Mandatory IC Dialogue?

Perfect.

Literally perfect.

Do it.

go all in with it, if they're trying to be sneaky they have to whisper and stuff like that.

>>54666332
>>54666392
I feel like these suggestions may not be totally straight forward

>>54666145
That sounds legitimately, unironically amazing. If you have players committed enough to go for it, do it. I would do it in a heartbeat if I thought my group could handle it.

>>54666145
It's honestly not my thing, but if you do it, be sure to 100% commit to it. Make sure the rule is EVERYTHING that is not describing actions or said with the hand gesture is IC. A lot of times this can devolve into "Just things the GM decides are in character are in character" if it is not religiously enforced which is a lot like not having the rule at all, except the GM can just use it as a gotcha for players, which is no fun for everyone.

Now, if you DO enforce this all the time, and have NPCs respond to player requests to go to the bathroom and such (cause they forgot to make the hand gesture), and they STILL say something stupid that they probably shouldn't have "Can't we just kill these guys?" is a good example, than by all means have NPCs react appropriately.

We have a house rule where if a character is drunk then everything the player says counts as in character. The players tend to forget and it gets hilarious

>>54666496
>It's honestly not my thing
Care to share why?

>>54666759
I enjoy table chatter as part of both the social experience and on the tactical of the systems that allow it.

>>54666145
I generally do the "raise your hand if speaking out of character" rule. It helps keep things separated, but sometimes it slows down role playing because people are more conscious about IC vs OOC.

A 100% IC game might be interesting for a session. I'll probably try it some time with a one-shot horror game. The only way to make horror games really work (in my humble opinion) is to make them one-shots and keep everyone completely in character. It makes things much tenser if the option of making an OOC yo-mama joke about the shoggoth is not possible.

>>54666145
That sounds really inconvenient for dictating character actions.
>unless you are making a certain hand gesture [...] everything you say is considered IC?
My group wears hats when talking in-character.

First, if you're going to do this, go all the way. Unless clearly talking about something in the real world, you're speaking in character or describing an in character action. That means any strategizing and discussions also have to be done in character, which means unless you have magic people can overhear you.

Second, assume that any modern idioms are approximations of what your character says. Anyone who tries to be cute by going "who is this Jesus you speak of" or the like gets slapped.

>>54666145
I knew that king cobras were long but it wasn't until this picture that I really understood.

>>54668271
wearing hats could work. I get really peeved when everyone is talking out of character about random shit instead of enjoying the game in character. This is coming from a social guy who likes to talk about random shit constantly. But when I'm playing a tabletop game I just want everyone to be in the game.

If raising your hand, making a certain gesture, or wearing a hat is how we dictate IC/OOC separation, does description and exposition count as IC or OOC?

File: Lamia 7 Naga - Sneks need education too! 4c5 reading snake.jpg (28KB, 469x640px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 469x640px

>>54666145

100% IC rule is hard if you go with anything but pure storytelling. You have to inform people of your rolls and whatnot.
As for hats - meh, I prefer just raising hand but often, people simply spoken IC a bit differently, with inflections if not different accents and voices altogether compared to how they speak normally.