I was re-reading the responses to this thread http://indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=11255.

Ron, you said:

...One of the topics I'm forever maundering about concerns the plain-old-people dialogue that surrounds or grounds a role-playing session, during play. I'm usually trying to help someone see that such dialogue is not only helpful and enjoyable, but often central to play, whereas they are struggling with their training which insists that such dialogue is very wrong and bad for role-playing.

[never mind!]

No, such discussion is bad! It detracts from the game session! It makes you step out of character, and thus takes others out of character! If you speak out of character about the game, you are obviously trying to gain some sort of mechanical advantage over the gamemaster: you're a munchkin. If you speak out of character about anything else, you are obviously not interested in the session -- that makes the GM sad -- please don't bother others during the game. No jokes! Jokes are bad, because they break immersion and distract everyone at the table; they can destroy the mood of a scene!

These are standard (if generally unspoken, until they're broken) 'rules' and beliefs in any group I've ever been a part of, including my own up to just a couple years ago.

You've never encountered any of these, James?

greyorm wrote: No jokes! Jokes are bad, because they break immersion and distract everyone at the table; they can destroy the mood of a scene!

Mr equivocation says... depends on the group.

In line with Chris Lehrich's work on ritual, and the idea of creating ritual space, certainly non-game related banter can harm the process of making the space and time the game occurs in psychologically special, to aid in identification with the shared imaginary space.Eliminating it shows a commitment to the SiS as something worthy of your time and effort to create and explore.

But, on the flip side, RPG's are a social pastime, and cracking down on socializing can certainly make you question why you're doing it. I mean, we're there to have fun, right?

In my own group, it's pretty obvious from early on in any night whether that night will be a gaming night or a socializing night, with light gaming.

Cracking on with the hoary old music makers metaphor... It doesn't matter if you're a terrible band musically for you to enjoy being a band, hanging out while playing the same riffs again and again. Sure, you'd like to be better musicians, but it's more important to be ina band with friends.

On the flip side, you can be the greatest band in the world, but if you're not enjoying each other's company outside of playing, the band will split.

After all, Mick Jones got kicked out of the Rolling Stones because he didn't know any Max Miller routines...

As for folk being actively hostile... homework tongiht is to find examples of rulebooks that actively punish players for this kind of thing.

pete_darby wrote: As for folk being actively hostile... homework tongiht is to find examples of rulebooks that actively punish players for this kind of thing.

Hello,

Arrowflight: throughout text, but most especially in terms of player-character death. I hasten to add that I think Arrowflight is tremendously coherent and that such advice is consistent with many other techniques supported by the rules.

Usagi Yojimbo: a monk character has the special ability of using out-of-character knowledge to prompt a character decision, very much in the sense of Author Stance (no a priori in-game justification needed). The text also provides an aside which states that of course no other character should be played utilizing such a technique, all straight-faced with no evidence of metatextual meaning.

As for direct punishment, I suggest looking for experience-point systems which reward "stayed in character" or "contributed to the adventure" (which I consider to mean "Participated" in the Holmesian sense).

Best,
Ron

JamesDJIII wrote: Eveything else - no, really. I've never encountered that. Maybe I've been playing RPGs in some distant backwater planet on the edge of the galaxy?

greyorm wrote: You know, to prevent, "I'll bet there's a secret door here leading to the lich's lair. You should look for secret doors!" and "Trolls regenerate everything but fire! Cast a fireball!" and "Ask the king about letting me out of the prison!" and so on and so forth, which is always considered to be 'cheating.' This is also often used to preclude discussion about the game as well, unless it is the characters who are discussing events and plans.

Hmmm, I'll say that I'm gamist and so is our group. So when some character is seperated, ooc is interfearing with his stepping on up. I mean, if the other dude who's PC isn't even there can call all the big shots for this player...why is that player at the table? The other dudes doing all the step on up for him!

But in the same way, light hints OOC are acceptable in the terms of 'dude, you should have seen this by now'. In other words it provides a light peer presure for the lone player to step on up quick and proper, otherwise someone else will give him the answer and he'll miss out on the glory of answering it himself. But going into full detail on what to do, that's someone else playing his character.

