Role-Players vs. Actors

[pemerton]

For me, the ability to portray character is the single most important element of participation in roleplaying games. First person speech is essential and I value the ability to do a distinctive character voice very highly. This applies to both players and GMs.

If Bob's not interested in doing the talky bits, he can play the strong silent type. It only hurts my enjoyment if he insists on playing the party Face and says "I Bluff the guard", when most or all of the other players could have done much better. I once had a guy like that at my table and it was terrible.

I suspect I would fail at Doug McCrae's table but perhaps pass at S'mon's.

I like characters - especially PCs - to be clearly drawn. For me, that doesn't have to mean first person speech - that varies at my table, depending on player, mood, stakes, etc - but I like a player's action declarations for his/her PC to reveal the character as a character.

And as a GM I try to present situations which permit this - so little "generic dungeoneering" (where PCs might all have different voices but tend to declare actions from the same perhaps somewhat narrow suite of possibilities) and more "scene framing".

I do agree with S'mon that "I bluff the guard" is underdone as an action declaration. There's not enough there to adjudicate consequences, especially consequences of failure.

 

[S'mon]

I suspect I would fail at Doug McCrae's table but perhaps pass at S'mon's.

I like characters - especially PCs - to be clearly drawn. For me, that doesn't have to mean first person speech - that varies at my table, depending on player, mood, stakes, etc - but I like a player's action declarations for his/her PC to reveal the character as a character.

And as a GM I try to present situations which permit this - so little "generic dungeoneering" (where PCs might all have different voices but tend to declare actions from the same perhaps somewhat narrow suite of possibilities) and more "scene framing".

I do agree with S'mon that "I bluff the guard" is underdone as an action declaration. There's not enough there to adjudicate consequences, especially consequences of failure.

I will 'pass' third-person play in social scenes, but for me it comes across as a signal that the player or GM is not interested in the scene and wants to move on. So as GM I'll use third person (or second person - "You spend several hours in polite conversation" - if I don't want to play something out, perhaps because not much is at stake, or it just doesn't look interesting.

I never require accents & mannerisms, and use them very sparingly myself. Last session one player was (jokingly, I think) encouraging another male player to use falsetto for his female PC's voice - I told him to stop.

One of my other players is a voice actor and did this fantastic in-character voiced summary of the first few Tuesday Night Thule game sessions:

[video=youtube;_ktGY3mV2YI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ktGY3mV2YI&feature=youtu.be[/video]

But I certainly don't expect anything like that from my players, and certainly couldn't match it myself!

Re bluffing the guard, I'd normally expect something like:

"What ho, guard! We're the chicken inspectors..."

That'd probably get an unmodified roll. A particularly plausible bluff would get a lowered DC or no roll.

 

[Aldarc]

I will 'pass' third-person play in social scenes, but for me it comes across as a signal that the player or GM is not interested in the scene and wants to move on. So as GM I'll use third person (or second person - "You spend several hours in polite conversation" - if I don't want to play something out, perhaps because not much is at stake, or it just doesn't look interesting.

I think that you may be projecting your own views here while dismissing how other play preferences or engagement modes that others people may have that are different from your own. When I look back at my own experiences and those of others I have played with, I would not be able to reliably say that the use of First Person or Third Person was indicative of the player's relative engagement level. And I would likely have insulted some of my players if I ever insinuated as much. You are talking about your own preferences, but I think that your preferences are doing a disservice to others.

 

[S'mon]

I think that you may be projecting your own views here while dismissing how other play preferences or engagement modes that others people may have that are different from your own. When I look back at my own experiences and those of others I have played with, I would not be able to reliably say that the use of First Person or Third Person was indicative of the player's relative engagement level. And I would likely have insulted some of my players if I ever insinuated as much. You are talking about your own preferences, but I think that your preferences are doing a disservice to others.

Well you're right that I'm talking about my own preferences, and what I enjoy. I don't have a duty to put up with stuff I don't enjoy - if I'm a player I'll leave that game, if I'm GM I'll drop the player or drop the game.

