As if it isn't hard enough to find a game to join, one comes up but players can't write descriptive posts. Such as inner monologue and other such descriptive means. Aren't play by post games supposed to be like a story. That's like reading a book that has only dialogue and action. How are you supposed to get a feel of character development?

I know some players (and GMs) don't like inner monologues because other players can't respond to them, and I've seen them used abusively -- a character thinks nasty thoughts all the time about other PCs, but then plays the character's actions straight so the others can't do anything about it.

As for being descriptive, though, I highly encourage it.  I hate conversation-only posts.  There is so much more to a scene than just the verbal, and it adds color to the game as a whole when people put more effort into their posts.
This message was last edited by the user at 21:33, Mon 15 Aug 2016.

In reply to GammaBear (msg # 1):

I don't personally want to hear what another player's character is thinking, at least not if it comes across the same as if they were talking to themselves. It really weirds me out when I see that, and I don't tend to like stories written that way.

I prefer games that are more like movies, if possible. Characters can develop, but I don't need to hear any of their thoughts. Given that we're writing here, I don't mind something in between, basically just a description of the character's state of mind like: "He was concerned. They should have been here hours ago. He lit another cigarette and smoked it nervously." But even that could be described purely with actions, rather than anything about his thoughts.

Either way is fine with me, however posts need fluff. Even if its just conversation.

Inner monologue bugs the heck out of me.  I've seen it used like Empryss described a few times; "Tomas nodded cheerfully as the others laid out the stupidest plan he'd ever heard," sort of things.

Or used to abuse the system, if not the other players; things like, "Lenara sits back, thinking this would be a perfect time for Ilvar to use his uncanny ability to sense lies."

I had a GM once who posted little "Excerpt scenes" of what the bad guys were doing -- and then, even if our characters had reasons to think any of that might be going on, would cut off any discussion that even leaned towards what we knew from his OOC posts.  It basically meant that because he had told us some of what was really going on, our characters then had to be wrong or we were cheating.

Granted, one of my favorite fellow-players ever had a taciturn character that he kind of got around with things like, "Harold raises his left eyebrow, clearly indicating that..."  Which I did always think was a bit of meta-gaming, and for years I would skim his posts for the actual actions and decide how my character would react without knowing what he meant by them.  And then when we knew each other better... I started figuring she'd more often get the right idea.  It was a fair way to still communicate as a player while running a character who was just less talkative, so I'm not saying it's always `abusive'.  But I still much prefer to be presented with what my character can actually see and hear.

Which I consider to be a very long way from anti-descriptive.

I think the Thread title would have been better put as. 'Why so much hate for internal monologues in posts?'

I love internal monologues myself. I use them often and encourage others to do so to.
I even have one of those post threads about things Others in the world are doing that may or may not have any impact on the characters or their actions.
Sometimes I just like to write things that add a little color to the story. It's not something I do allot, but it helps me flesh out my NPCs and their actions.

I agree with the general idea that visible internal monologue aren't generally good for immersion - if a character has not way to know what somebody else is thinking, then the players shouldn't post it.

However, if the game has things like telepathy available (even as a possibility), the a player can be allowed to put in their inner monologues as a private line. That way, I as GM can give the information to people who can access it, and when the game is over, you can turn everything to archive and then players can re-read the story with new, interesting additional info for them to peruse through.

But then, I'm a compromise oriented person - I prefer it when everybody can do what they want without interfering with other people's abilities to do what they want.

I'm on board with characters posting what their characters are thinking, but I also tend to like games that are more like books than movies. It can take some time to parse out what characters actually said and did to respond to, sure, but all it takes is a little reading comprehension (typically).

If a player is having inner monologues that are mocking or abusive towards other players, that is a separate issue which should be addressed.

I am in a game now where my character is thinking about something completely irrelevant to what is going on at the moment (because it has little to do with him), so I've been posting his thoughts. There isn't anything to post in terms of actions or dialogue, but I still want to keep up my level of participation.

As far as players having characters react to information their characters don't know, that is something I crack down on with a quickness as a GM. Generally, my players know this at this point, and there are only the occasional issues that require reminders.

Because it's not just about monologues. It's also about describing how a character thinks, or what they are feeling.

There is a difference between descriptions that help move the plot along, and descriptions that say, "look at me, look at how flowery and verbose I can be!"

The first makes things better for everybody.  The second, pardon my language, is like forcing us to all watch your mental masturbation.

I'm not a fan of internal thoughts, etc., in player posts for a lot of reasons.  Possibly the simplest is that you're turning a post, which should be primarily a thing for the GM and other players to react to, into a reading comprehension test.  As a GM, I often miss things if they're in long player posts.  As a player, much the same thing.

While rare, I've also had the same problem as others mention with the aggressive thoughts thing.  Not fun to deal with.  In general, the rule I run with in a game is that anything you put into your post is fair game for others to react to.  If you posted thoughts, then it was more or less evident from your face and body language what you were thinking about.

I break the aversion in three ways, though.  The first are solo games where sharing a lot of thoughts with the GM is perfectly fine - because all of it can be reacted to.  The second are "journal" style threads within games where it's not cluttering up the main part of the action.  Finally, I break it entirely for games like Eclipse Phase where non-obvious communications are a big part of the game's setting and source material (and the GM has an actor in the exchange, even if the other PCs might not).

Reading these 'criticisms' of mental monologues, thoughts, and descriptions, I just have to ask if you people have ever actually read a book?

I don't mean to sound snippy, but this isn't a movie, this isn't a video game... this is play-by-post... play by WRITING. These things are part of writing. If these things bother you so much, why are you playing a game that is strictly writing?

This is PLAY-by-post, not write-a-book-by-post. Long posting can be really cool sometimes, but everytime it's tiring.
I come here to relax and have fun, having to read long posts by various players is tiring. You lose details, it's boring if they are not good writers (which is not a pre-requisite to roleplay), it takes TIME, and most of the time it could have been done with 1/10th of the text.

Post often. Make your intentions clear. Interact with others. Done.
No need to make it flowery.

Long texts are cool, but they have their moments.

In reply to StarMaster (msg # 13):

It is also not a book

So that has little to nothing to do with how play-by-post works

This seems to be an argument that comes up a lot, players who think they can play well because they write novels disguised as character posts.

A play-by-post has more in common with a serial television episode than a book. Why you ask?

Good television is made with the idea that the time on screen is precious and limited. Nothing is admitted onto screen which does not have a point to be there. It is important to use available screen time to drive the plot, give insight into a character, or to adjust and temper mood.

Replace screen time with my ability to read your post and you have the limited resource of a post. A post can be as long or as short as need be, but if there's little to nothing I can use (whether as the guy running it or as a player to respond to it) the general response will be to question why that poster continues to waste everyone's time.

Without ever doing an internal monologue, the character's motivations and thoughts should generally be plain to the audience (the reader). You should use internal stuff for the minority of posts, not every single one.

Because if I wanted to read a book, I'd read a book.
This message was last edited by the user at 23:55, Mon 15 Aug 2016.

Whilst I agree that I have no issues with an thoughts and the like, that's not really a fair comment. A lot of people do PbP because they have no time for tabletop; and in tabletop you don't get insight into a character's thoughts, except in regards to how they act. It depends on the game. For example, in DnD, I often find thoughts just annoy me, because it's so focused on the 'action'. But in games which are a more RP-centric focus, I think it's more important. It also depends on the group for me. In summary, I think you're looking at it wrong. The game is not strictly writing; unless it's a freeform game where that literally is how it's advertised. It's a facsimile for tabletop in a lot of cases, for people who don't have the time, or the friendss, to do actual tabletop.