This is not really a split from the Red-Box D&D Example of Play thread.

Here's my question? Is it just me where it seems that PCs don't talk to eachother as much as the player talk out of game.

Sometimes in-game conversations seem incomplete to me.

So... either link me to the appropriate thread if this is a clone or share your experiences.

May the wind be always at your back,
-Pyron

I've been lucky in that most of the groups I've been in have usually talked IC most of the time. The only OOC conversations are usually during downtimes for our PC's either we're in the kitchen grabbing food or the GM is working with other members of the party.

Our in game comments are usually saved for in game.

I think this is something that's gonna differ alot from group to group. Now, if you're asking about the ratio of mostly OoC to IC, I have no idea.

I, personally, am a 'mostly OoC' player.

My upcoming game, The Mountain Witch, is interesting in this regard, in that due to the fact that the game is mostly about interpersonal conflict between characters, the game demands alot of IC discussion.

I think I generally see a lot of IC interactions. The game session I ran yesterday didn't have as much inter-character dialouge as I had hoped, but there was a decent amount. OOC comments never really replace IC comments in my games though.

I think it not only depends on the group, but also on the game system, as the Mountain Witch example indicates. I am usually a very much "in-character" sort of player, but in the current game I'm in, I find that relatively little IC character-to-character discussion happens. Just the way that game works, I guess.

So I'm not sure this question can generate anything but a kind of poll. Did you have something in mind about it, or just curiosity?

I'm going to agree that it depends on the game. Some specific examples:

Primetime Adventures: This game's intensely visual attitude basically guarantees, to me, that any sort of character discourse will be narrated out as conversation, rather than summarized, "Jehanne explains the situation...." So much about character can be revealed through body language and word choice, and in this game, it feels essential to do so.

Shadows & The Pool: When I played these games, we didn't even require that the characters interact, and a lot is revealed through things that don't happen in Shadows, so IC dialogue was pretty sparse.


Importantly: I'm curious what you mean by "incomplete." Can you elaborate on this? Maybe, by doing so, this thread can graduate from a poll to a discussion of something.

Sorry. Sometimes I have a huge thought that I detail in 3+ pages of text with very specific questions and stuff and no one reads it. The rest of the time I throw out what's off the top 'o my head.

In this situation I'm just looking to see if anyone's perplexed by a phenomenom I haven't been able to identify. What happens is that much of, if not most of the game, will be filled with OOC commentry rather than in-game commentry. This OOC commentry is used to resolve issues or otherwise fill up the scene's prerequisite dialogue.

Example:

GM+2 Players

GM: Alright, you come to the bottom of two staircases. You can see that one leads to the observation deck which you can use to get away. Your schematic doesn't cover the other one but you guess that it might lead to the centeral computer. A Troll is approaching so you must make your decision quickly.

Jim: Is his name Timmy? (Making a refference to some past joke or something)

GM: Well he isn't wearing a nametag, obviously.

Jones: Can I see up the second staircase? What kind is it anyway?

GM: It's ivory and, no you can't see up it. I already said that.

Jones: (Turning to Jim) Which staircase should we take?

Jim: Probably the ivory one.

Jones: Why the ivory one?

Jim: Because it's the type of thing that a GM would want us to go up.

Jones:(Jones thought they were talking in-game but Jim thought they were talking OOC. Jones is now OOC, but he still uses 'we' to reffer to the characters instead of 'them') But what if we get stuck up there?

Jones: Then we'll fight off the troll, duh.

Jim: But trolls are strong!

Jones: I've gone up against trolls before. If you know how to take advatige of their weaknesses, they're not so bad.

Jim: (Turning to a slightly irritated GM) Okay, we go up the ivory staircase.

GM: You enter an Ivory Tower... (joke not intended)

So there you go. We have this little discussion that involves several things. Confusion about in-game vs. out-of-game and a long conversation that in-game might have gotten them smashed by the troll. The decision to go up the ivory staircase was more a product of the OOC comments than the in-game comments.

This kind of thing happens all the time to me... My conciousness of what happens in-game is really sensitive. It doesn't have to be important. It can be just joking around with the other players that makes the in-game stuff feel empty because the acutal characters didn't engage in anything for a long time while the players joked around (a missed potential).

