Do PCs talk to each other in your games?
Does it depend on the game? Do Call of Cthulhu PCs talk more than D&D PCs?
Does it depend on the game format (tabletop, online text chat, PBP & PBEM, live action etc)?
I suspect PCs pretty much never interact in-character in my D&D tabletop games, and that this is a big difference between tabletop and text-chat or pbem play where that is often the focus of play.
Do you think it's something worth encouraging? Do you discourage it?
I've seen it, but it's not all that common. Certainly, it is not as common as them talking in character to the GM, when the GM is running an NPC.
I personally like it when they speak in character, but I don't force it on them.
Among my players, yes, if the game is a modern or near modern setting, they are more likely to speak in character with each other.
I think PCs speaking to each other in character is more the norm in my campaigns, but it depends on the situation. There is also sometimes a blurry line, particularly when players are planning things, where you almost can't tell if people are speaking in or out of character. But I find if I ask whether they are, the answer is often yes. A little hard to analyze this from within the group though.
It depends. There could be dialogue or not, in the same campaign. Sometimes sessions will be roleplay heavy and sometimes it's dungeon crawling, some sort of heist, or tactical combat. Occasionally there are mass combat scenarios which have about as much RP as a game of Squad Leader.
Almost always no matter what game we play. Worth encouraging? Not really.
In my High School/College-era groups we did quite a bit of talking to each other in character. In my current group, it varies a decent amount, with some sessions being almost entirely OOC talk planning, and abstract 3rd person resolution of some social situations. Personally, I love roleplaying with fellow PCs in character and tend to be mildly frustrated when people shy away from it or approach RPG scenarios in a detached "As players, let's talk and find a solution, then have our characters execute it" kinda mode. I like interesting characters, and for them to be interesting to me, I need to see them roleplayed, and for a group of characters to have camaraderie and relationships, I need to see it RP'd out amongst them. I guess that makes me a bit of an "immersion" kinda guy. I'm not against playing an old school dungeon in 10 minute turns, with rests and wandering monsters, but without at least a whiff of inter-PC RP, I prefer just playing a non-RP game as I tend to think they are better as games.
No, almost never. I don't encourage it. This is one of those things that for my type of player is salt, but not meat. A little bit of some form of it makes the game better, but a lot of it gets away from what I want out of a game session.
Sometimes we do- depends on the game.
Not really. It amounts to little more than bad acting. It's OK, even amusing, in small doses. It annoys me when it goes on and on, especially when it's characters arguing over petty shit.
When I run anything with "exploration turns" (dungeon-, site-, hex-crawls), I insist that the players discuss their party's action for the turn & have one person communicate it to me before I ask for individual character tests, roll for traps, etc. This happens both OOC and IC, but I really like to see the IC moments. I think this "carves out" a space for players to interact with each other IC. Otherwise, I find that players end up role-playing with mainly the GM characters. Also, morale and reaction rules (especially morale for hirelings).
Whenever we have situations where it becomes important what one character knows, and whether they can and/or have communicated that information to the others (such as a stealth operation where the party splits up), we suddenly become aware that the players talking and the characters talking are separate things. Otherwise, talking 'in character' is usually done for flavor or fun reasons, and is much more common PC-to-NPC than PC-to-PC, but is definitely done.
Quote from: S'mon;971804Do PCs talk to each other in your games?
Yeah. Not constantly, but it happens.
QuoteDoes it depend on the game? Do Call of Cthulhu PCs talk more than D&D PCs?
I don't think the system matters, but it happens more when players need to make real decisions that force them to talk. If a game is somewhat railroady, the players just follow the path and don't need to discuss what to do next.
I'm playing in one of Brendan's games at the moment. It's a
Wandering Heroes of Ogre Gate campaign where we are playing evil characters working together in a city sandbox. As the new crew in town looking to carve out a piece of the action, the game is player-driven. That means we have had a lot of cause to talk to each other. It's never completely obvious what to do next. Some planning is out of character, and some isn't.
I find that the more a decision is based on a character's personality, the more likely they are to slip into their voice. If it's a matter of pure strategy, it can go either way.
QuoteDoes it depend on the game format (tabletop, online text chat, PBP & PBEM, live action etc)?
I really only game at the table or via video chat, which isn't that different. I'd say it's just a little easier at the table because with video, you are all using a single point of communication. You need to be a little more careful to avoid talking over one another, which can make people just a little quieter. It's a minor issue though.
QuoteDo you think it's something worth encouraging? Do you discourage it?
I don't don't do either. Encouraging it could be counterproductive. In high school, I noticed on of my best friends was completely averse to talking in character. It was always "My character does..." and "My character tells the guy that..." in third person. But he was actually a damn good roleplayer. His characters had solid motivations and took interesting actions based on them. He wasn't comfortable acting out the part of his character, but he had a clear idea of who his character was, and brought that across at the table. Trying to get him to start talking in character would have just made him unhappy and probably would have resulted in worse roleplaying or him just dropping out.
I can't say I have ever needed to discourage it. I can see a hypothetical case where two PCs take up huge amounts of spotlight time bantering with each other while the rest of the group sits around bored. It's not a thing I have ever seen though.
