36% (21)
63% (37)In an RPG, one of the most common verbs is Out Of Character or "OOC". This verb exists so users can discuss things normally out of their own characters and not upsetting the role they play in the game.
However, it has been my experience that if the OOC verb exists, it isn't used how it's intended by the players of the game. They use it to advertise their characters skills and whore themselves out for gold. This brings me to a question, is it really worth having an OOC verb?
The verb itself is never used how it's supposed to, and because of it's existence, any actual role playing in the game doesn't take place. Would an RPG be better if you removed the world view OOC verb and only had the in-character say verb to view?
I believe, that in order to feel your role and be the character you're representing, that conversations should be restricted to view (in a runescape kind of way, I suppose) and any form of World Say should be dropped.
It's to say this will happen, these ramblings of a tired teenager are generally unheeded, but I'm curious of the communities stance on this subject. So I will put it in the form of a poll.
Is it easier to feel the role playing environment without an OOC verb, or does it just not make a difference?
Poll: Is it easier to feel the role playing environment without an OOC verb, or does i
Login to vote.
| |||||
I agree, I stopped a while back when I thought about it. The verb is just a means to remove the overall role playing aspect of the game.
If you want to keep socializing in the game itself, use a friends list and private chat that way. | |
Why not have OOC broadcast to a separate channel that you can toggle on/off?
Even better, let players filter out certain people or categories (IE non-friends) | |
Thus, the post is to provide positive thought and discussion on the topic. A toggle is a fair idea as well. I did cover it in the post originally, but I scrapped it because I considered it unimportant to the post as a whole. We're here to discuss the best method a young developer can use when creating a game. =P
Personally I was surprised to see someone change their ways so quickly after reading something I've written. I'm feeling good about myself now =P So far we have just the View() in-character say. The use of OOC verb. Toggle OOC channel. There are more things to cover, but I'll let the community discover them =P | |
FFO's been without OOC or WSay for years, now.
I think the game's better off without it. | |
Gakumerasara wrote:
FFO's been without OOC or WSay for years, now. Don't know what it was like before, but this was just a contributing factor to most of your game domains being linked together for a pseudo-Wsay anyway, so "not having a Wsay" isn't really true at all. Communication in FFO is a major hassle without the domain chat, since it's easy to go off somewhere and be alone and cut off from the rest of the game, and it feels lonely that way. :( Having Newbie Say doesn't help, since people are introduced to a game with a (seemingly) global chat channel, just to take it away later on in the game. Maybe an option would be to take away Nsay altogether and replace it with a whisper hotline to speak directly to guides? From my experience, it seems like you have to walk into the game fully expecting to roleplay and nothing else, and find a group of people willing to do so. I was part of a small bunch of friends in a "tabletop" graphical RPG, with a main storyteller controlling how things went, and the OOC verb worked exactly as intended. People stayed in-character for the normal chat, and either yapped it up during a pause in the game or used it to ask questions, discuss the game from the player's perspective rather than the character's, etc. I think it's one of those things where you have to work with the players/playerbase to push through the purpose of an OOC channel. | |
It takes away the role playing experience, but adds to a more central gaming community.
| |
There's always the actual Final Fantasy Online method (FFXI) which was through the Link Shells that were world wide. The owner of said shell had to dish them out to the people they wanted, and those people were always in contact with eachother. Like a guild thing.
| |
As a practical matter, eliminating communication options doesn't make the game more immersive, it just makes communicating a PITA. Players will use AIM or something else to communicate if necessary.
Sure, unwanted global broadcasts probably aren't a great idea (sure to get spam), but I don't think you can just say "OOC = teh bad." I am not sure view() is really relevant- I know in a text room based MUD view() doesn't do much. The question is actually 2 separate ones- global v. local communication and IC v. OOC communication. For examply you could have local OOC communication (OSay or something) and global IC communication (telepathy, crystal balls, pigeons, whatever). | |
To be honest, the nature of this poll is inherently flawed because you're going by the basis of a game whose central intention is the "play" and not the "role" in roleplaying. An RPG, at least as far as the rest of the BYOND RPG community is concerned, is a game where you play an adventurer or a party member and proceed to complete quests or kill monsters -- no mention in that definition is made to the concept of "roleplaying", which I define as "thinking out a character concept and remaining true to that character concept, acting as your character would act in any situation".
For a roleplay-enforced game or a roleplay-encouraged roleplaying game, there's no question that an OOC verb is completely necessary because if you're allowed to "break character" using the standard communication functions, the game environment loses its story-like quality. Personally, I think an OOC system needs two implementations: 1) A local OOC command to allow you to inform other people in the near vicinity on how to roleplay or give them special information about why you can't continue roleplaying... e.g., localooc "Sorry guys, I have to clean my room. I'm gonna head back." and then in-character, your character says he forgot something back home. Because you used the local OOC to tell people what was really going on, no one in the party says "Oh, hey, I will join you, my friend! The journey back is just as perilous!" (What a geek.) They just say, "All right, friend, fare you well." 2) A global OOC command where people can ask for help on various game functions or just schmooze and chat with other people while waiting for something to complete in the game itself. In both cases, giving actual numbers of any kind or giving out character statistics is frowned upon, just as it is in-character. Out-of-character isn't about the in-character environment, and in-character isn't about the out-of-character environment, and the distinction is important for any dedicated roleplaying game. For a game that tends to go into BYOND RPG, however, the distinction is completely unimportant and the discussion is pretty moot. If you're making an RPG which doesn't focus around a believable community in the first place, why bother with a distinction? Make everything out-of-character and treat it like a realtime board game. | |
-_- Worst Debate Ever.
| |
With a sweeping statement like that, I'd like to see you back it up. As far as I'm concerned, this is a very important issue. =P
| |
I agree with the sentiment that it has little to do with the game, but more to do with the players... If they want a strict roleplaying environment, they can be trusted to use the tools properly... If your players are not sticking to the proper uses of the communications provided, then it's their choice, and their game that they're ruining...
