PBEM (Play By E-Mail) PROTOCOL
PROLOGUE: Before I really start, I wish to make clear that like many areas I write about, this one also dwells on a more roleplaying style. Other styles are possible, and variations on any theme will give your game a unique flavor. You must strive to find a balance you desire in which you can express yourself while having fun with others. What that may be for you is anybody's guess. What it is for me is found below. So even though the article slants in a particular direction, be aware that by no means is this the do all and tell all of PBEM. It's just my preferred style. With that said, let's proceed.
Play By E-Mail is a bit different than other forms of roleplaying, and these differences spawn a myriad of potential problems. So, aside from standard gaming protocols - which essentially boil down to fair play and consideration for others - there are a few special concerns unique to the game of PBEM. In particular, the PURE PBEM game shall be addressed here. By "PURE," I mean those email games that are not supplemental to other Real Life Games or IRC games. i.e. all the playing is done via email in a PURE PBEM game.
This article will be an ongoing supplement to the pure PBEM game. That is I will add to it from time to time, take submissions from the public for new areas, or perhaps modify points already expressed as others send me their constructive criticisms. If you wish to make comment, use this link:
Email Jim Your Comments (Send Praise, Critique, Complaints, Suggestions, Ideas, Corrections, or Submissions).
First, we must address the fact that the PBEM game is a much slower game. Because of this, it is often harder to quickly clear up misunderstandings since no quick table talk is there to immediately clarify issues and thus set the record straight. Also, many mistakes are immediately apparent in real life games, but these mistakes may be missed in PBEM. And misunderstandings have a way to stay, grow, and even fester like an infection, spreading their misinformation and propagating through the story line. Because of this, GREATER care must be taken when we post our character's actions.
It is typically the case we will read the GM's post or read another player's post and find our character has an opportunity to act or react. Roleplaying suggests these thoughts, feelings, and actions should be based solely upon what our characters know, think they know, observe, think they see, or what have you, but should NOT be based upon player or OOC (Out Of Character) knowledge or feelings.
To that end, if the GM or any player ever asked you to explain or justify your PC's words, actions, thoughts, or feelings, you should be able to do so by pointing out where, in the previous postings, they acquired the knowledge that inspired the words, actions, thoughts, or feelings in question. Or, perhaps the justification stems from your understanding of the game rules (PHB, DMG, (or whatever) etc.), but if so, you should be able to quote the relevant passages in the rulebooks. Mind you, on occasion you will have to justify such things to the GM, but not necessarily to the other players since such justifications may involve hidden information those other players and their PCs should not or would not have. Unlike the other players who may not be privy to secret information, the GM must ALWAYS be given such information upon his or her request.
NOTE: As "words, actions, thoughts, or feelings," is rather lengthy, I shall refer to these things collectively as just "actions" from now on.
This so-called IC knowledge may be where a character picked up a misunderstanding and took it as fact, so I am not suggesting one can only base their PC's actions on factual information. For example, if a character lied to your character and your character believed that lie, having them act on the lie would be appropriate. In fact, it's a mark of good roleplaying if you can have your character proceed from that knowledge as if it were true even when you, the player, know it to be false. The point is one should be able to justify their PC's actions and show, more often than not, what inspired the action.
But there will be many times when the inspiration is hidden information, part of the character concept, part of the character's past, or something else that will NOT be found in the previously posted material. Hopefully, such information may be residing on the character sheet already in the GM's possession. Otherwise you may be accused of inventing Ad Hoc information to justify your PC's actions - and that's bad roleplaying, poor gaming, or what we commonly call "cheating" to a certain degree.
AD HOC: This is pronounced ad hok or ahd hawk in English. This Latin phrase is used to describe something made ONLY for one specific purpose. In a roleplaying context, this means it was not generally true, but made up to justify or help explain something - usually ONE particular issue - after the fact.
For example, player George is angry with player Frank, so George has his PC treat Frank's PC badly. Why? The real reason is that George is displeased with Frank and George is playing badly by mixing OOC and IC knowledge. Frank feels George is abusing the roleplaying ideal - the ideal being one should only base their character's actions on what that character knows or feels, and NOT on what the player knows or feels. Frank suspects "foul" play, and so he demands justification. George is no fool and cannot admit his PC's actions are so motivated, so he makes up a reason just for this occasion. He says, for example, his character simply distrusts priests of Zeus - not coincidentally, Frank's character is a priest of Zeus. Mind you, he never said this before, and George may well be prepared to play his PC that way from now on, but this is just bad roleplaying. The point is George made up an Ad Hoc reason why his PC was acting in that manner and he had NO real IC justification for it 'previous' to his displeasure with Frank.
Similarly, George may be the type to make up a lot of stuff to justify erroneous PC actions, because he is angry with Jim, or displeased at something Mary's character did that his character didn't really know about, or he may even try to mess up the GM's game since he didn't like a ruling that went against him. George is a bad player in this example, and by cleverly using Ad Hoc justifications, he can go a long, long time without tripping over his own feet - like any clever liar might be able to do. Yet that tangled web of deceit is a treacherous mistress, and unless George remembers each lie and to whom he told it and why, he will eventually trip up - especially since there are likely to be computer records of each communication - even private ones - and lies can come back to haunt you with such proof.
But that's not the point. There are always ways to cheat and always people who will get away with it. The point is to dissuade this type of bad roleplaying, and knowing you may have to justify your character's actions will often help prevent such abuse in the first place.
Another simple example would be this: Upon finding a magic flute, you now claim your character knows how to play the flute. He may even have had a proficiency slot for some instrument coming to him, but failed to fill it out beforehand. How lucky it "was" flute, eh? Here we can obviously see the type of problem and know such information should have been mentioned or recorded before finding the flute. The GM may now disallow your convenient choice unless he's an ol' softy, or unless you can spin your tale and convince him you really would have taken flute - given your PC's background or something else about your PC he already does know. Failing that, you better get used to the idea of not being able to fully utilize this magic flute unless or until you now start to learn it. And yes, sadly, even if you had an open proficiency slot coming, the GM may have to force you to pick a different instrument or skill for that slot, but you may fill the next slot you have coming after that with flute since it is realistic your PC would start learning the flute now that they have one.
Alas, it is hard to completely have everything in your character's soul, so to speak, already on a character sheet. Thus, if your PC's action is not based upon something already in the record, or already on your character sheet safely within the GM's hands, it must therefore reside within yourself, the player. But this presents a slight problem.
To discourage making things up - after the fact and in an AD HOC manner - about your character's past or character concept simply to benefit your PC for the here and now, considering actions and facts only now coming to light, even if one should not be compelled to justify their PC's actions to other players at large, they must still be prepared, when asked by player or GM, to at least justify such actions to the GM. This is under the premise that there are NO secrets from the GM in his world, and he is allowed to have our PC's soul laid bare before him.
This is not to say the GM should or even must then reveal to other players this hidden information, but only that the GM has the duty, upon request, to make sure a character's actions are warranted. So if another player calls someone else's PC's actions into question, that player should at least be able to explain or justify their PC's action, in private, to the GM.
If the GM is NOT satisfied with the explanation, they SHALL request and require the player RETRACT the action and post again.
Fortunately, we will more likely be playing with good players in a PBEM game and not run into these problems too often. Thus, the GM will likely be satisfied, especially if you are a good or careful player or have well documented your character or have had previous discussions - private email correspondences - with them about this very issue concerning your character's make up. You may even wish to keep all such correspondences for future reference and proof, if it's ever needed.
In any event, once the GM is satisfied the PC's actions are warranted, he probably should give out some assurances he or she is satisfied. They don't have to explain WHY they are satisfied, but only that they ARE satisfied the actions are warranted and justified. This SHALL be sufficient, and ALL players MUST accept the GM's judgment. Failing that, a dissatisfied player should probably leave the game.
The practical point of all this is that each of us should be aware we may be called upon to justify our PC's actions, even if the justification might not ever see the light of day - if given only to the GM in secret, for example. Even then, the GM SHOULD announce he is satisfied about questionable actions after another player asks him to "look into it." This protocol will help prevent player abuse and help prevent players from freely mixing IC and OOC knowledge.
It is, we must note, extremely bad form to openly accuse another of this without proof. Tantamount to calling another player a cheater or a liar, without offer of proof, such accusations say more about YOUR moral character than the other player in question. Please don't mistake asking for justification with openly accusing another has none. They are not the same. One is free to ask for justification anytime they wish, but one is never free to accuse another without proof.
EXAMPLE: OOC: "Dan, how did Arthur know which building to enter?"
This question is fine, and Dan should be able to explain how Arthur - his PC - made that decision. He might, of course, wish to explain it only to the GM - not revealing, for example, his eerie ability to 'sense' evil, which may be a secret from the other players yet. If Dan chooses to justify this decision in private email to the GM, then the GM should simply state: "Arthur had ample reason for this." If Dan couldn't justify it, or tried to claim it was 'randomly' determined, the GM might insist he back up and the GM would roll a dice to make it truly random. But mostly, if the GM feels Dan's actions were unwarranted, he would call for a retraction of Dan's last post, and Dan should back up and post again - this time staying within bounds.
On the other hand, saying something like:
OOC: "Dan, you cheat, there is no way Arthur could have known which building to enter without using OOC knowledge, so you shouldn't be allowed to do that."
Here we see an open accusation - in a public forum, probably - that flat out says Dan is essentially cheating. Even without overtly calling him a cheat, the implication would still be there if the accusation was framed in this manner - a statement of fact he had no way to know without using OOC knowledge. This is NOT a question, but an accusation. In days gone by, such things were important enough to duel to the death over - like calling someone a cheat at cards, or something similar. Do NOT take such matters lightly!