In our games it's pretty much constant. As a group we try to stay in character mostly, so unless there's no way the PCs could actually communicate, that's what we do.
It keeps people focused and stops inane and off-topic chatter.
Quote from: NeonAce;971811Personally, I love roleplaying with fellow PCs in character and tend to be mildly frustrated when people shy away from it or approach RPG scenarios in a detached "As players, let's talk and find a solution, then have our characters execute it" kinda mode. I like interesting characters, and for them to be interesting to me, I need to see them roleplayed, and for a group of characters to have camaraderie and relationships, I need to see it RP'd out amongst them. I guess that makes me a bit of an "immersion" kinda guy. I'm not against playing an old school dungeon in 10 minute turns, with rests and wandering monsters, but without at least a whiff of inter-PC RP, I prefer just playing a non-RP game as I tend to think they are better as games.
Yeah, I feel the same.
Is there anything a GM can do to encourage in-character interaction among the PCs?
We drop into and out of character moment by moment in all aspects of play, including when the PCs discuss something with each other. One PC can directly address another using first person, get a reply in third person, and then get an OOC comment by another player.
I don't directly encourage or discourage any particular mode of speech, as there are plenty of examples of all types to pick from, and most of the players switch freely as the mood strikes. I do encourage a degree of PC rivalry in order to liven up the action. That can lead indirectly to PC discussion.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;971807I think PCs speaking to each other in character is more the norm in my campaigns, but it depends on the situation. There is also sometimes a blurry line, particularly when players are planning things, where you almost can't tell if people are speaking in or out of character. But I find if I ask whether they are, the answer is often yes. A little hard to analyze this from within the group though.
This is pretty much my experience. Some of them are real scenery chewers.
Quote from: S'mon;971804Do you think it's something worth encouraging? Do you discourage it?
PCs talking to eachother is the norm for most any game I've DMed or played in. The players have their characters chat and co-ordinate in character quite often.
Ive found that the players, and their characters tend to get more quiet as the danger levels increase. If the PCs are sneaking or exploring then everyone quiets down too.
1: Neither. I just let it happen. If you try to force it to happen then its likely to go badly and if you try to discourage it its likely to go badly. Though I have one player who's character will just not shut the hell up. He's ALLWAYS joking. Its gradually getting on my nerves and we are going to have to have a more serious talk about it.
This is a
very different matter from the Players chatting out of character.
It depends. On adventuring party games it rarely occurs. On intra-party fuckery games it always happens for us.
If that should be encouraged? If it suits your group sure. Otherwise don't bother. It's not really mandatory, IMO.
Quote from: S'mon;971804Do PCs talk to each other in your games?
Sometimes it is what the session is all about.
QuoteDoes it depend on the game? Do Call of Cthulhu PCs talk more than D&D PCs?
No.
QuoteDoes it depend on the game format (tabletop, online text chat, PBP & PBEM, live action etc)?
No.
QuoteI suspect PCs pretty much never interact in-character in my D&D tabletop games, and that this is a big difference between tabletop and text-chat or pbem play where that is often the focus of play. Do you think it's something worth encouraging? Do you discourage it?
I suppose the way I GM encourages it, though it is not a goal so much as an undisputed fact. I do enjoy it, if the players are into it.
Quote from: S'mon;971804Do PCs talk to each other in your games?
All the time, its major segment of most games.
QuoteDoes it depend on the game format (tabletop, online text chat, PBP & PBEM, live action, etc?
I'd say its more extensive in text format but significantly more common. I'd say its pretty much the default in text based formats.
QuoteDo you think it's something worth encouraging? Do you discourage it?
I definitely like to encourage it. Its one of the perks rpgs have over so, writing stories or reading as far of entertainment, IMO.
Quote from: John Scott;971810Almost always no matter what game we play. Worth encouraging? Not really.
Pretty much this. There are some things we'll talk about OOC, especially where rules are concerned, but when things are currently in motion, it's almost entirely IC. And that includes when PCs talk to each other.
I've never actually run into this problem where the PCs don't talk to each other, but if I did, all I'd really do to encourage it is talk IC myself and hope others followed suit. If that didn't work, I'd likely bring it up after the session and see if there's a reason, and if that reason means that we're just not compatible. And then take appropriate action. I'm not going to try to force others to game the way I want to game, but I'm also not going to stick around to game in a way that I don't like.
Quote from: S'mon;971804Do PCs talk to each other in your games?
Does it depend on the game? Do Call of Cthulhu PCs talk more than D&D PCs?
Does it depend on the game format (tabletop, online text chat, PBP & PBEM, live action etc)?
I suspect PCs pretty much never interact in-character in my D&D tabletop games, and that this is a big difference between tabletop and text-chat or pbem play where that is often the focus of play.
Do you think it's something worth encouraging? Do you discourage it?
Yes, frequently so. It'd be weird if they didn't, both for the players' themselves due to their personalities/playstyles and for the general dynamic of the game.
No, it depends on the group in my experience, especially the GM who has significant weight in this matter. If the GM encourages roleplay and talking, you're gonna get roleplay and talking. As a side effect, you'll see players making choices for their characters that would be "sub-optimal" for pure dice-rolling games.
