I'm curious - do you describe or voice your character's inner thoughts, or other aspects of his/her internal state that other characters wouldn't ordinarily perceive?
For example,
"Holy shit - okay, I'm stunned by this news, but trying to play it cool. I continue sharpening my sword."
"I reflect for a moment on all the miles my horse has carried me, before putting him out of his misery."
Or 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?
-------
For me, I notice that I've started doing it more in the past few months. Not especially often, but at least once a session. I'm not yet sure why, but I think I'm interested in situations where characters are experiencing a mismatch between what they're saying and what they're doing. Also, being a largely verbal game, it's another way to relay the meaning of a character's body language.
All character thoughts and actions are narrated by Morgan Freeman.
The only reason the sun rises every day is because Morgan Freeman narrated that sunrise in his dreams the night before.
This is not Design, or Development, or an actual game/campaign log. I'm moving it to the Main forum.
To answer the question, no. I usually do not "narrate" my characters thoughts. I role play them.
I think as my character and you can see my reactions and body language from there. That's part of role playing to me.
We might talk about what was going on in this or that character's mind after the game, talk about what we were role playing when we were role playing, but the assumption certainly isn't that the character is some sort of narrative device we describe like it's a novel or something.
Typically I don't do this, but I will on occassion. I have some players who do it a little more fruequently. Usually it seems more about providing some context to the other players so a particular course of action doesn't seem as crazy or evil as it might first appear. I probably wouldn't describe it as narration or monologue though, more just talking out of charracter to better explain your actions. So if I am about to do something that could really piss off the other players, but I have a very good reason for doing it, and I may say something like "well from my point of view, this is what's going on so I....". I also see it to help explain bad choices during combat. I am not sure if this is quite what you have in mind though.
I can't say this sort of thing bothers me one way or the other. I suppose if it got out of hand, or the player was really disrupting what is going on in the game by making his internal monologue the focus, but I have never seen that at my table.
Usually, no, I don't. I mostly let my character's actions speak for his mental state of mind. However, occasionally I will tell the other players and GM what the character is thinking if I think it is important to the situation at hand.
Quote from: Drohem;666086Usually, no, I don't. I mostly let my character's actions speak for his mental state of mind. However, occasionally I will tell the other players and GM what the character is thinking if I think it is important to the situation at hand.
Yeah, that I might do on occasion. If what my character thinks is critical to the situation and the GM especially needs to understand what I'm doing, I'll spell it out. There also might be OOC commentaries between players, like they'd comment on the events of the game as spectators in between actual role playing: "WTF? Holy shit this NPC is an asshole!" and "This is not going to do for my character at all, dude" can and do happen.
No. My character isn't a character in a book.
Sometimes I do, but not very often. Only on some very special occasions, that well, bear special thought. Though I do like to (villainously) monologue :D.
Usually not. But If I'm having trouble expressing how my character feels/what he thinks I might slip OOC to do so.
I 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.
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.
Was she stuffed in a fridge?
Quote from: Rincewind1;666140Was she stuffed in a fridge?
No, just murdered by goblins while we were away from town exploring ruins.
It became a "thing" in the game because the previous four sessions were spent building the relationship between the PC and the NPC up. From the PC's perspective, this was a life-shattering tragedy. From my perspective, it was annoying as shit.
Quote from: jeff37923;666146No, just murdered by goblins while we were away from town exploring ruins.
It became a "thing" in the game because the previous four sessions were spent building the relationship between the PC and the NPC up. From the PC's perspective, this was a life-shattering tragedy. From my perspective, it was annoying as shit.
Sounds like the DM just didn't want to bother role playing the character and developing the relationship throughout the campaign. It's a sucky way of getting out of a commitment you implicitly made, IMO.
Quote from: Benoist;666149Sounds like the DM just didn't want to bother role playing the character and developing the relationship throughout the campaign. It's a sucky way of getting out of a commitment you implicitly made, IMO.
Wait...the player was roleplaying grief at the loss of a loved one and the gm did not care?
Thats.....so wrong.
I saw the title and thought "no that's dumb". But I do use things like the examples frequently, even as a DM. Though I try to keep it to body language/facial expression type stuff.
"She is obviously confused by your request, and doesn't seem to know what to say in response."
I doubt I have the acting talent to get this body into that shape, so saying is just easier.
I'll give the GM a benefit of doubt here and assume that it was just a logical occurrence - sometimes loved ones die.
I will however also assume that you immediately invested your goods looted from dungeons, and went on a goblin slaying crusade Jeff?
Quote from: Benoist;666080This is not Design, or Development, or an actual game/campaign log. I'm moving it to the Main forum.
To answer the question, no. I usually do not "narrate" my characters thoughts. I role play them.
I think as my character and you can see my reactions and body language from there. That's part of role playing to me.
We might talk about what was going on in this or that character's mind after the game, talk about what we were role playing when we were role playing, but the assumption certainly isn't that the character is some sort of narrative device we describe like it's a novel or something.
I keep my character's internal monologue to myself. I agree, I also try to use funny voices, body language and gestures for RP. When roleplaying, I prefer to show and not tell.
Rarely, and almost always for comedic effect.
Depends on the genre of the RPG and the style of the group. In a Noir genre RPG, inner monologue would almost be a must. In an action genre RPG, not so much.
Quote from: fuseboy;666064I'm curious - do you describe or voice your character's inner thoughts, or other aspects of his/her internal state that other characters wouldn't ordinarily perceive?
For example,
"Holy shit - okay, I'm stunned by this news, but trying to play it cool. I continue sharpening my sword."
"I reflect for a moment on all the miles my horse has carried me, before putting him out of his misery."