BUT, I'd actually read Rons comments as more being interplayer dialog to maintain the health of the session, stuff like 'Hey Jim, it looks like you haven't had anything to do for awhile while your PC's alone and were doing other peoples scenes...I reakon you would have run into (insert interesting thing), what do you think, GM (clear pointer to give Jim some screen time)?'. Stuff like that. Was I wrong?

Noon wrote: BUT, I'd actually read Rons comments as more being interplayer dialog to maintain the health of the session . . .

Blll nailed it in one. Of the division of the "bad" talk between the first and second groups, I was referring to the second, not the first.

Is it generally recognized that they are the same "bad" by others? We always frowned on the first, because we recognized it felt like a distraction from the main event.

I don't think we ever analyzed the whys of the second category, or made distinctions that the decision you would make regarding this groups of OOC talk would be radically different for different kinds of games.

I might add that I don't mind when my players make humorous suggestions to my other players which could enrich the scene. For example, one of my players' character has a tail, and occasionally other players will make comments about what he might do with it in a given scene, which he sometimes adopts for the benefit of the scene, and much fun is had by all.

On the other hand, I do get annoyed when a certain player of mine decides that other player's scenes are a good time to leave the table and do other stuff. This player is notorious in other groups for under-involvement though, but it still is frustrating. I feel it puts pressure on myself and the other players to adjust their playing (which we all might be very much enjoying) just to "win back" this player. But I digress.

I also have no problem with audience members (non-players) throwing in a comment or two, on one condition: that they are not helping a player with a problem, but are instead adding to the liveliness of the imaginary environment. But in my experience, I've never had to spell out that condition, because most people seem to respect the importance of players overcoming obstacles on their own (us Aussies are big on our competency, and helping people when they don't need it is a big no no).

My last point, is that I don't mind OOC chat when all the players are faced with a problem, providing their implementation, and how they introduce their solution, is plausibly in character. This might be because I tend to make my puzzles devious and unique, only being able to be solved through practical application on the character level, rather than player knowledge.

-Ben

I have no idea what this thread is about. Furthermore, I get the sense that every single person who has posted to it is talking about a different thing. Can someone spell it out for me so I can stop going crazy? No pronouns, no assumptions. What behavior are we talking about here?

Ethan,

I thought it was about Ron's observation that talking about a game is/was considered wrong and a bad thing by lots of folks who play those games. At least, that what it should be about.

Mmm, in terms of that from my own play I can see significant focus on playing in character and engaging the story, etc. Now even if no body bites your head if you stop doing those things to talk about the game as a whole, the heavy focus on the roleplay, etc, means there is a push away from this kind of ooc talk. This push is enough to start eliminating any 'game as a whole' management any particular user might want to initiate.

There doesn't need to be any agression involved really, to stop helpful game management techniques being applied.

JamesDJIII wrote: Eveything else - no, really. I've never encountered that. Maybe I've been playing RPGs in some distant backwater planet on the edge of the galaxy?

greyorm wrote:
Um, yes? (Sorry, I'm just wowed.)

You've never heard of or seen the dreaded rule, "No giving advice to someone about what to do unless your character is there"?

You know, to prevent, "I'll bet there's a secret door here leading to the lich's lair. You should look for secret doors!" and "Trolls regenerate everything but fire! Cast a fireball!" and "Ask the king about letting me out of the prison!" and so on and so forth, which is always considered to be 'cheating.' This is also often used to preclude discussion about the game as well, unless it is the characters who are discussing events and plans.

montag wrote: . . .Finally, I have seen people reprimanded for interruptions (and have done so myself) to emphasise that this is an important moment for that player or PC, and they should respect that (the latter instance strongly resembles certain ritualistic practices IMO).

Apart from that, I'll readily admit to being hostile to OOC talk to a certain degree. When I'm roleplaying, I like to be focussed on that, which is why I reserve time for off-topic talk (which is important to me as well) before and after the game. I don't appreciate lengthy stories about so-and-so while I'm trying to watch a movie, same goes for roleplaying.?

bcook1971 wrote: . . .
This is the strata:


• Intolerance towards OOC dialogue . . .


• because it's breaking character, as though the group were in a play.
• because it's cheating if you hint and disenfranchises a player if you push decisions on him that you see as obvious.

bcook1971 wrote: . . .
• as to derail play; expressing apathy or impotence of deprotagonization by Guys hitting on chicks; watching movies inbetween fight scenes; listening to music; having a conversation about work and at a volume to drown the dialogue of play; excessive joking announcing pointless actions (e.g. "I get drunk and have sex with the Ogress.")