That's on you. Encourage your players more to do it. If they don't want to, find new players or be content with it. If they do, fucking A! PBC and the like don't encourage more "roleplay": most of that from what I've seen is waffling more than substance which is a shame because you'd think the medium would encourage succinct expression.
You should always encourage roleplay. It's called a Role-Playing Game for a reason! Combat itself becomes more fun when players are exclaiming wildly at each other and getting all worked up: it feels *real*, alive and like there's something on the fucking line.
Quote from: Lynn;971806Among my players, yes, if the game is a modern or near modern setting, they are more likely to speak in character with each other.
I find my players speak to each other IC regardless of setting. One thing that is a *thing* is doing an accent well -- if you can't, don't do it.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;971807I think PCs speaking to each other in character is more the norm in my campaigns, but it depends on the situation. There is also sometimes a blurry line, particularly when players are planning things, where you almost can't tell if people are speaking in or out of character. But I find if I ask whether they are, the answer is often yes. A little hard to analyze this from within the group though.
I offer my players the choice of abstracting away the roleplaying or talking it out. They tend to the latter. I wouldn't have thought it particularly hard to get a read on IC vs OOC but that's just me. Why is it for you? A different dynamic, perhaps?
Quote from: Krimson;971809It depends. There could be dialogue or not, in the same campaign. Sometimes sessions will be roleplay heavy and sometimes it's dungeon crawling, some sort of heist, or tactical combat. Occasionally there are mass combat scenarios which have about as much RP as a game of Squad Leader.
Encourage your players to shout and scream during combat. It's fucking awesome once they get into the swing of things. I fucking *hated* rolling on my random tables when it got good because if my creatures (humanoid or otherwise!) got in a good'un, I'd hear some shit like "awwh shiitt... Sav's lost his fucking leg! Priest! Priest, get your fucking ass over here. PRIEST!" Epic as shit!
Only War back in the day was REALLY bad about this shit, godamm those were some good battle scenes...
Quote from: NeonAce;971811In my High School/College-era groups we did quite a bit of talking to each other in character. In my current group, it varies a decent amount, with some sessions being almost entirely OOC talk planning, and abstract 3rd person resolution of some social situations. Personally, I love roleplaying with fellow PCs in character and tend to be mildly frustrated when people shy away from it or approach RPG scenarios in a detached "As players, let's talk and find a solution, then have our characters execute it" kinda mode. I like interesting characters, and for them to be interesting to me, I need to see them roleplayed, and for a group of characters to have camaraderie and relationships, I need to see it RP'd out amongst them. I guess that makes me a bit of an "immersion" kinda guy. I'm not against playing an old school dungeon in 10 minute turns, with rests and wandering monsters, but without at least a whiff of inter-PC RP, I prefer just playing a non-RP game as I tend to think they are better as games.
This is partly the reason I disallowed character backgrounds that are more than a long paragraph at most. That and also that I don't want to read your perpetually unpublished wannabe novelist manuscript (I had one for a VTR game ages back that was six pages long! That taught me...).
Quote from: ArrozConLeche;971814Not really. It amounts to little more than bad acting. It's OK, even amusing, in small doses. It annoys me when it goes on and on, especially when it's characters arguing over petty shit.
Arguing over petty shit is good. That's when I get to break out Virtue/Vice and make shit happen as a GM that the PCs didn't want but they gon' get!
Quote from: S'mon;971826Yeah, I feel the same.
Is there anything a GM can do to encourage in-character interaction among the PCs?
Actually fucking encourage it. Setup scenes for them talk over problems or to discuss bits of a characters background coming into focus. Stuff like that.
I literally set aside time in most of my sessions for an Interaction Moment (IM) and they've been an invaluable tool for me as club-level GM as they give players a kind of "safe ground" and respite from gameplay concerns to focus totally on roleplaying, chat and acting IC. They might be no more than 5mins, they may take as much an half-an-hour or even an hour! Point is, these guys talk and when they do, boyyyy I've seen them go so Game of Thrones I felt like the luckiest fucking GM in the world when I saw that make its way back onto the table (and just how much the 11+ players at the table got into it, even the ones who are usually more shy/less outspoken)!
You can literally have the PCs go to a tavern or coffeehouse or even a quiet grove or whatever and talk about what happened earlier in the session or plan what they're going to do later. Debriefings and briefings (make sure players do this with each other, not you speaking to the table instead) are a perfect way to edge this in!
Quote from: Itachi;971843It depends. On adventuring party games it rarely occurs. On intra-party fuckery games it always happens for us.
If that should be encouraged? If it suits your group sure. Otherwise don't bother. It's not really mandatory, IMO.
I'm hosting SOTDL and that's adventuring party as fuck, more so than D&D and most OSR games. My players still chat IC, even while walking/travelling between hotspots/locales.
Quote from: Nexus;971852All the time, its major segment of most games.
I'd say its more extensive in text format but significantly more common. I'd say its pretty much the default in text based formats.
I definitely like to encourage it. Its one of the perks rpgs have over so, writing stories or reading as far of entertainment, IMO.
Funny thing: you encourage it, you get more of it and more new players who also do it. It's awesome version of a vicious circle, hah hah.
I don't know that I've ever played in a game where they didn't.
