Role-Players vs. Actors

Whenever a player in my game makes a speech, I always ask "What do you say?". I don't expect my players to improvize a fantastic speech on the spot (props to them if they pull it off though), but I do want to know what they say and how they say it. It can be in first or third person, but I do want them to make a little bit of an effort. Only if I'm in doubt regarding the success of said speech, do I ask for a roll.

I should also note that I'm often surprised by my player's improv-skills. They are able to come up fantastic emotional speeches from time to time, which I reward with bonus exp for the whole party.

I usually prefer speaking in first person, but sometimes it takes me a little while to find the character's voice, or there are other times where it's just hard to keep it turned on all the time, so I'll fall back on third person narration.

This is especially useful for providing exposition to NPCs (or information to other PCs) that everyone at the table already knows. Sometimes that can be kind of fun to act out if it's brief enough, but going in-character to summarize the entire campaign so far to a new ally NPC is very difficult to make interesting and generally a waste of everybody's time.

Totally agree. Give me a memorable character whose personality shines through even in the most dice-centric situations, that wants to do daring, exciting, and clever things and I’m a happy DM.

That being said, some people can’t come up with an inspiring speech or persuasive set of words on the spot. That’s okay. I’d equally accept “my character reminds them of the time we all fought that orc horde and lived to tell the tale.”

What I don’t care for is people that just say “I roll a 17 persuasion at them.” Like, seriously, give me something to work with as a DM. And heck, do a good enough job and that DC will get lower. Heck, the same goes with just about any other check. Tell me how, muscles pumping you leap the gap, screaming your deity's name at the top of your lungs, arms flailing wildly, and you probably will have a greater chance at making that check.

Lanefan said:

Give me speaking-in-character every time! And take it a bit over the top if you like - dialled to 11 is always better than dialled to 3.

The wya I see it I'm at the game to be entertained by the other players/DM, and to be entertaining in return.

Click to expand...

Fauchard1520 said:

I've got a comic over here that expands the question a bit, but I'm curious about the community's take on gamers who never speak in the 1st person. I'm talking about players who make a stirring speech or a dramatic eulogy or toast His Majesty’s health by saying, "I make a speech," and then rolling dice.

Click to expand...

Honestly? This probably won't be a popular opinion...

As a GM, they would not be allowed to do that. They would have to give some sort of speech, however stuttering and bad, and then roll the dice. The reason is that though the dice may govern how the speech is received, the content of the speech matters. If the character has 'Oratory +100' it may be the speech will be received as the next Gettysburg address however stuttering and bad the player delivered it, but it still matters what was in the speech. And if the player has 'Oratory +100' I'll probably enjoy his speech as a player, but it won't mean that his 'Oratory -3' character's rhetoric will be well received. At best, I might treat it as 'Oratory +0' because of a small circumstance bonus. But either way, I still want to hear the speech, or at least the gist of it.

As a player, I'd quickly decide the table was not really advanced and skillful enough in its play to bother with, and would politely but quickly find some excuse to drop the game. I think I got beyond the need to be prompted, "But what do you say?" at about age 12.

Tables of course are welcome to have other opinions, but they won't be playing with me.

I prefer 1st person, but I don't really think it is that important between saying, "I address the King, "Your Majesty, we your devoted servants, humbly beg your attention..." and "Sir Derrick says, "Your Majesty, we your devoted servants, humbly beg..." Either is fine, and except as clarity neither is necessary. You could just say, "Your Majesty...", and I'd be pretty sure you weren't speaking OOC. The important thing is that there is some actual roleplaying with dialogue between the PC and the NPC that suggests the nature and character of what is discussed. I certainly wouldn't allow, "I cross examine the NPC to find out what he knows.", "rolls dice" nor would I allow, "I deceive him about my purpose in being here.", "rolls dice". I'm not a freaking computer, nor do I really feel like playing the PC for the player. Entertain me. Treat me with some respect. Act your character. Otherwise stop wasting my time and go play Skyrim or something on a computer where RPing isn't a part of the game.

I often wonder whether the DMs that would allow, "I make a speech", without specifying what they say, as a valid proposition, would allow, "I topple the government.. *rolls dice*" as a valid proposition, or "I assassinate the king... *rolls dice*" as a valid proposition, or "I infiltrate the villain's lair and uncover his secrets *rolls dice*" or even something like, "I climb the wall" without specifying which wall it is they are climbing as if they can just leave up to me all the details of what their PC did. There are some valid times for doing a handwave, but I think it takes it a step too far to handwave away the whole game. If there is to be nothing specific decided and its all going to be left up to the dice, I could play the game solo without the need for players. A random motivation generator would suffice to model the entirety of a players actions, and I could just handwave away the results with a single dice roll and achieve the same degree of satisfaction as running the game for a player that wants to play that way.

Or if all I wanted from the game is a tactical skirmish, then I'd play something like Necromunda or Battletech, and I probably could get about as good a fix from a video game. I sure as heck wouldn't play D&D.

</rant>

As a sort of clarification, I don't care how people say things, because the dice are the true translators between our world and the game world. As [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] says above, bad IRL words are likely to go over well when a character has high social skills, while good IRL words may not be received well if he character has low social skills.

I've run into too many people who attempt to game the system via fancy words, thinking that better words will help them "win" social situations. Which is why I refuse to give anyone any more or any less than a +2/-2 for what they actually say, and only if it lines up or falls against one of the NPCs personality elements. IE: being rude to the King will always get your a -2. I currently have a player who hasn't quite figured out why people treat them poorly...after being a condescending tool to the NPCs first. They just get uppity that NPCs aren't "respecting" them, and I suspect there's a player issue here I'll have to deal with soon. Anyway...