Here, Dan may be cheating, or he may not be - that's for the GM to decide and NOBODY else. Thus, this player is way off base to make such an accusation without offer of proof, and the GM should say so. In fact, all players would do well to say so - it would help dissuade this type of name calling, which in turn, left unchecked, would lead to bad feelings or arguments. Remember always, ALL players help set the tone for the game - not just one or two, and not just the GM. It is, therefore, incumbent upon ALL players to point out poor gamesmanship, lest it go unchecked, almost implying that sort of activity is 'acceptable' to everybody in the game. If you don't quell it, you have no one to blame but yourselves if poor gamesmanship later becomes the norm for the game.
Note these questions were made OOC and not asked IC by a character in the game. If such a question came from an actual character, that would be a whole other story and should be handled In Character.
To reiterate, all roleplaying games should strive to keep OOC and IC knowledge separate to the desired degree for their particular gaming style, but in PBEM it is especially important since there is little opportunity to correct errors. Furthermore, cleaning up a mess can take a great deal of time, and what might quickly be handled in a few minutes or after a brief discussion in a real life game, could take several days if not several weeks in a PBEM game. As PBEM is already slow enough, it is best to adopt stricter policies that help prevent these misunderstandings in the first place.
Finally, be careful how you word things. Asking questions is fine, but stating your unproved assumptions as facts will likely lead to bad results, such as arguments, ill will, and perhaps even the premature end of a game. It simply is not worth it.
Liberties taken with NPCs (Non Player Characters) should be REASONABLE, and if asked to justify a liberty you took with an NPC, you should be able to point out how it is not CONTRARY to anything already posted for that NPC. Furthermore, it probably should be a natural extension of something you already know about that NPC from previous postings. This will help justify the action IF called upon to do so.
But the ART of doing this is trickier than merely not being contrary to previous information.
EXAMPLE ONE:
Helen, the red haired serving wench, watched Kalten hide his bow in the apiary and then slink off back toward the party. She longed for him. Since the first day she saw him she wanted to meet him, but she never could find the courage to approach him. *I know,* she thought, *if I take his bow, he'll have to find me to get it back and he'll talk to me.* She crept into the apiary and procured the weapon, excited she'd soon be talking to her secret love.
As you can see in example one, a player totally made up an NPC and posted this. There is really nothing CONTRARY to what had previously been posted since there were serving wenches at the party, and Kalten (a PC) had been there for days. But that is often not sufficient reason to post such a thing. Players may still do it, if they wish, but if any player or the GM complained, a player would HAVE to retract the posted action or the GM would have to remand it them self.
Since taking actions back consumes a great deal of time, you should have reasonable expectations the liberties you take will not likely cause someone to ask for a retraction. If you think they will likely elicit a retraction, posting such a thing in the first place is just needlessly wasting everyone's time.
Of course, it may really add to the story and no one might object - even the GM, maybe even Kalten's player - and then it becomes part of the story. But the likelihood no one would object is low when the NPC takes such a novel or unexpected action, for if Kalten returned for his weapon when battle broke out, only to find it missing, there would be hell to pay.
Only the GM may create NPCs or move his NPCs around without needing justification. Only the GM is not required to take back his actions. He might still do so, under the right circumstances, but only the GM is free from being forced to do so upon request. Anyone else doing this MUST retract the action when asked to do so.
EXAMPLE TWO:
Slater pulled up to the bar and rasped out his order: "Barkeep, something strong and wet. Now!!!"
The elderly bartender didn't like being so roughly ordered about, but a lifetime of such minor abuses had given him a thick skin. Well, sort of. He secretly spit in the drink first, then handed the foaming brew to the leather clad thief.
In this example we find the player had some fun with the barkeep, inventing him, giving him certain qualities, and doing something normally only the GM might do. But what is being done is rather minor in many ways, and what's more, the player is doing "it" to his own PC, so this is a fine example of taking proper liberties with an NPC. However, even here, it might be possible the GM had clearly in mind an upper society establishment, and they might object to such base behavior from anyone employed at such a fancy place.
The point is even what seems reasonable may be contrary to something already envisioned by the GM, so we must always keep in mind we may have to retract any liberty. Still, we should make them when we feel the urge since that's part of the game; we just need to try to be reasonable when doing it. Taking liberties, more often than not - once you get the hang of what is or is not reasonable for your game - will save a great deal more time than the time consumed fixing the few miss steps that might occur. And in a slower game like PBEM, one should strive to save time and move the game along whenever they can. Liberties help do this a great deal.
Posting frequency will have a lot to do with how warranted taking a liberty may be. If you post once/week, for example, liberties can save days of waiting time, so such liberties are often well taken. If you post once/day, there is less call to take liberties with others since the post will likely be shorter and you can wait for responses and descriptions without having to take these liberties. After all, a single day is not too long to wait.
Your GM will, no doubt, have some guidelines on what liberties are reasonable or unreasonable in relation to the posting frequency. My examples assume a posting rate of about once or twice a week, so what I consider reasonable reflects this rate.
EXAMPLE THREE:
The GM posts:
With a slight smile, he said to Anduin, "I do not know who you are, or why you are here alone, but my name is Henry de LaValle, count of LaValle. Would you be insulted if I asked you to be my escort for this evening's party? Please say you'll be my escort."
Another player picks up the GM's thread and then posts this:
Henry de LaValle looked at her, outwardly smiling with every appearance of gentleness, but inwardly, his lust grew. *God, what an incredible piece of ass,* he thought. *If I play my cards right, I'll have a fine piece of tail tonight. I can't wait to bang her.* Taking Anduin's proffered arm, he led her into the ballroom like a gentleman, though his thoughts were anything but gentlemanly.
Here, we see a player again doing nothing contrary to what has already been posted. And, truthfully, it may even be realistic or a fun story line, but the risk of someone objecting is rather high. The GM, in particular, since he introduced this high profile and 'named' NPC, may have some very definite ideas about this character already, and such a post will most likely run contrary to these previous character concepts. Thus, the GM himself will likely complain, and the action will have to be taken back or the GM may simply remand that action and nullify it.
Such an action also has other problems, since it may significantly color John's play in how Anduin reacts to the count - John is playing the Anduin character. This is particularly true since John has previously and explicitly stated that he does not wish to be privy to OOC information - as much as possible, anyway. This is another good reason why no one should post an action like this, even if it isn't contrary to all known facts.
EXAMPLE FOUR:
The GM posted:
"I don't know how that spell-flinging woman fits into all this, but I guarantee you that I'll not rest until I know for sure she hasn't cast any curses on the baron."
Jim - Alisand's player, Alisand is the 'spell-flinger,' a spellcasting PC - responded with this post after he moved Alisand up to the captain of the guard.
Then the captain of the guard stepped forward, glaring at her, a look of pure disbelief on his face. "Take her!" he ordered, and his men easily did since Alisand did not resist. She knew his type, a man of control; he needed to be in control, he needed to be in command, and Ali had to be subdued until he could work out what to do with her.
In this example, Jim had the NPC guards do a great deal and took a great liberty. But Jim felt the action was warranted considering what the captain - a GM NPC - had said before in the GM's proceeding post. However, no matter what Jim may have thought, if another player complained, it would be incumbent upon Jim to RETRACT that action, or the GM may simply remand the action them self if they felt their NPCs would not act that way.
Only when nobody complains - hopefully in a timely manner - will the action stand and become story fact. Now, another player may immediately build upon this arrest.
Dan - Arthur's player - posts this, for example:
"HEY! You can't arrest her!" screamed Arthur, as he forcefully strode up to the captain.
Still, PBEM is tricky while postings pass each other in the night, or we can't always reply as quickly as we may like. The GM, especially, must strive to be timely. But just because an action was issued, and subsequent actions are now being built upon it, another player may yet complain and ask Arthur's AND Ali's actions still be taken back.
For example, Wilma - Lilly's player - couldn't respond over the weekend and she returned to see this story thread. Now she feels Lilly sure would NOT have let Alisand confront the guards, if she could prevent it. She feels so strongly about it, she thinks Lilly would have tackled Ali or did whatever it took to stop her from even approaching the guard. Furthermore, Wilma feels Lilly could have done this, despite everything. Thus, she requests:
OOC: "Hey guys, wait up, take that back. Lilly can do something before this stuff happens."
At this time, PBEM protocol dictates all players will back up for Wilma. Even IF they all feel Lilly could have in no way stopped Ali, everybody STILL backs up. Then, Wilma posts Lilly's actions.
Now, if Jim feels Lilly couldn't have stopped Ali, they would have a DISAGREEMENT. And guess what GMs are for - settling disagreements is one function of the GM. So Jim asks the GM to make a ruling and the players wait on this point until it is resolved. Once resolved, however, the players go with the GM's ruling and begin again to build on the story, however the chips may have eventually fallen.
On the other hand, no one might complain, and if so, the GM and others will continue to build upon the liberty, as it has become story fact.
It WILL be assumed that AFTER you make your latest post, you give up your right to complain about any previous posting such that it must automatically be taken back. You can still complain, and it may still be taken back, but it will not AUTOMATICALLY be taken back if you fail to ask it be taken it back in a timely manner. Usually, such a later request will require the GM to rule and set the record straight. In fact, confusion may reach such a degree that the GM should RECAP. That is he should weed out the errors and post the last several pages of the TRUE story line. Then the players may proceed from there.