I'm actually having a bit of a disassociative moment with this thread, one of those "are we playing the same games?" Moments.
Talk IC? Nearly all player communication is PC to PC unless we're taking a break or eating, and sometimes even that is IC if the PCs are in an inn or something.
When talking to NPCs it's IC. When talking to the GM, it might be "I do" or "My character does", depending on player.
The best way to encourage it is organically. Have NPCs address them in character and have NPCs that are fun as hell to talk to - the PCs will start talking eventually.
Quote from: Piestrio;971878I don't know that I've ever played in a game where they didn't.
I'm actually having a bit of a disassociative moment with this thread, one of those "are we playing the same games?" Moments.
I wasn't going to say it, but yeah, players who don't talk IC to each other. IME, that's pretty rare for a RPG. As in I don't know that I've seen such a player.
Quote from: PrometheanVigil;971875I offer my players the choice of abstracting away the roleplaying or talking it out. They tend to the latter. I wouldn't have thought it particularly hard to get a read on IC vs OOC but that's just me. Why is it for you? A different dynamic, perhaps?
.
In the moment, if you are looking for it, it is easy enough to discern. But I mean it is hard to analyze in hindsight and figure out what the ratio is (I am not evaluating how much of what the players say is in character and out of character during play). I think being in the middle of it all, it isn't something that is as easy to measure as say someone who is watching you play.
Talking in character us pretty standard in my group.
Quote from: CRKrueger;971882I wasn't going to say it, but yeah, players who don't talk IC to each other. IME, that's pretty rare for a RPG. As in I don't know that I've seen such a player.
It might be one of those things where it means different things to different people. My players
say things to each other in character - usually when moments of gravity combine with some inspiration on their part. But they don't converse in character. They don't say "Aethelred, it looks like there are two corridors ahead of us - which should we take?", or, "This road is dangerous and many have disappeared. so keep your eyes sharp". Instead it's "all right fucker, I'm choosing the direction this time because you suck at not getting us roasted tonight", and, "dammit, I hate going through mountains because of all the encounter checks".
85% of the communication at my tables sounds no different than it does when the same group of people isn't playing RPGs in tone or other generalities, although obviously subjects are activity-specific.
Quote from: PrometheanVigil;971875Setup scenes for them talk over problems or to discuss bits of a characters background coming into focus. Stuff like that.
I literally set aside time in most of my sessions for an Interaction Moment (IM) and they've been an invaluable tool for me as club-level GM as they give players a kind of "safe ground" and respite from gameplay concerns to focus totally on roleplaying, chat and acting IC. They might be no more than 5mins, they may take as much an half-an-hour or even an hour! Point is, these guys talk and when they do, boyyyy I've seen them go so Game of Thrones I felt like the luckiest fucking GM in the world when I saw that make its way back onto the table (and just how much the 11+ players at the table got into it, even the ones who are usually more shy/less outspoken)!
You can literally have the PCs go to a tavern or coffeehouse or even a quiet grove or whatever and talk about what happened earlier in the session or plan what they're going to do later. Debriefings and briefings (make sure players do this with each other, not you speaking to the table instead) are a perfect way to edge this in!
This sounds great. Can you give an example of what you'd say as GM to set up the interaction scene?
Quote from: CRKrueger;971880Talk IC? Nearly all player communication is PC to PC unless we're taking a break or eating, and sometimes even that is IC if the PCs are in an inn or something.
When talking to NPCs it's IC. When talking to the GM, it might be "I do" or "My character does", depending on player.
The best way to encourage it is organically. Have NPCs address them in character and have NPCs that are fun as hell to talk to - the PCs will start talking eventually.
I'm ok with getting players to talk IC with my NPCs - as you say, I address them IC and they answer IC.
What I don't generally see in tabletop play is PCs talking IC amongst themselves. I have one great player in one group who does this, perhaps unsurprisingly she also GMs.
Quote from: CRKrueger;971882I wasn't going to say it, but yeah, players who don't talk IC to each other. IME, that's pretty rare for a RPG. As in I don't know that I've seen such a player.
I restrained myself from making the same point, but yes. The notion that people are just talking OOC to each other most of the time does strike me as a bit weird.
Actually the 5e DMG has a pretty good section on this where it suggests the different ways that players can role-play their PC: from putting on a voice and speaking directly as the PC to describing their manner and speaking in third person. It's one of those things that seems obvious to experienced players but a lot of newbies don't know how to approach.
In my experience the dividing line is along continuous campaigns play vs. one shots.
In one shots/convention games the players are usually not "at home" enough in the game, the world, the setting, the play venue, the GM playstyle, the other players, and especially the characters (more so if they are just freshly created, or pregens, but I noticed this with older characters as well if they didn't share a common background).
(I'd even posit that if you have IC talking players in one shots they are of the overly thespian, attention-hogging, "look at me", type that I immediately make a mental note of to never invite back...)
With long running campaigns there is this effect that you notice in a lot of sitcoms and TV shows - once you get to know the characters and their inner workings and relationships even a show you didn't care about starts to "click" and makes you tune in every week.
After a few sessions players are more comfortable with one another (and their own characters) and IC talk develops naturally. They now can believably (in an uncontrived way) talk about the world, and NPCs, that they shared experiences with.