The other problem for me is "orators". In more common society they're called "talkers". I appreciate a well-worded statement as much as the next person, but some people really don't know when to stuff it. As pleasant as their speech may be for me to listen to, it's not terribly fun that every time Captain Conversation comes around the rest of the table has to spend 10 minutes listening to them chatter on.

It's nice to role-play, but it's also nice to cut to the chase. As other people have said, players need to say enough for me to get a solid idea of what they're doing. Too much and I find I get into technicality debates over if they used the proper present tenses and too little makes it too much work for me to make it up.

But hey, everyone's gotta start someone and not everyone's as comfortable acting as others and I don't think they have to be.

I always ask them to give me the gist. The issue they miss is that often no check will be required if they used a bit of the info I've given out to make the appropriate inquiry, speech, etc. But when I ran 5e if you go, "well I'll make a diplomacy check and I have a...3!" Well you are going to get the results of that 3 pretty much regardless. But if you lead off with "well I know the king is mourning his dead son so I'll lead off with condolences about that and work my way to asking about X..." then no check at all may be necessary. I'm glad my current game has no skills so they have to give me information on what they are asking.

Yeah, as a GM I don't require a full-blown monologue. I don't even need dialogue, as such. As Flexor says, just give me the gist. "I give a rousing speech about the power of friendship!" is perfectly fine to get the point of what your character is doing across. I don't need anybody to parrot a Kingdom Hearts cutscene at me; that's what Youtube is for.

An undervalued skill in players is the ability to get your time in the spotlight, make the most of it, and then get off the stage so someone else can get their time to shine.

At the same time, dialogue and RP are important, and I've no patience for a player that tries to rush the rest of the table through good role-playing just so they can get back to combat as quickly as possible. But really, that goes back to that first paragraph, too.

Immortal Sun said:

As pleasant as their speech may be for me to listen to, it's not terribly fun that every time Captain Conversation comes around the rest of the table has to spend 10 minutes listening to them chatter on.

Click to expand...

Immortal Sun said:

I've run into too many people who attempt to game the system via fancy words, thinking that better words will help them "win" social situations ... I currently have a player who hasn't quite figured out why people treat them poorly...after being a condescending tool to the NPCs first.

The other problem for me is "orators". In more common society they're called "talkers". I appreciate a well-worded statement as much as the next person, but some people really don't know when to stuff it

Click to expand...

Well, the first point seems a bit harsh; if you are not giving people any reward for "using better words" then there isn't really any incentive to try, so I think it makes sense to encourage people to speak their role better by giving them an advantage. If your actual problem is players who don't realize that they are being a condescending tool, then you don't have a problem with actors -- you have a problem with terrible actors.

Similarly in your second point. A good actor knows that going on for a long time is not a mark of success. Anyone who shows up at an audition and goes on too long is not going to survive in the business. Again, I think you have a problem with terrible actors.

As an amateur thespian, I do sympathize. Bad actors are an awful thing. It may be that you don't have any good actors to compare with, in which case I strongly sympathize. But I think maybe rather than say "please stop acting" you might instead encourage them to be better. Try things like restricting their spotlight time upfront -- "The king has given you one minute to plead your case"; "After you say those five sentences, the duchess looks bored with you and moves on to a less wordy courtier" or just OOC letting them know you'd prefer they think more about their speeches and speak less. And reward the appropriate, brief and fun speech extravagantly -- let them "win" the encounter! Maybe it'll become a pattern!

GrahamWills said:

Well, the first point seems a bit harsh; if you are not giving people any reward for "using better words" then there isn't really any incentive to try, so I think it makes sense to encourage people to speak their role better by giving them an advantage.

Click to expand...

If there was an option to select "VERY Strongly Disagree" I would pick it. The incentive to role-play is that we are all here to have fun and have a good time pretending to be adventurers out to save the world, or at least get the loot before it explodes. I give rewards for good or poor word choice, I just limit them. To me, you role-play because you think it's fun. That's why we're here. Attempting to word-game the system is just a verbose form of power-gaming. Power-gaming isn't inherently bad, except when it detracts from the game or restricts the other players ability to participate in the game.

In my experience, it usually does.

If your actual problem is players who don't realize that they are being a condescending tool, then you don't have a problem with actors -- you have a problem with terrible actors.

Click to expand...

No, I suspect the situation is that I have someone playing in bad faith.

Similarly in your second point. A good actor knows that going on for a long time is not a mark of success. Anyone who shows up at an audition and goes on too long is not going to survive in the business. Again, I think you have a problem with terrible actors.

Click to expand...

Maybe, but I've certainly had my share of them. And I'll be fair, in this context I'm not using "actors" to mean people who are trained in the professional acting arts, but people who role-play as actors.

As an amateur thespian, I do sympathize. Bad actors are an awful thing. It may be that you don't have any good actors to compare with, in which case I strongly sympathize. But I think maybe rather than say "please stop acting" you might instead encourage them to be better. Try things like restricting their spotlight time upfront -- "The king has given you one minute to plead your case"; "After you say those five sentences, the duchess looks bored with you and moves on to a less wordy courtier" or just OOC letting them know you'd prefer they think more about their speeches and speak less. And reward the appropriate, brief and fun speech extravagantly -- let them "win" the encounter! Maybe it'll become a pattern!

Click to expand...

I do these things as well. I run a variant of the 13th Age "escalation die" where the longer a conversation goes on, the less interested in continuing it an NPC becomes, giving them a bonus to their rolls, and increasing the DC players need to meet. But it is time consuming and stressful. It's why I limit the bonus you can gain from "good words" or lose from "poor words", to encourage players to choose wisely rather than ramble on in hopes that they can wear down the DM or not have to engage with the mechanics.