OR the GM may keep an official text version of the story. This is an on-line cleaned up version of all IC posts where OOC comments, mistakes, misspellings, punctuation errors, backtracks, if A then B, if C then D contingencies, etc. have been removed. Such a text serves a different function from the automated on-line IC archive. Though slower, the GM's official story text is useful for knowing for a fact what really happened or what was really said since all mistakes have been excised and only the true story thread remains. Also, sometimes the posts are not in the proper order in time, and the official on-line GM story text file will have events in their proper chronological order. Players may visit this on-line text whenever they wish to clarify an issue in their mind, and should base their PC's actions on official text whenever possible.
Many GMs dislike backtracking at all, but I highly recommend this be allowed. Why? If not allowed, an unfair OOC advantage is given to any players that are in a position to post quickly or more frequently, no matter how quick or slow their PC may be. First come, first serve, is not a good idea in PBEM. This is why the game is in flux and should not be considered carved in stone for the ongoing round of posts. Older posts prior to the current round, however, are probably well established and fixed. Posts prior to the GM's last IC post are probably fixed as well. Any mistakes should have been taken care of before the GM moves on.
And as far as any one player should be concerned, unless they object to something in the current round of posts, once they go ahead and post IC, they should be well satisfied with anything that occurred prior to their post - so unless two posts past each other midstream, or they seriously missed something, things should work out.
EXAMPLE FIVE (RETROACTIVE PLAY):
Susanna looked at the new priestess, Ali, and saw Ogma's gift upon her. "I wish I could command our Lord's blessing off temple grounds like you do, my dear. It is a very special gift, and a great responsibility." She then adjusted her robe and got ready for the baron's party. "Come, we must leave now or we'll be late."
Here, a bit of roleplaying has been inserted retroactively - i.e. this happened in the past, perhaps weeks ago in real time, though in this example the story had only gotten a few more hours into the night. It may help explain something that is currently happening in the story, or show how a bit of information did come to light - like how Ali already knew Susanna could NOT cast healing spells at the baron's party, even though the GM only just ruled or informed his players for the first time that NPC priests typically did not have the ability to cast magic off temple grounds, for this GM is running a LOW magic campaign and the players didn't realize just how low before he mentioned this. This became important since the GM made an announcement that suggested such a conversation would have likely already taken place in the past when it could have. Again, unless someone objects, it is expected to become part of the story.
Such retroactive posting, however, may only be done with the GM's blessing. It helps fix errors even if they are long in past. If the GM carries an on-line Story So Far, the retroactive post would be placed in its appropriate spot and is not hanging in and around the current round of posts, like it will be in an IC archive. This is why an on-line version of the story is highly recommended.
Again, I reiterate, it will further be assumed that once the GM posts the next official post, if a player STILL has not complained, any previous actions will be taken as they are and considered story facts.
Thus, it is too late to complain AND have actions automatically be taken back, but they may still be taken back, though only with GM approval. On occasion, however, it may be that the players and the GM miss a player's complaint or think they have adequately addressed the issue and have continued posting, all while that player's concerns have not adequately been addressed.
In the event they have not, the GM should backtrack to handle this, adjust the story to account for it, or simply rule to continue moving on, hopefully not significantly hampering that player's ability to play under such a ruling. After this, the story line becomes firmly established and continued complaints about it will usually do no good.
In fact, continually complaining in a public forum after the GM has ruled usually does considerable harm, both to the game, and perhaps to the GM's and other player's opinion of you.
EXAMPLE SIX:
Try not to ignore the posted material of other players. Pay attention. Otherwise, mistakes are bound to happen and you might be considered a careless or thoughtless player.
"So tell me captain, why do you think I'm here to harm the baron, considering I just saved his life?"
In this example, Jim has Ali engage the captain of the guard in conversation, and then he awaits the GM's post. Unfortunately, Dan overlooks this or thinks the captain would ignore Ali, and thus he posted this:
As the captain had left, Arthur finally was quietly chuckling as he paced around the room and touched and gazed at everything inside.
Here, we find that Dan has moved an NPC out of the immediate area. He apparently did this since he felt it likely. Jim disagreed, however, given that he had previously posted that Ali was still engaged in a conversation with the NPC captain. Now here's the thing. Even if the players DISAGREE what the captain is likely to do, the simple fact another player requested the action to be taken back WILL be sufficient to take it back.
Jim requested that the action of moving the NPC captain out be considered null, and that Dan's posted action of having the captain leave must be taken back and all players should still consider the captain there. Dan need not reply at all, but he might anyway in order to help add his voice to the correction and thus help avoid others from building upon that erroneous action.
Now, if Dan still felt the guard would likely leave and ignore Ali, or felt Ali didn't have time to talk to him, or in some other way felt the action was still justified and was reluctant to move the NPC back - and nullify his posted liberty with the NPC captain - then PBEM protocol demands the story stop UNTIL they can get a GM ruling. The GM may ask for justifications, or the players may present their case OOC for what they think WILL happen to help the GM make a ruling. But PBEM protocol will have it taken as FACT that the captain has not yet left simply because the action is in question and PENDING a ruling. Since Jim did ask in a timely manner, this must be done, and anyone involved should wait for the GM's ruling before posting again.
However, it may be the case other players are sufficiently removed from the action in question - like in another room or far away from this questionable action - and thus they will be allowed to continue to post and play and do not need to wait for the GM ruling. Only if their PCs NOW enter the area in question will they have to similarly wait for the GM's ruling before proceeding.
The development of the ART of taking liberties with NPCs is a worthwhile endeavor. No argument should be made that players may NOT take such liberties, but only that they should be REASONABLY taken when taken at all.
But a liberty WILL be taken back upon any timely request, whether the request is reasonable or not. It may eventually be the case the story will again flow in the same direction, but until the players in question agree, or failing that, until the GM makes a ruling, the action is taken back as a matter of PBEM protocol.
EXAMPLE SEVEN:
Do not complete actions that most likely require a roll or GM adjudication. Express your intention, or beginning action, then end the post and let the GM take it from there.
Swinging his blade out at the captain, Valin managed to hit the man, cutting a deep gash across his neck. The captain grabbed his neck, trying desperately to hold the blood in and continue breathing, but he failed and soon collapsed onto the stone floor.
Wow, that's one heck of a liberty! No doubt most GMs would give you a good talking to if you did this. Instead, you should post your PC's actions or intentions and let the GM finish or adjudicate the outcome.
Swinging his blade out at the captain, Valin tried his best to hit the man.
Now the GM picks up the narrative at that point - perhaps after rolling some dice at home to determine outcomes, etc. - and then makes their next IC post, writing about what happened after Valin attacked the captain. The point is, it is not up to Valin's player to determine what happened, but only what he tried to accomplish. Only the GM should adjudicate high-risk actions like this. A player doing it will likely simply waste time since the GM will have to call them offsides.
Taking liberties with NPCs is often hard enough, but taking liberties with another player's character is often trickier. There are a few things to watch out for.
First, even if you do something totally reasonable with the other player's character, they may object simply because they would rather play it themselves.
EXAMPLE ONE:
Suppose Dan posted this:
Ali smiled at Susanna, knowing she was right, and then went in search of Arthur. Upon finding him, she treated his wounded arm with her first aid and healing skills. Then he picked up his sword and Arthur went back into the mansion.
To tell the absolute truth, since Dan wasn't using up any of Ali's limited resources - like her finite and limited magical healing spells - and since this is something Ali would most likely do, he should feel free to do it in the absence of anything to indicate she wouldn't - like if Ali were angry at him or wanted him to die. Only the fact Jim might rather write the passage himself might be at issue, in this case. But if that were the case, rather than complain and insist Dan take his post back, Jim should probably duplicate the action in his next post, though he may have worded it differently. This is known as an OVER POST. Thus:
*She really has absorbed much wisdom these past 20 years,* she thought, looking and smiling at Susanna. *I had better find Arthur and see if I can help him.* Ali smiled at Susanna . . . SNIP . . .
"By Ogma, Arthur!" she uttered, as she examined his wounded arm. "Are you clumsy or just a natural target for evil creatures?" Examining his arm, she made certain there was no dirt in the wound before bandaging it and sending him back into the mansion complex.
Well, whatever, but the point is Jim did not change the action so much as he put his own style on it, and that's fine. And any actions from the other players building upon Dan's last post would probably still be ok since no substantive changes were made.
This type of OVER POSTING is greatly encouraged since it helps speed up an already terribly slow game like PBEM. Dan may continue to post pages of material, but he needed Ali's attention before he could proceed forward, and doing some minor things that seem reasonable is often a great way to proceed without having to wait an extra day or two for Jim's reply - or much longer if Jim doesn't post very often or doesn't tend to post over the weekend or something like that.
Remember, however, that if the posting rate of the game is exceedingly high, such as once/day or faster, taking such a liberty isn't as helpful. Dan can afford to wait a day, or less. Still, PBEM games tend to have lower posting rates than this, which is why I go on at length about the proper use of liberties since they do tend to save a great deal of time.
When taking liberties, you may make mistakes, too, as in the next example.
EXAMPLE TWO:
Arthur indicated to Ali he wished to speak to her in private. Ali looked at Susanna, and then left the reverend mother's side to speak with the fop. Coming over to him, out of earshot of the high priestess, Arthur asked . . . (SNIP).