This can become especially noticable in dungeon crawls where the characters hardly interact at all. There may be many actions that the characters take but little dialogue. In stories and books and stuff, the main characters interact a whole lot. In some stories and books, that's all that happens. There isn't even a need of a world outside the main characters.

I dunno. I might have typed too much again.

May the wind be always at your back,
-Pyron

I'm sure there are ways to encourage in-character dialogue and discourage out-of-character dialogue.

I played (briefly) with one GM who would penalize players by reducing the experience points for their characters if they made any comments which were not either in-character or directed to the GM (describing the character's actions, etc). I thought it was being a bit extreme myself, but I have to admit the guy had a very focused game going on, with a lot of character interaction.

I couldn't put up with his crap, after getting penalized for asking someone to pass me something, but if a GM who was a little less psychotic were to use a similar idea with a measure of common sense it would probably work well enough. (Might be tough to break old habits though)

Discussion in our early games tended to drift quite a bit; I think it still does, but it's a bit different in Multiverser play because of the character isolation.

In-character discussion was quite recognizable in our early games because of an apparent abberation in our structure. There were four of us initially, and we didn't think that three characters made a sufficient party, so before long the core players each had two characters. This meant that we were keeping track not merely of which player said what, but which character was represented as saying it. I have fond memories of the party leader and the party thief arguing--because the same guy played both of them, and he bickered with himself brilliantly.

At the same time, of course there is player discussion of what is seen and heard, in part because the very act of asking what is seen is somewhere between an in-character and an out-of-character statement--in character because the character action of looking is in essence being described; out of character because the character doesn't say that he's looking. The ensuing conversation between the players may represent some very subtle body language things between the characters that would not communicate as well if described--

I look at Joe, and nod in the direction of the one stairway, and then the other; he shrugs. I give him an understanding nod, and also shrug. He waves his hand toward the ivory staircase, and I again nod, and head that direction.

That's the conversation the players just had, in some sense. They have it with words, in part because all that nodding and shrugging doesn't communicate sufficiently when you can't actually see the objects indicated.

So I think that dialogue is often in character, and it's often out of character, but that this distinction is not entirely black-and-white, and that a lot of the conversation at the table flows from one position to another.

--M. J. Young

Usually in games I've played and ran, its a mix of IC and OOC but I think its more of a hybrid of both, really, rather than either one - its not so much confusion of IC and OOC but a blending of the two, usually filtering it through the GM. As exemplified above, a lot of "what do we see" and discussion among the players, drifting in and out of "I" and "my character" and "the thief" and "ok, I/we/my character/Johann is/are going to do x" and the GM easily interprets the actions and intent, since he was there for the whole conversation, and clarified numerous points.

True IC dialogue role-playing is usually pretty obvious in our games, as a player verbally takes the limelight and switches into a usually crappy accent (like my horrible Scottish accent for my dwarven paladin) or tone of voice, sometimes complete with quirky mannerisms, and does his thing, while the other players remain mostly quiet, letting him have the stage, and watching the show. Then, once he's done, play returns to "normal" and everyone goes back to "Between Character" mode. I do admit I probably do more IC than most of the other players, but its mostly because I have less patience for worrying about the game mechanics and so I just keep myself and other players entertained during the "boring parts" by acting and speaking in-character.

I certainly never had any trouble interpreting what the players were indicating, when they finally gave me their actions, and I personally couldn't care less if they were telling me as players or characters, and generally its been that way for any GMs I've played under. My own personal opinion is that I don't require or expect character interaction; as far as I am concerned, the characters know each other or "invisibly" get acquainted with each other during the course of the adventure, just like they go to the bathroom and such, which leaves more time for the game itself and character development in general (which can ALSO include interaction just for the sake of it, which I do now and then, but don't feel any NEED to), and also because, and this is only my own opinion, its redundant and nothing is accomplished, game-wise, though I'm more a gamist so although I like character development and such and good role-playing, my narrativist streak isn't very well developed, especially if it requires vicariously getting to know people I already know - its just kinda silly, I guess, in some ways, to me.

Well I guess that means I should try to direct discussion in one direction or another again.

Do you think that defining IC versus OOC is important? If it is, is IC valuable (more or less than OOC)? If so, what are good techniques for encouraging IC dicussion?

I look at RPGs as much as a story as I do a game so IC is very important to me. M.J.'s 'knowing nods' are exactly what I see in the game sometimes.