Some method of OOC communication is necessary to a game... No one can sit in a room full of others and stick to character 100% of the time... Does anyone think that a group of people playing a tabletop RPG (or even LARPing) never make idle, out-of-character chat? Even if it's something like "pass the chips" or "that's what your mom said" or "I've gotta take a leak" or any number of other typical exchanges found in any group gathering? So why should the video game environment be held to a different standard? Sure, there are other methods of OOC communication to be found (like using AIM or the BYOND Pager) but none of these are as convenient as a handy in-game OOC chat (and might be nearly impossible for those on RAM-challenged machines) The fact that it is felt to be necessary to remove the ability to use an OOC communication implies a distrust in your players... A feeling of "they don't know how to play this game, so I've gotta restrict them to my standard of play" This is wrong... You should govern your players' experience no more than Parker Bros. governs the Monopoly experience... | |
SuperSaiyanGokuX wrote:
This is wrong... You should govern your players' experience no more than Parker Bros. governs the Monopoly experience... That statement says to me that we shouldn't put character limits, html filters and word censors in our games. You can not compare a free BYOND Game to an internationally sold Board Game, because the rules which govern a sold game, are different to that of a constantly changing, free online game. As a programmer, you have the right to restrict your players how you see fit. | |
RealQMark wrote:
-_- Worst Debate Ever. Care to actually add something useful to the discussion? | |
Tiberath wrote:
SuperSaiyanGokuX wrote: Some of these things fall under necessary gameplay mechanics... As such, they are entirely different from being a communication nazi... Monopoly has set rules to govern the gameplay itself (though admittedly no way to enforce them) Those types of rules are a necessary component of the game itself, and there's no way to argue against their inclusion... (Note that I know that if the game's primary gameplay is strict roleplaying, then rules to enforce said roleplaying can be argued to be necessary gameplay mechanic controls... But again, this is still better left in the hands of the players...) However, some of these things are nothing more than additions to improve the environment for players in the game (various filters and such), and are more or less along the same lines as not including the OOC... And for these, I actually do consider them unnecessary... Let the players decide what type of environment they want... It will be self-policing... Give someone the ability to get rid of the truly troublesome players, and leave everything else wide open... Trust your players to not abuse what they're given... If they do, oh well, they're only hurting themselves... You can not compare a free BYOND Game to an internationally sold Board Game, because the rules which govern a sold game, are different to that of a constantly changing, free online game. As a programmer, you have the right to restrict your players how you see fit. Having the right does not make it right...lol In most instances, games are not created for the creator, they are created for the players... As such, the best course of action is to let them play them as they see fit... They'll enjoy them better whichever way they decide to go... If they want to hold a strict roleplay environment, they will do so on their own terms... If not, oh well, it isn't hurting anyone... | |
Okay, let me give another reason why Monopoly just isn't a good comparison here.
You have your obvious sold vs free enviroment. But you also have two completely different styles of game. Monopoly ISN'T any form of role playing game at all. You play monopoly as a board game. You don't feel the shoe, play the shoe, be the shoe. If you want to make an analogy, at least use a game which inherits similar gameplay. Like Dungeons and Dragons for example. I'm sick of people using an analogy of Monopoly vs BYOND Game. The -only- BYOND games which can be successfully compared to Monopoly are the ones based after board games, specifically BYONDopoly. | |
I think enforced roleplaying is perfectly good if you can control who gets in. If you try to enforce roleplaying on a random community of complete strangers, they're going to look you in the eye and then spit in it... but if you have a review process or at least a firm policy which people have to look at and agree to in order to get into the game, they'll at least know what to expect if they don't want to play by the rules. The problem with dedicated roleplaying is that people who don't want to be "in-character" want to play a game, and don't understand that a dedicated roleplaying game isn't about the game at all... it's about the dynamic story that the players all contribute to. So they complain that they're being prevented from playing something when they weren't actually playing it at all anyway. If you distribute the game for others to host, then yeah, nothing says you can tell them how they should run their servers -- but on your own server, you have the ability to decide what gets made into what.
I suggest you look up IRC simming, where you are usually acting in-character all the time, and talking out of character either <<like this>> (most often used for corrections) or by talking in another channel instead (which allows much more freedom of OOC chat). | |
A game is a game... They all boil down to a basic purpose: entertainment... And for social games, a HUGE part of that entertainment is interaction with others...
And an integral part of that interaction for any game, be it board, roleplaying, fighting, freeze tag, football, etc, etc. is social... Outside of the game... The game itself hinging on roleplaying has no bearing in the matter... In order to provide an enjoyable human experience, you need to provide out-of-game communication (in fact, removing it won't make them stop... it will only shunt said communication to pollute the "in-character" channels)... This principle applies to all games universally, regardless of genre... Removing said form of communication in order to force your players to interact in no form other than strict in-character communication is nothing different, absolutely nothing different than the makers of Monopoly telling it's players that they have to act like real estate investors for the duration of the game... And also, I don't think any line shuld be drawn between sold and free... Players don't buy the ight to play the game their way... They compensate the makers for time, effort, and materials used to make the game... The game itself should be no different in either case; it merely needs to cater to the entertainment of the players... NOT the whims of the creator... | |
If you really think about it... It's not like playing a REAL role-playing game, and I love how Runescape has it like that. The most they have is private chat, and a friends list...
I'm not using an OOC verb in any game I code from now on o_o...