get too deep into IC Immersion, which is fine, and I realize that's probably the majority of the hobby.

But for those people who like the option of immersing freely without any forced OOC mechanics yanking you out of IC, then these types of games, don't really feel like "Role-playing games".  Why?  Because they are specifically designed to deliver a play experience that interferes with deeper IC immersive roleplaying.

In other words, Dungeon World does not seem any different then other RPGs to you, because the OOC narrative control mechanics don't interfere with your level of immersion.  That does not mean that those OOC narrative control mechanics are not there.

At every single one of our tables, there are some who are light roleplayers, some might be a little heavier, some like more tactical minigame stuff, some like more narrative storytelling approach, yet we've all played bog-standard D&D, RQ, Traveller, etc for years in some cases with each other.

Well now there are games that if you like a specific type of playstyle you will love the game, if you don't care about that playstyle it won't make any difference, but if you don't like that playstyle, then we're back to how much shit in a sandwich makes it a shit sandwich.

I'd be fine with saying X-world games, Fate games, Cortex+ games are narrative RPGs, and possibly make a forum for them or not.  It's not my site.

As to the competition part, that is interesting.  It kind of rolls into my earlier statement.  For example take a game like Shadowrun.  Everything except karma is character-based.  If the players want to have their characters kill each other for player-based reasons they can, but usually character conflict in Shadowrun ends up being character-based.

Something like Dogs in the Vineyard has conflict at both the character and player level mechanically enforced.

It seems like if there are OOC tactical decisions, then the game is more of a RPG/Wargame Hybrid and if there are OOC narrative decisions, then the game is more of a RPG/Storygame Hybrid.

Kind of like

Wargame - All tactics
Wargame Hybrid - Tactics w/some Roleplay
Tactical RPG - Roleplaying Game w/strong OOC Tactical elements
RPG - All or most mechanics IC
Narrative RPG - Roleplaying Game w/strong OOC Narrative elements
Storygame Hybrid - Narrative game w/some Roleplay
Storygame - Pure Storytelling, almost all authorial stance concerning characters.

I'm not suggesting each as a label, but since we're always talking about a spectrum, these seem like decent "colors" to me.

I apologise for the unnecessary troll post, but the title of this thread makes it impossible for me to pass on this opportunity:

So, should we start singing "In RPGsiteland we'll take our stand"?

Quote from: CRKrueger;669004You make one critical mistake, a common one.

Mechanics that are simply simulationist, physics engine types of mechanics are entirely character-based.  As a player, I can choose to do the following:

1. Make all mechanical decisions as my character would.
2. Make some mechanical decisions as a player for OOC reasons.
Now these reasons could be:
A. Tactical - I decide to get bonuses or use the game system in way my character may not know.
B. Narrative - I may decide to have my character make a decision based on what I as a player think would be an interesting story or would make for better character development even if the character would not want to do such a thing.
C. Social - I decide to have my character help the new guy more then he normally would because I want the new player to feel welcome.
D. Genre emulation - Yeah my guy might not really want to do this, but he's a Hero dammit!
D. Misc Metagame - My character drawing on Player knowledge etc...

WHY I'm making the decisions, no one knows but me.  That's been the advantage of D&D and other games over the years, they supported all playstyles by NOT having mechanics for them.

Now if I specifically construct mechanics for OOC metagame reasons to enable playstyles to better support Tactical, Narrative, Genre Emulation, or even Social styles of play, then I specifically lessen the support for IC immersion.

IC and OOC are mutually exclusive.  Any given individual reason can be either IC or OOC, not both.  Now there may be more then one reason that goes into any decision, but even if there are 14 reasons I am making the decision, each one is either IC or OOC.

The difference is mechanics without such OOC metagame mechanics allow for as much IC immersion as possible.  Mechanics with such OOC metagame mechanics limit the IC immersion in proportion to the sheer number of OOC decisions.

As the narrative control, tactical game challenge, or genre emulation mechanics increase, the level of IC immersion decreases, that is simple fact.

Now people may not recognize this because when they play they always have OOC chatter going on, talk OOC about stuff before they say stuff IC and generally don't get too deep into IC Immersion, which is fine, and I realize that's probably the majority of the hobby.

But for those people who like the option of immersing freely without any forced OOC mechanics yanking you out of IC, then these types of games, don't really feel like "Role-playing games".  Why?  Because they are specifically designed to deliver a play experience that interferes with deeper IC immersive roleplaying.

In other words, Dungeon World does not seem any different then other RPGs to you, because the OOC narrative control mechanics don't interfere with your level of immersion.  That does not mean that those OOC narrative control mechanics are not there.

At every single one of our tables, there are some who are light roleplayers, some might be a little heavier, some like more tactical minigame stuff, some like more narrative storytelling approach, yet we've all played bog-standard D&D, RQ, Traveller, etc for years in some cases with each other.

Well now there are games that if you like a specific type of playstyle you will love the game, if you don't care about that playstyle it won't make any difference, but if you don't like that playstyle, then we're back to how much shit in a sandwich makes it a shit sandwich.

I'd be fine with saying X-world games, Fate games, Cortex+ games are narrative RPGs, and possibly make a forum for them or not.  It's not my site.

As a definition of the kind of RPGs you like, this is all fine. Make a label for them if you want - immersion-focused games or the like.

The problem comes when you seek to define your way of roleplaying as the only way of roleplaying, and things other than your preferred method as a different hobby altogether.

OK so some RPGs like AD&D allow you to make all of your decisions from a solely in character point of view. So what? You acknowledge yourself that this is a largely theoretical thing, and that most players will still make at least some of their decisions based on metagame factors or from an authorial or mechanical stance. Old Geezer's accounts of playing with Gary say that at least in the early days they acted almost entirely from a metagame/puzzle solving POV.

