Hello?
He is still on leave. I know he will be back to work Saturday night, but I don't know if there's anything from Adamant yet character-wise.
Still adding the finishing touches, but the mechanics are in place. Sorry for being so pokey.
Okay I am back. I did not have computer access while I was gone because I was too busy. I will have posts up tonight or tomorrow.
Da'Ka are you taking any actions for the day? If not I will go ahead and move on tonight.
Nope. Nothing of consequence. I spent most of my money at creation. Da'Ka will just be going about his usual business until the appointed hour.
I've noticed the narrative format people are using in the game posts. On one hand, I like it because it gives the game a book'ish feel. On the other hand, much of the narration provides insight that other characters wouldn't necessarily have. E.g. Marroar's post after Tarq's introduction. I get that the character is a jerk, which I think is fun to interact with. But, I shouldn't know his motivations unless he explicitly speaks to them, or I deduce them over time.
When I provide a narrative, I try to limit it to what observers would see and let the other players judge the meaning. That's why the majority of the text of my game posts is in-character.
I've read through the early Discussion posts to see if the inner monologues were solicited for the game and haven't found such. It is entirely possible that Carlito wants to use them to write a book. Since I tend to scan instead of read thoroughly, it's also possible that I missed the request. I'm happy to provide Da'Ka's inner thoughts in my posts if the DM is looking for them. I'm just looking for clarity here.
My preference is to keep characters' inner thoughts hidden, or at least sequestered inside spoiler tags. I like trying to figure out what a character's motivation or thought process is.
I have to say I agree, in other games I've played, I tend to see that, and take some issue. Some players often post what their character is thinking, but should I, as another player, know what your character is thinking? It does make for a better read, and in a play by post which is slower paced by nature it gives for a more substantial post, but then it forces me as a player to separate player from character knowledge more actively. This itself isn't a very big problem, but one that is easy to avoid, and in fact requires one to do less work to solve.
If this is the way we want to run the game, I'm down with it, as I said, it does add some value, and one can make the argument, if it adds fun, then it’s only a bonus to the game. If we're only doing because its thought of as being, "correct" then I say it’s time we dispel that illusion.
So, within moments of typing up my reply, I thought about it. The rash of expressing one's inner monologue at this stage of the game might simply be the pbp way of discussing/introducing characters. I'm not sure this is correct, or the best way of doing things, it just occured to me, and thought I should take that into consideration as well.
There was no requirement for the narrative, it just adds a little in an environment where we are not at a table facing one another. It's not so much inner monologue either, as they are not expressing 'their' thoughts in a "I wonder why he's looking at me" 1st person style. They are actually from a 3rd person perspective, meaning it is not their thoughts as much as a narrative associated with their actions or reactions.
While I agree that 1st person inner monologue is bad, I think 3rd person narrative is good. The thing is, it also allows the GM who often should be privy to everything in the PC's head to have access to those thoughts. It just means the players have to be a little cautious about Player/Character separation of knowledge.
Narrative happens, especially as we are telling a story of sorts. Da'Ka used narrative when he writes "Thinking it is his lucky day...... Half listening to her, blah bl'blah,.....when his favourite topic touches his ears" How do we know what he was thinking, that he was half-listening, or that it was his favorite topic (favourite? really? What, are you British?)
Tarq as well thinks "he finds Stanley's deductions to be intriguing, but begins to grow board, and impatient, wish for the man to finish soon so that it would be polite to start his meal" also just thoughts we should not be privy to, but not quite inner monologue.
Sometimes a post or description can just feel bare or random if there aren't certain parts of narrative added to them to explain their presence.
While I agree, Da'Ka's first post provided insight, the DM was the only other player in the scene. And as such, it imparted no real game changing info. Not sure that it would have, had other characters been present. Describing the manner in which your character acts is not what I'm getting at. E.g. Stanely's post ...He does so as nonchalantly as he can ... describes his action. Granted, someone might not perceive Stanely's non-nonchalance if observing him, but it is reasonable to assume that it is detectable.
I have no problem with words that amplify the physical, as in Aardvark's example..."I wonder why he's looking at me"... It describes the questioning visage one might have in this circumstance and adds to the story. However, if the thought went one step further, "I wonder why he's looking at me, does he know of my secret killing spree?" That imparts game changing information, of the type that my character wouldn't be privy to through visual means.