About half of the session time is IC character/NPC interaction, while the other half is questions, first/third person descriptions, rules talk, and OOC/not game-related banter - which to me is the perfect mix.
That's why I prefer campaigns to one shots.
(And that's why I prefer trad games to most storygames because the latter often have a limited, one-session scope that never, ever arrives at that sweet spot.)
I think a lot of it is who you play with.
When I play (or GM) with my old mates they rarely talk to each other in character (only to NPCs). I'd be kind of the same... Because we are all good mates and very in tune with each other it actually feels weird talking in character.
But when I play (or GM again) with people online I notice they all pretty much stay in character.
Personally, I don't mind as long as people don't take the piss by too much meta-gaming.
Yeah. Usually. Some players are better than others of course. Most players improve over time, it becomes natural. Even the ones who may feel uncomfortable with it at first.
DM's who enjoy RP-ing, including funny voices, tend to encourage more IC RP-ing. It's one of those virtuous circle kind of things.
Quote from: PrometheanVigil;971875Quote from: ArrozConLecheNot really. It amounts to little more than bad acting. It's OK, even amusing, in small doses. It annoys me when it goes on and on, especially when it's characters arguing over petty shit.
Arguing over petty shit is good. That's when I get to break out Virtue/Vice and make shit happen as a GM that the PCs didn't want but they gon' get!
Only insofar as the GM does something to rein it in before everyone else becomes bored to tears with the dick measuring contest.
I'm just personally not interested in watching two wannabe Thespians bullshitting beyond a couple of lines, once in a while. If the dialogue is longer than that and doesn't move the action forward (or is inherently super entertaining to the audience), and I begin to wonder if I'm making a good use of my time.
I've actually stopped going to games where this happens very often. If I wanted bad acting, I'd just sit down to watch
Manos: The Hands of Fate.
One of the reasons people don't like roleplaying as much I think is because they think it equals acting, ie. a performance. Doing voices, changing tone, speaking in Elizabethan language...none of that is necessary, and just leads frequently to people getting caught up in the artificial "scene" and the performance instead of what the character would do and say naturally. Critical Role doesn't help in this regard.
Instead of
"Jack, get the flanking bonus on that Ogre".
"Mouser, go left, I'll take right."
Most people suck at acting because they are trying to Act. Kids play pretend all the time and it's much more natural. Any of the artificial framing devices like "this is a roleplaying scene" just hurt and enforce the unnatural, stilted Acting-performance aspect.
You're that character. Just try to think what they would think and say what they would say. Play pretend.
yeah you don't have to be an actor. I find my players make an effort to use one another's character-names when referring to one another as an indication of "being in-character" discussion. It's that easy.
Sure I appreciate any player that wants to "go the extra mile" with accents and ticks etc. but it's not necessary as long as you maintain that your interactions are in-character unless otherwise noted. And that's easy to do without prompting simply by referring to one another by their character names (as a simple effective starting point)
Quote from: CRKrueger;971970One of the reasons people don't like roleplaying as much I think is because they think it equals acting, ie. a performance. Doing voices, changing tone, speaking in Elizabethan language...none of that is necessary, and just leads frequently to people getting caught up in the artificial "scene" and the performance instead of what the character would do and say naturally. Critical Role doesn't help in this regard.
This actually reminds me of some good advice from one of my best acting teachers. He was completely against the idea of doing any affectations such as accents in the early part of rehearsing a scene. He felt that you should play the character as something close to yourself to make it real. Once you had a real connection with the character, you could start layering things like an accent onto the performance.
Almost always. Players drop out of character often as well, but in my games it's agreed we hold up our hand when speaking out of character. It works really well, because everyone is a goofball and there are plenty funny moments. We started doing this in English, but we quickly changed this to Dutch. Apparently our English isn't as good as we thought it would be.
Quote from: S'mon;971804Do PCs talk to each other in your games?
Yeah, all the time. Sometimes I need them to cut it so things can get moving again.
Quote from: S'mon;971804Does it depend on the game?
No.
Quote from: S'mon;971804Do Call of Cthulhu PCs talk more than D&D PCs?
I don't know; I don't run D&D games or Call of Cthulhu games. I can't see why that would make any difference, though.
Quote from: S'mon;971804Does it depend on the game format (tabletop, online text chat, PBP & PBEM, live action etc)?
I only play at a table with other people so I don't know. I tried online on some site but I found it wanting and the players unreliable.
Quote from: S'mon;971804Do you think it's something worth encouraging?
Luckily I've never needed to encourage the players to interact in character.
Quote from: S'mon;971804Do you discourage it?
No, except when the chatter starts to bog things down.
"Do something to distract the guard while I sneak in and grab the goods." Is that IC or OOC talk?
Most of the player to player communication at my table doesn't really differentiate between IC and OOC. Most people don't do funny voices for their characters, which is fine.
Quote from: S'mon;971826Yeah, I feel the same.
Is there anything a GM can do to encourage in-character interaction among the PCs?
Just inform the group that anything spoken is said in character unless it is a question to the DM or prefaced with an OOC declaration. I like the idea that any babbling back and forth between players is happening in the game world. If one player wants to advise another on a course of action and they are not physically very close then assume it is being shouted loud enough for the distant character to hear.