I do it. The other players (most of them) do it to. There's always that one guy though that keeps saying, "It's my turn? What am I rolling for? Can I do such-and-such with this skill?" At least he's learning to role-play. Better him though than the goof-off clown who isn't there to role-play. I don't allow clowns who feel they have to say something funny before/during/after anyone's turn at the table.
Depends on the Medium.
At the table no I will act it out.
Online or in a Wiki game or whatnot then yes.
When I was playing Amber using a Wiki and a chat server for live scenes we quickly developed a mark up language for emotions and inner monologue vers actions, speech and OOC chat
So
Hugo : Brother I really think that is most unwise. Now sheath your blade lest the creature become panicked
(Hugo's voice betrays a little fear as the beast continues to uncoil itself)
[Hugo uses his link to Severitus to prepare 'If that was your best shot you are really in the Shit' whch is one of his hung spells]
etc
Quote from: jibbajibba;666333Depends on the Medium.
Good point. In PbP, you need to be more expressive than face to face and this often includes a portion of inner monologue.
Absolutely. I am a good writer, but a poor actor so its more helpful for me to describe what's going on in my character's head and have that explain their expression than me trying to make that exact look with random effect.
Done judiciously, it adds to the fun.
Quote from: Benoist;666080I usually do not "narrate" my characters thoughts. I role play them.
Bingo.
Generally not, but it's a good idea for more novelesque games. I've occasionally had PCs with a lot going on in their heads, but too reserved to express it in play, so the rest of the group oblivious. For the more dramatist play styles it would have helped a lot if the GM knew that eg my reserved female knight had a crush on an NPC. I think I may start doing this more.
I tend to find the inner thoughts/outer appearance disconnect is more of a problem when I'm playing a female PC, probably because they're further removed from me the player, also because I tend to play more reserved female PCs since I'm not a fan of the 'lesbian stripper ninja' syndrome. I think it would definitely help sometimes if the GM knew what my PC was thinking/feeling. For some games such as more boardgame-style or combat-centric play it's not really relevant, though.
BTW I've occasionally seen the opposite problem from not-knowing-what-character-is thinking, in play-by-email type games. Some players, usually female, will do long posts of their character's inner thoughts & emotions, but never actually *do* anything; this gives the GM and other players nothing to work off of.
Quote from: Benoist;666149Sounds like the DM just didn't want to bother role playing the character and developing the relationship throughout the campaign. It's a sucky way of getting out of a commitment you implicitly made, IMO.
That was half of the reason, the other half was that it was part of his campaign metaplot.
Quote from: Bill;666152Wait...the player was roleplaying grief at the loss of a loved one and the gm did not care?
Thats.....so wrong.
No, the DM didn't want to roleplay the relationship between PC and NPC, so he killed off the NPC as a way to move his campaign metaplot forward. The DM was having a hard time even understanding why I was roleplaying my character as grief-stricken.
Quote from: Rincewind1;666168I'll give the GM a benefit of doubt here and assume that it was just a logical occurrence - sometimes loved ones die.
I will however also assume that you immediately invested your goods looted from dungeons, and went on a goblin slaying crusade Jeff?
No. I got irritated and dropped out of the game. Maybe I should have stayed in, but at the time it just seemed like I had wasted the last month of game sessions as build-up to a DM dick move.
Generally no, because why? – except for situations which have mostly been mentioned, trying to communicate intentions to the GM, that sort of thing. But I don't view it as a wall that must not be crossed. It just rarely makes sense to. I'll certainly describe their facial expressions more frequently than I'll act them out, however.
No, I don't state characters' inner thoughts, but I do make a point of thinking them in private.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;666675No, I don't state characters' inner thoughts, but I do make a point of thinking them in private.
That's real roleplaying mastery, right there.
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.
Do I narrate my character's inner thoughts?
It depends on which gaming group I'm with. Some groups frown on this.
In other groups, it's encouraged, and we all do it, all the friggin' time.
Quote from: Warthur;667266Long 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.
Sounds like she got what she deserved for dressing like a slug.
Quote from: Skywalker;666342Good point. In PbP, you need to be more expressive than face to face and this often includes a portion of inner monologue.
Late to the party here, but yeah, I agree with this. In a F2F game, I might drop into OOC mode every once in a while to explain what's going through my character's head, if it's relevant to what's happening (and not boring as hell) and if I'm unable to convey it through roleplaying. Pretty rare for me to do this, but sometimes it's necessary.
In PbP, though, I've seen inner monologues work really well when done sparingly. IMO, the emphasis should always be on actions, speech, and body language that the NPCs and other PCs can work with and respond to, but adding some thoughts to spice things up can be cool.
I was mentioning in another thread that I was once in a game where one of the PCs *hated* the party and really, really wished he had an excuse to kill us, and it was hilarious to see him trying to act polite and cooperative, all the while mentally talking shit about everyone. Before then, I'd followed another GM's advice not to allow inner monologues in PbPs EVER, but seeing it done so well changed my mind.
Sure, I'll narrate my characters inner thoughts sometimes, especially if there's a couple of juicy choices that could take the character in different directions. I might mention how torn I am between the options as I find my way. Of course, that's very dependent upon the vibe at the table.
I don't think I've ever role played my character having an inner dialogue with themselves. Not that I would never do such a thing, but I don't think I have and I'd be hard pressed to think of a situation where that would make for interesting gaming. But keying everyone in to what's going on inside my character? Sure.
Well, I'm a fiction writer, and many of the people I've gamed with have been, too, so that's kinda how we roll. The thing is not to get so carried away with it that nobody's *doing* anything but, like, smoldering at each other or something. :-)
I do most of my gaming via PbP these days, and as Skywalker was saying up-thread, that medium lends itself well to posting inner monologues, attitudes, etc.