A logical approach to chaotic, in-session OOC [Archive] - Wizards Community

A logical approach to chaotic, in-session OOC [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
protocol
08-27-06, 04:15 PM I'm no DM but I've been gaming for about 5 years. I thought that since my gaming group is having such a consistent problem with OOC that other groups may have similiar problems as well.

This problem is so consistent that its almost ignored. DMs in our group have penalized PCs here and there. I try to be a serious gamer, so that's why I came up with a possible solution.

I've engineered a degree-based system for identifying OOC. I've sorted the OOC degrees based on how disruptive it is to the role-playing atmosphere with 1st Degree being the worst. Please keep in mind that the entire context of every degree descriptor is "OOC" and nothing more. Finally, I've set up this system so that only one OOC infraction is possible per instance.

Also, this template is degree-based so that you can attribute penalties proportional to the infraction. However, I have not included any complementary penalty system to this template.

I welcome any critical feedback on this template, its pros and cons, and ways of managing OOC in general.

So, here it is! Example(s) of each OOC Degree follows the definition section.

The 6 Degrees of Out-Of-Character

1st Degree: Communicating information unrelated to D&D.

2nd Degree: Communicating information related to D&D AND unrelated to the current campaign.

3rd Degree: Communicating information related to D&D and the current campaign AND unrelated to your character (related to another PC in terms of their character's technical information, such as their stats, abilities, feats, usage of these, etc.)

4th Degree: Communicating information related to D&D, the current campaign, and your character AND unrelated to your character's current/present ("now") activities. (related to "what if" scenarios or retrospective evaluations of previous actions, situations, ect.)

5th Degree: Communicating information related to D&D, the current campaign, your character, and your character's current/present ("now") activities in technical jargon.

6th Degree: Acting on information obtained through 3rd, 4th, or 5th Degree OOC.

EXCEPTION: Any player<->DM communication that doesn't qualify as 1st or 2nd Degree OOC.

OOC Examples (by Degrees)

1st Degree:
“I can’t wait for Free Willy 6 to come out in theatres!”

2nd Degree:
“In your last campaign, remember when we stole 10mil gp from the pirate cove?”
“Did you read the latest issue of Dragon?”
“I just love the color of my dice.”

3rd Degree:
“You can’t do that with Flurry of Blows!”
“You’re out of move-equivalent actions until next round!”
“You can’t use the diplomacy skill like that!”

4th Degree:
“If I had known I was going to die, I would have used the scroll…”
“Once I get my next feat, I’m getting toughness.”

5th Degree:
“Heal me! I have 3 hitpoints left!”

6th Degree:
“Heal me! I have 3 hitpoints left!” (PC1)
“Okay. I cast heal on her.” (PC2)
Seraphine_Harmonium
08-27-06, 04:55 PM To a certain degree, I think it makes sense and could be useful, although the descriptions of some of the infractions could create situations in which characters are punished for no good reason. I don't think "I'm going to use my Improved Disarm to get rid of the baddie's +9 uber-flail-of-ultimate-death" should be punished.--(At least, "Improved Disarm" should not be punished. No adventurer would ever logically refer to anything as "+9")
I also don't believe that retrospective thinking and planning ahead (from a logical pc-oriented POV should be punished. I think considering ones previous actions is a boon to roleplaying, and planning ahead is just smart.

PS, come check out my Renaissance setting in the Campaign Workshop: Avayevnon (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=663352&page=1)
Lokathor
08-27-06, 04:58 PM The game is designed to be a game, not a movie. Referring to things OOC is part of the game.

As long as the OOC is restricted to actual game topics then there's not much wrong with it. Using your examples "I can't wait for free willy 6 to come out" is disruptive, "heal me i've got 3 hp left" is not.