For me, I'd rather have the scenerio I posted go more like this:

GM: (Something about the staircases and the troll)

Jim makes his perception roll or whatever and Jones doesn't. Jim shouts: Leaping Leapordmen! Timmy the troll is alive and doesn't look nearly as happy as he did the first time around!

Jones: My character spins around quickly to see the troll. Quick! Into the Ivory tower!

Jim: Ivory tower?

Jones: It's not figurative. It's a real Ivory tower.

Jim: Oh. Is that our only option?

Jones: Or we could go to the observation deck.

GM: Figure it out soon, guys. The troll's almost here... and it's NOT Timmy the troll.

Jim: Fine! I run up the ivory staircase.

Jones: I quickly follow, firing at the troll twice with my weapon.

In this example, the jokes are no more serious but the situation is no less serious either. The humor comes from the characters' situations. The act of roleplaying is conductive to the humor rather than destructive.

Yes, I'm quick to judge. That's okay. I'm trying to make that argument that IC is more roleplayingish (Er... place Forge lingo here) and more rewarding in the long-term for many different styles of play.

May the wind be always at your back,
-Pyron

I see your argument, but I don't think it's at all obvious that you're correct. There is nothing inherently good about IC conversations. They are a tool. If your players are choosing not to use that tool it is probably because they have correctly judged that it will not suit their Creative Agenda.

In your Troll example, what is the goal of the scene? If it is to not get killed by the troll then talking simply doesn't enter into it. Any conversation would be mere window-dressing to the real story. Given that creative goal your players are right not to talk IC.

It's hard for me to guess what your creative goals are, but I have a sense that you'd prefer something like the Mines of Moria scenes in the Fellowship movie. People sit and smoke and have these wonderful conversations, in the dark, in danger. But that's because it is the purpose of that story. The Lord of the Rings isn't about getting Frodo physically to the place where he can destroy the Ring. It's about getting him mentally to the place where he can believe himself capable of destroying the Ring. Those conversations, where Frodo gets the advice and support he needs, are the story. Getting through Moria, fighting the goblins and the Balrog... all of that is window dressing.

If you want that sort of story then you need to get your players on-board with the notion. Help them to tell you what internal issues their characters need to wrestle with, and a few of the ways they could see their character growing into that challenge. If you can get them interested in pursuing those sort of goals then they will immediately see how in-character conversation can be a useful tool to them.

If your players aren't comfortable doing this then you can't make it happen. They'll probably go along with you (if they are that close to polite) and give lip service to their internal conflicts for a while. But if what they want from the game is to escape Trolls and beat up Goblins then that's what they're going to do. You can offer them the opportunity to play in a new way, but you can't reach into their brain and make them want to do it.

I don't think that there's anything inherently good about IC either.

Actually I wanted to kindof dilly-dally around creative agenda because my experience with that on the forge has always brought both supercomplex answers and snap judgement answers. I use CA as a last resort.

In your Troll example, what is the goal of the scene? If it is to not get killed by the troll then talking simply doesn't enter into it. Any conversation would be mere window-dressing to the real story. Given that creative goal your players are right not to talk IC.

Eric J. wrote: PC relationships should be imporant to whatever kind of play that you have.

TonyLB wrote:

Eric J. wrote: PC relationships should be imporant to whatever kind of play that you have.

Why?

But why should relationships be important to "whatever kind of play that you have"?

Alright, I'll retreat again from 'whatever kind of play that you have' to 'many kinds of play that you can have.'

By lucky card is that relationship is such a broad term that I can use it for lots of stuff.

For every game with multiple PCs that I can think of, PC to PC relationships are important. I mean, if they interact or not is part of their relationship.

My point, if I have one, is something like:

In character PC to PC communication is important for completeness of game (in solidifying and validating interPC relationships). How can interPC communication be encouraged?

I think that sometimes PC to PC relationships are based more in the metagame than in the in-game.

So yeah. Thanks you guys.

May the wind be always at your back,
-Empyrealmortal

NeelK wrote:

Because the player characters are inevitably better-realized than the NPCs, and you can get richer and more subtle interactions between round characters than between flat ones. I'd really like to figure out a way to get rid of NPCs altogether, and make the set of PCs be the set of important characters..

nellist wrote: NeelK wrote:

Because the player characters are inevitably better-realized than the NPCs, and you can get richer and more subtle interactions between round characters than between flat ones. I'd really like to figure out a way to get rid of NPCs altogether, and make the set of PCs be the set of important characters..

