Quote from: jibbajibba;974412Of course they do. Otherwise you are playing a small scale tactical skirmish game with cut scenes.

Occasional lapses where mechanics are referred to in the rough aside all conversation that doesn't relate to snacks, cups of tea or the like should be in character.

It's easy to encourage just have the NPCs talk to the PCs in character.

I mean some of you seem like you have never had the PCs sit down and have a meal and a conversation or discuss the merits of having or not having a rigid set of rules for their new Thieves Guild.
We once had a game of CoC where the PCs met up after a break of a few years (game and real life) and we started with high tea at the Missionary's house that latest 2 hours of real time.

Is the world gone mad?

Tell us more about your LARP group? I kid, I kid.

Quote from: jibbajibba;974412Of course they do. Otherwise you are playing a small scale tactical skirmish game with cut scenes.

No, they do exploration and social interaction (with NPCs) too. They just don't really talk to each other IC.

Quote from: jadrax;974060One of the worst (and weirdest) games I ever played in was one where the GM tried to ban us talking in character as it made him 'uncomfortable'.

There are a lot of different play styles out there.

It's totally possibly to play an RPG like a war game, with trade and commerce and maybe diplomacy. There's nothing wrong with that, especially if you are running a combat heavy game or dungeon crawl. Every player is certainly different, and group synergy is a thing.

For non RPers, there could be many reasons for this. Talking in funny voices for one thing. I can do it because I've done public speaking and amateur voice work, and I can do some impressions. Yes that does mean that every Rakshasa sounds like Shere Khan, and I have to give Strahd a Russian accent because otherwise he ends up sounding like Count von Count. I've never had any complaints doing this as a player or as a DM/GM. But I have also had players who do not, or can not roleplay at all. There's nothing wrong with that. If I have a player who is uncomfortable role playing then I might still do the funny voices, but I also add OOC description of the situation.

I had one player who would speak very quietly and was sometimes hard to hear. Get this, she is an Air Force Cadet adult volunteer who has had prior military service. If she tell you to stand at attention, you stand at attention. But for some reason she felt intimidated by an RPG, and is a serious introvert. But somewhere in there is a tactical mind, so I try and explain things in a way she would understand.

I have another player who usually doesn't roleplay but when he does, it's a serious matter. And more over he demands I present a believable world with a fleshed out economy and realistic reasons why certain groups would be at war with one another. Sometimes he does roleplay, and when he does it is quite formal as his characters often have aspirations of becoming nobility or wealthy merchants. When I'm setting up a game for him and his two adult kids, I have to do lots of homework. Fortunately, I just run those games in Karameikos so for the most part I can focus on one place.

One of my oldest friends never ever roleplayed in her life. She really liked Stargate. Really liked Stargate. I had the d20 version and I asked if she wanted to join. She asked if she could play O'Neill and I had no issue with that because it was a one shot. Did I mention she liked Stargate? Her first time RPing, she nailed O'Neill. Nailed his personality down, shooting off sarcastic quips and giving out orders that actually made sense, because she has even more public speaking experience than I do and she just knew the show and it's lore that well.

Talkers and non talkers can play together just fine. We did it for years. And sometimes the non talkers tried it once in a while. I could care less if they spoke in monotone, which a few often did. The point is to communicate what you want to do clearly and in return expect to be clearly informed of what is happening. I see the DM/GMs most important job as keeping the game moving and making sure everyone has something to do. You can't rely on players taking initiative. Some people are naturally passive. But they showed up so you have to give them a good time.

Jadrax, as for your original comment a DM/GM who doesn't want to roleplay is a new one for me. But if I am there and they swear up and down they can run a good game then I'm going to give it a try. Never pass up the opportunity to play in a game with a DM/GM who knows what they are doing. If they want to play it like a war game then fine, we'll play it like a war game.

Quote from: Kiero;974129I've not seen it happen in any group I've played in (that there's a mixture of approaches being employed at the same table). I can only imagine they'd each be annoying to those talking in the other way, I know I'd find it so if one of the player never spoke IC. Equally I'm sure the person "wasting" time talking IC would annoy those who want to get to the solutions.

A degree of variety in what players want from a game and how players play a game is what I have seen as normal over the last 40+ years of gaming. But my comment was specifically directed at people in the thread who seem to never have experienced or seen people who played at one or the other (or both) of the extremes. One need not experience a game where both extremes are present at the table, at the same time, to have experienced both extremes. Someone who is unaware that there are other people out in the world who actual play like at the extremes (nearly all IC or almost never IC) seems kinda weird to me.

Quote from: jibbajibba;974412Of course they do.

Case in point.