I can't believe you people are having a flame war over "it's not a RPG if you don't talk in a funny voice."

If this isn't scraping the bottom of the barrel, I don't know what is.

Quote from: The Butcher;436859I can't believe you people are having a flame war on "it's not a RPG if you don't talk in a funny voice."

If this isn't scraping the bottom of the barrel, I don't know what is.

I can only agree, yet I'm compelled to get involved because I'm stunned that not only is there support for funny voice-ism, but that some believe it's actually required.

I find it frankly embarrassing when people at a game table start with the thees and thous and calling NPCs "knave" in whatever they consider an elvish accent.  I doubt I could stick with a group where it was the norm.

Quote from: Hairfoot;436865I can only agree, yet I'm compelled to get involved because I'm stunned that not only is there support for funny voice-ism, but that some believe it's actually required.

I find it frankly embarrassing when people at a game table start with the thees and thous and calling NPCs "knave" in whatever they consider an elvish accent.  I doubt I could stick with a group where it was the norm.

Same here. In my group(s), "direct" in-character speech (preferrably without archaic affectations) is encouraged ("Halt! In the name of King Azoun!"), but "indirect" discourse ("I command the bandits to halt, in the name of King Azoun"), most of the time, is fine.

Like a few other baffling differences I notice between my own playstyle, and that of what I perceive to be the vocal majority of theRPGsite users, I ascribe this to (1) the high proportion of "casual" players in my group, and (2) the inevitable rhetoric polarization (a.k.a. "excluded middle" problem/fallacy) that graces almost every disagreement in this site. Pundy is particularly fond of pulling "excluded middles" as a rhetoric dirty trick.

This usually leads me to not caring a whole lot to the issue at hand, as I no longer have the time or inclination to get all worked up over such things. I guess that makes me a Cheetoist. Ah well.

Quote from: Hairfoot;436865I can only agree, yet I'm compelled to get involved because I'm stunned that not only is there support for funny voice-ism, but that some believe it's actually required.

Holy shit this thread really is scraping the bottom of the barrel. Is this some sort of contest of who's going to misinterpret what the other's saying the best?

I don't see "speaking for your character" as an equivalent for "funny voice-ism, thous and thees." Unless you are using those and have the ability to be believable using them, I don't see the latter working too well towards the goal of immersion. It seems immersion in the game world through the act of being your character is getting completely lost, here.

Speaking for your character is a conduct of that. Though you might say "I'm gonna ask the barkeeper for another beer" and not get an eyebrow raised on my part, if you're starting saying "I'm trying to convince the guards that I'm the son of the sultan," you bet your ass I'm going to ask you to role-play it out. And no, you don't necessarily have to use funny voices and all that.

You guys do know what actually role-playing your character means, right? You've actually done it before, haven't you?

Quote from: RPGPundit;436764No, that was my point.  Go back and read the post you quoted again: I was saying that even a well-spoken player is STILL trying to play someone more charismatic than he is, and it is therefore no different than someone playing a warrior stronger than he is, or a thief more dexterous than he is.  It invalidates your whole argument.

I'm not sure what you think is happening is actually happening. Because if you're okay with and recognize this mismatch, there's no point in penalizing socially inept players other than to be an ass to socially inept players ('cause you're socially inept yourself).

Seanchai

Quote from: Benoist;436772I do however believe that speaking for your character is better in terms of role-playing than describing what your character is trying to say (depending on situations - it's not always the case).

I agree. However, what I don't agree with is the idea that in character speech as a requirement instead of an option is a betterment.

Quote from: Benoist;436772But you have to be willing to act, at least.

Because not acting wrecks the game? Because you can't roleplay without acting?

You can say you have to act because it's a roleplaying game if you wish, but it's a roleplaying game, not an acting game.

Moreover, there's still that whole game component.

Seanchai

Quote from: Benoist;436911Though you might say "I'm gonna ask the barkeeper for another beer" and not get an eyebrow raised on my part, if you're starting saying "I'm trying to convince the guards that I'm the son of the sultan," you bet your ass I'm going to ask you to role-play it out. And no, you don't necessarily have to use funny voices and all that.

But if I said, I'm going to swing my sword at the guards, it's okay to just declare and roll...

