Quote from: Phillip;770312Is the consensus that this particular jargon is somewhat new?

It beats the sweeping pejorative application of "powergamers" I seem to recall in C&S 2nd ed. (1983), anyhow.

the early, early consensus is that it is a useful addition, and that it is a twist, albeit a useful one, on the terminology we currently employ.  

Don't rush it.

Quote from: Phillip;770312Is the consensus that this particular jargon is somewhat new?

It beats the sweeping pejorative application of "powergamers" I seem to recall in C&S 2nd ed. (1983), anyhow.

I've never heard of IC/OOC emotive styles being powergaming. That was reserved for players actually out to amass... well... power... usually to absurd levels, hence the pejorative usage. That could be in or out of character.

The current jargon seems new, or at least different from what has gone before. I have seen very few RPGs that actually mention various tense of style. Even in play examples it can switch around.

Personal play style, Talk in character, narrate actions. Most of the games, with an exception to brand new players, do this.

I set players expectations to speak in first person and refer to their characters as "I", with the occasional slip up being fine.

Quote from: estar;770327After the exchange was finished there was silence and my friend asked "What up guys, why are you all quiet." And one of them said very seriously "Do you guys want to continue to playing?". My friend and I busted out laughing and explained that we were just roleplaying and it was all good. That what in-game is in-game.

Yeah, I've had another player come up after a game and apologize for upsetting me (We'd had a noisy in-character argument about slavery or something), and I was like... I'm not mad at you, why would I be? My character is upset with your character, because of what they said.

In general, if my characters need to act against the best wishes of another player character, then it's out to third-person narration and the group gets an explanation (Their characters, though, are about to have a very bad time). But that's because I know some players who would very much take it the wrong way otherwise.

The only thing I really prefer is players telling me what they're doing in terms of the game world, rather than in terms of the game mechanics, when the system allows for such.

Quote from: robiswrong;770460The only thing I really prefer is players telling me what they're doing in terms of the game world, rather than in terms of the game mechanics, when the system allows for such.

I encourage this whenever I can.  I've run full on Gurps* with new players no problem when I told them to tell me what they are attempting to do, and that I'll figure out the game bits.  I've never required knowledge of the game rules at my table when I GM.  Just the willingness to play a character (with a lot of preferences over requirements in that area too).

*Every rule on that didn't contradict another, more or less.

Quote from: Bren;770303He quite possibly is using IC motivations if his character is a priest of Eurmal or a follower or incarnation of some other trickster deity. And after all it's not like we don't all encounter real people in the real world who seem to like fucking with the party as it were. It seems rather dubious to suggest that the real person isn't making an IC decision when deciding to act like a twerp. It seems similarly dubious to claim that every player decision to have a character act like a twerp is derived solely form OOC reasons.

Someone being an asshat using RP as cover vs. someone RPing an asshat is really easy to spot if you've gamed with the person before or know them at all.  With brand new players, first to the table, choosing to RP a character type that will obviously cause friction with other characters is usually a sign that the player won't be around long...but not always.

Quote from: Bren;770303Is the twerpy behavior more acceptable if he is acting from IC motivation?  Maybe, to you, but I doubt it is for most gamers.

Appeal to the authority of an unprovable majority?  Seriously?  

Of course it matters whether it is really IC or not.  The character might have some perfectly good, yet hidden reason for being "twerpy".  The player might be roleplaying brilliantly based on info/orders given by the GM.

Quote from: Bren;770303I suppose it might cause me to resolve the situation IC by having my Sword of Humakt separate the Eurmal twerp's soul from his body rather than me saying OOC "Stop doing that shit or go find somebody else to play with!"

That's usually the best way to handle it, IC.  If you have someone who's trying to be purposely disruptive with IC cover, just play the other characters well, and things take care of themselves.  Once the disruptive player realizes they can't be disruptive with impunity, they stop showing up or become a useful addition to the table.

Quote from: estar;770327your 15th level fighter wielding a hackmaster class sword does a faceplant and dies.

Dibs on the sword!

Quote from: Bren;770272I don't really know what people mean by thespians in an RPG context.

When playing RPGs I see players make decisions about what their character does using four different decision paradigms.

1) Choose actions that the player believes will maximize character survival and advancement while minimizing character risk.