Which seems to me to be at the heart of the observation. OOC is felt, IMO, to be less well realized, or a method of realizing characters that is less effective than IC. I am not entirely convinced of this myself but am whole convinced that IC speech is a good, fun, thing. But this conviction is not really supported by a specific reason. IC is hard to do, it is difficult ot maintain and it is often very "unrealistic" - long speeches in the middle of combat, people saying things that just do not work, the nod and nudge body language of the troll example, being unable to be a person more eloquent than oneself. There are a whole lot of problems with actually doing IC.

Eric J. wrote: This is not really a split from the Red-Box D&D Example of Play thread.

Here's my question? Is it just me where it seems that PCs don't talk to eachother as much as the player talk out of game.

Sometimes in-game conversations seem incomplete to me.

So... either link me to the appropriate thread if this is a clone or share your experiences.

May the wind be always at your back,
-Pyron

neelk wrote:
Because the player characters are inevitably better-realized than the NPCs, and you can get richer and more subtle interactions between round characters than between flat ones. I'd really like to figure out a way to get rid of NPCs altogether, and make the set of PCs be the set of important characters....

Noon wrote:

neelk wrote: Because the player characters are inevitably better-realized than the NPCs, and you can get richer and more subtle interactions between round characters than between flat ones. I'd really like to figure out a way to get rid of NPCs altogether, and make the set of PCs be the set of important characters....

Multiple PC's per player? Just a quick thought.

In character PC to PC communication is important for completeness of game (in solidifying and validating interPC relationships). How can interPC communication be encouraged?

I also noted the excision of planning discussion in the reb box sample of play; it parenthetically notes "after a discussion with the others" and then goes back to what is happening in game. IMO, this presumably tactical discussion did not occur in the game at all.

When I gamed as a teenager, OOC discussion was very much the norm. the game existed primarily as a gamist, tactical exercise. As we got older, more and more IC interactions appeared in game (somewhat reinforced by industry exhortations toward 'story' and in-character play), not least because we moved onto games that required more deception and strategy than simply firepower. Subsequently play developed a much more IC style, even using formal indicators (like raising a hand) to indicate a conversation taking place OOC.

IC player communication is central to our games, and is partly why it takes so long to play anything. I ran a short horror scenario recently that I'd expect to be played at one sitting at a convention but with my group it took 3.

The PCs had all manner of discussions about anything and everything: their favourite TV shows, bondage and cowboys, go-karting, the state of the railways, what's the best beer.

These discussions are really important to me as a GM. They really get under the skin of the PCs and move them away from being pawns in a game to be real characters in their own right. And it gives me plenty of food for thought when developing the story. It's a bit like having Pulp Fiction as opposed to Death Wish.

The most insanely under-conversated thing I can imagine, both OOC and IC is tactics. These people are risking their lives yet they don't make the slightest effort to communicate tactics, make use of terrain, coordinate attacks or learn from experience. This is why the group fighting that would occur to any normal human being can take a dozen play sessions to ingraine into a group of PCs.
Whenver I play I always make a point of being the person who views things from the perspective of a rational, self-interested person which can lead to some rather long conversations when they try to convince me to walk through two weeks span of snow and kill some guys I've never even heard of. Players who I don't play with often are usually astounded that anyone would question the orders of the Wizard/King/Village Elder.

I was going to comment on a technique I used, but I started a separate thread on it, called NxN PC Relation Chart.

Emily Care wrote: So, the things I'd say we do that might be helpful for other groups to encourage inter-pc interaction would be:


• play multiple characters, or if you only play a single character, give the character breath and life outside of aspects relating to "the plot"
• allow for time for your characters to have not only interactions, but inter-relationships, so that it doesn't feel forced & contrived to have them "have" to interact
• "check in" with all your characters and see what they might be doing, and what they would have to say to one another
• look to small moments in play to give your characters greater dimension. Don't just dive in for the kill/exciting conflict/big moments.


Anyway, as has already been said in this thread, there are many approaches, some are more suited to inter-character interaction than others. In some, that's where the juiciest bits lie. Hope this gives insight into one such approach.