The Antigrol Tide (OOC)

[Jdvn1]

This ship's doctor would disagree. Malachi is as sea-worthy as any sailor!

 

[Strahd_Von_Zarovich]

And I'm a simple porter

 

[Mallak]

I sorta let this fall by the wayside, but is Naomi still disguised as a gnome? It's a new day and nobody actually mentioned taking the time to disguise her, but I think we all kinda forgot, myself included.

 

[unleashed]

I sorta let this fall by the wayside, but is Naomi still disguised as a gnome? It's a new day and nobody actually mentioned taking the time to disguise her, but I think we all kinda forgot, myself included.

Well I thought because you didn't mention it, the disguise was still pretty much intact...perhaps in need of a little touchup at worst, which didn't need to be mentioned. So yes, she's still supposed to be disguised as a gnome.

 

[Mallak]

Well, I figured she would have had to have taken it off to wash up for bed and stuff...little girls do that, you know, even if big smelly adventurers don't. You really don't want to sleep in a disguise, and if you did, it would certainly be in need of serious touch up on the morrow.

 

[unleashed]

Well, I figured she would have had to have taken it off to wash up for bed and stuff...little girls do that, you know, even if big smelly adventurers don't. You really don't want to sleep in a disguise, and if you did, it would certainly be in need of serious touch up on the morrow.

True enough, especially since we darkened her skin a little. Well we'll just assume she's made up as a gnome each day we're in port then shall we...unless she wants say she'll go without.

Of course that comment about smelly adventurers doesn't apply to Colmarr, he's small...plus he always tries to look his best.

 

[Drowned Hero]

I shouldnt have mentioned that fake nose...
I keep track of her disguise next morning IC. thats ok?

 

[Mallak]

Yeah, that's fine. I'll just explicitly assume each morning you're in port that you take the time to make her up. And, of course, we'll assume she's "in gnome" right now.

 

[Mallak]

Naomi approaches the bench Troth is sitting on dragging her feets and lifting dust from the street peeking over her shoulder at Colmarr as she don't like not be holding his hand.

Please be very careful of describing the actions of others, especially their thoughts, emotions, and motivations. Only the person controlling a character has the right to do that. In PbP games it is often expedient to predict the actions of others, and that is fine to a certain extent, but be careful you do not assign feelings, emotions, and/or motivations to a character not under your control.

A GM can and should take liberties with PCs to move the game along. Because there is very little about the PCs that is hidden from the GM, the GM can usually do this without encroaching on the player's will. Even so, extreme care must be taken, as evidenced by my own missteps in this area in the past.

Players cannot take the same extensive liberties with NPCs because there may be many things hidden from the player. For example, what if Naomi were an evil succubus? (She's not, but she's been accused of that in the past!)

In the above post by Drowned Hero, he has done a good job of capturing the projected character of Naomi in the actions he ascribes to her, and I have no problem with that. However, the last part of that quote, where he describes a motivation for her actions, could mislead himself and fellow players if it is not accurate. When a player posts emotions, feelings, or motivations for a character, they are roleplaying that character. If it isn't their character to roleplay, that's a problem. The owner of the character (which could be the GM or another player) must either honor that player's addition to the narrative or ask them to change it. The former is preferable to me, but not if the player dictates an action or emotion for a character I control which is outside that character's, well, character. I don't think this has happened yet, but I want to head it off now, before it does.

In the future, do not describe any internalized feelings, emotions, or motivations for an NPC. As a good rule of thumb, you can ascribe actions to an NPC which fall within that NPC's apparent character and which your PC could observe. For example, Naomi's apparent character is that of a little girl, so it is perfectly within her character to drag her feet through the dust and peek over her shoulder at her primary caregiver, Colmarr. This action and an accompanying look of uncertainty on her face are all things that Troth could observe, and I am fine allowing Drowned Hero to write about Troth observing Naomi doing those things. These actions do imply a certain projected emotional state, but it is consistent with Naomi's earlier comments to Colmarr. (If, on the otherhand, Naomi had been skipping and laughing earlier, this action would be out of line.)

Any direct comments on internal emotions, feelings, or motivations should definitely be speculative in nature and made in character from the POV of the player character. For example, rather than "[Naomi] don't like not be holding [Colmarr's] hand," a better post would be "Troth thinks, <She must not like to not be holding the gnome's hand.>" The former is a player forcing a motivation on an NPC. The latter is a character making an observation about an NPC. This distinction is very important. The first post limits the creative freedom of the person controlling the NPC (which, in the case of a cohort, could be another player). Conversely, the second post adds depth to the character making the observation.

To a lesser extent, the above applies to GM-to-PC interactions as well.

I realize there may be differing schools of thought on how to play and run a PbP game, and I'd be interested in hearing others' views. For now, though, this is the way I'd like to run this game.

 

[Strahd_Von_Zarovich]

As a fellow DM - you are absolutely right