The issue I have is when the words provide insight that an observer wouldn't ordinarily deduce. That's all. Nothing more.
Sometimes a post or description can just feel bare or random if there aren't certain parts of narrative added to them to explain their presence. When other characters are present, it makes sense that the description should only add light to the manner in which the act was performed, not the reason why the act was performed.
Aardvark, it appears to me that you are trying to be petty with my spelling? It happens that my version of firefox running on my linux box is set to British spelling rules for some reason, and while the particular setting is changeable, I have not felt a strong enough compulsion to find where it is and make the change.
To be clear, I was not issuing a mandate for the group. I was merely remarking on what I have noticed and questioned if the narrative was requested for other reasons.
Generally, I provide insight to my character's inner self for two reasons: To provide the other characters in the scene with some scaffolding on which to base their reply to mine. This is because I don't generally want them to take the wrong impression and keep that wrong impression if they want to have the right one. Not only that, but I trust my fellow players to separate their Player/Character information. See, Stanley did pretty much exactly what I thought he would - make a Sense Motive check to divine a vague version of the truth.
The second reason is yes, to make it a better read. I think the writing quality of the PbP is an important part of it, and I know, certainly, that people read these. I've been reading someone else's Kingmaker PbP for eight months now.
Oh, I wasn't being petty, I was just messing with you much as we do when we're at the table. I actually only noticed it because I went back and quoted it. If I was really picking on spelling it probably have been worded more corrective "actually, it's spelled..." than playfully.
I wasn't implying you were making a mandate, I was just explaining how and why it tends to pop up, even more so in PbP than at the table. Especially since at the table, people narrate a lot less, even their visible actions. The nature of a text-based playstyle just lends naturally to a more inclusive explanation of both thoughts and actions.
Some PbP players really go into long inner monologues, and some GM's like the level of insight, as much as other players. I have never used talking to oneself in the 1st person style, as that is IC thought, but will add 3rd person narrative of thoughts as a helpful storytelling device.
Even if the DM was the only other player, all of us reading the thread witnessed the post and were made privy to what he thought, that he wasn't listening, and what his favorite topic is. Yet like you said, it isn't game changing info, and neither is anything that has been included in narrative thus far.
Fair enough. However, it is impossible to know whether Stanely would definitely have made a sense motive check had you excluded the ooc statement that contradicted the emotions displayed by your PC. Maybe he would have, maybe he would have taken you at face value and considered Marroar a world class a-hole. By providing the ooc, you could have changed Stanely's response.
In that same regards, Stanley has a +10 Sense Motive, and a +11 to Diplomacy (both of which I clearly don't have) so the added info helps him reach conclusions I never could have. Especially since his focus on those two skills is based on his reading his patients to better treat them. Had I rolled low, I would have likely just thought he was angry and just a jerk.
I am aware that I could have changed Stanley's response, and that was intended. Without some way of knowing, his character wouldn't know why I'm an a-hole, but I thought it would be relevant knowledge for his player to make, because you can make decisions off of things like that.
I know that it can change responses, and I did it on purpose.
Obviously the merits of this style of play are varied. In the vacuum medium of pbp, I see the value of the additional narrative, I also see the point that other may read along. Also, however I realize and embrace the fact that I am here to play a game, not perform dinner theater for others.
The fact that my post(s) include more inner thought and expression were not contrary to my feelings, they were written that way to mesh with the style that was already there, so like Marroar said, I did it on purpose, but that purpose was not because I thought it was better, it was because it seemed in style, since Da'Ka posted that he wasn't sure why that style was present, I assume he thought it might not be the best way to doing business so, that's when I felt it would be prudent to express my thoughts.
Finally I think it really comes down to a measure of, what means the most fun for all involved? I am very much in favor of there being a standard and expecting all to abide by said standard, so my issue comes there, what is our standard? Are we all expected to narrate all of our posts? Are we expected not to? Are we somewhere in the middle?
Also, I'm always up for a good discussion/debate, I find it an interesting way to learn other points of view, and to me, it’s just a good way to spend some time.
I'm afraid I don't follow your last post, Marroar. Are you saying it is perfectly ok for other characters to act off knowledge garnered from ooc? If so, I would have to disagree. None of our characters are omnipotent. As such, their actions should only be driven by their personalities and their limited perception of the world in which they live.