In other words, 3rd+ degree stuff should all be considered fine. Infact, 3rd, 5th, and 6th degree information should be encouraged. 3rd because the rules should be followed, and 5th and 6th because the party is supposed to be more of a team, not less of one.
Horemheb442
08-27-06, 05:20 PM What I do, if it gets out of hand, is light the "Gaming Candle". I have a scented votive candle in the gaming room and when it is lit, ANY comment made by a player is their CHARACTER talking. A few responses from the DM (and usually other players) like, "What are Hit Points?" usually brings them back on line.
But...it is a game to have fun, and for some may be their primary social activity. Let them blather on for awhile, then suggest it's time to light the "Gaming Candle". With my group now, just the threat of it is usually enough and they get right back into their characters. Punishing them for having a good time kind of defeats the purpose we all get together for.:)
DarkNick
08-27-06, 05:24 PM I think you are being a bit rough. Not everyone plays such an immersive game. Part of the fun of playing is being able to catch up with friends (in my case anyway, I don't see most of my players except in the game).

Also you assume that people want to roleplay to the level you want it. I personally see nothing wrong with any of these during a game, they are just examples of playing on a different 'mechanical' level. But I can see that some of these could be disruptive during a roleplaying experience, but surely you don't need a degree system to tell you when it happens. I don't think you can penalise people for these things out of context. Also unless everyone agrees to this code then there is not much point in trying to use it because a lot of people won't have a problem with OOC stuff.

I am interested in how you propose to use this in practice? or is it going to be like a "oh you committed a degree 6 - you have to stand outside for 10 mins and lose 100 exp" - then someone will reply "you just said something OOC too, and so have I in saying this, both of us must leave the room for 5 mins, that gives us time to make out in my room...."
Kaligrad
08-27-06, 05:30 PM "Lighten up, Francis."
Free1983
08-27-06, 05:42 PM I must admit that me too has been annoyed by players in the past, who just couldn't stop telling about previous campaigns. It's especially annoying if you were no part of that campaign, but a table like this won't help you.

You could try to talk to the other players (and especially the DM) about the OOC talking and tell them that you would like to intensify (is this a word?) the roleplaying experience, but like DarkNick said, it won't be of much use if the other players like the way you guys are playing now.

If you really can't have fun this way, I would say you're in need of a new group, though I wouldn't give up on them that easy. Good luck and happy gaming
protocol
08-28-06, 10:04 PM Well, I went to the extreme when I designed the system. Granted, it may be a little apollonian or downright strict for a game, but I decided to go the full nine yards on this one just to see what the system would become.

As for putting this system into practice, I purposefully didn't consider how the template could be implemented (i.e. with penalties or a demerit-based purchase system, etc). I only focused on making the system able to cleanly cover all aspects of OOC.

And when I say "OOC," I basically mean: player to player. My exception rule takes care of everything else.

I just don't think its a good game if one PC turns to me and says you can use X feat and it will result in Y, which means I can do Z, and ultimately win the battle - especially when it isn't even that PC's turn in combat, that they're using technical jargon, ect. In my mind, this shatters the illusion that is the very foundation for playing D&D. We willingly fail our will save to toss reality out the window, only for it to be ripped back into our awareness. Honestly, I game to escape from reality.

I guess it just comes down to a preference: roleplay or rollplay. I don't have that much experience, but when the DM allows my in-game IC acting to take the place of my diplomacy check, and I pass because I kept a straight face while explaining to the guard that his wife was drunk and topless in some sketchy tavern dancing wildly...well, it feels good. Especially once the guard runs off.

And it isn't my intention for this system to appear like it should have some caveat written in blood in abyssal, saying: "Casual players will be partially digested on sight." No. I'm simply trying to offer a template that might better distinguish minor and major OOC. The ultimate purpose here is to increase the quality of roleplaying in the game. Obviously, you can change this template in whatever way you please. You may compromise, dilute or otherwise modify it to suit your needs as a DM. The system isn't meant as a threat to players - just a notice. However, it can be molded into more than a notice, depending on how you implement it.