Here, it actually came to pass that Dan did something with Ali that she would not do - i.e. leave her reverend mother for the purpose of keeping secrets from her - and an immediate request went out to nullify this action. What Dan requested was not obviously unreasonable, but it did run contrary to what Jim thought Ali would do, and this SHALL be sufficient reason to backtrack. Dan may still request that Jim justify WHY Ali felt as she did - if he felt Jim was needlessly stepping on his posts - and Jim might justify this action openly in the OOC channel, or he may justify it to the GM privately, but it IS Dan's right if he really felt Jim was just being difficult or unreasonable - or making up stuff AD HOC just because Jim didn't want to help Dan's PC. Of course, upon his request, the story is taken back to the point where Arthur asks Ali to have a secret conversion, and we might have to wait for a GM ruling.
EXAMPLE THREE:
Ali caught Lilly's eye and the lovely rogue came over to the priestess. "What have you learned about Avaris?" she asked. Lilly relayed all she had found out. (SNIP).
Here, Jim didn't wish to wait for Wilma to have Lilly relay the information the GM gave Lilly - that he gave every player, really, though only one PC (Lilly) in the last post, and since it appeared likely Wilma would not mind having Lilly tell Ali this stuff, it seemed a safe bet. But maybe Wilma only wanted to tell Ali 90% of everything, keeping the fact she saw Avaris holding a blue sapphire a secret - maybe hoping to steal it for herself later. Then Wilma could alter this slightly when she did post. This is a PARTIAL OVER POST.
Lilly came over to the priestess and told her all she knew about Avaris, except she carefully excluded the part about the sapphire.
OOC: Jim, note that I changed your post and had Lilly keep the part about the sapphire a secret.
Jim - as well as the GM and the other players - sees this and then proceeds as if Ali knows all Lilly does about Avaris except about the sapphire. If Jim had Ali think or say or do something that indicated she knew about the sapphire, he'd have to take that back. Otherwise, everything could move forward as normal.
The practical point is this: We can greatly speed up, enhance, and add to the game if we take reasonable liberties with each other's PCs, but if we make a mistake, the PC's player must correct these wrong actions in a timely manner.
As always, Jim technically could insist Wilma justify keeping Ali in the dark about the sapphire - especially if doing so might endanger her life - but such a request is often trivial and not particularly reasonable. Thus, he'd not likely make such a request, but the PBEM protocol would insist Wilma did justify this action to Jim, or at least to the GM, if Jim really asked Wilma to justify Lilly's actions.
Upon Jim's 'unreasonable' demand - which he can make, as it is his right - to have Wilma justify Lilly keeping the sapphire a secret, Wilma might then tell the GM, in secret, for example: "Lilly has a compulsive need to own pretty objects, and she really likes Ali and doesn't wish her to think badly of her thieving ways, so it's best to keep Ali in the dark about such things whenever she can when she is planning on stealing something."
Then the GM would openly proclaim:
OOC: "I'm satisfied with Wilma's justification for why Lilly is keeping this gem a secret from Ali."
Therefore, that would be the end of it. But keep in mind, though asking for trivial justifications is your right in PBEM protocol, doing it a lot and for no good reason will bog the game down, so use this right prudently. The only reason I go into detail about such seemingly trivial cases is that it is not always trivial, and what may be exceedingly unimportant to you might be terribly important to another player. That's why the PBEM protocol allows this type of activity. Still, prudent use of it is recommended.
Taking liberties with things that do not belong to you - like another player's character, or the GM's world - should be done with care. No one should have greater control over their own things than the player who owns them or controls them should have. However, though it may seem odd, you can also take too many liberties even with your own character.
EXAMPLE ONE:
You may also take liberties with your own PC. That is, alter them in some way from what was already known before. I do not mean change from A to B, or even get rid of A, but you may add A where no such trait existed before.
Ali shuddered at the thought of being closed up in such a small space. She wouldn't be able to move. She wouldn't be able to breathe. She wouldn't be able to escape. She turned away, breathing hard, the very thought of confinement scaring her badly. Ali moved back, refusing to enter the dark chamber.
It seems Alisand has claustrophobia. It was never mentioned before, but Jim decided, since it was not contrary to anything already known, nor was it suspiciously convenient or advantageous, it might be fun to play Ali with such a phobia. This adds depth to his character, but it certainly doesn't add power. Doing this is probably good roleplaying. Jim need only take measures to make sure Ali has this phobia from then on - unless cured magically, for example. The Heal spell supposedly cures insanity, so I suspect it would cure a phobia too.
I say it's 'probably' good roleplaying because if the player also knew, for example, there was a monster in this dark space that would likely kill his PC, inventing such a 'convenient' phobia now would be AD HOC and not good roleplaying. You should NEVER add such things to take advantage of OOC knowledge, but only to add depth to you character. If there weren't any OOC ulterior motives, then it should be allowed.
EXAMPLE TWO:
Lilly tripped, accidentally falling into the wall, hitting it so hard she detected the fact the wall was hollow. She began searching for a secret door and smiled widely when she discovered one.
People trip all the time and our PCs probably do as well. But if we leave it up the players to decide when their PCs mess up, this can be abused by using OOC or even IC information as motivations for our PC's little mistakes. In the above example, Lilly had no reason to think there was a secret door there, but Lilly's player (Wilma) knew this and devised a way to 'accidentally' discover it. Such things should not be done to gain advantages or capitalize on OOC knowledge.
EXAMPLE THREE:
Ali didn't hear Kalten's warning and proceeded through the door.
Conveniently not hearing another PC can get messy. If Jim wishes to have his PC ignore another PC, that's fine, but deliberately deciding NOT to hear is not really his decision to make. A player can always claim they didn't hear another's warning or instructions. If the player insists this is true for their character, even a Detect Lie directed at the character would reveal they genuinely didn't hear the other character and thus were telling the truth. But the player would be playing badly, particularly if they had reasons for not wishing to hear, and doing this would be, in some way, advantageous.
EXAMPLE FOUR:
"Ruathri, what do you mean you know Arthur isn't of noble blood?" Ali asked the elf. The elf stood there, in shock, so terrified at the memories dredged up that had become oblivious to Ali's inquires.
Here, Kevin - Ruathri's player - refused to answer Ali's questions, stating the reason why. Jim, however, was insistent Ali would wait and ask him again once he regained his composure, but Kevin steadfastly refused to answer the question even then - not by saying his PC was willingly and knowingly ignoring Ali, but clinging to the idea his PC didn't hear her, which was an outrageous claim, given the circumstances. Thus, this was bad roleplaying, and though Kevin didn't wish to get into it later and refused to justify it, he really wasn't at liberty to say when his PC did or did not hear a question and expect that to be the end of it. Even if he did contrive of one instance where his character failed to hear Ali's question, his refusal to answer that question at the earliest possible time, unfortunately, led to other, long standing problems.
Generally, such a decision for our characters to miss posted facts - even when their PC clearly could obtain this information - should only come from the GM, or at least should be cleared with the GM BEFORE using it. The potential for player abuse is otherwise too high. Thus, we must be extra careful when deliberately deciding to have our PCs make mistakes or remain clueless.
It's particularly bad when some clear advantage is to be had, perhaps even harming another player's PC for ulterior motives. Like if Lilly tripped into Galien and accidentally sent him over a cliff, just because those players were angry at each other - an OOC motive - or Lilly really needed to get rid of Galien - an IC motive - since only he knew she had stolen the ruby and might turn her in or blackmail her later.
Naturally, if Lilly wishes to make it look accidental, that's ok, but it isn't Wilma's choice to have it really BE accidental, thus alleviating Lilly of any moral, ethical, legal, or other responsibilities of deliberate murder. And any Detect Lie directed at Lilly asking if she murdered Galien would reveal the truth of the matter. Using OOC or even IC reasons to have our PCs make mistakes, miss clues or information, etc. is usually an example of bad roleplaying. But there are exceptions.
Though it is possible one may use IC or OOC motives to have one's PC make mistakes for reasons other than personal gain - for example, just to make a more exciting story - such things may become problematic. For example, what may be exciting to you, another player could find offensive or boring. It may even ruin the game for them, and this is really sad if it's the fruit of some OOC/IC crossover and unfair play.
Only the GM should freely be allowed to make such plot twists or use such literary devices without apology; the players should not be so allowed. However, any player wishing to do this could and should first get GM approval before doing it IC. GM sanctioned actions must always be considered fair play. If you don't find the scenario fun, that's just the GM's fault since it is his world and his responsibility to make a fun game, but it's still fair play.
Therefore, unless some extraordinary circumstances exists, we should play our PCs and control their deliberate thoughts, actions, and words, but let the GM control those things quite beyond our PC's control - like when we trip, miss hear, don't hear, or what have you. If we wish to do this, we must ask the GM FIRST!
Bear in mind, however, that from context or because of previously established character concepts, one may genuinely feel their PC wasn't in a position to hear another's words, or would make erroneous assumptions, take a miss step, make a mistake, etc., and if this is truly the result of previously establish IC material - though it may never have been revealed before - this is not the same as 'conveniently' not hearing things their PC certainly could. You just need to be careful when taking such liberties. And if you do, you should always be prepared to prove, at least to the GM's satisfaction, that what inspired such a move was the product of previously establish material. It's particularly easy, for example, if you have it written down on your character sheet or the GM recalls when the two of you made such decisions before the current situation cropped up. GMs, in fact, ought to keep all such private email correspondences in case they wish to look through them later with a search engine.
EXAMPLE FIVE:
Anduin smiled, picking up the magic flute. "I'll take this magic flute for my own since I know how to play the flute."