If I have misunderstood you, please clarify.
Stanley brought up another issue in one of his responses. Are we going to be using skills against one another in this campaign?
So my most recent post read:
As the others begin to trade comments and lightly veiled insults, Tarq takes the opportunity to start devouring his meal. As man who calls himself Marroar goes on his bend, Tarq wonders to himself, what has befallen this man to make him so angry, to hate existence so much? He also notices the ease with which the insults roll of the back of Da'Ka, in his line of work he supposes he's dealt with much worse. As the verbal onslaught focuses on him, Tarq glances about, not sure what sort of reaction would be appropriate, but then the focus moves on, and to his relief, he shoves another bite of food into his mouth, it has been a long time since he had warm food in his belly.
However, this provides Tarq's perceptions and reactions to what is happening around him, and it reads well, and from a story perspective, is a lot more productive. However it provides a lot of information that wouldn't be obvious to others, to provide only what would be visible to others it maybe should read:
Tarq seems to grow uncomfortable when the insulting comments turn to him. He looks about awkwardly, but is visibly relieved when the attention turns away from him. He takes the opportunity to scoop another heaping portion of his meal into his mouth as the conversation turns.
Just a different style, that doesn't really give away any of his inner motivations, this leaves it up to the player to decide why, and skills can be used if another players wishes to try and use insight into his actions to determine his motivations.
I trust in the other players to be able to separate player/character knowledge, but I already know that Marroar is self hating, and uses bitterness and insults to cope with a world that has dealt him a wrong. I know this and it will change how I perceive him and his actions from now on. I can choose to act as if my character doesn't know this information, but then I am choosing a course of action that is willfully ignoring information, vice working from possibly incorrect or correct impressions. It’s a subtle but real difference. Once again though, if it makes the game more fun, then there is nothing wrong with that. So do think it does in fact make the game more enjoyable?
Holy s&%~ I missed alot in here, Let me read back through all of this and answer the questions.
Also an update will be up tonight, The internet was experiencing alot of issues at work this weekend, not to mention I kind of wanted to wait for responses to Stanley's post. I will have stuff up for you all tonight.
I mean to say that if I intend for my inner workings to become known, I have to mention them so that they're at least available for reading by the other players. If I don't mention them because I'm trying to keep secrets (and I might do this sometime), then the other players cannot know what I might have mentioned.
In this case, I intended for Stanley to have access to the knowledge, without necessarily automatically giving it to him.
I realize that narration of the iner monologue gives things away to the players, but that doesn't mean it gives things away to the characters. It does, however, mean that the characters know what they'd be getting if they have a way of getting the information.
Just for example, if I post my thoughts, and then a fellow player casts detect thoughts, then he knows what he's detected already and can respond immediately.
I am kind of against using skills against each other, but at this stage in the campaign I can understand it. None of you know each other at this point so I could undetstand the use of skills. But when it reaches that point of working together as a group I dont really see a benefit to it.
Also remember this is my FIRST campaign that I have ran, in fact I am still relativlely fresh to DnD and Pathfinder, only about a year or so in. So that being said I will make mistakes along the way, that is why I chose all of you, each of you are well versed and experienced. If I am doing anything wrong or if you all think something should be done differently do not hesistate to let me know. I welcome it.
First lesson: The DM is never wrong and is fully justified in changing his mind as he sees fit. --To be taken tongue-in-cheek.
That said, a wise DM will listen to player comments and give due consideration.
To Marroar... The issue I see with providing info pre-emptively, is that it presumes players will take assumed actions. Who is to say if a character would cast detect thoughts but for your tip-off. By giving the info ahead of time, you influence future actions of other players. Not to mention, make it incredibly difficult for other players to distinguish and keep track off out of character knowledge.
If the whole thing was an issue of the standard, then there is no expectation either way. Mar and I choose to narrate this way, and if you two don't that's just as well. It's really no more than just a PbP preference and writing style.
The choice to include information when they do is because it is something that the player intends to be available at the time they introduce it. The key is that the player wants it to be available, as often the character is acting out in a fashion that even they don't understand. It doesn't mean others can't see it. People self aware of their own psychological issues are fairly uncommon, and often times others can recognize things unknown to the person themselves.