I hope I offered some of the requested clarification. I'm actually surprised this turned into a thread :w00t:
protocol
08-28-06, 10:16 PM [snip]...some of the infractions could create situations in which characters are punished for no good reason. I don't think "I'm going to use my Improved Disarm to get rid of the baddie's +9 uber-flail-of-ultimate-death" should be punished...[snipped]

In this case, the communication of information would occur between the player and the DM. Thus, given the exception rule, this would be permissible and exempt from OOC consideration.

I also don't believe that retrospective thinking and planning ahead (from a logical pc-oriented POV should be punished. I think considering ones previous actions is a boon to roleplaying, and planning ahead is just smart.

[snip/ped]

Please see my examples for a better understanding of what I was trying to mean when I described current/present ("now") PC activities. I basically meant that if they OOC: "well, before my last character died, I should have used the scroll," then it is definitely OOC since they probably rolled up another character and are talking about their previous character. This new character probably knows nothing about the intimate details of the previous character's death (DM discretion/sense of humor). So, therefore the PC shouldn't be talking about using a scroll in their "past life."

Please let me know if this is still unclear, and I'll try to reword some things so that you and others will better understand what I'm trying to get across.
protocol
08-28-06, 10:23 PM I think you are being a bit rough. Not everyone plays such an immersive game. Part of the fun of playing is being able to catch up with friends (in my case anyway, I don't see most of my players except in the game).

[snip/ped]

This is also true for me. I see most of my regular friends only on sundays when we game. However, we play catch-up for like an hour before...and then we game. 10 hours later, the game ends, and we discuss whatever we want about the game, tips/tricks, ways to avoid bad things that we failed to avoid - basically, all the OOC we are tempted to commit gets released in the 1hr post-game interaction. Also, we continue with personal real-life catch up.

There is a very strong social element to playing D&D with friends. But I honestly think the commentary can wait for post-session wrap-ups.

I am interested in how you propose to use this in practice? or is it going to be like a "oh you committed a degree 6 - you have to stand outside for 10 mins and lose 100 exp" - then someone will reply "you just said something OOC too, and so have I in saying this, both of us must leave the room for 5 mins, that gives us time to make out in my room...."

As for putting this system into practice, I purposefully didn't consider how the template could be implemented (i.e. with penalties or a demerit-based purchase system, etc). I only focused on making the system able to cleanly cover all aspects of OOC.

Also, only the DM would be calling out the OOC's if my system were implemented. And yes, if PC1 pointed out an OOC on PC2, PC1 would have committed 3rd Degree OOC. If PC2 responds to PC1 about this OOC, and an argument ensues over any of this, PC2 would have then committed 3rd Degree OOC as well.
Seraphine_Harmonium
08-28-06, 11:38 PM In this case, the communication of information would occur between the player and the DM. Thus, given the exception rule, this would be permissible and exempt from OOC consideration.

Please see my examples for a better understanding of what I was trying to mean when I described current/present ("now") PC activities. I basically meant that if they OOC: "well, before my last character died, I should have used the scroll," then it is definitely OOC since they probably rolled up another character and are talking about their previous character. This new character probably knows nothing about the intimate details of the previous character's death (DM discretion/sense of humor). So, therefore the PC shouldn't be talking about using a scroll in their "past life."

Please let me know if this is still unclear, and I'll try to reword some things so that you and others will better understand what I'm trying to get across.
The original quote about the scroll said "I," not "my last character." they could well have been raised after being killed and reflecting back, thinking that they should have used that scroll.
I meant to include a sentence in my post about most of your specific examples being ok, though.
I don't really think it's a good idea to make up a system that punishes players for saying certain things, when they could be perfectly suitable in context.
Keevo_Darkwood
08-29-06, 01:31 AM "Lighten up, Francis."