Since no player or PC previously knew Anduin knew how to play the flute, this might look suspicious. Even though Anduin is a bard, how do we know she knew how to play flute before this and her player isn't just conveniently making it up, now that it's handy? Usually, it's the GM job to keep track of such things. We must rely on the GM for this. If you suspect foul play, ask the GM to make sure to his satisfaction that Anduin did know how to play the flute prior to this event. If he's satisfied, you should be too.
Of course, some GMs simply might not care, and might blatantly ignore unfair liberties taken by other players. They may even lie to you and say they are satisfied the other player had ample justification since they'd rather they didn't have to deal with your concerns, particularly if they don't share them. If you feel this is the case, you either will have to live with it, or leave the game and seek out more competent GMs and better roleplayers. I place this paragraph here only to admonish any GMs who do not take their players' concerns seriously, and are often less than honest with them. There are few ways a GM can technically cheat, but lying to one's players is one of them, and doing so makes them a bad GM. If a GM ever gets to the point where a player is overly taxing and a burden to the game such that they 'no longer care,' or 'don't give a damn' for that player's concerns, a far better method of handling the problem is to ask that player to leave the game long before the GM starts to lie to them.
EXAMPLE SIX:
Arthur grabbed the magic apple from Ali's hand and tossed it over the cliff. "Don't eat that fruit. It's forbidden!" he exclaimed.
Why does Arthur think this? No mention of it ever occurred before. What if Arthur's player (Dan) simply wanted to spice things up and make the quest for the magic apple harder? Dan feels the required effort of repelling down the cliff will be exciting and fun, so he'll invent some story about forbidden fruit that his PC heard and believed as a child. Truthfully, this may even end up being more fun. But unless such a childhood fable was already part of his PC's background - and the GM knew this before - Dan would be going too far.
On the other hand, Dan may privately ask the GM if he could invent this, and the GM may even agree. Then Dan could do it AFTER getting GM approval.
NOTE: As a matter of 'showmanship,' the GM may allow this plot twist, but to be fair, since he knows Ali had already fairly obtained the apple before this, it would be unfair if, when all was said and done in the altered story line, Ali didn't get the apple she really wanted and worked so hard to get. I could expound upon this matter of fairness and showmanship and GMing skills, but that isn't within the purview of this article, so I won't.
If the GM tended to favor one player and allowed them great liberties like this, it may become annoying to his other players - particularly if they don't like that favored player's idea of fun, or the GM doesn't allow them all the same latitude with their liberties. And the whole thing frequently smacks of a cheating flavor with OOC/IC crossover - even with GM approval. But since the GM sanctions it, it isn't technically cheating. If you like the results, fine. If not, this only speaks poorly of the GM, in your opinion, and you'll probably have little choice but to leave the game if you find it hard to tolerate such liberties or favoritism. It would not, however, be 'cheating.'
Mostly, as a great way to add to the richness of the game, players will often take liberties with the GM's world. Great care must be exercised here, but what is reasonable is the high mark here as with any other liberty. The more you already know about the GM's world, the better you will be able to do this. If he or she has much material posted on a Website, this makes it all the easier to see and stay inside the lines where you are allowed to color.
EXAMPLE ONE:
"Even in good light I couldn't sort them all out, but I've heard tales of men and women who could break down the entire battle and tell what had happened just by the tracks in the battle field they could see under the light of a full moon. Such a person would be welcome now," Ali lamented, knowing full well the unlikelihood of ever meeting a ranger, let alone when they really needed one.
Here, would you believe Jim gave all of Anar - the GM's world they were playing on was called Anar - a moon? Jim saw nothing to indicate Anar had a moon on the GM's Anar Website, and it may well have had a moon, but Jim didn't know for sure. Or, it may have more than one moon. Or even no moon. Jim just didn't know for sure. But it seemed reasonable, so he did it, no one objected, and now Anar does have at least one moon. Wow ;-)
EXAMPLE TWO:
Ali rode down the street and immediately came to the tavern. Hitching her horse, Kor, to the post, she approached the door, confident her friend would be safe for a few minutes while she attended to matters within. *The Copper Keg* she thought, as she read the sign above the door.
Here, the player starts to shape the town, giving it a convenient tavern, naming it, and taking other liberties. Even assuming there was a hitching post there is a liberty, for example. The GM may always point out mistakes or make corrections, but allowing his players this freedom helps the game move along and adds to its depth. So unless you have added something unreasonable, it will probably fly. One need only make note of it - even the GM should make note of it if he decides to keep it - so it can be used again later. Such a tavern is now part of the world of Anar. Of course, the GM may always burn it down, or sell it and rename it as the years go by, but that's another matter.
But the GM may have the town mapped out already, and maybe no such tavern exists. Unless it's important to the story or some aspect of this town, the GM should probably accept Jim's post and add the Copper Keg to his town map. However, if he doesn't wish to, that's fine too - it is his world. He'll probably just OVER POST and make OOC mention of the corrections.
The Hogshead tavern was a dreary place, Ali noticed, as she walked inside the dilapidated structure. It spoke of a town's poor economy.
OOC: Note that the real name of the tavern is 'Hogshead,' so I replaced the 'Copper Keg' in Jim's last post.
EXAMPLE THREE:
"My name is Alisand. I'm a priestess from the great, magical city of Nihilist, where I learned the art of arcane lore from over a dozen masters and arch mages."
Clearly, here Jim would have gone too far for a place like Anar, running contrary to many things he already knew or should have known about this GM's low magic world. But even if Jim didn't know, any player creating whole cities the GM never mentioned before may begin to go so far outside the envelope, a player should expect to be called offsides and thus they will likely have to post a retraction, or more likely, have the GM come down hard with a STERN reprimand.
EXAMPLE FOUR:
"My name is Alisand. My mother, the queen, sent me out to learn of the world and find my way."
Similarly, Jim has just given Ali - or at least her family - political and economic power, perhaps established an aristocracy where there may have been none, and again, probably went too far.
In short, the GM should clear anything you do that may significantly increase your PC's personal power, knowledge, wealth, etc. before you feel free to incorporate it into your character. Otherwise, you will likely have to post a retraction or the GM will likely REMAND your posted actions. However, anything you do that adds depth to your character or depth to the world without giving your PC a significant advantage may well be wholeheartedly embraced.
However, it must be pointed out that Jim may have simply had Ali lie through her teeth about being the queen's daughter, or perhaps Ali is delusional. A character may often say ANYTHING, regardless of the facts. The GM may need to take some measures, however, to make sure the player isn't confused, even if the player's character may be suffering from such an infliction. The GM may also wish to point out to the other players - even if not to the other characters - that the information is bogus, though they should play their PCs accordingly.
Finally, though a character can do almost anything along the lines of lying, deliberately building upon their character's misunderstanding - even when the player isn't confused, their character may be - or similar considerations, it will often be helpful to alert others in the OOC section. Thus, no one will feel the need to make corrections to the character's actions and will just roleplay around them and with them as they feel best.
NOTE: A player sending OOC notice of anything in their IC post they know is a mistake, miss statement of the facts, out right lie, or what have you, clearly shows to everyone that the player isn't the one who is confused, and everybody else ought to play their PCs accordingly, and no one need worry the player is accidentally screwing things up.
EXAMPLE FIVE:
"My name is Alisand. My mother, the queen, sent me out to learn of the world and find my way."
OOC: Ali is lying to the man about who her mother is, and she knows full well she is not a princess.
Now the GM and all players may act accordingly, assured Jim isn't the one who is confused, and thus no time need to taken to make sure Jim isn't confused about the facts or has taken a great whopping liberty he shouldn't have taken. But any characters, PC or NPC, who may hear Ali and not know the truth, may well act as if she was telling the truth. If the lie is convincing, for example, a player may have their PC act accordingly, or the GM may have an NPC act accordingly. The point is no one feels a player is making a mistake since it was all so well explained in the OOC line. You may read more about the OOC line below in part EIGHT.
It will often help when you take some 'exceptional' liberty if you additionally point out what, where, and perhaps even why in some OOC line. This alerts the other players and the GM and they can more carefully scrutinize the liberty, think about it, and make sure it is to their satisfaction. Otherwise, one may claim they easily missed it and therefore did not ask for a retraction in a timely manner. However, it shall be assumed that careful players are taking their time and will see another player taking these liberties on their own, particularly when OOC notice is given. So, though it is NOT a REQUIREMENT to point out when you do this, it may help and will often be appreciated. Most liberties may, of course, be too minor to explicitly make mention of them - OOC: I assumed a hitching post. But if you, yourself, feel it may impact upon another PC or significantly impact upon the GM's world, it becomes more important to mention it. You certainly should NOT try to slide one by on your fellow players or your GM.
Of course when exploring examples, the imagination abounds, and no few I come up with here will serve to be an exhaustive listing. Nor is every aspect of PBEM protocol covered here, but some of the most important ones have been addressed.
VERBAL
Use Full Double Quotes For Dialogue.
A normal practice in PBEM games is to put "quotes" around what your characters actually say. If a PC or NPC is within earshot when your character "says something," that information is conveyed to others. Though it is possible, I suppose, to incorrectly hear someone in real life and think they said something else - that sounded similar, perhaps - we usually just assume we all hear things correctly in the game.
However, many times the surrounding text will modify normal speech. Whispers, shouting, desperate inflections, or other ways will be written to convey how the words are to be spoken - and thus how the words are to be taken by those who can hear them - just like good fiction, or perhaps stage direction. For example:
Ali whispered to those at the table so no one else could overhear. "We have to get out of here soon if the guards continue looking for us," she said in desperate low tones.
From this, those players with PCs at the table may assume their PCs hear Ali's whispered words and can sense Ali is desperate. Players and characters not immediately around the table, even though they can read the post, should NOT assume they know what Ali just said, nor should they have any information that Ali is particularly desperate.