]

bcook1971 wrote: . . .
And the good stuff, potentially:



• Adopting tasteful mannerisms and expressive qualities to invest in a character and enrich the portrayal of game world experience.
• Take the cue of one player, repeatedly shifting all his d10's from one hand to the next, and say, "Ok. How can we get Barbarus involved?"

JamesDJIII wrote: I thought it was about Ron's observation that talking about a game is/was considered wrong and a bad thing by lots of folks who play those games. At least, that what it should be about.

James,
Oh, okay. Thanks for the clarification.

Cemendur wrote: The map is not the reality. These metaphors are only a glimpse at OOC/IC relationship. I would like to see further research into its relationship with ritual theory. ... In sum, the attention to dialogue, its use, its restrictions, is important. However, the particulars are not set in stone. Their is no "true way". Hell, their isn't a true way for me. I enjoy playing different styles for different games, or even for different characters, or even at different scenes. Its all in the context- the set, setting and expectation.

clehrich wrote: I think what Ron is talking about is the tendency to naturalize this boundary on the basis of a false ideal, often immersion. So a game-text tells the group that ideally, everything should be done in-character; OOC conversation should, ideally, not happen at all. In reality, of course, OOC stuff will occur, but the claim is that it should be minimized, and furthermore should not be allowed to "count," i.e. affect what goes on within the game's boundaries.

This constructs an ideal-type of what gaming "really is," i.e. a One True Way sort of thing.

clehrich wrote: Coming back to RPG's, the point is that there is a longstanding tendency to believe that deep immersion and intense experience are very tightly linked. Because this connection is taken as "natural" and obvious, because of the same factors as lead many and perhaps most people of our society to connect spiritual experience with total involvement, game-texts tend to emphasize ways of enforcing immersion as the obvious and natural way to achieve good gaming.

I wrote: I think what Ron is talking about is the tendency to naturalize this boundary on the basis of a false ideal, often immersion. So a game-text tells the group that ideally, everything should be done in-character; OOC conversation should, ideally, not happen at all. In reality, of course, OOC stuff will occur, but the claim is that it should be minimized, and furthermore should not be allowed to "count," i.e. affect what goes on within the game's boundaries.

John Kim wrote: Sigh. I guess we're back to the "Deep Immersion" issue, and the idea that D&D and other traditional games are really at the height of deep immersion -- against any OOC conversation.

As Rev. Daegmorgan wrote: No, such discussion is bad! It detracts from the game session! It makes you step out of character, and thus takes others out of character! If you speak out of character about the game, you are obviously trying to gain some sort of mechanical advantage over the gamemaster: you're a munchkin. If you speak out of character about anything else, you are obviously not interested in the session -- that makes the GM sad -- please don't bother others during the game. No jokes! Jokes are bad, because they break immersion and distract everyone at the table; they can destroy the mood of a scene!

I also wrote: Coming back to RPG's, the point is that there is a longstanding tendency to believe that deep immersion and intense experience are very tightly linked. Because this connection is taken as "natural" and obvious, because of the same factors as lead many and perhaps most people of our society to connect spiritual experience with total involvement, game-texts tend to emphasize ways of enforcing immersion as the obvious and natural way to achieve good gaming.

And John wrote: Other than Puppetland's rule #2, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Outside of that, the only thing I have seen is GM advice which recommends against particular kinds of OOC conversation or processes. But I don't see any tabletop game which idealizes complete lack of OOC conversation.

Alright, I think my reply here was kind of huffy -- I think I was dragging the prior "Deep Immersion" discussion into this, but on the other hand I think this is something of a re-hashing.

clehrich wrote: That sets up a notion of an ideal-type of play, one in which OOC stuff does not occur. Note what an ideal-type is: it's something that everyone knows never actually happens, but thinks of as a desirable utopian goal. What I'm talking about, and what I think Ron was referring to, is the point that this utopian goal need not be operative at all. And did I say anything about D&D? I think that would be a poor example of this sort of gaming, actually; some people apparently played it that way, but I never saw it done.

clehrich wrote:

John wrote: Other than Puppetland's rule #2, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Outside of that, the only thing I have seen is GM advice which recommends against particular kinds of OOC conversation or processes. But I don't see any tabletop game which idealizes complete lack of OOC conversation.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. There is a deliberate attempt to constrain the types of activity that can enter the sphere of play. And of course, there has to be some such restraint. But why is it always the same sort of restraint?

