Helpful and Enjoyable? Bah humbug!

[JamesDJIII]

I was re-reading the responses to this thread http://indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=11255.

Ron, you said:

...One of the topics I'm forever maundering about concerns the plain-old-people dialogue that surrounds or grounds a role-playing session, during play. I'm usually trying to help someone see that such dialogue is not only helpful and enjoyable, but often central to play, whereas they are struggling with their training which insists that such dialogue is very wrong and bad for role-playing.

(Emphasis added by me.)

I'm surprised by that. Are you kidding? Do people really feel that way? I can see players dismissing such talk as so much wordy talk (I've met them, I've played with them, and some of them are my good friends).  But I have a hard time imagining them being actively hostile to it.

I want to also make a distinction: I don't mean hostile to the conclusions made from these discussions, or even the terms and definitions, but hostile to the act of talking about this stuff.

[JamesDJIII]

[never mind!]

[greyorm]

No, such discussion is bad! It detracts from the game session! It makes you step out of character, and thus takes others out of character! If you speak out of character about the game, you are obviously trying to gain some sort of mechanical advantage over the gamemaster: you're a munchkin. If you speak out of character about anything else, you are obviously not interested in the session -- that makes the GM sad -- please don't bother others during the game. No jokes! Jokes are bad, because they break immersion and distract everyone at the table; they can destroy the mood of a scene!

These are standard (if generally unspoken, until they're broken) 'rules' and beliefs in any group I've ever been a part of, including my own up to just a couple years ago.

You've never encountered any of these, James?

[JamesDJIII]

No jokes! Jokes are bad, because they break immersion and distract everyone at the table; they can destroy the mood of a scene!

Jokes - yup. Seen that. But I hadn't association making jokes at the table with game discussion about the game.

Eveything else - no, really. I've never encountered that. Maybe I've been playing RPGs in some distant backwater planet on the edge of the galaxy?

[pete_darby]

Mr equivocation says... depends on the group.

In line with Chris Lehrich's work on ritual, and the idea of creating ritual space, certainly non-game related banter can harm the process of making the space and time the game occurs in psychologically special, to aid in identification with the shared imaginary space.Eliminating it shows a commitment to the SiS as something worthy of your time and effort to create and explore.

But, on the flip side, RPG's are a social pastime, and cracking down on socializing can certainly make you question why you're doing it. I mean, we're there to have fun, right?

In my own group, it's pretty obvious from early on in any night whether that night will be a gaming night or a socializing night, with light gaming.

Cracking on with the hoary old music makers metaphor... It doesn't matter if you're a terrible band musically for you to enjoy being a band, hanging out while playing the same riffs again and again. Sure, you'd like to be better musicians, but it's more important to be ina band with friends.

On the flip side, you can be the greatest band in the world, but if you're not enjoying each other's company outside of playing, the band will split.

After all, Mick Jones got kicked out of the Rolling Stones because he didn't know any Max Miller routines...

As for folk being actively hostile... homework tongiht is to find examples of rulebooks that actively punish players for this kind of thing.

[JamesDJIII]

As for folk being actively hostile... homework tongiht is to find examples of rulebooks that actively punish players for this kind of thing.

Oh great - now I gotta go down to the "car hole" and dig out my books again.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Arrowflight: throughout text, but most especially in terms of player-character death. I hasten to add that I think Arrowflight is tremendously coherent and that such advice is consistent with many other techniques supported by the rules.

Usagi Yojimbo: a monk character has the special ability of using out-of-character knowledge to prompt a character decision, very much in the sense of Author Stance (no a priori in-game justification needed). The text also provides an aside which states that of course no other character should be played utilizing such a technique, all straight-faced with no evidence of metatextual meaning.

As for direct punishment, I suggest looking for experience-point systems which reward "stayed in character" or "contributed to the adventure" (which I consider to mean "Participated" in the Holmesian sense).

Best,
Ron

[greyorm]

Eveything else - no, really. I've never encountered that. Maybe I've been playing RPGs in some distant backwater planet on the edge of the galaxy?

Um, yes? (Sorry, I'm just wowed.)

You've never heard of or seen the dreaded rule, "No giving advice to someone about what to do unless your character is there"?

You know, to prevent, "I'll bet there's a secret door here leading to the lich's lair. You should look for secret doors!" and "Trolls regenerate everything but fire! Cast a fireball!" and "Ask the king about letting me out of the prison!" and so on and so forth, which is always considered to be 'cheating.' This is also often used to preclude discussion about the game as well, unless it is the characters who are discussing events and plans.

[montag]

You know, to prevent, "I'll bet there's a secret door here leading to the lich's lair. You should look for secret doors!" and "Trolls regenerate everything but fire! Cast a fireball!" and "Ask the king about letting me out of the prison!" and so on and so forth, which is always considered to be 'cheating.' This is also often used to preclude discussion about the game as well, unless it is the characters who are discussing events and plans.

I was about to add myself to the number of those who are also unfamiliar with the practice, as described, until you brought that up.
I've seen plenty of that, but – AFAIK – for different reasons. For one, in Forge terms,  I've seen it used to give the player a chance to realise their own CA. If the player wants to explore, he or she should be able to use that moment of "solitude" to explore, uninterrupted by the gamist concerns of other players. If the player wants to step on up, those who would like her or him to explore should keep quiet for the moment. Second, within a gamist CA, such a moment is an opportunity to show what challenge the player can meet on his or her own. Sometimes it's also used against players who are too eager to get the spotlight on themselves. Finally, I have seen people reprimanded for interruptions (and have done so myself) to emphasise that this is an important moment for that player or PC, and they should respect that (the latter instance strongly resembles certain ritualistic practices IMO).

