Social Encounters: Does it Matter What and How PCs Speak to NPCs?

[Distracted DM]

There's definitely a difference between "I don't speak in character" and "you're not allowed to speak in character."
I can see reasons for it, but I don't personally care for the idea of not permitting it. To each their own of course, this is definitely one of those "if everyone's enjoying their time then you're doing it right" situations!

 

[tetrasodium]

It’s not really same result as it lacks an essential element of roleplay. It is like reading a plot summary instead of watching a film to save time.

Except the timesink noted is also obfuscation in a way that penalizes others at the table (GM especially). That sort of in character improv acting with accents rarely manages to be explicit in how the player is trying to use the rules and while the NPCs can have their hand forced by something like a diplomancy check the player can not and is not at risk of fate style compels or the mcdm patience(?) mechanics if the player tries to ignore something the GM is hard pressed to reality check.

I won't ban speaking in character, but I'll happily stomp on efforts to use it for an advantage because with the structure of the d&d ruleset/gameplay there are few other good or less disruptive ways to accomplish that without regular browbeating and pestering of the player

 

[Jd Smith1]

It’s not really same result as it lacks an essential element of roleplay. It is like reading a plot summary instead of watching a film to save time.

It really is an improvement. It lets everyone focus on the plot, the nuances of the group situation, PC/NPC relationships, group investments, individual investments, political developments, economic developments, and the like.

Plus, they can IC chat in the designated Discord sub-server between sessions, earning RP (think XP) for doing so.

There are many ways to pursue the hobby.

 

[Jd Smith1]

There's definitely a difference between "I don't speak in character" and "you're not allowed to speak in character."
I can see reasons for it, but I don't personally care for the idea of not permitting it. To each their own of course, this is definitely one of those "if everyone's enjoying their time then you're doing it right" situations!

My current group is entering its fourth year together, weekly sessions. The group before that ran 20 years.

Its not an absolute ban, but it might as well be.

Some GMs don't require tracking ammo, rations, encumbrance, taxes, or currency exchange rates. Every table has their own styles.

It helps that I don't ever use D&D.

 

[Distracted DM]

My current group is entering its fourth year together, weekly sessions. The group before that ran 20 years.

Its not an absolute ban, but it might as well be.

Some GMs don't require tracking ammo, rations, encumbrance, taxes, or currency exchange rates. Every table has their own styles.

It helps that I don't ever use D&D.

It sounds like you're playing with the same people consistently, and I imagine everyone there has the same opinion on the matter- so I can see why you wouldn't have an issue "not allowing that sort of thing," as you put it.

I personally switch between the two, both as DM and player. I'll usually start by speaking in character, to get the idea of the character across, and then switch to stating what the character is doing or saying because it does move things along and get ideas across easier for me to be speaking directly to the players rather than to their characters through an NPC.
Later on to reinforce the characters' personality, or even better to react to something important, stupid, or insensitive the characters have said, I'll switch back to speaking in character for a touch.
However I don't require or even request speaking in character at my tables- some people have fun with it, others don't.

I suspect that you might be thinking of what some of my players pejoratively call "tea parties:" some of them have joined games and had 2-3 hours of the DM and other players all talking in character, being silly, and never leaving the tavern to start the supposed adventure that was stated on the game page.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It really is an improvement. It lets everyone focus on the plot, the nuances of the group situation, PC/NPC relationships, group investments, individual investments, political developments, economic developments, and the like.

Plus, they can IC chat in the designated Discord sub-server between sessions, earning RP (think XP) for doing so.

There are many ways to pursue the hobby.

If it works for you, but to me this is basically cutting out the heart and soul of roleplay. I can appreciate various different approaches, but I would absolutely refuse to play like this.

 

[Jd Smith1]

If it works for you, but to me this is basically cutting out the heart and soul of roleplay. I can appreciate various different approaches, but I would absolutely refuse to play like this.

This what new player vetting is for: making sure expectations and interests are compatible. Obviously, I would not want you as a player.

 

[Jd Smith1]

It sounds like you're playing with the same people consistently, and I imagine everyone there has the same opinion on the matter- so I can see why you wouldn't have an issue "not allowing that sort of thing," as you put it.

I personally switch between the two, both as DM and player. I'll usually start by speaking in character, to get the idea of the character across, and then switch to stating what the character is doing or saying because it does move things along and get ideas across easier for me to be speaking directly to the players rather than to their characters through an NPC.
Later on to reinforce the characters' personality, or even better to react to something important, stupid, or insensitive the characters have said, I'll switch back to speaking in character for a touch.
However I don't require or even request speaking in character at my tables- some people have fun with it, others don't.

I suspect that you might be thinking of what some of my players pejoratively call "tea parties:" some of them have joined games and had 2-3 hours of the DM and other players all talking in character, being silly, and never leaving the tavern to start the supposed adventure that was stated on the game page.

I only GM. Intros are worked out on Discord, in the IC channel and in general channel. When a campaign starts winding down (50 or so sessions) I start a new server dedicated to the next campaign, and call for players. The group sorts out who will play what role (party leader, quartermaster, medic, face man, etc), and work up their PCs. Normally, a campaign will end one week, and the next campaign starts the following week.

I also ensure that the campaign has a group rationale built into it, so the PCs are known to each other before the campaign starts, so introductions aren't needed.

 

[Distracted DM]

I only GM. Intros are worked out on Discord, in the IC channel and in general channel. When a campaign starts winding down (50 or so sessions) I start a new server dedicated to the next campaign, and call for players. The group sorts out who will play what role (party leader, quartermaster, medic, face man, etc), and work up their PCs. Normally, a campaign will end one week, and the next campaign starts the following week.

I also ensure that the campaign has a group rationale built into it, so the PCs are known to each other before the campaign starts, so introductions aren't needed.

I also only DM nowadays
To be clear I'm not attacking your style of play, everyone has their own preferences. It sounds like everyone knows what the deal is with your games. Thanks for taking the time to explain!

 

[Lanefan]

Except the timesink noted is also obfuscation in a way that penalizes others at the table (GM especially). That sort of in character improv acting with accents rarely manages to be explicit in how the player is trying to use the rules and while the NPCs can have their hand forced by something like a diplomancy check the player can not and is not at risk of fate style compels or the mcdm patience(?) mechanics if the player tries to ignore something the GM is hard pressed to reality check.

I won't ban speaking in character, but I'll happily stomp on efforts to use it for an advantage because with the structure of the d&d ruleset/gameplay there are few other good or less disruptive ways to accomplish that without regular browbeating and pestering of the player

What about situations where "the rules" aren't in play and the players are simply having an in-character discussion (or argument) with each other? Telling war stories. Falling in love. Arguing over who gets what treasure. Planning what to do next, or which route to take. Discussing family matters. Playing pranks on each other. Becoming friends instead of just team-mates.

Yes, nearly all of this represents time during which "the story" isn't advancing, but so what? There's always next session for that - and hundreds of sessions beyond, if needed.

As for interacting with NPCs in the sort of manner you're posting about here, I take almost the opposite tack: occasionally giving a slight advantage to the player who does the better acting job is a subtle encouragement to the others to up their game a bit.