[silvarilon]

I agree with this 100%

Just like writing a novel, you should be as descriptive as necessary to convey a good story, but brief enough to keep it moving. (A reason why I could never be a novel writer...)

And nobody should feel ridiculed for joining a game. Even if your style doesn't match the preferred style of the game, there are polite ways of saying "We do things differently here" - ridicule is never the appropriate response. Unfortunately, I've seen it happen in a number of games, too.

And, yes, usually by the people who love the "look at me" extended unnecessary emotes. Or by the mechanically-minded players who consider knowledge of the game-world to be roleplaying, and ridicule new arrivals who can't possibly know the game world yet. Either way, it seems to be the extremes that tend to that behavior.

Oh yes. The games are about having fun.

But I think "you're having fun" and "you're roleplaying" are two different things. I could easily be doing one and not the other.

I agree. All this creates (positive) drama, which is necessary for interesting storytelling.
There needs to be an obstacle to be overcome. Battle strategies for an imminent attack is certainly a clear obstacle, with clear options for overcoming it.

I'd argue with this. It depends what the players do with the situation. A discussion of the imminent attack could be responded to by "fireside storytelling" reactions, and a decision to just wait and fight the enemy when they arrive. The players might not weigh up the options or make hard decisions.
Similarly, the fireside storytelling might involve a tale about an outlawed religion, secretly sharing your alliegances with the witnesses while giving an excuse to plead innocence if the church comes to burn you at the stake. - that's a tough decision to make, too. And choosing the words of the story might be very important.
(But I'm biased. Since my game is political, the above situation can, and has, happened. And it's totally awesome when done properly.)

Usually you're right, fireside storytelling is pretty meaningless. But even then, it often gives information about the game world, which can be useful later. A story about the dangerous swamps to the east? Maybe you should flee there from the enemies attack - the dangerous terrain might help even the odds. Or they might be unwilling to chase you into there.

So for me, a lot of the fun of a game with "fireside storytelling" is that there is useful, tactical information there. It's just hidden amongst the discussions, and I have to filter what my character is told, and decide what is important and what isn't. For me, that's the clues that show me what the obstacles are, and how to overcome them.

But yeah, if there is nothing but stories, and they won't reveal useful information (about the other characters, or the game world) - then I'm not interested in it. As you say, it's roleplay. But not necessarily good roleplay.

Sure. And that's the attitude of most players (on my game as well)
I'm probably just a snobby roleplay elitist, since I came to roleplay through tabletop from a group of friends into dramatics, rather than through computer games.

But, for me, immersion is damaged by players that use their own opinions and morals. *some* players can do that, which is fine, but if all do it, it's a problem. An example, again from my game - we have a different society, with nobles, commoners, slaves - all that. Players that push for modern morals hurt the immersion of the world - when you see a noble, you expect certain things. You expect them to act like a noble. You expect the commoners to show deference to them (at least to an extent. There can still be rebellions, and all that), you expect slaves to be treated as a lower-class citizen. When players have their characters talk about how "respect should be earned" and "everyone is equal" then - that's a fine decision. But considering the game world, they should either expect the authorities to come down on their head, or they should expect everyone to tell them that they're talking crazy. If *everyone* joins in with that attitude... well, what's the point of even having nobles and slaves in the game at all?

I would never say that your character shouldn't have that modern attitude. I'd never tell you how to run your character. But I *would* say that if your character behaved like that, they should see some sort of in-game response to their behavior. Something that, hopefully, creates more roleplaying and story.

I wonder if that means I'm one of the people "forcing" roleplay. But, for me, a game isn't meaningful unless the actions of my character are meaningful. And that means the game has to give a reaction to the actions my (and other) characters take.

So, I guess, that's what I mean about "playing someone else" - In real life, I firmly believe that all people are equal. But if I'm playing in a setting with nobles and slaves, I would either play my character as someone who accepts that some people are "better than others", or I'd play a character that keeps his opinions to himself, or I'd play a character that speaks out against the injustice (and expects something to happen because of speaking out)