IC and OOC...what do the terms mean?

[johnlewismcleod]

Heh..true again, I-KP...on all points

[NickD]

Though OOC does not need inheritance nor polymorphism nor classes... see for example Smalltalk, Objective C and Javascript...

Of those I've only briefly touched on Javascript before. How can you have object oriented code without classes? Objects are the instantiation of classes!

[fluffmonster]

I wouldn't make an IC/OOC distinction along 'metagaming' lines. Some sorts of metagaming are bad (perhaps most), but some aren't. Exploiting weaknesses in monster AI is bad, but arranging for your PC to be someplace where there are other people to play with is actually something we encourage.

[I-KP]

This is true.

[paazin]

IC is a shortened way of saying "I see", which is an expression similar to "OK" or "I hear and understand you"

OOC stands for Object Oriented Code. Object Oriented Code allows for reuse of code through use of inherited classes and polymorphism and other buzz words, as opposed to procedural code, which does not have classes, although multiple functions can use the same sub routines, so there is some reuse of code.

lol nice one...

Though OOC does not need inheritance nor polymorphism nor classes... see for example Smalltalk, Objective C and Javascript...

As usual Nick and Hialmar are the only ones even remotely close to the right answer.

[paazin]

Though OOC does not need inheritance nor polymorphism nor classes... see for example Smalltalk, Objective C and Javascript...

Of those I've only briefly touched on Javascript before. How can you have object oriented code without classes? Objects are the instantiation of classes!

Vaguely only vaguely recall Smalltalk and a bit of Objective C, don't they both use the concept of classes and inheritance as pretty much core components?

[Rotku]

Out of curiosity, what sparked this question, Joh?

[johnlewismcleod]

I'd rather not be specific, Rotku...I just recently got the impression during various discussions with other players that we really didn't seem to have the same concept about the terminology we were using.

I was confused, and then it occurred to me that the terms really aren't defined or explained in the ALFA player manual or the Charter (that I could find ), and experience has taught me that to assume everyone in a discussion is working from the same page is often a mistake.

Best to address the basics, then if a common understanding can be found, more productive discourse is possible.

[CloudDancing]

I like IKP's post about it being difficult to seperate the player from the PC.

Time and time again, playing with people who die frequently, I see this remanifestation of their previous characters in their new ones because the PC is still the player.

The first time this happened IC with another PC it terrified my character (and others to the point) where we hastily ran away from that "new' person and it took a few more months before that sense of "eerieness" wore off.

It happened again and someone "new" approached my PC much too familairy and expected to be immediately accepted into the fold. It rankled Trapper to no end IC. So as of late i've encouraged new PCs to have lists of flaws and idiosyncracies that define them so they can make them more real and seperate from their last incarnation.

But here my big list of Out of Character things I have seen as a DM:

*A CvC occurs. During the CvC all the friends of one of the Player suddenly log on and head to that location.

*A CvC occurs. A player holds back and does not fight when they reach the kill point even though their IC motive was to kill the other character, because it is "nice" OCC.

*Player characters tolerate behaviors from fellow PCs that in-character they would probably, slap, kill, strange, argue, or fight over because again, it is nice.

*Player character assume negative emotions and reactions are OCC.
Case in point, some people play under the influence of drugs or alcohol or lack of sleep, act oddly out of character, and make very stupid descisions that leave other PC stunned and dumbfounded. Being non-meta thinkers, we take that behavior at face value as REAL IC behavior and don't make excuses for them or their weird behavior.

*A player character travels great distances with 0 IC/DM knowledge of another PC's location or distress to either rez them or come join in on a metaknowledge profitable DM expedition (often DESPITE exisisting relationships or concurring ingame commitments)

*A character who has a good deity/lawful/good repeatedly hangs out with evil characters who do greedy despicable things in front of their face and show no signs of repentance.

*A player dies and their body is looted repeatedly by unrelated party members. And/or that body is laid to rest with an NPC priest and that is looted repeatedly by non-family and friends.

[Rotku]

Interesting list, Cloud. Some I do disagree with, and others, while involving meta, I don't think are bad.

[johnlewismcleod]

I wouldn't make an IC/OOC distinction along 'metagaming' lines. Some sorts of metagaming are bad (perhaps most), but some aren't. Exploiting weaknesses in monster AI is bad, but arranging for your PC to be someplace where there are other people to play with is actually something we encourage.

Agreed...with the caveat that if the gathering is for the purpose of joining in a CvC.

If this has happened as Cloud suggests, or happens in the future...I would have to consider it an actionable rules violation.

But I don't want to open a review of grievances past in this thread...I just wanted to get some input in general on the topic of OOC, IC, and meta to establish whether or not we all embraced a common understanding of what the terms actually mean.

I think we basically do, but I can see it's not as "cut and dried" as I thought it was before I began the thread, heh...thanks for your input everyone .

[Hialmar]

Though OOC does not need inheritance nor polymorphism nor classes... see for example Smalltalk, Objective C and Javascript...

Of those I've only briefly touched on Javascript before. How can you have object oriented code without classes? Objects are the instantiation of classes!

Vaguely only vaguely recall Smalltalk and a bit of Objective C, don't they both use the concept of classes and inheritance as pretty much core components?

Not really. They mainly speak about objects. You can add new methods (or messages) directly to objects. And you can create methods that create new objects thus instanciation does not need any classes.

Edit: Objective-C has the keyword class but those are quite far from the common concept of classes.

[oldgrayrogue]

Keep it simple JLM.

I like the IC is your PC's brain and OOC is the player's brain definition. Most of the other stuff listed in this thread involves a judgment call of one sort or another. Unless something is obviously meta (and most of us know it when we see it) my advice is to roll with it.

[Castano]

+1 to what Cloud said.

One should not assume a PC is being played in an OOC manner (i've seen to many instances in alfa to count where other players try to "run" someone else's PC for their own purposes) If you have an issue about someone apparently using meta information take it to the DM.

Also refrain from boasting about your PC's "uber skilz" in chat - it becomes increasingly difficult (and less fun) for everyone to RP properly if everyone knows what kind of gear you own and what skills you have.

Other examples of OOC (e.g. talking about DPS in-game) should still be called out (politely please) by the players as it may either be a slip up (e.g. they just logged off Halo3 or whatever people are playing these days) or someone just doesn't know the game rules.

[Veilan]

arranging for your PC to be someplace where there are other people to play with is actually something we encourage.

In theory .