Quote from: Black Vulmea;666757That's real roleplaying mastery, right there.

Not sure if you're being serious or not...

Depends on the game. Hearts & Souls actually rewards you for narrating your "though bubbles" (or any monologue.) So of course I'd narrate them! High Valor it is possible to give yourself a pep-talk, but there are other ways of doing the same thing and get the same benefit.

In games which don't reward that behavior? It varies by the game, and my interest in the interior landscape of the characters mind.

Quote from: fuseboy;666064Or do you generally prefer stick to only those behaviors that other characters would perceive? Have you noticed others in your group doing or not doing this?  Do you find it helpful, entertaining, distracting?

I do this and consider it generally helpful not because it's necessarily useful for the other players, but I know from experience it can be very useful for the GM. I know when I'm GMing that anything which gives me an understanding of what a character's motives are and what they're actually trying to accomplish from a course of action is helpful so I like to provide the same help to the GM when I play.

I do it less when my character's inner thoughts are obvious from their behaviour or words, but that isn't going to be the case 100% of the time, especially when my character has some modicum of restraint or subtlety.

Quote from: jeff37923;666126I had to do this once because after arbitrarily killing off my character's love interest during a campaign, the DM didn't understand why my character was distraught and then depressed by this.

I told you about the campaign where my NPC love interest was accidentally shot dead by another PC, didn't I?

Quote from: Warthur;667183I told you about the campaign where my NPC love interest was accidentally shot dead by another PC, didn't I?

Well, you did not tell me, and it sounds like PvP ensued ;p.

Of course if you were a wizard and it was 3e there was no PvP, just a roftlexcuse me I can't continue this line.

Quote from: Rincewind1;667186Well, you did not tell me, and it sounds like PvP ensued ;p.

Of course if you were a wizard and it was 3e there was no PvP, just a roftlexcuse me I can't continue this line.

No PVP because I was trying to balance being true to my character's reaction with not being disruptive to a game-wrecking extent, though ironically a few sessions down the line the game did degenerate rapidly into PVP anyway.

I vaguely regret not having my character just up and kill himself because that campaign was downright painful to experience. I am less tolerant of substandard gaming experiences now.

Steering back to on-topic, I realise I didn't explain why I as a GM find it useful when players relay the inner thoughts of PCs which aren't necessarily visible through their actions, which is this: if I don't understand a PC's motives, it's easy - especially if they are trying something with a little subtlety - to not entirely understand why they are doing what they are doing. If I don't understand that, I'm liable to make assumptions about a PC's behaviour which actually don't match the player's intent.

For example: I like to assume by default that PCs are behaving with all due care and are mindful of in-setting social mores, even if the players don't specify it, because ultimately the PCs do their jobs day in and day out and live in their culture 24/7 whilst the players only visit for a few hours, and I'm not the sort who likes to trip players up because they forgot a setting detail which their character would certainly know and remember. So, compare and contrast the two situations:

SITUATION 1
Player: "OK, during downtime Dietrich goes off on his own and strolls around the Docks District."

GM: (Thinks: Hmmm, the Docks is the most dangerous district in the city and Dietrich knows that damn well, so I will assume that he takes appropriate precautions to avoid being jumped.) "OK, you go along to the Docks and stroll about. Given that you know it's a rough area I assume you're sticking out of sight and trying not to flash your wealth or your fancy equipment about?"

Player: "Ah, no, actually Dietrich is specifically looking to get jumped."

GM: (Thinks: Weird, but OK...) "So, what are we talking about here, are you going to stroll up to Big Ed and punch him in the jaw or what?"

Player: "No, no, Dietrich wants a fight but he isn't suicidal. Look, here's what he's after..."

SITUATION 2:
Player: "Right, after we've been so thoroughly politically outmanoeuvred Dietrich is hopping mad and sick of lies and chicanery and just wants to get to grips with an enemy who he can defeat with his bare fists. So, in downtime he's going to go off on his own and stroll around the Docks District in the hope that his obvious wealth will inspire some of the local muggers to try their luck. He's not looking to actually stir things up with the big fish, mind, he just wants to rumble with some mooks."

GM: "OK, it doesn't take too long before some hoods who aren't aware of Big Ed's 'hands off' order with respect to your party decide to try their luck..."

In the first situation, the player keeps their cards close to the chest when it comes to their character's motives, which requires a fair amount of back-and-forth between player and GM before the GM gets a good handle on what's happening. In the second situation, the GM knows exactly what the player is after and is able to launch into the action with a minimum of fuss.