John, what you keep failing to take into account, is that it is entirely irrelevant what proportion of actual play groups actively enforce the extreme version of OOC play. They are simply drifting the game to accomodate. This is no different than choosing to ignore the weapon vs. armor modifiers in AD&D 1e. The rules are still very much in the book, your play group is deciding how to implement them.

But simply because many groups don't actually adhere to all of the rules as written, does not make the existance of the rules in the first place harmless.

Those rules set up a Platonic ideal of what a game is supposed to be. Having rules for Weapon vs. Armor sets up an ideal of the sort of things that should be in the rule book even if they're not used. How many people today criticize a game for not being "complete" because it doesn't have vehicle combat rules or some other presumed thing that should be in the book...even if 99% of play doesn't involve vehicle combat.

Its the same thing. The vast majority of gamers accept the ideal as being ideal, even if they themselves never actually approach it. Its still very much creates a Moses-on-the-mountain environment that pervades the hobby.

Then set out a game which instead of explicitly condemning meta play and promoting immersion actually has rules that clearly require meta play, and you get an immediate back lash. Even though most players don't actually follow the strict guidelines of "proper play" anyway, the presence of those guidelines is both comforting and a familiar landmark.

Get outside of the relatively limited circle of internet RPG discussion forums like the Forge and RPG.net and you run smack into this backlash like a brick wall.

What makes RPG.net such a special place, is the enormous concentration of gamers who are ready willing and able to experiment. Go outside of that circle and the gamer community is much different.

That said the internet is making greater inroads, and the environment is not as hostile as it once was. But historically this issue has had a huge and lasting impact on the hobby.

Valamir wrote: John, what you keep failing to take into account, is that it is entirely irrelevant what proportion of actual play groups actively enforce the extreme version of OOC play. They are simply drifting the game to accomodate. This is no different than choosing to ignore the weapon vs. armor modifiers in AD&D 1e. The rules are still very much in the book, your play group is deciding how to implement them.

Valamir wrote: Then set out a game which instead of explicitly condemning meta play and promoting immersion actually has rules that clearly require meta play, and you get an immediate back lash. Even though most players don't actually follow the strict guidelines of "proper play" anyway, the presence of those guidelines is both comforting and a familiar landmark.

Get outside of the relatively limited circle of internet RPG discussion forums like the Forge and RPG.net and you run smack into this backlash like a brick wall.

clehrich wrote:
This constructs an ideal-type of what gaming "really is," i.e. a One True Way sort of thing. And when I say it gets "naturalized," what I mean is that such game-texts, and such groups, generally do not make arguments or explanations of why it should be like this, nor seriously consider the possibility that there are other ways of doing things.

I, personally, am sick hearing responses that boil down to, "Oh that NEVER happens," or "Gee, that must be some FREAK thing that only ever happened to you," regarding how the groups I've been a part of functioned. It's incredibly insulting and is a complete belittling of mine own and others' similar experiences, so, really, please knock it off.

After all, according to the repeated hand-waving on this issue, all my 1st and 2nd Edition AD&D experiences either never really occurred or were just bizzare flukes. Five different groups, five totally different sets of people, and half of those from completely different geographical areas and introductions to gaming, spread over two decades...but no. We must have just all read the text wrong. Every single one of us.

Let's be serious.

There's obviously more going on here when you consider the facts: numerous other gamers report the same sorts of standard behavior in their groups regarding OOC conversation and IC idealization; writers for game magazines reference what could be called "the myth of perfection through immersion" constantly in written articles (for as far back as I can recall); there is always talk about how great, glorious and grand a particular session was "because we didn't roll a die all night" and "it was all about role-playing;" and snobbish types always point out "It's called ROLE-playing."

Yet these facts seem lost to some, in either their existance or their implications. These items point towards, or support, the idealization of immersion as a goal and thus affect the extent and types of allowable OOC conversation during a game to the point that what would be otherwise valid conversation among players is often painted as "bad."