But, I certainly don't see players who seem highly invested in a scene but refuse to speak in-character. Frankly, I pretty much never see players who refuse to speak in character. The one I'm thinking of was ca 2002-2003. He did it as GM too, which was terrible. Basically we weren't allowed to have any social character interaction. 99%+ of players can do basic in-character first-person speech.

 

[Aldarc]

Well you're right that I'm talking about my own preferences, and what I enjoy. I don't have a duty to put up with stuff I don't enjoy - if I'm a player I'll leave that game, if I'm GM I'll drop the player or drop the game.

But, I certainly don't see players who seem highly invested in a scene but refuse to speak in-character. Frankly, I pretty much never see players who refuse to speak in character. The one I'm thinking of was ca 2002-2003. He did it as GM too, which was terrible. Basically we weren't allowed to have any social character interaction. 99%+ of players can do basic in-character first-person speech.

I detect an elitist attitude of "BadWrongFun" in your post that I strongly dislike. Though I do not understand why you are indicating that third-person is wrong or indicative of a lack of engagement, when you earlier wrote:

If a player wants to describe their speech in third person, that is fine as long as they give me enough detail that I can assign a check DC or otherwise have some idea of NPC reaction. It shouldn't be harder on the player than a caster choosing an appropriate spell from the PHB, but "I diplomatise them" is never acceptable at my table.

But the idea that the voice used by a player indicates their level of engagement is utter unsubstantiated malarky in my experience.

 

[S'mon]

I detect an elitist attitude of "BadWrongFun" in your post

No, you can do whatever you like at your table. I don't care.

 

[Aldarc]

No, you can do whatever you like at your table. I don't care.

I agree that "I diplomatize them" should be discouraged, but that's mainly because, much as pemerton above says, it fails to create any sense for the common fiction, the stakes, or the consequences for either the other players or the GM.

 

[S'mon]

One area I am particularly sympathetic to abstracting it to a die roll is romance - not too uncommon for a male player to be keen on a romance sub plot but not keen on playing out the courtship in character!

 

[sd_jasper]

As a player I am more entertained when the GM speaks in character, actually converses with my character in dialog. If it were just "you speak to the mayor, he gives you a quest", I'd be less invested in the game. And as a GM, I am more entertained by players that have a "voice" for their character.

Sure some players are over the top or attention grabbing. But most will rectify this behavior if you let them know in a polite way that it bothers others. I've had GM's that want to have an NPC monologue the great quest background for ten minutes as well. And that is just as bad. But actual dialog between characters is fun, engaging, and part of good roleplaying. I've had game sessions that were mostly just characters taking to each other.

So as long as nobody goes too far, I prefer characters to be speaking in character. And find groups that don't to be boring and more "game" than "roleplay".

 

[Celebrim]

I'm sorry [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION], but, the irony of this statement just about made me blow my coffee all over my computer.

Really not meant as an attack. Honest it's not. Just honestly really, really funny.

The irony wasn't lost on me either.

But seriously, how long have we argued with each other and you don't know that I don't see that sort of comment as an attack? I'm perfectly fine with laughing at myself.

As a DM, I'm not there to police how other people play the game.

I can see where you are going there, but as a DM I'm playing to have fun. Being a DM is work, and I don't expect to be the one doing all the heavy lifting or the only one with a responsibility to entertain. I also think that as an experienced RPer, I have some obligation to help less experienced RPers come out of their shell and develop a variety of RPing skills. For example, in my opinion the best thing about 'Critical Role' and other similar successes, is that it acts as an aspirational resource to encourage the promotion of our craft and art. It's similar to how when I coach youth from a culture where soccer is a primary sport and they have viewed soccer from their youth, the simple act of viewing it has created a picture in their head of what is possible, so that there are things that they understand without it being explained to them, which I probably have to teach to someone whose never seen soccer played at a high level.

If Bob's a kick in the door type player, why try to strong arm him into being something he's not? If he's not terribly interested in the talky bits, then don't force him to do the talky bits. Move on over to the other folks that do like to do the talky bits.

Because in my experience, Bob is typically capable of much more than he thinks he is, and in the long run moving him out of his comfort zone is good for the table's enjoyment and even Bob's enjoyment.