Whilst it is true that the player could have gone into a bit more detail about what they precisely planned to do in situation 1, it could still look like unusual behaviour to the GM unless the GM guessed the character's motives in going to the docks looking for trouble. By explaining the thought process that led to the action as well as the action itself, the player eliminates any possibility of confusion and makes it absolutely clear what the character expects to happen. That way, if the GM gives an unexpected response, it's because they intended to do something the player/PC wasn't expecting rather than because they didn't understand what the player was doing.

The corollary to this is that I don't actually narrate internal thought processes that don't give rise to action and aren't likely to be picked up on by the other PCs. If the other PCs might pick up that my character is furiously angry at the NPC we're currently talking to and is struggling to keep the cork on his emotions, for instance, I'll mention that. But 100% internal thought processes which don't give rise to any external action or behaviour or moods don't get narrated (but are kind of rare anyway).

I don't narrate my own thoughts.

Why would my character?

Quote from: FASERIP;667206I don't narrate my own thoughts.

Why would my character?

My character often hits people. I wouldn't think of hitting someone at the table.

For serious though, it's a given that you're going to be saying and doing stuff OOC that your character doesn't say or do IC - your character doesn't narrate all of their actions, nor do they regularly roll dice in the middle of fights (unless they've got some sort of Two-Face from Batman schtick), nor do they summarise conversations which aren't of interest to them or the other party members or the GM. (Nor, for that matter, do they ask questions of the GM and expect answers.)

Saying you don't do stuff at the game table because it'd be weird for your character to do it IC is lazy thinking and I know you can do better than that.

Quote from: Warthur;667201No PVP because I was trying to balance being true to my character's reaction with not being disruptive to a game-wrecking extent, though ironically a few sessions down the line the game did degenerate rapidly into PVP anyway.

I vaguely regret not having my character just up and kill himself because that campaign was downright painful to experience. I am less tolerant of substandard gaming experiences now.

Steering back to on-topic, I realise I didn't explain why I as a GM find it useful when players relay the inner thoughts of PCs which aren't necessarily visible through their actions, which is this: if I don't understand a PC's motives, it's easy - especially if they are trying something with a little subtlety - to not entirely understand why they are doing what they are doing. If I don't understand that, I'm liable to make assumptions about a PC's behaviour which actually don't match the player's intent.

For example: I like to assume by default that PCs are behaving with all due care and are mindful of in-setting social mores, even if the players don't specify it, because ultimately the PCs do their jobs day in and day out and live in their culture 24/7 whilst the players only visit for a few hours, and I'm not the sort who likes to trip players up because they forgot a setting detail which their character would certainly know and remember. So, compare and contrast the two situations:

SITUATION 1
Player: "OK, during downtime Dietrich goes off on his own and strolls around the Docks District."

GM: (Thinks: Hmmm, the Docks is the most dangerous district in the city and Dietrich knows that damn well, so I will assume that he takes appropriate precautions to avoid being jumped.) "OK, you go along to the Docks and stroll about. Given that you know it's a rough area I assume you're sticking out of sight and trying not to flash your wealth or your fancy equipment about?"

Player: "Ah, no, actually Dietrich is specifically looking to get jumped."

GM: (Thinks: Weird, but OK...) "So, what are we talking about here, are you going to stroll up to Big Ed and punch him in the jaw or what?"

Player: "No, no, Dietrich wants a fight but he isn't suicidal. Look, here's what he's after..."

SITUATION 2:
Player: "Right, after we've been so thoroughly politically outmanoeuvred Dietrich is hopping mad and sick of lies and chicanery and just wants to get to grips with an enemy who he can defeat with his bare fists. So, in downtime he's going to go off on his own and stroll around the Docks District in the hope that his obvious wealth will inspire some of the local muggers to try their luck. He's not looking to actually stir things up with the big fish, mind, he just wants to rumble with some mooks."

GM: "OK, it doesn't take too long before some hoods who aren't aware of Big Ed's 'hands off' order with respect to your party decide to try their luck..."

In the first situation, the player keeps their cards close to the chest when it comes to their character's motives, which requires a fair amount of back-and-forth between player and GM before the GM gets a good handle on what's happening. In the second situation, the GM knows exactly what the player is after and is able to launch into the action with a minimum of fuss.

Whilst it is true that the player could have gone into a bit more detail about what they precisely planned to do in situation 1, it could still look like unusual behaviour to the GM unless the GM guessed the character's motives in going to the docks looking for trouble. By explaining the thought process that led to the action as well as the action itself, the player eliminates any possibility of confusion and makes it absolutely clear what the character expects to happen. That way, if the GM gives an unexpected response, it's because they intended to do something the player/PC wasn't expecting rather than because they didn't understand what the player was doing.