2) Choose actions that the player believes the character would make (based on character personality, background, culture, etc.) even if those choices may be suboptimal for maximizing character survival and advancement or for telling a better story.

3) Choose actions that the player believes will make for telling a better story even if they may not be what the character would choose and may be suboptimal for maximizing character survival and advancement.

4) Choose actions for the whacky hijinks fun or to see what happens if they pull that lever, drink from that pool, or put horse pee in the Paladin's water skin even if that may be suboptimal for maximizing character survival and advancement or telling a better story.

Most (probably all) players use more than one paradigm depending on situation (how big is the reward if we succeed, how risky is this action, how much does my character care about X, etc.) and on player mood and whim (I've had a tough day and I just want to kill stuff).

Well, I tend to blend 1 and 2.  I try to think "What would my guy do," but on the other hand "my guy isn't a fucking idiot."

Quote from: CRKrueger;770551Appeal to the authority of an unprovable majority?  Seriously?

It's not an appeal to authority though I do think annoying behavior doesn't suddenly become palatable because it is occuring for IC reasons. Whether or not I think the reasons are IC may change how I choose to deal with it.

Are you suggesting that most people are OK with any annoying behavior if it is in character? Seriously?

QuoteThat's usually the best way to handle it, IC.  If you have someone who's trying to be purposely disruptive with IC cover, just play the other characters well, and things take care of themselves.  Once the disruptive player realizes they can't be disruptive with impunity, they stop showing up or become a useful addition to the table.

Disagree. Handling it in character is a possible fall back to talking to the other human. Not the preferred or most effective default resolution.

Quote from: Old Geezer;770554Well, I tend to blend 1 and 2.  I try to think "What would my guy do," but on the other hand "my guy isn't a fucking idiot."

Me too. I do more of 2 and less of 1 now than I did in the mid 1970s, but it is always a mix. I also find it fun to find justifications under 2 for something I thought of using 1.

Quote from: Bren;770631Are you suggesting that most people are OK with any annoying behavior if it is in character? Seriously?

Nope. Me suggesting that I know what most other people would be ok with would be just as incorrect as when you said it.  

Interpersonal conflict between characters is just as much roleplaying as anything else, and in certain cases, makes even more sense then characters being of the same mind.  You keep using terms like "twerp" and "annoying" like you're used to playing with people who act like vaudeville rejects.  If so, you're talking about things I don't really see at tables around here.

Quote from: Bren;770631Disagree.

Ok.

Indeed.

Character interaction and even conflict can be part of the RP without being disruptive.

Unfortunately there are those, and too many of those, who use it as an excuse to be disruptive of the other players enjoyment.

Sorting them out is the hassle sometimes. But when things are rolling smoothly all is fine as long as everyone is on the same wavelength.

Example: One session I was in had a player with a character with a fear of the undead. He'd bolt at the first encounter with. Making them effectively useless for over two thirds of an adventure in a crypt once. It was annoying as all heck. But we knew of the quirk going in and so it was more annoying to the characters than the players. And it was not a quirk that was on ALL THE TIME. Scout a trapped bandit base? He was right there reconnoitering and disarming.

Quote from: CRKrueger;770640Nope. Me suggesting that I know what most other people would be ok with would be just as incorrect as when you said it.  

I assumed you were saying something you believed was true or factual rather than just stating how you like to play an RPG. I failed to read in an unwritten, "to me" after "it matters" in the statement below.

Quote from: CRKrueger;770551Of course it matters whether it is really IC or not.

I really can't argue with what matters to you.

QuoteInterpersonal conflict between characters is just as much roleplaying as anything else, and in certain cases, makes even more sense then characters being of the same mind.

Yes. I agree.

QuoteYou keep using terms like "twerp" and "annoying" like you're used to playing with people who act like vaudeville rejects.  If so, you're talking about things I don't really see at tables around here.

I keep using twerp and annoying to differentiate that behavior from the sort of intraparty conflict or friction that I'm used to seeing in games where the players are making an effort to play characters that have some reason to be part of the same group and to not shit on what the other people at the table enjoy. I've been gaming for 40 years so I have seen a lot of different play styles including players who were annoying twerps or who played annoying twerps.