Seanchai

Quote from: Benoist;436911You guys do know what actually role-playing your character means, right? You've actually done it before, haven't you?

You aren't the one to tell me what it is.

This is a really strange "conversation."

Quote from: Machinegun Blue;436918You aren't the one to tell me what it is.

No, I indeed am not.

To me in character speech is a sign of the intensity of role playing at the very moment it happens. It doesn't have to define a whole game session. Some players speak in first person a lot, some don't. Often the ones who prefer third person descriptions are aware of their limited capacity of acting and are indeed making the game better this way rather than breaking the suspension of disbelief of others with their bad acting.

When a PC is asking for direction in a city street, the random interaction with the random city dweller isn't very important. GM and player can do it "first person" or "third person" and that's just fine, it's not meant to be intense character interaction, just a mean to convey information during the game.

During a more intense scene (say the party meets the King and try to convince him that his kingdom is in danger) I'd like to see more in character speech, more involvement from the players. I try to encourage it by speaking in character myself. It usually does the trick. But still some players can't go there, or not all the time, or they don't feel it tonight, or the subject at hand is little overwhelming on an emotional level, whatever... It's fine.

In character speech is the cherry on top of the cake: I'd rather have it than not but I won't expect some absolute standard from fellow players. That's why at best I can encourage it by example and stop playing with people who don't act enough for me to enjoy the game.

The suspension of disbelief for all players at the table is the common good. If it's better achieved by good acting and subsequent bonus to the die roll, cool. Or maybe was there no roll at all and some nice intense role playing? Or maybe Joe delivered a formidable description of his character's arguments and tone without acting it and we all rolled with it because it was very convincing? It's about spontaneity and individual talents in the service of the game, not about RPG dogma.

Yes I love in character speech and acting at the table. Doesn't mean I have to be fanatic about it and enforce it with resolution rulings.

I'm sorry I fell for the trap and the whole excluded-middle rhetoric.

Thanks boulet for the post.

Quote from: boulet;436949To me in character speech is a sign of the intensity of role playing at the very moment it happens. It doesn't have to define a whole game session. Some players speak in first person a lot, some don't. Often the ones who prefer third person descriptions are aware of their limited capacity of acting and are indeed making the game better this way rather than breaking the suspension of disbelief of others with their bad acting.

When a PC is asking for direction in a city street, the random interaction with the random city dweller isn't very important. GM and player can do it "first person" or "third person" and that's just fine, it's not meant to be intense character interaction, just a mean to convey information during the game.

During a more intense scene (say the party meets the King and try to convince him that his kingdom is in danger) I'd like to see more in character speech, more involvement from the players. I try to encourage it by speaking in character myself. It usually does the trick. But still some players can't go there, or not all the time, or they don't feel it tonight, or the subject at hand is little overwhelming on an emotional level, whatever... It's fine.

In character speech is the cherry on top of the cake: I'd rather have it than not but I won't expect some absolute standard from fellow players. That's why at best I can encourage it by example and stop playing with people who don't act enough for me to enjoy the game.

The suspension of disbelief for all players at the table is the common good. If it's better achieved by good acting and subsequent bonus to the die roll, cool. Or maybe was there no roll at all and some nice intense role playing? Or maybe Joe delivered a formidable description of his character's arguments and tone without acting it and we all rolled with it because it was very convincing? It's about spontaneity and individual talents in the service of the game, not about RPG dogma.

Yes I love in character speech and acting at the table. Doesn't mean I have to be fanatic about it and enforce it with resolution rulings.

Good post.
I do enforce benefits for 1st person roleplaying, as well as RP exp awards, but the effects are the same.  When the result matters, my players are rewarded/bonused for going into 1st person.   They don't have to...I just try to make it the best choice, and this seems to work.
But when it matters less, they spend a lot of time in third person.

Pundit: Understanding your reward/punishment mechanism for these situations, do you hope that your punished players will soon buck up to the role play challenge?  I mean debate classes and etiquette schooling could take some time to master for socially improved behavior.  

Or do you hope they get tired of being dumped on and eventually leave your game?  Is there a possibility that they suck at one aspect of the game and excel at another, but your distain for their lack of skill in one area overshadows the rest of their potential?

Hi Venosha!  Glad to see you back!