So, today I have learned something very important, it's not a good idea to make a bunch of posts while on narcotics, it leads to a lot of rambling. Don't take anything I've posted too seriously, its light doses, but have been on narcotics for the past day and a half, so not sure everything is as coherent as it seemed when typed.
I fail to see how Marroar's ooc comment could/would have been deduced by anyone present given the facts of his past that have been explicitly stated thus far (which is very little).
I grant that there are times when others understand motives better than the actor. However, that usually occurs among close/long time friends. Having known Aardvark for sometime, I can usually figure out (in general terms) when something that is bothering him is affecting his behavior. Having never met Marroar personally, I doubt I could conclude something was bothering (as opposed to it being just his personality) on our first meeting.
Just because I want you to know something I'm thinking doesn't mean you ought to be able/allowed to know it prior to me giving voice to it.
e.g. I really want you to know that I'm being coerced to do x. However, if I tell you my true motive, a magical geas will alert the despicable naive who is holding my daughter hostage. I hope you will figure this out, but I can't explicitly tell you. Just because I want you to know, doesn't mean you get to know.
The problem, especially in pbps, where conversations can span weeks in real-time, is it is difficult to distinguish what my character should or shouldn't know based on the posts. I'm not in the habit of rereading every post prior to submitting a new one. I rely on my memory for most of my interaction.
Narcotics make for some of the best posts. Rock on!
Not to mention that you can never be truly sure that what you divulged in ooc or inner monologue, didn't in some way influence the actions of another player.
I apologize for no update. I had some family issues that took me away from the game. Update will be up soon.
Okay well I am back, I apologise for being away but my free time has been consumed. The issues seem to be resolved now. The game will be started back up today. Ill get a post up shortly.
I just remembered that Pharasma and Urgathoa are mortal enemies.
Hmm. So...Stanley? Fight to the death?
Not mortal enemies, according to Golariopedia:
Pharasma remains neutral in almost all aspects towards other deities. Iomedae still bears a slight grudge against her for not revealing Aroden's impending death. Urgathoa and her followers are the closest she has to an enemy.
Bolded for emphasis
So they are not mortal enemies (especially being immortal beings), as much as out of all the gods, Pharasma dislikes Urgathoa and her practices the most. It is the closest thing to an enemy she has, not an enemy, but as close as Pharasma gets to an enemy.
All the same, Stanley is not a member of the clergy per se (not a divine caster), just a follower.
Regardless, sure, fight to the death sounds good right about now ;)
FIGHT...FIGHT...FIGHT...FIGHT...FIGHT!
In the red corner, standing 5'9", weighing in at a 175 and wearing black trunks and pasty pale skin, we have the Sleeper, the Pillow Case Casanova, Mr. Arsenic and Old Lace himself... STANLEY SERIOUS SYDELL!
And in the blue corner, height and weight unknown, smelling of deer musk and wearing varmint skins, the Murderous Marsupial, the Mamed Mammal, give it up for MARROAR BIG BEAR VENGEANT!
So uh...
Things?
Is this campaign over?
I apologize for the dissapearance. The past month has been pretty rough in my personal life and I had alot of things I had to get straight before I even considered getting on Paizo not to mention I just got back from leave. I am going to continue this campaign and I am looking at the re start being this weekend. Again my apologies but my personal life had to take priority. Things are straight now so I should be fine to get back up and running.
So where do we stand now? Obviously the target weekend has come and gone. Are we going to pick back up in Feb, Mar, Apr, ever?
Hey, I'm still around, stuck on these boards by my many commitments :D
I get that we've drifted, but as this was originally chartered as an experiment to begin with, I will stick around and be part of this game until I no longer visit these boards. Just try and give some warning before starting, and when starting after a break, try and give a bit of a recap.
I have had a rough couple of months. I just recently found the desire to come back to online posting period. I do still plan on getting this campaign off the ground. I just need some time to get some things straight in my life. I will try to target the start up to be this month. I will be sure to keep all of you informed. Thanks for the patience.
Well this game finally got retired to inactive status. We have just blown past our first week of March. Given the lack of communication from Carlito and an increase in demand on my schedule, I am leaving this game. It's a shame. I thought all of the characters were interesting and full of promise. Good luck and happy gaming.