Slater - another PC played by Jeff - was watching Ali from across the room. Slater, unbeknownst to most people, actually can read lips. Now, Jeff can post that Slater "sees" what Ali has said - even though her tone may be lost - or Jeff can just have Slater "know" what Ali said without mentioning it, and act accordingly.
In the first case, it may become incumbent upon Jim to play Ali as if she DOES NOT know Slater can read lips - even though Jim now knows this. If Jim is a good roleplayer and can keep IC and OOC knowledge separate, this is the best course of action. However, if Jeff would like to keep this skill a secret - though the GM should certainly know about it - he may just have Slater act as if he knows what Ali said, and thus act accordingly, without explaining himself to Jim.
It may even be the case that Jim eventually feels Jeff is roleplaying badly since Slater knows stuff he "obviously" shouldn't. Publicly demanding Jeff justify such knowledge, Jeff may privately remind the GM that Slater can read lips. Then the GM may publicly inform Jim that he is satisfied Jeff is playing properly, though he wouldn't mention why since it's a secret. Jim should accept this as fact and play it as given. After this, it may begin to dawn upon Jim that "something" funny is going on. However, unless Slater's actions hint to Ali he is acting on information he couldn't have normally had, Ali has no reason to act differently. But if his actions betray the fact they were likely based on such apparently hidden information, Ali may even eventually discern Slater knows how to read lips or read minds or something. If she notices, after several instances of this, that it only happens when Slater can 'see' her lips, she may begin to conceal her speech from him thus:
Ali saw Slater across the room and turned her back to him, then whispered to those at the table so no one else could overhear. "We have to get out of here soon if the guards continue looking for us," she said in desperate low tones.
Now, Jeff should not think Slater is privy to this information and should treat it as OOC knowledge, and thus act accordingly.
Jeff might have complained that Jim was using OOC information if the fact his PC could read lips was given in the OOC channel, but since he hid it from all but the GM, he has little choice but accept that Jim, or Ali, figured it out.
QUOTING OTHERS
Since we adhere to the practice of using "full double quotes" for actual dialogue, when we wish to quote someone else, or quote some written work, this should be done with single quotes. Normally, a comma offsets the quote:
Ali thought back to what her mentor, Rile, had said. He told her, 'One should never be too certain of anything, my dear child.' His words were not lost on her.
When the text comes from a written source, such as a book, a full colon may offset the quote, but single quotes are still used.
Ali thought back to what her mentor, Rile, had shown her in the book: 'One should never be too certain of anything, dear children.' Its words were not lost on her.
EMPHASIS
Sometimes the player may wish to strongly emphasize their PC's words, thus calling greater attention to them. This would be done using BOLD characters, but many email programs don't support them or can't read them. Therefore, all CAPS may be used to emphasize certain words.
That would only make sense if the baron knew the drake had been responsible for the deaths AND was capable of casting spells.
The special emphasis points out to all players that both considerations must be true for this to make sense, both A and B.
Instead of all CAPS, one may also demarcate emphasis by using single quotes around a single word.
That would only make sense if the baron knew the drake had been responsible for the deaths 'and' was capable of casting spells.
SHOUTING
However, when it isn't a single word for emphasis, using ALL CAPS for entire sentences - or at least large portions of sentences - is commonly taken to be SHOUTING.
"WHAT DO YOU THINK YOU'RE DOING?" she screamed.
THOUGHTS
*Thoughts* may often be written down as well since they make great reading and fill the game with color. They are typically offset within *Asterisks* and often have, 'she thought' or 'he wondered' or the like after them. For example:
*God, he's an ugly S.O.B., isn't he?* Ali thought to herself while she looked him over.
Again, the so-called S.O.B. should not be totally aware of what Ali is thinking, even if his player is aware of this. Yet, it may be obvious from Ali's facial expression what she is thinking, unless Jim makes it clearer his intentions are to hide this well.
*God, he's an ugly S.O.B., isn't he?* Ali thought to herself while she looked him over, smiling at the man, carefully hiding her disgust at his appearance.
Again, if this ugly man has a medallion of E.S.P. and can actually read Ali's thoughts, he may react to her thoughts, but that's another matter.
Asterisks are used - though other symbols could be used instead - rather than some style - bold, italics, color, or the like - since emails often do not support such things - even if yours does. Thus, the common practice of your game should probably adopt some standards. Again, these things may help but should not be forced upon others. My firm recommendation, however, is to try to emulate the GM's style - whoever they may be - so the game may have some consistency along these lines.
Asterisks are treated just like full quotes, as far as the rules of punctuation are concerned.
Be fair with your character's thoughts. That is, many feel it is unfair to flame, bash, berate, or otherwise denigrate another PC in thought only, thus not giving that character any fair IC opportunity to respond or defend themselves. While it is perhaps realistic to conceal such less than praiseworthy thoughts of another, you shouldn't do it in a fun game.
If you truly have these thoughts, openly say them and deal with them. If you wish to keep them private thoughts, fine, but use descriptive text to indicate the target or subject of these unkind thoughts might glean your character's displeasure - if they ask - and thus have a fair avenue of response.
Lilly smiled at Anduin, thinking, *God, she's such a burden to us all, and she never pulls her weight around here! I hate this bitch and wish she'd leave the group.*
This thought, while fair and perhaps even true, will certainly get Anduin's player's goat over time if Lilly has a lot of them. Anduin cannot fairly respond, and Lilly's player may be coloring the whole group's attitude toward Anduin since they can't help but read these one-sided thoughts and never get to see any defense. They may, you see, be unconsciously using this OOC knowledge, however unfair that may be. If players keep reading the same sentiments and see no defense, there is an unfortunate tendency to believe them, or wish to respond to them, and this is OOC since they also, like Anduin's player, have no way to glean Lilly's thoughts. This is why it would be better if Lilly's player had instead posted this:
Lilly frowned at Anduin, thinking, *God, she's such a burden to us all, and she never pulls her weight around here! I hate this bitch and wish she'd leave the group,* but her contemptuous thoughts were hardly concealed, and her face showed her displeasure.
Now, if Anduin's player wishes, they might post something like this:
Lilly's apparent disdain bothered Anduin, and she wanted to know what the rogue's problem with her was. "What's with that expression?" she asked. "You look unhappy about something I did, or do you just frown at everyone?" she demanded to know.
This IS a roleplaying game, after all, and this conflict may well be suitable to openly play out. If such derisive thoughts always remained hidden, however, it could gnaw away at the good feeling of the players in the game, and might lead to unfortunate OOC/IC cross overs and retaliation, however subtle. And don't forget, Lilly's thoughts may unfairly shape the thoughts and feelings of others, however unintentional this might be, if they are allowed to continually be expressed in this one-sided manner. After all, Anduin's player could hardly ever fairly respond unless given an 'in' or opportunity to do so. Anduin can't even defend herself in thought, since she should be unaware of any need to make such a defense. So if one ever wishes to express such sentiments, please strive to make them fair game for all to make comment on them.
NOTE: This is meant to stave off a tendency to do this, and not meant to quell the singular, or perhaps even occasional private thought, which is fine to have. Just don't make a habit of it if the thoughts are unkind.
The GM might - in fact, probably will - do this for you, if you fail to do it yourself. That is, if the GM sees this continual loathing in hidden, secret thoughts only, he may well write about how your character's body language or facial expressions fail to conceal their ill will, however well they might have tried to conceal it. Thus, if you don't give another player a fair opportunity to respond, the GM might do it for you, and you'd be expected to accept it and handle it IC from that point on. This is NOT the GM acting against you or your PC, mind you, but is merely the GM making the game area a fair or even playground. Again, the GM is only likely to do this if you make a habit of private denigrations towards others, and fail to provide ample opportunity for others to glean these feelings so they might fairly respond in an IC manner.
BODY LANGUAGE
Body Language should be expressed in the writing as well. Players and characters should assume they could glean some information from another's body language. How much will depend on how well they know that person, whether or not they are in close proximity and have ample illumination, and similar factors.
Arthur loomed over her, breathing hard, his labored breath in step with his growing anger as he glared down upon the priestess.
Unless Ali is unconscious, it is dark, or she is looking away, or even if Dan additionally posts his anger is 'hidden,' or something similar to give the reader a different impression, what Jim can discern from Dan's post about Arthur's feelings is obvious, and it will be assumed Ali - who knows Arthur fairly well - can accurately glean Arthur's true emotions.
DESCRIPTIVE TEXT
Some text is purely descriptive and should not be taken as character information.
Alisand moved closer to the scout and looked at Kalten so she could better discern his facial expressions and read his emotions, if any.
This might lead one to believe that Ali knew Kalten was a scout, or she called him a scout, or she thought he was a scout. It would be wrong to infer this. She didn't call him that, doesn't think that, and none of her actions are based upon knowing this. This is purely descriptive text by Jim - who does know Kalten is a scout - and helps the reader label objects and people to help them keep track of who is who, but it would be wrong to read this and now think your PC knew Kalten was a scout or even that Ali knew this.
It would be like Jim posting:
As Arthur secretly spoke to Lilly about getting a weapon, Alisand looked through the wine cellar.
Jim might post this to describe to the reader WHEN Ali's action is taking place and how they line up with other actions Jim - and each player - knows about - even though all characters may NOT know about it. It does not mean Ali knows about what was said during the secret conversation, or even knows that there was a secret conversation, simply because Jim makes reference to it in his post using descriptive text.