These are people that trust each other with their lives every day. Why wouldn't they speak to one another?
This little table rule becomes lots of fun when the PCs are interacting with an NPC and certain members of the group forget about it.
Parley PC: " Greetings king Grognuk, we bring you tribute and tidings from our village
King Grognuk: (standing with 40 orc warriors)" Welcome human scum. We shall see if your tribute is enough to get you out of a beating today."
Loudmouth PC: "Man fuck this guy! Lets just kill him now!"
Dead silence.
Loudmouth PC: " I said that out loud didn't I?" :eek:
Stuff like that can be fun, or it can turn really annoying. I think we tried the whole 'everything you say is something your character says' kind of thing once in my teenage gaming group, and gave up after something along the lines of:
PC: "Nice to meet you, sir SomeNameOrOther"
NPC/DM: "Greatings, what brings you to this tavern?"
PC: "Pass the Cheetos, Dave."
NPC/DM: "What are Cheetos, and who is Dave?"
PC: "No. I wasn't saying that in character."
NPC/DM: "What do you mean, 'in character?' are you of sound mind?"
Quote from: Willie the Duck;972002Stuff like that can be fun, or it can turn really annoying. I think we tried the whole 'everything you say is something your character says' kind of thing once in my teenage gaming group, and gave up after something along the lines of:
PC: "Nice to meet you, sir SomeNameOrOther"
NPC/DM: "Greatings, what brings you to this tavern?"
PC: "Pass the Cheetos, Dave."
NPC/DM: "What are Cheetos, and who is Dave?"
PC: "No. I wasn't saying that in character."
NPC/DM: "What do you mean, 'in character?' are you of sound mind?"
Never seen anyone take obvious OOC talk as IC, that's kind of being a dick. Whenever we've done the "if you say it, your character says it" it's kind of understood it's specifically dealing with insults (whether PC to PC or PC to NPC) or info that one player is using to give advantage to another player by reminding them, etc. But it was always lenient for new players, never any kind of "IC Nazi" crap.
Quote from: Omega;971831PCs talking to eachother is the norm for most any game I've DMed or played in.
This, though of course, there are OOC moments as well.
Quote from: Piestrio;971878I don't know that I've ever played in a game where they didn't.
I'm actually having a bit of a disassociative moment with this thread, one of those "are we playing the same games?" Moments.
My exact reaction. As with anything I guess it can be overdone but player characters talking to each other in-character I would thought is a pretty key part of the experience.
Quote from: S'mon;971804Do PCs talk to each other in your games?
Does it depend on the game? Do Call of Cthulhu PCs talk more than D&D PCs?
Does it depend on the game format (tabletop, online text chat, PBP & PBEM, live action etc)?
I suspect PCs pretty much never interact in-character in my D&D tabletop games, and that this is a big difference between tabletop and text-chat or pbem play where that is often the focus of play.
Do you think it's something worth encouraging? Do you discourage it?
It happens all the time in the games I GM and the games in which I play. We have a fairly new player now who tends to say "I tell them what I saw" and I say "so tell them," so I guess I am encouraging it.
-----------
https://sites.google.com/site/grreference/home/05-the-black-mountain/at-the-high-point-inn
Quote from: S'mon;971804Do PCs talk to each other in your games?
It's vary rare in most games. Game sessions need role-players at the table for that. But, yes. Players talk in character in my games.
Quote from: S'mon;971804Do PCs talk to each other in your games?
Does it depend on the game? Do Call of Cthulhu PCs talk more than D&D PCs?
Does it depend on the game format (tabletop, online text chat, PBP & PBEM, live action etc)?
I suspect PCs pretty much never interact in-character in my D&D tabletop games, and that this is a big difference between tabletop and text-chat or pbem play where that is often the focus of play.
Do you think it's something worth encouraging? Do you discourage it?
Yes, the players mostly talk to each other in-character during play, or describe what their characters are doing. I usually run with instructions not to talk OOC, especially about game-related things, if it's a serious campaign, in order to prevent OOC "magic meta-game" transfer of information or game stats.
I encourage IC chatter among players. I expect it so I get it.
I tell them that the conversation around the table is happening in the game world. That is usually enough for players to make the IC effort. Of course, some will do accents and ham bone it up and others will be more low key and just use each other's PC names. Either is fine.
However, I don't make a big deal about a bit of OOC bleed into the conversations.
I prefer games with lots of 'in character' banter... but I find it easier to do in face-to-face games.
If I'm running a game I do nothing to push it.
Quote from: Spinachcat;972196I encourage IC chatter among players. I expect it so I get it.
I tell them that the conversation around the table is happening in the game world. That is usually enough for players to make the IC effort. Of course, some will do accents and ham bone it up and others will be more low key and just use each other's PC names. Either is fine.
However, I don't make a big deal about a bit of OOC bleed into the conversations.
This is pretty much exactly how our table runs, regardless who happens to be GMing.
What the fuck?! My Players talk to each other PCs to PCs all the fucking time, no matter what the campaign is. I don't think I could envision an effective campaign where that didn't happen.