"Oh, damn...." :mymy:

"INCOMING!!!" :OMG!
zvbxrpl
08-29-06, 12:00 PM I only really have a problem with 5 and 6. The rest just seems like normal behavior. DnD is a social activity, and part of its nature is chatting OOC. As long as these discussions don't disrupt, I don't see what the big deal is, and even if they do disrupt, often the solution is just "C'mon guys, get back on task." Sorry, man, but I think you're being too harsh.
ornitholestes
08-29-06, 01:26 PM I don't have a problem with the classification system per say. That said, I personally don't have a problem with any OOC. Idle chatter, jokes, bad puns, and references to past campaigns are one of the reasons I play the game.

I think using in game Jargon is a different issue, but I certainly don't have a problem with it when I GM. I think of D&D as an adventure game where the players are trying to do their best to survive and prevail. We do quite a bit of role-playing, but I like the tactical aspects of the game itself. I think players using technical jargon and knowledge of how the game works to succeed is part of the point.

As Lokathar said, using knowledge of the games helps the players to work better as a team. It also makes them more skilled and allows me (as GM) to set up harder or more interesting challenges.

Of course, I think this really comes down to how you want to play. If you want a more immersive play, then thats fine - if you want a more informal play thats fine also.
Echodork
08-29-06, 02:10 PM It's kind of interesting how some people view the bottom of the scale as "most disruptive," while others see no problem with out-of-game talk and draw the line at referring to their characters in terms of game mechanics.

My group plays D&D to play a game. We're after entertainment, not an Immersive Role-Playing Experience. With that, I'll end my involvement in the thread right here, because nothing said in the OP pertains to me or bothers me at all.
Kaligrad
08-29-06, 04:26 PM If I even thought of implementing this system, punishments or not, my players would lynch me. One of them doesn't even really come to play D&D, let alone play IC.
otomik
08-29-06, 05:06 PM pcfighter: hello good shopkeeper, I'd like to buy a magic sword today
npcmerchant: good fer ye lass, I've got a bonnie hand n half claymore of raging hellfire that would suit ya finely!
pcfighter: what size and type of weapon is a hand n half claymore?
npcmerchant: why it's a sword, ya kidder!
pcfighter: *sigh* can I just get a longsword then?
npcmerchant: are ye daft? this sword is plenty long!
pcfighter: I stab myself with my +2 dagger!
npc merchant: how dare you threaten me in my own shop and what in the realms is a "plustu" dagger?
olshanski_home
08-29-06, 05:47 PM All of my games frequently use all of the above versions of OOC.

I don't know that anybody has ever considered anything else!

I come right out and say that I don't want to play with people that cannot hold an interesting conversation about things non-RPG... most games start out with a discussion about what movies or books people have seen or read in the past week. There may be some brief discussion of current events. Then we all have a bite to eat and get comfortable.

Most things that happen outside of D&D... I guess you are referring to as "OOC"... are called "life". It can be pretty interesting, and is often just as fun as D&D.
protocol
09-02-06, 05:14 PM Implementing this system shouldn't involve punishment or penalties. Punishment is never the solution to curbing bad behavior. In fact, studies show when a parent punishes their child for bad behavior instead of rewarding/reinforcing the child's good behavior, the child's bad behavior tends to increase in frequency and intensity.

So, if my system is viable, then a reward system would be the best way to apply my template - something like a point-purchasing system where PCs start off with X number of points. When the PC commits OOC, points are deducted - say 7 - X where X is the OOC degree. At the end of the gaming session, a PC can use their points to buy temporary enhancements, such as a one-time usage of a feat they don't have but meet the prereq's for it or 1d4 extra spells/day for 1d6 spell levels, starting with 0 lvl. Reroll 1d4 die rolls for next session only. That sort of thing.

Using this reward system wouldn't intrude upon the relaxed atmosphere of gaming. I think it would actually enhance the fun of gaming while indirectly reducing OOC - because the PCs will want to keep their points.

All of this is based on the assumption that my system is a viable countermeasure for dissolving disruptive OOC. Based on the responses I've received in this thread, it doesn't look like its that viable.