From this we learn that unless or until a PC actually "says" or *thinks* or does something which stems from apparent OOC knowledge, you should not think that PC has such information simply because it is found in some descriptive text written by that PC's player.
It is important that all players be aware of how their PCs come into the information they acquire and use. They cannot read minds (probably) and shouldn't act like they can, even though we post thoughts and the players can see them. Similarly, they cannot read body language if their characters are not even there. Finally, reading body language is a kind of skill in and of itself, so you must decide how well your character can do it. You may decide your PC is pretty bad at it, or you may decide they have great skill in this regard. The GM may have his or her own ideas on how well your PC may do this, too.
Certain traits will help at discerning another's feelings or thoughts. For example, high Wisdom is very important, and to a lesser degree sufficiently high Intelligence. Women, in general, are also better at it than men - in most societies. Priests and priestesses are probably good at it too - but that's mostly because they tend to be wise. And other similar considerations may come into play. It will usually be up to you and the GM to decide how perceptive your PC will be at reading body language and facial expressions.
Yes, there is a certain amount of information our PCs can glean from thoughts, verbal tones, facial expressions, body language, etc., but it is usually obvious how much the author wishes you to discern. But if your character is not in the area, they can glean nothing from such text, even if others who are there can.
And with descriptive text or labels that aren't clearly a PC's words, thoughts, or motivations for their actions, no one should think they could ascertain such information from such a dubious source.
For example, it would be wrong to do this:
Ali looked around for a scout, desperately needing a man of such skill. "Kalten!" she yelled as she spied the scout she sought, "I need your help quickly or Arthur will die horribly. We must track that creature back to its lair and free Arthur before it is too late!"
This is something that should NOT happen since that would clearly have Ali's actions motivated by something she does not know yet - the fact Kalten is a scout is hidden information at this time.
As a written format, PBEM will often have entire passages that help develop our characters. How much your PC may glean from another's post will ultimately be up to you, but recall you may need to justify yourself - if asked to do so - and if anybody feels you are going too far, you probably should curtail your character's perceptive nature at perhaps "reading" others too well. Even if the game is an open book, its characters may not be. Be careful.
OOC information is Out Of Character information. Your PC would not say it, might not know it, and shouldn't act upon it. But it is necessary information to exchange between players and Game Master to help negotiate the game. Thus, it is usually something a player would say to another player, tell the GM, describe in game mechanical terms, or in many other ways be quite different from what your character actually says and does.
The OOC line is often added at the end of your post to help explain things or ask questions. At the end is best since this is less disruptive to the flow of the story and doesn't forcefully remind the reader they are in a game rather than an exciting world. One need not, for example, insert an OOC explanation or notice immediately at the point of the liberty when doing so at the end of the entire post shall suffice.
OOC: Dear GM, how many miles is it to the next town? What is its name?
OOC: Jim, I had Lilly keep the sapphire a secret from Ali, so she (Ali) shouldn't know about it.
OOC: I'm assuming Ali got, and paid for, feed for her horse. GM, just send me how much that cost and I'll subtract it from my character sheet.
OOC: I took the liberty of assuming Anduin would tell Ali what she found out earlier when she overheard that conversation in the barn.
OOC: I did assume Kalten would go with Arthur so they could speak privately.
OOC: I took the liberty of having Lilly give Ali the bank note before she left the party.
The OOC line should be short and sweet and probably necessary for the game's smooth operation. It should come only at the end of your post and not be placed inside or within the IC text. Larger OOC issues, discussions, and explanations should either be made separately - apart for any IC posts - or in a different area made just for that. Both an IC and OOC mailing list may exist.
Some players do not enjoy reading information their characters do not have. I find this approach problematic in PBEM games, but if you have such a player amongst you, try not to shove spoilers in their face, and perhaps it would be nice to add a warning to help them avoid such OOC information:
OOC: John, do not read this next OOC paragraph: etc.
The GM must and will frequently post information that only one character may be in a position to obtain. But all players will see it, even though their characters are not privy to this information. Rather than actually require that player roleplay that information being relayed, they will often just mention it in passing, or perhaps if another character is in a position to ask, they may assume the information is relayed and just mention it.
Wilma (Lilly) relays her PC's information to Jim's PC (Alisand).
Lilly was relieved when she told Alisand what she had found out about Avaris. Looking concerned, she asked, "What are we going to do now?"
OR, Jim (Alisand) helps himself to Wilma's PC's information (Lilly).
Looking for Lilly, Alisand finally found her and asked her what she had discovered. After Lilly told Alisand what she found out, Ali expressed her own concerns. "Well, we'll have to warn the baron as soon as possible," she said, more than a little alarmed at what Lilly had found out about the would-be assassin.
As some of this may be taking liberties, if anyone ultimately objects, you will have to backtrack.
Some GMs may wish you to break up your posts into scenic segments. That is, every time you change scenes, you should send a separate post. Thus, instead of one long post with multiple scenes, you might instead send several posts, each one self encapsulated into one area or what amounts to one camera shot.
For example, the dark cave is one scene, while the hall is another. The room beyond is yet another. The street leading to the sheriff's office is one scene, while the actual office is another. The main barroom is one scene, including the tables, the bar, the stairs leading upwards, or anything else within sight, but the actual rooms upstairs is another scene.
Some scenes naturally go together as smooth transitions, and if you do little or nothing in a scene besides pass through it to get to another scene - such as a hallway where you don't even say or think or observe anything in particular - then this may be included in the same post.
Sections of a larger post may have happened earlier, while others parts of the same post may have happened later, making it difficult to decide if your own post comes before that or after that post, or both. It can get confusing.
By sending out smaller, scenic posts, the GM may arrange them more easily, putting them in chronological order - which is usually apparent. Compared to longer, multi-scenic posts, where it is harder to post around them, these smaller posts are easy to manipulate.
Changes in scenery are often obvious, but large divisions in time may also require a new post. The barroom in the morning may be quite a different setting than the same barroom at night, considerable changes having taken place in the interim.
GMs will continue to write larger, multiple scene posts, or they may not, but players shouldn't. They should, instead, send out many smaller posts so the GM can neatly arrange them without having to splice and paste sections of them together to achieve proper chronological order.
If required by the GM, each post, however small, should have a proper header at the beginning and your signature at the end.
Using the proper tense in time makes the GM's job easier - which is always a pretty good idea. Third person, past tense is most often the one desired, so your writing, unless told otherwise, should be third person, past tense.
I walk over to the table. (Wrong, this is first person, present tense).
Ali walks over to the table and picks up the book. (Wrong, this is third person, present tense).
Ali walked over to the table and picked up the book. (Right, since this is third person, past tense).
The sheriff was happy today, so he didn't get angry at the pair of fools. (Wrong).
The sheriff was happy that day, so he didn't get angry at the pair of fools. (Right).
Everybody here nodded their agreement. (Wrong).
Everybody there nodded their agreement. (Right).
Things should be written from the perspective of someone who is recalling the events and relaying what happened.
Actual "dialogue," and *thoughts,* etc., are to be written in first person, present tense, however.
Ali walked over to the table and said, "I'm going to look into the book."
*What am I doing?* she thought.
As you can see, the spoken dialogue or thoughts reflect what was actually said or thought at the time, while the descriptive text around it should be in third person, past tense.
It may be difficult to keep track of who is actually speaking or being spoken to at times. Extra care should be taken to use paragraphs to break up the scenes or separate different thoughts or areas of concern. A space between paragraphs usually makes reading them easier. Quotes, asterisks, or other punctuation should both start and end in a paragraph. If the spoken dialogue or thoughts continue into the next paragraph, use a new set of quotes or asterisks.
Even exploring a new feeling might warrant its own paragraph. Be sure to use a character's actual name in each new paragraph rather than continue to refer to them with a simple pronoun (he, she, it, etc.). In fact, if not the first line of a paragraph, probably by the second line you should remind the reader who is speaking. For example:
She looked at him and wondered why he felt that way. (This is confusing).
Ali looked at him and wondered why he felt that way. (This is better, but still confusing).
Ali looked at him and wondered why Arthur felt that way. (This is good).
Ali looked at him and wondered why he felt that way. *This Arthur guy is hard to figure out,* she thought.
In the last example, 'he' is readily identified in the second sentence. This lets the reader keep the nouns and pronouns firmly in mind and helps them avoid confusion. This is particularly important when one pronoun may apply equally to more than one person. For example, in a conversation between Ali and Lilly about Lilly's sister, the pronoun 'she' could be several people. To help avoid mistakes, the frequent use of their actual names helps a great deal.
She wondered why she felt that way about her. (This is confusing).
Ali wondered why she felt that way about her. (This is less confusing, but it implies Ali wonders why Ali (herself) felt that way about her. Who is her)?
Ali wondered why Lilly felt that way about her own sister. This isn't too confusing, but it may still be since it isn't perfectly clear who her own sister is. Ali's own sister, or Lilly's own sister? It is suggested, I think, Lilly's own sister since Lilly was the last one mentioned.
Ali wondered why Lilly felt that way about Lilly's own sister. This is fine, but it may seem repetitive to say 'Lilly' so often. In fact, it often helps to use various alternate labels to keep the text from becoming monotonous.
Ali wondered why Lilly felt that way about the rogue's own sister. Here, at least, without using Lilly's name too often, another label for Lilly - aka, 'the rogue' - was used, and it is finally perfectly clear who is who.
Good writing skills and/or useful punctuation will always help, but running a spell checker over your post before you submit them is pretty important, too. Even though these things help, they are not absolutely necessary. They are just nice, and any extra care taken to be less confusing now may save a great deal of time later if it helps avoid confusion.
