In the Fate campaign I will be starting next month, players will not be allowed to mention mechanics at all.   At least, that is what we will be striving for.   We will be doing this over G+, and will use the honor system for tracking spent Fate points, and a visual clue for granting them via compels.

The main points of this immersive style we're trying are: players never mention mechanics, players never ask the GM any questions, and players claim their own agency.   If the GM describes a scene, anything can later be added by the player as long as it's contextually consistent.

We have used this style before in low crunch games, and we are going to attempt it for Fate.

It'll be interesting to see how that pans out, given that there are some conversations in Fate that are pretty explicitly at the player-level, rather than the character-level (Concessions being high on that list).

Usually my Fate games get pretty close to that... "So, wouldn't it make sense..." while holding out a Fate Point is a pretty good way to Compel.  But I've never gotten to 100%.  I'm also curious how you'd handle doling out stress and the like.

We are slated to start mid-January.  I hope to have the sessions online.  I think it will be tricky and a bit experimental, but I'm looking forward to the attempt.

The problem I have with "never ask the GM questions" is that so much of communal storytelling relies on shared vision, so if there's confusion over details of a scene or events that passed in the previous minutes of a game (but half an hour later in real time) they should be clarified.

Aside from that, I think it's a neat exercise.

Clarification is permitted if it is about previously established facts.  Asking about the existence of non-established is frowned upon.  Instead of asking "Is there a mirror behind the bar?", the player can just claim his agency and assume it.

Oh, there I agree completely. Hurray Fate!

I also tend to ask that question when someone is getting really flowery or obscure with their descriptions. Often I will run into players who hide their true intentions from the GM. They will list seemingly random actions and try really hard not to explain. I believe this behavior is a habit built by interacting with a poor GM.

Yeah, that's another issue... instead of 'mechanic-speak', it's the 'baffle 'em with bullshit' phenomenon.

I think it's just an evolved form of poking at everything they can see to try and find the button the GM has hidden to move things along.

Or it stemmed from GMs using everything the players say directly against them. The players then learn to obfuscate all of their plans.

RPGs as a competition are pointless as games, and more about the social dynamic of the players.  The referee/DM/GM/etc can always produce a bigger fish if he wants. The competition to beat him at his own game is often driven by a wanabee Alpha Wolf with delusions of fulfillment fantasy gaming. Even worse is when the Ref is the wanabee Alpha.

Seen it before, and I try not to game with people like that anymore.

I like to ask the following question when a player is wanting to do something but it's unsure how mechanically or otherwise: What is it you want to achieve? And how do think you can achieve it? What the end result? I then work backwards on how he might get there until we get to which die roll is required. In contrast to picking a skill and then figuring out how it might work. It may in fact be more than one skill.

Totally get the point there, but it's kinda different - I talk about "what are you trying to achieve" here:  https://plus.google.com/108546067488075210468/posts/DmCUXwtJVjY