I've spoken with one of my group's DMs, and they liked the idea. So, we are going to try using my system. We'll see how it goes, and I'll post the results in a week or two.

Thanks again to everyone for your feedback :)

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
protocol 08-27-06, 04:15 PM	I'm no DM but I've been gaming for about 5 years. I thought that since my gaming group is having such a consistent problem with OOC that other groups may have similiar problems as well. This problem is so consistent that its almost ignored. DMs in our group have penalized PCs here and there. I try to be a serious gamer, so that's why I came up with a possible solution. I've engineered a degree-based system for identifying OOC. I've sorted the OOC degrees based on how disruptive it is to the role-playing atmosphere with 1st Degree being the worst. Please keep in mind that the entire context of every degree descriptor is "OOC" and nothing more. Finally, I've set up this system so that only one OOC infraction is possible per instance. Also, this template is degree-based so that you can attribute penalties proportional to the infraction. However, I have not included any complementary penalty system to this template. I welcome any critical feedback on this template, its pros and cons, and ways of managing OOC in general. So, here it is! Example(s) of each OOC Degree follows the definition section. The 6 Degrees of Out-Of-Character 1st Degree: Communicating information unrelated to D&D. 2nd Degree: Communicating information related to D&D AND unrelated to the current campaign. 3rd Degree: Communicating information related to D&D and the current campaign AND unrelated to your character (related to another PC in terms of their character's technical information, such as their stats, abilities, feats, usage of these, etc.) 4th Degree: Communicating information related to D&D, the current campaign, and your character AND unrelated to your character's current/present ("now") activities. (related to "what if" scenarios or retrospective evaluations of previous actions, situations, ect.) 5th Degree: Communicating information related to D&D, the current campaign, your character, and your character's current/present ("now") activities in technical jargon. 6th Degree: Acting on information obtained through 3rd, 4th, or 5th Degree OOC. EXCEPTION: Any player<->DM communication that doesn't qualify as 1st or 2nd Degree OOC. OOC Examples (by Degrees) 1st Degree: “I can’t wait for Free Willy 6 to come out in theatres!” 2nd Degree: “In your last campaign, remember when we stole 10mil gp from the pirate cove?” “Did you read the latest issue of Dragon?” “I just love the color of my dice.” 3rd Degree: “You can’t do that with Flurry of Blows!” “You’re out of move-equivalent actions until next round!” “You can’t use the diplomacy skill like that!” 4th Degree: “If I had known I was going to die, I would have used the scroll…” “Once I get my next feat, I’m getting toughness.” 5th Degree: “Heal me! I have 3 hitpoints left!” 6th Degree: “Heal me! I have 3 hitpoints left!” (PC1) “Okay. I cast heal on her.” (PC2)
Seraphine_Harmonium 08-27-06, 04:55 PM	To a certain degree, I think it makes sense and could be useful, although the descriptions of some of the infractions could create situations in which characters are punished for no good reason. I don't think "I'm going to use my Improved Disarm to get rid of the baddie's +9 uber-flail-of-ultimate-death" should be punished.--(At least, "Improved Disarm" should not be punished. No adventurer would ever logically refer to anything as "+9") I also don't believe that retrospective thinking and planning ahead (from a logical pc-oriented POV should be punished. I think considering ones previous actions is a boon to roleplaying, and planning ahead is just smart. PS, come check out my Renaissance setting in the Campaign Workshop: Avayevnon (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=663352&page=1)
Lokathor 08-27-06, 04:58 PM	The game is designed to be a game, not a movie. Referring to things OOC is part of the game. As long as the OOC is restricted to actual game topics then there's not much wrong with it. Using your examples "I can't wait for free willy 6 to come out" is disruptive, "heal me i've got 3 hp left" is not. In other words, 3rd+ degree stuff should all be considered fine. Infact, 3rd, 5th, and 6th degree information should be encouraged. 3rd because the rules should be followed, and 5th and 6th because the party is supposed to be more of a team, not less of one.