Raise your hand if you remember the "if you say something, your character says it" house rule? Yeah. That one: the one that's been spoofed in gaming comics; the one that's been offered as advice by the wise and sage as the cure for DMs in dealing with "disruptive" players.

Part of the problem is that we aren't discussing "Deep Immersion" here, or rather, as I'm begining to think, "Deep" Immersion isn't about the "depth" at all, but the perception of what it is and what it means; it's about the influence of the ideal on the culture. So perhaps the name is a misnomer, perhaps clearer terminology would help...but that's besides the point.

We're talking about talking about play, during play, being considered a bad thing by many groups. Note that my initial statements to James were examples of various rules I have seen implemented at various times in play; the only-sometimes-verbalized-but-understood rules of play. They are the impressions one gains from reading about "How to Game" in various magazines over twenty years, and listening to gamers write and talk about gaming on various websites and chatrooms. For myself, it was very early that I "learned" the ideal in reading Dragon magazine and playing with established gamers from elsewhere in the country in my first year or two of gaming.

These aren't exactly the problem being discussed, but they're related to it, and thus the reason I brought them up -- they're illustrative. As with the following:

Above, when I talk about one player giving another player advice, I'm not talking about stealing the spotlight from them, I'm talking about plain old giving advice. One group I was a part of had a rule, "You can't help another player with what to do or even give hints unless your character is there, and conscious." This meant, for example, we could not discuss what we thought the villian was up to, as players, unless our characters were together, and THEY were discussing it.

I don't recall what the "punishment" was, if any (beyond the social stigma of having "done something wrong"), though I do recall players whose characters were slain being told to leave the table and find something else to do (often, "Go roll up a new character -- but don't bother anyone"). Half the time, the owner of the slain would simply go watch TV, since they weren't allowed input about the game (having no character to input with), and as "talking about play" during play with no in-game representation of a possible speaker was treated as a distraction (off-topic).

Here's where it gets wonky, in retrospect: you could talk about the game if you had a character there...even if it was just "talk about the game." Compare:

Graham: "Damn, that would have been a great place to roll a 20! I swear my dice suck tonight."

Tom, with character: "We must bless the dice! Pray to the dice gods!"
(Everyone Laughs)

Tom, with no character: "We must bless the dice! Pray to the dice gods!"
DM: "Stop interrupting the game, Tom."

And I'm dead serious about how that goes down.

Some of those reading this might be staring and going, "Whoa, no way," but I'd bet a good sum of money at least half of those reading this are nodding and saying, "Uh-huh." Because they've been there and done that, and seen it done (and had it done to them).

What I think we can garner from the first page of discussion is that there are obviously good OOC topics and methods, and bad OOC topics and methods, and it varies with the group; but there's also these weird assumptions and rules that go with the territory, that many groups and their players have and carry around with them, which aren't so rational when examined later.

They're accepted, because most people don't examine their play like this: they don't have examples of contrasting behavior to examine, and they aren't thinking about examining behavior in contrast to the same. It's just "obvious" what "the correct" behavior is at any given moment, even when it is dysfunctional and bizzare in retrospect and examination.

This isn't really what Ron is referring to when he talks about people's training getting in the way of talking about play, during play, but its a symptom caused by the same source.

All this is illustration of that supporting culture, the idealization of "what good games are like" and "what good players are like," which gives rise to the problem of discussion about the game, during play, being labelled as bad or distracting from the experience of play.

I don't think this is simply a "designer's notes" phenomenon, either, since the games really aren't meant to be played like that. This seems to be an unintentional side-effect brought on by subconscious weighting in the text and in the indoctrination of players to the gaming culture at large. I reference Chris' post as to (perhaps) the reason for this occurence, or at least as a mirror of the situation in other venues.

Amen, Raven. I've gamed in Pittsburgh, Iowa, North Carolina, Maryland, and DC, and at various cons throughout the East Coast and the Midwest. The only region I can't speak for is the West Coast, and I've seen exactly what you're talking about.

The tightening down on OOC chatter happens everywhere. Hell, when things started to go south in my D&D game last year, I found myself, as DM, telling people not to talk unless their character was there, as a knee-jerk way of dealing with the nasty social situation that was coming out. Immediately after the session, I realized how bad a mistake that really was, but I realized I was falling back on an old "DM technique" that you see all over the place.