Quote from: RPGPundit;972612What the fuck?! My Players talk to each other PCs to PCs all the fucking time, no matter what the campaign is. I don't think I could envision an effective campaign where that didn't happen.
Than what's so "What the fuck?!" about it? That's mostly what people have been saying. Do you mean that we're even discussing it?
Quote from: Willie the Duck;972789Than what's so "What the fuck?!" about it? That's mostly what people have been saying. Do you mean that we're even discussing it?
Probably. That's like the 4th or 5th post expressing some level of surprise that someone wouldn't talk IC PC-to-PC, the hobby being roleplaying and all.
But that was always the advantage of poor old "incoherent" D&D. It didn't mechanically support playstyle, therefore it didn't mechanically force playstyle.
Quote from: CRKrueger;972793But that was always the advantage of poor old "incoherent" D&D. It didn't mechanically enforce playstyle, therefore it didn't mechanically force playstyle.
Could you unpack this a little?
Quote from: Nexus;972794Could you unpack this a little?
Not CRKrueger, but I'll take a crack at it. Nowhere in the books does it say that you are supposed to talk in-character (or for that matter treat your characters like characters). Therefor you have had people who treated the game like improv theater night, and people who treated it like a board game with infinitely changing boards and infinitely broad moves that your pieces could make. Both extremes are within the ruleset.
Quote from: Willie the Duck;972789Than what's so "What the fuck?!" about it? That's mostly what people have been saying. Do you mean that we're even discussing it?
yes, pretty much. It just strikes me as stunning that someone would say that when they play an RPG their players never talk to each other in character. It's just so insanely distant from how I've played, and how everyone I've ever seen playing has played, that it baffles me.
I remember when d20 was all the rage, running games for strangers at cons, and a player wanted to make diplomacy rolls, against other players, in lieu of speaking in character, and then wanting me, as the GM, to interpret their character via their die roll to the other player. Now, I had always run into players with different takes on how the game was played, but it was kind of a wtf moment. I think I laughed at the guy, a big GM no-no, but I was dumbstruck, and I made the guy take his dice off the table and play it out. I've always been pretty loose with table talk and such, and I try to accommodate different playing styles so that fun can be had by all, but there are moments when the game needs to be roleplayed - and that's pretty non-negotiable at my table. I do however, lead by example, and most people fall naturally into the flow.
Quote from: Nexus;972794Could you unpack this a little?
Quote from: Willie the Duck;972795Not CRKrueger, but I'll take a crack at it. Nowhere in the books does it say that you are supposed to talk in-character (or for that matter treat your characters like characters). Therefor you have had people who treated the game like improv theater night, and people who treated it like a board game with infinitely changing boards and infinitely broad moves that your pieces could make. Both extremes are within the ruleset.
Yeah, basically this. You could have 5 people playing D&D. One could be playing the game with literally no roleplaying just playing it like 40k or something, another could be try to be IC as much as possible, another could be making decisions based on what they thought would be most interesting as a plot to play through, etc.
Once you start choosing a playstyle as a designer and start supporting that playstyle specifically through mechanics, frequently that ends up forcing that playstyle, because if you have a different playstyle, those mechanics now are in your way and fighting what you're trying to do.
BTW I meant "support" not "enforce" up above, I edited it.
About half and half in my games. Sometimes they are in character with each other, and sometimes not. I think it is worth encouraging. I would keep in mind player limitations: that painfully shy person playing a bard is more likely to speak as little as possible and hardly likely to come out of their personal shell, though I have seen it happen. I only play tabletop. I will say people have shown more willingness to be in character more often when I as a GM use different accents and voices.
Quote from: Madprofessor;973432I remember when d20 was all the rage, running games for strangers at cons, and a player wanted to make diplomacy rolls, against other players, in lieu of speaking in character, and then wanting me, as the GM, to interpret their character via their die roll to the other player. Now, I had always run into players with different takes on how the game was played, but it was kind of a wtf moment. I think I laughed at the guy, a big GM no-no, but I was dumbstruck, and I made the guy take his dice off the table and play it out. I've always been pretty loose with table talk and such, and I try to accommodate different playing styles so that fun can be had by all, but there are moments when the game needs to be roleplayed - and that's pretty non-negotiable at my table. I do however, lead by example, and most people fall naturally into the flow.
That can go both ways. I once had a DM ask me how I was disarming a trap. "Carefully, with thieve's tools," while rolling my die was apparently the wrong answer. He wanted to know exactly what I was doing to the lock. That went beyond my knowledge base, so I told him it was a stupid thing to ask.
Quote from: Harlock;973439That can go both ways. I once had a DM ask me how I was disarming a trap. "Carefully, with thieve's tools," while rolling my die was apparently the wrong answer. He wanted to know exactly what I was doing to the lock. That went beyond my knowledge base, so I told him it was a stupid thing to ask.
Point taken, and you're right, it can go too far the other way, but talking in character is something you do in a
roleplaying game and I don't know any players who can plead ignorance: "but, I don't know how to talk. Can't I just roll?"
Quote from: Willie the Duck;972795Not CRKrueger, but I'll take a crack at it. Nowhere in the books does it say that you are supposed to talk in-character (or for that matter treat your characters like characters). Therefor you have had people who treated the game like improv theater night, and people who treated it like a board game with infinitely changing boards and infinitely broad moves that your pieces could make. Both extremes are within the ruleset.