Horemheb442 08-27-06, 05:20 PM	What I do, if it gets out of hand, is light the "Gaming Candle". I have a scented votive candle in the gaming room and when it is lit, ANY comment made by a player is their CHARACTER talking. A few responses from the DM (and usually other players) like, "What are Hit Points?" usually brings them back on line. But...it is a game to have fun, and for some may be their primary social activity. Let them blather on for awhile, then suggest it's time to light the "Gaming Candle". With my group now, just the threat of it is usually enough and they get right back into their characters. Punishing them for having a good time kind of defeats the purpose we all get together for.:)
DarkNick 08-27-06, 05:24 PM	I think you are being a bit rough. Not everyone plays such an immersive game. Part of the fun of playing is being able to catch up with friends (in my case anyway, I don't see most of my players except in the game). Also you assume that people want to roleplay to the level you want it. I personally see nothing wrong with any of these during a game, they are just examples of playing on a different 'mechanical' level. But I can see that some of these could be disruptive during a roleplaying experience, but surely you don't need a degree system to tell you when it happens. I don't think you can penalise people for these things out of context. Also unless everyone agrees to this code then there is not much point in trying to use it because a lot of people won't have a problem with OOC stuff. I am interested in how you propose to use this in practice? or is it going to be like a "oh you committed a degree 6 - you have to stand outside for 10 mins and lose 100 exp" - then someone will reply "you just said something OOC too, and so have I in saying this, both of us must leave the room for 5 mins, that gives us time to make out in my room...."
Kaligrad 08-27-06, 05:30 PM	"Lighten up, Francis."
Free1983 08-27-06, 05:42 PM	I must admit that me too has been annoyed by players in the past, who just couldn't stop telling about previous campaigns. It's especially annoying if you were no part of that campaign, but a table like this won't help you. You could try to talk to the other players (and especially the DM) about the OOC talking and tell them that you would like to intensify (is this a word?) the roleplaying experience, but like DarkNick said, it won't be of much use if the other players like the way you guys are playing now. If you really can't have fun this way, I would say you're in need of a new group, though I wouldn't give up on them that easy. Good luck and happy gaming
protocol 08-28-06, 10:04 PM	Well, I went to the extreme when I designed the system. Granted, it may be a little apollonian or downright strict for a game, but I decided to go the full nine yards on this one just to see what the system would become. As for putting this system into practice, I purposefully didn't consider how the template could be implemented (i.e. with penalties or a demerit-based purchase system, etc). I only focused on making the system able to cleanly cover all aspects of OOC. And when I say "OOC," I basically mean: player to player. My exception rule takes care of everything else. I just don't think its a good game if one PC turns to me and says you can use X feat and it will result in Y, which means I can do Z, and ultimately win the battle - especially when it isn't even that PC's turn in combat, that they're using technical jargon, ect. In my mind, this shatters the illusion that is the very foundation for playing D&D. We willingly fail our will save to toss reality out the window, only for it to be ripped back into our awareness. Honestly, I game to escape from reality. I guess it just comes down to a preference: roleplay or rollplay. I don't have that much experience, but when the DM allows my in-game IC acting to take the place of my diplomacy check, and I pass because I kept a straight face while explaining to the guard that his wife was drunk and topless in some sketchy tavern dancing wildly...well, it feels good. Especially once the guard runs off. And it isn't my intention for this system to appear like it should have some caveat written in blood in abyssal, saying: "Casual players will be partially digested on sight." No. I'm simply trying to offer a template that might better distinguish minor and major OOC. The ultimate purpose here is to increase the quality of roleplaying in the game. Obviously, you can change this template in whatever way you please. You may compromise, dilute or otherwise modify it to suit your needs as a DM. The system isn't meant as a threat to players - just a notice. However, it can be molded into more than a notice, depending on how you implement it. I hope I offered some of the requested clarification. I'm actually surprised this turned into a thread :w00t:
protocol 08-28-06, 10:16 PM	[snip]...some of the infractions could create situations in which characters are punished for no good reason. I don't think "I'm going to use my Improved Disarm to get rid of the baddie's +9 uber-flail-of-ultimate-death" should be punished...[snipped] In this case, the communication of information would occur between the player and the DM. Thus, given the exception rule, this would be permissible and exempt from OOC consideration. I also don't believe that retrospective thinking and planning ahead (from a logical pc-oriented POV should be punished. I think considering ones previous actions is a boon to roleplaying, and planning ahead is just smart. [snip/ped] Please see my examples for a better understanding of what I was trying to mean when I described current/present ("now") PC activities. I basically meant that if they OOC: "well, before my last character died, I should have used the scroll," then it is definitely OOC since they probably rolled up another character and are talking about their previous character. This new character probably knows nothing about the intimate details of the previous character's death (DM discretion/sense of humor). So, therefore the PC shouldn't be talking about using a scroll in their "past life." Please let me know if this is still unclear, and I'll try to reword some things so that you and others will better understand what I'm trying to get across.
protocol 08-28-06, 10:23 PM	I think you are being a bit rough. Not everyone plays such an immersive game. Part of the fun of playing is being able to catch up with friends (in my case anyway, I don't see most of my players except in the game). [snip/ped] This is also true for me. I see most of my regular friends only on sundays when we game. However, we play catch-up for like an hour before...and then we game. 10 hours later, the game ends, and we discuss whatever we want about the game, tips/tricks, ways to avoid bad things that we failed to avoid - basically, all the OOC we are tempted to commit gets released in the 1hr post-game interaction. Also, we continue with personal real-life catch up. There is a very strong social element to playing D&D with friends. But I honestly think the commentary can wait for post-session wrap-ups. I am interested in how you propose to use this in practice? or is it going to be like a "oh you committed a degree 6 - you have to stand outside for 10 mins and lose 100 exp" - then someone will reply "you just said something OOC too, and so have I in saying this, both of us must leave the room for 5 mins, that gives us time to make out in my room...." As for putting this system into practice, I purposefully didn't consider how the template could be implemented (i.e. with penalties or a demerit-based purchase system, etc). I only focused on making the system able to cleanly cover all aspects of OOC. Also, only the DM would be calling out the OOC's if my system were implemented. And yes, if PC1 pointed out an OOC on PC2, PC1 would have committed 3rd Degree OOC. If PC2 responds to PC1 about this OOC, and an argument ensues over any of this, PC2 would have then committed 3rd Degree OOC as well.
Seraphine_Harmonium 08-28-06, 11:38 PM	In this case, the communication of information would occur between the player and the DM. Thus, given the exception rule, this would be permissible and exempt from OOC consideration. Please see my examples for a better understanding of what I was trying to mean when I described current/present ("now") PC activities. I basically meant that if they OOC: "well, before my last character died, I should have used the scroll," then it is definitely OOC since they probably rolled up another character and are talking about their previous character. This new character probably knows nothing about the intimate details of the previous character's death (DM discretion/sense of humor). So, therefore the PC shouldn't be talking about using a scroll in their "past life." Please let me know if this is still unclear, and I'll try to reword some things so that you and others will better understand what I'm trying to get across. The original quote about the scroll said "I," not "my last character." they could well have been raised after being killed and reflecting back, thinking that they should have used that scroll. I meant to include a sentence in my post about most of your specific examples being ok, though. I don't really think it's a good idea to make up a system that punishes players for saying certain things, when they could be perfectly suitable in context.
Keevo_Darkwood 08-29-06, 01:31 AM	"Lighten up, Francis." "Oh, damn...." :mymy: "INCOMING!!!" :OMG!