It comes down a problem that we talk about on the Forge a lot: People gaming with people that they wouldn't be friends with otherwise. Wanting to clamp on OOC chatter is a way of trying to avoid that problem, by trying to get everyone to concentrate on the game, rather than the fact that they actually don't like each other that much OOC, which becomes more apparant the more they interact outside the game. Of course, it doesn't really work, but it does tend to extend the life of the game somewhat, by repressing the dysfunction until it explodes IC somehow. Doing that to deal with a distruptive player is a way of avoiding doing the adult thing and talking it out, or kicking 'em out of the game. By making "deep immersion" the "goal" of "true roleplaying," you can feel good about yourself while you engage in this sort of dysfunctional behavior.

(That said, sometimes too much OOC chatter can be a problem -- but that's something that should be negotiated, not clamped down a priori by force. It's just that immersion is often used as an escuse for avoiding frank discussion.)

greyorm wrote: I, personally, am sick hearing responses that boil down to, "Oh that NEVER happens," or "Gee, that must be some FREAK thing that only ever happened to you," regarding how the groups I've been a part of functioned. It's incredibly insulting and is a complete belittling of mine own and others' similar experiences, so, really, please knock it off.

Having changed hemispheres, I would say that the 'No OOC' rule is so firmly established that you can reliably expect it to be in place pretty much everywhere. I do think of it as a constant of gaming culture, and I do think it was present in the early works. It may not be universal, but it is certainly common IMO.

greyorm wrote: I, personally, am sick hearing responses that boil down to, "Oh that NEVER happens," or "Gee, that must be some FREAK thing that only ever happened to you," regarding how the groups I've been a part of functioned. It's incredibly insulting and is a complete belittling of mine own and others' similar experiences, so, really, please knock it off.

greyorm wrote: Raise your hand if you remember the "if you say something, your character says it" house rule? Yeah. That one: the one that's been spoofed in gaming comics; the one that's been offered as advice by the wise and sage as the cure for DMs in dealing with "disruptive" players.

greyorm wrote: All this is illustration of that supporting culture, the idealization of "what good games are like" and "what good players are like," which gives rise to the problem of discussion about the game, during play, being labelled as bad or distracting from the experience of play.

greyorm wrote: I don't think this is simply a "designer's notes" phenomenon, either, since the games really aren't meant to be played like that. This seems to be an unintentional side-effect brought on by subconscious weighting in the text and in the indoctrination of players to the gaming culture at large.

I've heard of it, but never actually seen it or experienced it in practice. Are you suggesting that it was actually dominant among gamers? As you note, this is a house rule. The only game which comes close to institutionalizing it that I know of is Puppetland.

Valamir wrote:
You keep repeating this. But surely you're aware that the actual game texts in the earliest days of the hobby were probably the least influential pieces of verbage about "how to play the game".

Its the discussions in Alarums & Excursions, the face to face discussions at cons where "real roleplayers" would criticize the "tourney players" in the first episodes of Role vs Roll. Theres a vast sea of tradition from the earliest issues of A&E to regional mimeographed gamer zines to the early days of Dragon Magazine and the first BBSes that shaped and molded the traditions of gaming.

That's why so many gaming texts obliquely acknowledge the various trappings of playing fully immersed but, as you correctly point out, do not generally carry detailed instructions for how to do this. The detailed instructions are not necessary when the tradition is already so firmly established.

iambenlehman wrote: Note that I am not saying that deep immersionists did not exist. I am simply saying that they were not and are not the only type of gamer, by any means.

iambenlehman wrote: Note that I am not saying that deep immersionists did not exist. I am simply saying that they were not and are not the only type of gamer, by any means.

xiombarg wrote: Um, Ben, no one is claiming that. The claim is that it is very culturally common.

iambenlehman wrote: My point is that it is a little short-sighted to consider this the background that every gamer comes out of. Because, frankly, it isn't. Yes, you and Raven and Valamir have that experience. Well, frankly, I don't. And neither, it seems, does John Kim. And we won't know who is "the most common" without heavy polling. So lets not fight about that, and consider that the fact that there is disagreement about this strongly suggests that gamers (an insular, isolated culture to begin with) are high non-homogeneous in regard to Social Contracts, particular in regard to Stance.