This is a bit of an odd one, since the original post was by Mort, but kicked off some interesting discussion. So I've retained that OP here, with my contributions in the comments...
I've read about this before in roleplaying guides and I noticed it during the weekend games. The difference between describing your actions and acting them out.
i.e 'I want over to the guy and ask him what he knows about this house' vs 'I walk over to the guy: "Hello sir, could you please tell me what you have heard about this particular house?"'
The first being a straight description of your actions and the second being you acting out the conversation.
Personally I prefere the second approach, as I think that is really what roleplaying is all about, of course sometimes you want to speed up things and switch to descriptions, for instance when people want to go shopping and such.
But some people seem to use descriptions all the time, I don't really like it. Then again I guess some people are more comfortable to actually only describe their feelings than act them out in front of a bunch of strangers.
Hmm, I don't think I really have a point here, I'm just rambling on a bit..
Archived comment by me:
ReplyDeleteNot really fussed either way. In most cases it doesn't seem to make any difference, although there are a few where one approach is better than the other:
1) If the NPC knows a secret and is liable to slip in telling it, knowing the precise words he uses might be important. Then again, I'm not sure this is likely in RPGs, which are largely ad-libbed. Anyway, if the precise words are important, obviously one should go with Acting.
2) If the disconnect between the Player and Character is going to be a problem - such as the typical male gamer running a female character in a seduction scene, it's probably best to go with description.
Basically, I think it's probably best to give the matter some thought beforehand, and go with the method most likely to result in an immersive game.