zvbxrpl 08-29-06, 12:00 PM	I only really have a problem with 5 and 6. The rest just seems like normal behavior. DnD is a social activity, and part of its nature is chatting OOC. As long as these discussions don't disrupt, I don't see what the big deal is, and even if they do disrupt, often the solution is just "C'mon guys, get back on task." Sorry, man, but I think you're being too harsh.
ornitholestes 08-29-06, 01:26 PM	I don't have a problem with the classification system per say. That said, I personally don't have a problem with any OOC. Idle chatter, jokes, bad puns, and references to past campaigns are one of the reasons I play the game. I think using in game Jargon is a different issue, but I certainly don't have a problem with it when I GM. I think of D&D as an adventure game where the players are trying to do their best to survive and prevail. We do quite a bit of role-playing, but I like the tactical aspects of the game itself. I think players using technical jargon and knowledge of how the game works to succeed is part of the point. As Lokathar said, using knowledge of the games helps the players to work better as a team. It also makes them more skilled and allows me (as GM) to set up harder or more interesting challenges. Of course, I think this really comes down to how you want to play. If you want a more immersive play, then thats fine - if you want a more informal play thats fine also.
Echodork 08-29-06, 02:10 PM	It's kind of interesting how some people view the bottom of the scale as "most disruptive," while others see no problem with out-of-game talk and draw the line at referring to their characters in terms of game mechanics. My group plays D&D to play a game. We're after entertainment, not an Immersive Role-Playing Experience. With that, I'll end my involvement in the thread right here, because nothing said in the OP pertains to me or bothers me at all.
Kaligrad 08-29-06, 04:26 PM	If I even thought of implementing this system, punishments or not, my players would lynch me. One of them doesn't even really come to play D&D, let alone play IC.
otomik 08-29-06, 05:06 PM	pcfighter: hello good shopkeeper, I'd like to buy a magic sword today npcmerchant: good fer ye lass, I've got a bonnie hand n half claymore of raging hellfire that would suit ya finely! pcfighter: what size and type of weapon is a hand n half claymore? npcmerchant: why it's a sword, ya kidder! pcfighter: sigh can I just get a longsword then? npcmerchant: are ye daft? this sword is plenty long! pcfighter: I stab myself with my +2 dagger! npc merchant: how dare you threaten me in my own shop and what in the realms is a "plustu" dagger?
olshanski_home 08-29-06, 05:47 PM	All of my games frequently use all of the above versions of OOC. I don't know that anybody has ever considered anything else! I come right out and say that I don't want to play with people that cannot hold an interesting conversation about things non-RPG... most games start out with a discussion about what movies or books people have seen or read in the past week. There may be some brief discussion of current events. Then we all have a bite to eat and get comfortable. Most things that happen outside of D&D... I guess you are referring to as "OOC"... are called "life". It can be pretty interesting, and is often just as fun as D&D.
protocol 09-02-06, 05:14 PM	Implementing this system shouldn't involve punishment or penalties. Punishment is never the solution to curbing bad behavior. In fact, studies show when a parent punishes their child for bad behavior instead of rewarding/reinforcing the child's good behavior, the child's bad behavior tends to increase in frequency and intensity. So, if my system is viable, then a reward system would be the best way to apply my template - something like a point-purchasing system where PCs start off with X number of points. When the PC commits OOC, points are deducted - say 7 - X where X is the OOC degree. At the end of the gaming session, a PC can use their points to buy temporary enhancements, such as a one-time usage of a feat they don't have but meet the prereq's for it or 1d4 extra spells/day for 1d6 spell levels, starting with 0 lvl. Reroll 1d4 die rolls for next session only. That sort of thing. Using this reward system wouldn't intrude upon the relaxed atmosphere of gaming. I think it would actually enhance the fun of gaming while indirectly reducing OOC - because the PCs will want to keep their points. All of this is based on the assumption that my system is a viable countermeasure for dissolving disruptive OOC. Based on the responses I've received in this thread, it doesn't look like its that viable. I've spoken with one of my group's DMs, and they liked the idea. So, we are going to try using my system. We'll see how it goes, and I'll post the results in a week or two. Thanks again to everyone for your feedback :)