The corollary to this is that I don't actually narrate internal thought processes that don't give rise to action and aren't likely to be picked up on by the other PCs. If the other PCs might pick up that my character is furiously angry at the NPC we're currently talking to and is struggling to keep the cork on his emotions, for instance, I'll mention that. But 100% internal thought processes which don't give rise to any external action or behaviour or moods don't get narrated (but are kind of rare anyway).

Very good post. It definitely avoids a lot of misunderstandings and frustration when the GM understands what the player is intending.

Quote from: RPGPundit;667169Not sure if you're being serious or not...

Exaggerating for effect.

Yes, I often think as my character, but I share those thoughts through action rather than monologuing.

Quote from: Warthur;667183I told you about the campaign where my NPC love interest was accidentally shot dead by another PC, didn't I?

No, but I am interested in hearing it.

Not me! First of all, I let my GM tell me all my character's inner thoughts. Absent that, I roll on a handy random table. Even then I would never, ever let any of the other players know what my character is thinking! The question even has the word "narrate" in it!

-clash

Quote from: Black Vulmea;667255Exaggerating for effect.

Yes, I often think as my character, but I share those thoughts through action rather than monologuing.

I always turn to the invisible camera in the gaming room and mug it up like a true thespian for my soliloquies.

Quote from: jeff37923;667258No, but I am interested in hearing it.

Long version: game was a modern day occult conspiracy/X-Files kind of deal which had an irritating mismatch in the player characters; half of us read the campaign brief (which had us working for a neglected, unfashionable, and underfunded department of the UK government's intelligent apparatus) and thought "ah, this is where they file all the oddballs who wouldn't hack it as proper field agents", the other half thought "ah, we're competent field agents fallen on hard times".

This led to a severe competence mismatch, in which half of the characters had a diverse range of talents but weren't brilliant at the whole spy thing whilst the others were really excellent at the whole spy thing and more or less dominated all sneaking and fighting in the game. (Due to the homebrew system having a downright unforgiving experience mechanic there was little possibility of making a non-combat focused character combat-competent over the course of the campaign.) The second half of the campaign, when this incident happened, was particularly bad because it meant half of us were basically helpless passengers whose main contribution to the group's efforts were coming up with ideas, a lot of which were ignored by the other PCs because, well, the party didn't see eye to eye on an enormous number of things.

I am playing one of the folks who were not competent spies, and my IC love interest had been kidnapped by the bad guys. We knew that she was a member of an alien race from another dimension and was part of the conspiracy keeping humanity confined to Earth - though a member of a kindly faction of that conspiracy which wanted to keep conditions in Earth tolerable with an eye to maybe letting us out eventually. We are searching the place where she is being kept and find a cell which, when we open it, is revealed to contain a large alien slug.

The other player - Player B - unloads into it. Because they're one of the competent spies, there's no way I can match her initiative to at least get in the way of the bullets. I seem to remember that half the reason I didn't have my character commit suicide then and there from the grief and the sheer hopelessness - rescuing his other half was literally the only thing he had to look forward to - was because I suspected the other PCs wouldn't let me and would have good enough initiative scores to stop me.

I still bear all sorts of grudges about that campaign to this day. Ugly campaign, with lots of ugly incidents, hampered by a GM who would belittle and guilt trip you if you dared to offer up any concerns about the direction of their games and who wouldn't take responsibility for a single thing happening in his game by simply blaming the stuff which constantly screwed our characters on the workings of his "clockwork universe", neatly sidestepping the fact that he was the one who set up and oversaw the damn clockwork. I actually participated in multiple campaigns under that guy before I realised just how bad a GM he was.

Short version: player sees monster, shoots monster, despite repeatedly being told IC that person we are rescuing may be monster.

Quote from: Warthur;667182I do this and consider it generally helpful not because it's necessarily useful for the other players, but I know from experience it can be very useful for the GM. I know when I'm GMing that anything which gives me an understanding of what a character's motives are and what they're actually trying to accomplish from a course of action is helpful so I like to provide the same help to the GM when I play.

I do it less when my character's inner thoughts are obvious from their behaviour or words, but that isn't going to be the case 100% of the time, especially when my character has some modicum of restraint or subtlety.

I thought I didn't, but I realize I do sometimes - not in the sense of a Shakespearean monologue, but I will sometimes talk about how my character is thinking or acting - typically in an offhand way.  

This came up last night as I was playing a very taciturn character in a Legend of the Five Rings one-shot game, where the other PCs were the sister and long-time friends of my character.  For example, if two weeks pass by in-game, I think it is appropriate to say what comes across of my thoughts rather than trying to convey through extended acting of being quiet and subtle.