Maybe it is just my game but there is almost no chatting between players.
There of course is some between characters but even that is what is required not just banter.

Is this typical?
Do players usually see this as "Delay of Game" violation because of the format?

Even when I try to encourage it, it does start anything.
=

Are you after chatting between players, or chatting between characters? Because at times that's two very different questions.

In reply to willvr (msg # 2):

Chatting between players. Chatting between characters happens naturally based on the character and the situation.

In face to face games there is friendly banter that helps to gel the players and keep them "on the same page."
I'm not seeing that and there is some confusion that I think is due to that.

I can't force them to talk to each other ... or at least I don't want it to feel as mandated.
=

In reply to GreenTongue (msg # 3):

All you can really do is create spaces within your game for out-of-character chit-chat to be posted (something I refer to generically as meta-content) and encourage their use for matters not directly related to your game.

How you organize your games is really up to you, but there are two general types of organizational systems that seem to be in more frequent use as far as I can tell:

Games with topics that simulate rooms or locations - these break up the action into different "sets" or "stages".  If not carefully designed and implemented, these can be hard to follow, but can lend more verisimilitude to a game if done well.

Games with topics for each successive adventure or scenario - these keep things in a more sequential layout, but can become quite extensive if they run for very long.  Some of these will be broken up into sub-topics such as "Adventure One, Act 1, Scene 1 and so forth.  (Note, however, that RPoL does not at this time support actual sub-topics.)

Both types can make use of topics for meta content to discuss various aspects of the game that might be out of character, or to just chit-chat.

I tend to assign separate private topics for each player to take notes during an adventure (these are assigned to a player's private group).

I'm sure other such uses will come to mind as you decide what is best for your game.

Good Hunting,
D

Do you have an OOC thread for them to do so?  Do you say anything in there?

The thing about banter; is it requires the players to get on with each other beyond the game, to like each other. In a tabletop game, generally, you start off with the basic assumption of being friends outside the game. Even if you've had to get someone in to make up the numbers, when you're playing around a table, in real time, the banter just naturally flows. It usually does in a chat-server too.

Play-by-post is a different story. In a 3.5 game I run; people only rarely say anything OOC that isn't directly related to what's happening. On the other hand, in a Mutants and Masterminds game I play in, people are always joking about, witticisms about what's happening; teasing about characters and so forth. Now, part of that is probably due to the fact that 3.5 is a very rules-oriented type of game, where people naturally tend to get very worried about the rules; whilst Mutants and Masterminds is much more a game about role-playing, so people aren't as worried about that.

As long as you have an OOC section though; where people aren't afraid to clarify things or just joke about, it will tend to happen. It may be that you have some really hardcore gamers who aren't interested in anything beyond the game. I mean that's the problem - you don't know that the gamers you have in play-by-post have anything in common beyond the game.

In reply to Brianna (msg # 5):

Yes, there is a clearly marked OOC thread.
They answer questions I post there but there is no player to player discussions.

When it happens spontaneously it's a wonderful thing, but in my experience it's something you can't force.

It usually depends on the players, as well.  Many of us love chatting to our fellow gamers when we're in the mood, but many times, we're too busy and distracted with life to do more than post for our characters.
and it helps when someone gets the ball rolling, too.   There are a lot of us who aren't skilled at starting conversations.  ( I know I'm not)

From what I have seen your experiences are pretty typical. The players accepted to a game aren't USUALLY a community so they don't typically just randomly talk about non-directly game related things.

That being said the massive 40k game I tried to pick up Gm duties on is basically the whole 40k community on the site so a lot of other discussion happened.

I had considered for a while having a "Around the campfire" In character discussion thread. Basically a place where Characters can talk to each other without bogging down the story threads. Ya it would all happen in a single 'thread' at a real table but then each sentence takes less that 2 hours at a real table. It's basically an application of multi-threadng if you ar familiar with the computer term.

In reply to Sir Swindle (msg # 10):

I was more thinking of Out Of Character talk like about, what direction they want things to go as a group.

Some of the confusion that happens in game, and not the entertaining kind, could be avoided with a little conversation.

Sometimes I direct my players to OoC to hash out plans and ideas, rather than have them continue in character, because it's difficult to determine when someone is being ICly stubborn or obtuse or if they really don't like or don't get what others are proposing. It can get a bit more streamlined that way.

Given the huge variety in the way games are handled here, I don't think there is a 'normal', to speak of.  Even within games, such things (OOC discussion to clarify IC actions) is sporadic, when it happens at all...and it all depends on the players involved.  I'm in a game where character actions get discussed (sometimes at length) because the players in the game have VERY different approaches to their characters and will sometimes call another player out if they think something's not kosher.  Other games I'm in, there's only occasional OOC planning, because the players all seem to click pretty well, and once we settle on an overall approach, everyone is willing to just roll with whatever comes up and discuss fine details as character dialogue, rather than hashing over everything OOC (and, really, some degree of confusion is realistic when you've got characters in situations where the environment can be extremely unpredictable.)

The same holds true for OOC discussion, player to player, about stuff beyond the game.  Some games, we have great discussions, and my fellow players were a massive moral support when I had to have a molar taken out in a very long and painful extraction, and spent half a week at home on painkillers.  Other games?  Other than the occasional post about being slow to respond for a while, or out of town, there's not much OOC discussion at all.

So, yeah...you can encourage it (one GM I play under even has separate threads for OOC chat and OOC planning)...but if the players opt not to use it, there's not much you can do, really.

If you want to prompt non-game conversation, you might try posting a thought, rather than a question.

"I was thinking..."

In reply to Gaffer (msg # 14):

It is not me that I think needs to talk.
The things the players do would go smoother with just a little common direction.
A few discussions between them would help everyone in my opinion.

I have found that a Facebook chat between them seems to work.
Must be having a "real person" makes a difference. ??

In reply to GreenTongue (msg # 15):

Then tell them that.

In reply to Gaffer (msg # 16):

Funny thing, I have.

A difficult question.  Some of that "Common Direction for Players"  that you are trying to find could well be seen as meta-gaming by some of your players (as someone sort-of alluded to earlier).

In games that I run, I often try to discourage people from talking about game plans OOC, but push them towards IC planning conversations.  That doesn't mean to say that I try to stop all player action concerning game mechanics or direction. In one recent case  where there was quite a complex treasure division -  we had a thread that was a real mixture of IC and OOC discussion going on at the same time.

That said, I do a couple of things that help me keep people on the same track.

• In most of my games the party have a clear long term objective (a  Group Goal) to work towards.  The current game is a version of Paizo's Kingmaker -  so their over all objective is based around clearing and civilising a patch of wilderness.
• I give people a frame work for some of their personal goals.  In the current game they can build individual strongholds, get noble title, start a business, or protect a bit of wilderness etc - all withing that big group goal of civilising the land.  That doesn't stop them having other personal objectives, or stop them being creative.  *grin*  I know because I ask the players to tell me what they are, and modify events (slightly) to suit their goals.
• Restrictive Character Build.  When I start a campaign game that I expect to last for a long time -  I set some rules about character creation.  For me this is generally - no extreme of alignments, core classes and the traditional classes.  For me it is no fun (for example) having a Kitsune ninja/kensai running around in a typical European setting.  Unless the story is going to be about the Kitsune.

This message was last edited by the user at 07:34, Tue 21 Feb 2017.