Apart from that, I'll readily admit to being hostile to OOC talk to a certain degree. When I'm roleplaying, I like to be focussed on that, which is why I reserve time for off-topic talk (which is important to me as well) before and after the game. I don't appreciate lengthy stories about so-and-so while I'm trying to watch a movie, same goes for roleplaying.
Similarly, I don't appreciate being told every Monty-Python joke and similar nonsense that those around me think of. I expect them to briefly consider the relevance of their contributions (though much less, than e.g. the Forge does).
Of course, especially the latter paragraph is purely personal preference, I'm aware that there are cultural and individual differences concerning that matter. However, if a decent number of people share my view, that might explain the game texts.
Can anyone think of a way to tell apart the possible interpretations?

[Callan S.]

Hmmm, I'll say that I'm gamist and so is our group. So when some character is seperated, ooc is interfearing with his stepping on up. I mean, if the other dude who's PC isn't even there can call all the big shots for this player...why is that player at the table? The other dudes doing all the step on up for him!

But in the same way, light hints OOC are acceptable in the terms of 'dude, you should have seen this by now'. In other words it provides a light peer presure for the lone player to step on up quick and proper, otherwise someone else will give him the answer and he'll miss out on the glory of answering it himself. But going into full detail on what to do, that's someone else playing his character.

BUT, I'd actually read Rons comments as more being interplayer dialog to maintain the health of the session, stuff like 'Hey Jim, it looks like you haven't had anything to do for awhile while your PC's alone and were doing other peoples scenes...I reakon you would have run into (insert interesting thing), what do you think, GM (clear pointer to give Jim some screen time)?'. Stuff like that. Was I wrong?

[Bill Cook]

BUT, I'd actually read Rons comments as more being interplayer dialog to maintain the health of the session . . .

I agree.  I think JamesDJIII's initial post addresses the attitude that competes with open dialogue (between players, outside the game, about play, for the purpose of high-level course adjustments).

To contrast with montag, upthread, I rise up in my chair like a cat when players start rambling on IC.  IME, after that point, play quickly shifts away from linear progress towards innerspace-type onion peeling.

This is the strata:

[*]Intolerance towards OOC dialogue . . .

[*]because it's breaking character, as though the group were in a play.
[*]because it's cheating if you hint and disenfranchises a player if you push decisions on him that you see as obvious.
[/list:u]
[*]Guys hitting on chicks; watching movies inbetween fight scenes; listening to music; having a conversation about work and at a volume to drown the dialogue of play; excessive joking as to derail play; expressing apathy or impotence of deprotagonization by announcing pointless actions (e.g. "I get drunk and have sex with the Ogress.")
[/list:u]

And the good stuff, potentially:

[*]Adopting tasteful mannerisms and expressive qualities to invest in a character and enrich the portrayal of game world experience.
[*]Take the cue of one player, repeatedly shifting all his d10's from one hand to the next, and say, "Ok.  How can we get Barbarus involved?"
[/list:u]

[JamesDJIII]

Blll nailed it in one. Of the division of the "bad" talk between the first and second groups, I was referring to the second, not the first.

Is it generally recognized that they are the same "bad" by others? We always frowned on the first, because we recognized it felt like a distraction from the main event.

I don't think we ever analyzed the whys of the second category, or made distinctions that the decision you would make regarding this groups of OOC talk would be radically different for different kinds of games.

[Ben O'Neal]

I might add that I don't mind when my players make humorous suggestions to my other players which could enrich the scene. For example, one of my players' character has a tail, and occasionally other players will make comments about what he might do with it in a given scene, which he sometimes adopts for the benefit of the scene, and much fun is had by all.

On the other hand, I do get annoyed when a certain player of mine decides that other player's scenes are a good time to leave the table and do other stuff. This player is notorious in other groups for under-involvement though, but it still is frustrating. I feel it puts pressure on myself and the other players to adjust their playing (which we all might be very much enjoying) just to "win back" this player. But I digress.

I also have no problem with audience members (non-players) throwing in a comment or two, on one condition: that they are not helping a player with a problem, but are instead adding to the liveliness of the imaginary environment. But in my experience, I've never had to spell out that condition, because most people seem to respect the importance of players overcoming obstacles on their own (us Aussies are big on our competency, and helping people when they don't need it is a big no no).

My last point, is that I don't mind OOC chat when all the players are faced with a problem, providing their implementation, and how they introduce their solution, is plausibly in character. This might be because I tend to make my puzzles devious and unique, only being able to be solved through practical application on the character level, rather than player knowledge.

-Ben

[ethan_greer]

I have no idea what this thread is about. Furthermore, I get the sense that every single person who has posted to it is talking about a different thing.  Can someone spell it out for me so I can stop going crazy?  No pronouns, no assumptions.  What behavior are we talking about here?

[JamesDJIII]

Ethan,

I thought it was about Ron's observation that talking about a game is/was considered wrong and a bad thing by lots of folks who play those games. At least, that what it should be about.