So already your definition of roleplaying excludes most actual instances of people playing a roleplaying game, including the very creator of the hobby and his group.

Now let's look at some other traditional RPGs past and present. D&D 4e has things like martial encounter powers, come and get it, and action points, that are all very difficult to explain from a solely in-character point of view. WFRP 1e has fate points. Cyberpunk has luck points. Vampire has willpower points. So now your definition also excludes many if not most published examples of roleplaying games.

Quote from: soviet;669013WFRP 1e has fate points.

I rest my case.

Quote from: One Horse Town;669015I rest my case.

Facts sure are inconvenient aren't they.

Quote from: soviet;669026Facts sure are inconvenient aren't they.

http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=668880&postcount=13

I'm surprised it took you so long.

Quote from: One Horse Town;669031http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=668880&postcount=13

I'm surprised it took you so long.

Mentioning facts that conflict with your world view is spoiling for a fight, got it. Are you going to ban me now for 'site disruption'?

Quote from: One Horse Town;669031http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=668880&postcount=13

I'm surprised it took you so long.

Quid erat demonstrandum.

Quote from: soviet;669013As a definition of the kind of RPGs you like, this is all fine. Make a label for them if you want - immersion-focused games or the like.

The problem comes when you seek to define your way of roleplaying as the only way of roleplaying, and things other than your preferred method as a different hobby altogether.

How wonderful for me then that I've never done that.  Look back and you'll find a couple years ago I suggested:

Immersive RPGs
Tactical RPGs
Narrative RPGs

as descriptors we could use for discussion.  All holy hell broke loose on the word immersion, coming then from the 4e crowd who objected to 4e being suggested as a Tactical RPG.

If all you're going to do is lump everyone together with Pundit as the enemy, and start to chop down the Strawman that everyone says "RPG or not", then you're going down the path of the ideologue, and you'll start to make asinine statements simply because your side is right, so winning by any means necessary is the only goal.  Then you'll make yourself look like a disingenuous douchebag for attempting to get by the laughable suggestion that a single mechanic of Fate Points in WFRP1 is on the same scale as something like a full-blown usage of Aspects, Fate and Compels in FATE.

First of all, Fate in WFRP1 is defined in the game as the will of the gods.  You're not just any Rat-Catcher, you're a Rat-Catcher who the gods have in mind for something.  As such, Fate is represented in the setting itself.

Secondly the only thing the Fate Points are used for is to get out of death.  The player can't use them for anything else.

Thirdly, they are limited.

Fourthly, you can excise them if you want and have Zero effect on the rest of the game.

However, because I am not an ideological douchebag, I will admit that Fate Points are a Player-driven mechanic, the character does not choose to use them.  Really, the Player doesn't even choose to use them unless he wishes to die, so not really designed to give much Narrative Control, which makes sense because that's not what they were designed for, unlike Narrative Control mechanics designed specifically for that purpose.

So...don't be a disingenuous douchebag.

As to the "so what"?  

Well if you admit that a "physics engine" game allows you to roleplay without interference even if you don't choose to do so, and these types of games came first, then later came games which introduced new mechanics that specifically sacrificed the ability to roleplay, doesn't it seem like we might need to look at the definition of RPG a little bit and maybe come up with some new terms?

Isn't the umbrella a bit too wide?  

I mean the whole reason someone designs a game with narrative control mechanics or any type of mechanic is to deliver an experience to people who want those types of mechanics, I mean "System Matters", right?

So why the objection to terms like Narrative RPGs?  Again, I'm not the Pundit.

I don't object to Dungeon World being called a Hybrid RPG or Narrative RPG, I object to it being called an Old School Traditional RPG, which is the line they're selling at awfulpurple, something you yourself have said is wrong.

To paraphrase Inigo Montoya:

The person you are arguing with is not the person you think you are arguing with.

Quote from: CRKrueger;669005Wargame - All tactics
Wargame Hybrid - Tactics w/some Roleplay
Tactical RPG - Roleplaying Game w/strong OOC Tactical elements
RPG - All or most mechanics IC
Narrative RPG - Roleplaying Game w/strong OOC Narrative elements
Storygame Hybrid - Narrative game w/some Roleplay
Storygame - Pure Storytelling, almost all authorial stance concerning characters.

I might nitpick on the particulars of each definition, but I basically agree that you could represent the spectrum using such terms.

Quote from: soviet;669033Mentioning facts that conflict with your world view is spoiling for a fight, got it. Are you going to ban me now for 'site disruption'?

This has got fuck all to do with my world view or even my view on roleplaying games. :rolleyes:

You've been here long enough to know where to post most things - as have most of the other posters here, which you knew full well before you decided to play your hysterical little strawman above.

The rest is all just whistling in the wind.

Pundit pays money for the privilege of having people piss and moan at him for the distinctions he decides to make on his forum. Our entitlement stops with him.

The 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. That OD&D or Car Wars could be considered 'hybrid-tactical rpgs' isn't a meaningful distinction that I could conceive of a reason the distinction would ever need to be made. I mean it doesn't facilitate any discussion of that game. I do see the value in separating games where game play is 'you are this character and go on many adventures' vs 'you are the author of this character and their adventures'. That, to my mind, describes two very different experiences of play. I don't find the other or further distinctions meaningful except in reference to that distinction. No, I don't like 4th ed. Calling it a tactical RPG or war game hybrid erves little purpose, IMO, though. Its a 'crunchy RPG. Like Hero. Lite vs crunchy tells me all I need to know. I'm fine calling both just rpgs.

I 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).

However, 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.