Yes.
IME - players are generally fine at talking IC with NPCs, since I as GM address them IC and they respond in kind.
Players in non-D&D games tend to focus on the role they're playing and quite often talk IC with each other. I see this with one-shots especially. Players in online play by email, post, or text chat stick in-character very well, one reason I enjoy these formats.
Players in tabletop D&D IME tend to focus on the game as a problem-solving exercise, not a role-playing exercise, and talk OOC (or indistinguishable from OOC) about how they're going to solve the problem. In many cases the PCs don't have a clear personality distinct from the player. And I think (a) many players prefer this approach (OOC problem solving), though it is a bit frustrating to the more thespy types like me and (b) this largely reflects how the game was originally played; I don't think Gygax's Castle Greyhawk groups were engaging in much amateur dramatics. OTOH Braunstein type games would have been played IC.
Quote from: S'mon;973477Players in tabletop D&D IME tend to focus on the game as a problem-solving exercise, not a role-playing exercise, and talk OOC (or indistinguishable from OOC) about how they're going to solve the problem. In many cases the PCs don't have a clear personality distinct from the player. And I think (a) many players prefer this approach (OOC problem solving), though it is a bit frustrating to the more thespy types like me and (b) this largely reflects how the game was originally played; I don't think Gygax's Castle Greyhawk groups were engaging in much amateur dramatics. OTOH Braunstein type games would have been played IC.
Ugh. I wish I had my copy of
Playing at the World with me. There is a reference to a group (west coast I think) that were writing in-character stories for characters which represented themselves and creating whole narrative worlds for themselves with modified Braunsteins concurrent to when D&D was being formed. And I think they were absorbed into the D&D phenomenon. It also talked about how D&D characters were not played with a distinction between IC and OOC knowledge. So yeah, I think both extremes were well supported--culturally, as we just unpacked, all of them are supported (through silence) by the rules--right through the beginning of the game.
Quote from: CRKrueger;973434Yeah, basically this. You could have 5 people playing D&D. One could be playing the game with literally no roleplaying just playing it like 40k or something, another could be try to be IC as much as possible, another could be making decisions based on what they thought would be most interesting as a plot to play through, etc.
Once you start choosing a playstyle as a designer and start supporting that playstyle specifically through mechanics, frequently that ends up forcing that playstyle, because if you have a different playstyle, those mechanics now are in your way and fighting what you're trying to do.
BTW I meant "support" not "enforce" up above, I edited it.
Ah, okay. Thanks.
First let's set aside all the game irrelevant conversation that goes on during a game session (things like OOC jokes and comments like "pass the chips," "nice t-shirt," "what did you think of that movie?") and just focus on the game relevant table conversation. Some players approach a roleplaying game as mostly an OOC problem solving exercise. The vast majority of the talking at the table they do is OOC, especially when they relate to other players. Contrariwise, some players approach a roleplaying game as an amateur dramatics exercise. What I find strange are the people who don't appear to be familiar with both approaches.
(Removed because duplicated and amplified. Thought this one was gone...)
Quote from: CRKrueger;972793Probably. That's like the 4th or 5th post expressing some level of surprise that someone wouldn't talk IC PC-to-PC, the hobby being roleplaying and all.
But that was always the advantage of poor old "incoherent" D&D. It didn't mechanically support playstyle, therefore it didn't mechanically force playstyle.
Absolutely! Back when I was running D&D this three part division of how players talked was happening all the time. Now all my players play the same way, and chat, sometimes incessantly. :D
BTW, you can play a role - as in the stalwart fighter - without acting. Stalwart Fighter, Sneaky Thief, and Inscrutable Wizard are ROLES. As in they play a role in how the party functions. "Role-playing" does not require acting in character. Back when I started in the mid 70s, many groups played this way. Just as many played act-in-character or whatever. There was no single way to play, and every group was a world unto itself. There was no internet to proselytize one way over another, and groups depended on magazines, cons, and the slow drift of players from group to group to learn new things. Think island ecologies - our mammoths may have taken a looong time to die out! :D
Quote from: flyingmice;973694Stalwart Fighter, Sneaky Thief, and Inscrutable Wizard are ROLES. As in they play a role in how the party functions. "Role-playing" does not require acting in character.
Exactly. This is how almost every gaming group I've ever been a part of does it. If some organic moment of speaking in character happens at an opportune moment when the action and inspiration intersect, great. But otherwise we're laughing, joking, busting each other and focusing on the experience around the table being fun as opposed to faithfully acting a certain way while we do it.
One 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.
Quote from: Bren;973649First let's set aside all the game irrelevant conversation that goes on during a game session (things like OOC jokes and comments like "pass the chips," "nice t-shirt," "what did you think of that movie?") and just focus on the game relevant table conversation. Some players approach a roleplaying game as mostly an OOC problem solving exercise. The vast majority of the talking at the table they do is OOC, especially when they relate to other players. Contrariwise, some players approach a roleplaying game as an amateur dramatics exercise. What I find strange are the people who don't appear to be familiar with both approaches.
I'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.
Of 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????
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. :D
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.