Quote from: HorusArisen;1040930We've always been quite happy with a mix of both but primarily it's more descriptive than acting.

This is us.  Also, the mix is not consistent from moment to moment, and we like it that way.  When a particular scene or even moment in a scene inspires some acting, some of the players may go with that.  Another player may respond with description.  Occasionally, we'll even get acting in the form of body language responses.  All of that mixed with OOC comments at times, too.  That's how I handle NPCs--whatever gets the job done to convey the NPC's decisions and actions and moods.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1040945I imagine that makes you even less symapthetic to hammy acting at the gaming table.:eek:

Nah, as long as everyone is having fun I don't care how bad the acting is!

Ah, you're a better man than I. If I have to hear another Scottish-Welsh-Irish-Jamaican Dwarf I swear I will beat them over the head with a soft-toy Jar Jar Binks.

For role-play, players at least need to say where their character is and what their character is doing. Most players won't even do that. See crap role-players.

I like doing voices.  Actully I have started loving doing voices.

But its a new development for me.  It started in a game of Rouge Trader.  I don't take the setting seriously at all, I can't stand Grim Dark.  So I came up with a character and a VOICE I had the other players rollin, DM too.  

Lately I have a New Jersey hood on the Orient express.  And I had some success with a mid adlantic Accent.  By some success I mean I enjoyed it and it was recognizable.  It still jumps between sessions and wanders durring.  

I want to break out an African accent and I have been working on John Wayne.  John Wayne is terrible but I enjoy it.  

I do a voice if I have a voice.  If I don't or if the voice I want to do I can't pull off I don't do it.  Some of it might be Hammy.  Over the top is much easier to do than subtle.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1040953For role-play, players at least need to say where their character is and what their character is doing. Most players won't even do that.

I have played with a lot of beginner players and even those could give their location and actions. "Most" you say?

Damn.

You have it rough.

Way back in high school, a friend of mine was uncomfortable doing anything in character. He kept everything third person and did everything in terms of "My character does this" and "My character tells the guy that." At the same time, he did have a clear concept of his character and he conveyed it just fine in his own reserved fashion. He was a net positive on the game, so I never had an issue with it. If I had tried to badger him into "playing his character properly", I suspect he would have stopped showing up.

I think its a little more fun will people are willing to talk as their character, but I am fine with letting people all play their own style as long as they are engaged in the game.

Quote from: Baulderstone;1040967Way back in high school, a friend of mine was uncomfortable doing anything in character. He kept everything third person and did everything in terms of "My character does this" and "My character tells the guy that." At the same time, he did have a clear concept of his character and he conveyed it just fine in his own reserved fashion. He was a net positive on the game, so I never had an issue with it. If I had tried to badger him into "playing his character properly", I suspect he would have stopped showing up.

I think its a little more fun will people are willing to talk as their character, but I am fine with letting people all play their own style as long as they are engaged in the game.

This is basically where I am at. I prefer my players to portray their IC activities in a certain way, for table cohesion, but more than that I want any individual player to be comfortable playing the game. As long as it is not too disruptive, I'll generally roll with it.

Do you let the "uncohesive" player know how dissapointed you are verbally or do you just sigh wearily?

I find LARPS are better venues for acting and theatrics than TTRPGs.

However, I expect players to showcase their character's actions and dialogue in some fashion. Even if its just the eagerness of first person which is great fun. I know some players consider first person (I do this, I do that) to be important for their immersion.

You don't need accents, but I expect speech patterns, catch phrases, dialogue that showcases a point of view outside of the player, or something the differentiates the player from their character. I find this comes easily to most players, most especially kids.

All of that can be done in 3rd person too.

Quote from: Baulderstone;1040967Way back in high school, a friend of mine was uncomfortable doing anything in character. He kept everything third person and did everything in terms of "My character does this" and "My character tells the guy that." At the same time, he did have a clear concept of his character and he conveyed it just fine in his own reserved fashion. He was a net positive on the game, so I never had an issue with it. If I had tried to badger him into "playing his character properly", I suspect he would have stopped showing up.

I think its a little more fun will people are willing to talk as their character, but I am fine with letting people all play their own style as long as they are engaged in the game.

This, basically. I can go up and down myself. It's more important to me that everyone in the group is mostly on the same page, or at least comfortable with any differences. I've been in groups where the guy above would have been right at home, and other groups where he'd have been horribly out of place. It just depends.

When I am running a game, I speak in character for the NPCs - and while I don't do a bunch of hammy accents (well, a little) I will try to capture the relevant tone with word choice. And I do think there's a place for 'my character does...' for explaining your actions or for mundane tasks. I think it isn't asking too much for players to say what their character is saying (sans accents) and holding them accountable or responsible for it.

What gets me are players that hate problem solving or role playing, and then want to solve all mysteries and puzzles by rolling some dice. A few weeks ago, I was playing in a very dice calc intensive game, and one player who created a very high intelligence character kept trying to 'roll away' not only finding but also interpreting clues and events. Same player struggles with the basic math of the game. In addition, he didn't seem to be enjoying it either.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1040972Do you let the "uncohesive" player know how disappointed you are verbally or do you just sigh wearily?

It's a fair question!

Firstly, it's not that uncommon, especially when you play with as many different groups as I have over the years. "Bad acting" is just one of many things that an individual player can do that disrupt the game. A month ago it was someone who was non-stop rolling his dice (loudly).

As a GM I'm actually pretty thick-skinned at the table, and I've learned the hard way to be more observant about the dynamics between my players. If someone's dodgy accent (say) is annoying someone else, it's ultimately my responsibility as the GM whether to do something about it. If it's distracting everyone else, absolutely I should do something. (Most players won't challenge other players on that stuff, understandably so).

N.B. I'm not suggesting the bad actor (or dice roller) is trying to be disruptive, absolutely not, just unaware of the non-verbal signals coming from all around the table.

I've never had an issue communicating to the person that they need to tone it down (or whatever). I always try to keep it light, constructive, positive. And I have never had it taken badly, or ignored.

I have had an issue with not spotting the non-verbal signals myself, and that's entirely on me, always a work in progress.

Quote from: jeff37923;1040888Ran across this on Reddit....



This seems pretty obvious to a lot of us, but which do you prefer and which do your players prefer? Do you prefer acting to role-playing when you game? Do your fellow players prefer to act or role-play when they game?

For me, I'm an amateur thespian and I love to act, usually doing that. When I am just role-playing, then it means that I have low energy (just woke up, hung over, don't have a particular hook for a PC or NPC,  etc..).

So what about you?

My self I will say what my character says but I don't act (no voices, no accents, etc).

My experience is most can't really act all that well and, to me, it is usually distracting. Even some "pros" I've watched doing it (like Critical Role) seem hammy and distracting to me.

Tangentially related, I like to occasionally enforce the notion that players strategizing at the table equates to characters strategizing in the dungeon, particularly when conversational delay or being overheard might be relevant to the game scenario.

Quote from: ChainsawIn my games, usually people speak in first person to describe their PCs' actions (because saying "I" is faster than "My character" or "Ironaxe the dwarf")

I like this distinction between first-person narrative and third-person narrative. I wouldn't enforce a first-person narrative, but I might suggest it to a third-person style player who is having trouble immersing.