I assume - anyway - that most players will use a text editor application, probably quite apart from their email application, to compose their posts. Then, when finished, they can copy and paste the post into their email and send it on its way.
NOTE: It may be quite helpful if you can change your application's preferences to send out only PLAIN TEXT. Shut off styles. Also shut off other unwanted items, like smart quotes or clever apostrophes.
Unless, of course, your email application is sophisticated enough to have a spell checker, dictionary, and maybe a thesaurus to boot, this is usually best. Also, separate text editing applications usually turn off special characters, while more limited email application may be stuck with them.
Smart “quotes” and the application’s clever apostrophes, as well as bold text, italicized text, underlined text, colored text, or other specialized text may not display well on another's email, so special characters like that should be avoided in most PBEM games. If you must, turn off those options in your text editor.
Some applications may plague your post with invisible characters that read in peculiar ways for others, and some care may have to be taken to find some application that is compatible to the game.
One benefit of using a spell checker of your text editor is that names and places have consistent spellings, particularly if they are weird or unusual. So you may teach your dictionary these new words and, after you teach it how certain names are to be spelled, it will recognize it if you ever misspell the name of a city, mountain, river, lake, forest, or even an NPC or a PC. This helps lend consistency to the game, not to mention the fact it makes it easier to use a search engine or index to find items later. For example, if you search for captain Stocker, since you wanted to recall what he said, but that was not spelled properly, a search for 'Stocker' will not bring up 'Stoker' and you may never be able to find that passage.
Nobody expects perfection, however, and striving for it may take all the fun out of the game. Though perfection isn't required, this is no excuse to be sloppy or lazy either. Just try to do your best and that should be good enough, and giving your spell checker one final crack at your post before you send it isn't that much to ask.
Treasure, acquiring it, carrying it, converting it, spending it, getting change for it, and keeping track of it, can be a major hassle. Unless the GM does it for you, or has his economy so well worked out that you can figure it out on your own accord, this process can take a great deal of time. And in a PBEM game where things may crawl along at a snail's pace, we might be talking days of real time just to split up treasure.
Dividing up treasure can be a campaign in and of itself. I remember the first time I tried to do it in a PBEM game; it was messy, I didn't have the basic facts about money and coins for my GM's world, had no idea who I was dealing with (NPC wise) for money changers and businessmen, and when I did have it all done, the logistics of getting everybody their share proved to be a bit of a problem as well. In real life games, most players probably ignore all the little problems involved in this Herculean task, or they gloss over these minors details as they hand over information across the table like it were so many numbers rather than actually lugging around hundreds of pounds of treasure halfway across a city filled with people who couldn't help but notice your wagon laden with gold - and perhaps try to take it. Really, I mean, it could be the case your PC has hundreds of pounds of gold coins and other treasure on his or her person without realizing the true 'weight' of the situation.
Once again, however, this is not really a problem unique to PBEM. It could happen in any game and mostly depends on how much attention to detail the GM and players pay to such things. Glossing over these things is fine if no one really minds, but even then, it is harder to coordinate the fact you are ignoring this detail in PBEM than in real life as well. What takes minutes of tabletop manipulation and discussion could take days in a PBEM game. Thus, be warned to spend more time - at least initially - learning how your GM's world's economy works and how he wants things done. Unless, like I said, the GM does this for you.
It is the responsibility of the player to keep track of their character sheet. The GM should have a copy, and you may wish to send them a revised copy after any major revisions, or keep a posted copy on some secret URL for his or her eyes only - the other players shouldn't have access to your complete character sheet.
Some on-line service may allow you to keep an on-line character sheet that only you and your GM may view. It might even alert the GM when changes are made to it, or even might require his approval to accept the changes. However you keep a character sheet, whether on-line or off-line, it is the player's responsibility to keep it current and up to date.
On your sheet, you must keep details to the level the campaign expects you to keep them; i.e. if it glosses over many items, fine, or if it thinks knowing where each copper piece is and how much rope you really have is important, that's fine too. It's your job to do this bookkeeping. It is not the GM's job. The GM will probably have a copy of your character's major attribute and major items of interest - right down to the quirks of your character if you make them ahead of time - but it is not the GM's job to keep track of your PC's ephemeral numbers - current hit points, fatigue, armor damage, spells memorized, spells already cast, material components, etc., etc., etc. As a player, that is one of your major contributions to the game, and the more detailed your character, the more realistically you can play it.
Just remember, it never hurts to have this level of detail - even when the GM doesn't require it - and it can frequently help.
Finally, despite the pedantic ad hoc lecture above, you should feel free to flesh out your character as it develops. You may even add things you never thought of before. The only problem is, you should try to avoid adding things that conveniently help out or easily mesh with recent information - after the fact - and you should not add things that would have been important had you known about them before now. Doing such things makes your character a walking contradiction, so though you should feel free to add much, it should still be reasonable and not contrary to what is already known.
Thus, claiming you have knowledge about playing the flute mid game is fine when there is no handy magic flute. This is just a new aspect of your character. But making up such a thing only after it clearly becomes advantageous to have it - like after the party finds a magic flute - is clearly stretching the boundaries of good roleplaying. Similarly, if you had already claimed your character had no appreciable musical talent, it might seem odd to suddenly 'remember' you knew how to play the flute.
Finally, some things in life are pretty important - like having siblings, for example - and someone might be shocked they have known you for years and you never mentioned it before. If you do add such a thing to your character, you should also accompany it with a good reason why you have been keeping this information a secret - like why you are embarrassed of your brother, why you are hiding from your family, etc. even if you do not share these details with the other characters right away, you should write them down and give them to your GM.
Whatever you add, just try your best to make it reasonable. If the GM allows it, fine, but you should not expect to get away with such convenient happenstance or stunning revelations in the absence of a good reason why you never mentioned it before.
You may be under the impression - from my tiny examples - that posts are really quite short, perhaps a sentence or two, or maybe a paragraph or three. Actually, they can be quite extensive, even pages long. It often seems difficult to make them longer than a few paragraphs since you feel they are sufficiently intertwined with the actions of other characters such that proceeding before you get a reply will make no sense since you wish to build upon those very replies.
This is particularly true when you have a string of questions. You might wish to ask one, then wait for the reply, then ask another, then wait, then another, then wait. Before you know it, you may have burned off 3 or 4 days of posts for a 30-second conversation. To help prevent these delays, one should adopt certain literary practices or "tricks" to explain why someone remains silent while you fire off multiple questions, or why your PC rapidly asks them. Or perhaps the other player may take your string of questions and build their post around them, answering each in turn, and they will work up the entire conversation into a more linear style of a normal back and forth exchange.
However it is done, posting single sentences then waiting for a reply will rarely be considered adequate contribution to the game. PBEM does take some writing talent, and such a game isn't for everybody. But with a desire to participate and some practice, it can be done.
One may cut and paste portions of previous postings and intersperse their reactions within these snippets, thus making a flowing story segment. For example, if one player post A, B, C, and D, another player may respond A, a, B, b, C, c, and D, d. The lower case letters are their responses to the upper case letters that are a string of questions. This is fine. It may be better, however, to just post a, b, c, and d and rewrite bits of A, B, C, and D such that you have reworded or paraphrased them or represented them so another reader may recall the question you are answering without needing the full question reposted. For example:
"Where were you, Ali? Did you find the baron? I heard his own guards were trying to kill him. Did you hear anything that might confirm this?"
The next player post this:
Ali wonder why he needed to know where she was, but decided to just answer him. "I was in the wine cellar looking for a bottle of red wine. I haven't seen the baron, so he mustn't have been down there, as far as I can tell. And no, I haven't heard anything like that. Why would his own guards wish him dead, anyway? Seems to me they'd be biting the hand that feeds them."
Well, there are many other ways to do this as well. One thing you should avoid doing, however, is just hitting the reply button and typing your post, thus leaving the original post hanging at the bottom of your new one. No one really needs the clutter. They probably have the original on file anyway. Failure to delete hanging previous material will just eat up computer room. Thus, it is a good practice to delete anything from the original post you do not wish to actually intersperse between your own replies.
If you use a new post for each scene, this will tend to make posts somewhat smaller, but even single scene posts can be quite long.
Finally, you should probably keep an ongoing text file of the game on your hard drive. Even if there is an on-line source, one big file on your own computer has advantages. The greatest advantage is that you can work with it and reference it off-line. This makes quick searches to help remind you where you were or what was said rather easy. It also lends consistency to the whole game. Thus, a quick copy and paste of each email into this huge file will do this.
You may wish to break a large file up into smaller files if your game last a long time. Just try to partition it in such a way since you can readily find the item for which you are searching. A good idea is each one hundred pages or even each major story thread. For example, file one is how we met, file two is our trip to Tanadon, and file three is the baron's party, etc. Armed with these files, you will be able to keep a remarkably consistent character and have their history and development always at your fingertips.
As players in a game, we owe each other courtesy and consideration. In particular, it is bad form to ignore another player's IC post. If a player takes the trouble to write an IC post and send it, the player of the PC to whom the post was most probably directed should feel obligated to respond to that post, at least in some fashion. IC is preferred, but OOC may be acceptable as well. However you approach it, some response at least acknowledges you have seen their post.
However, though this is a player-to-player courtesy, this does not mean one PC must answer or respond to another PC inside that post.
EXAMPLE ONE:
Jim posts:
"Where did you get that ruby, Lilly?" Ali asked.
Wilma posts, in response:
Lilly just gazed into the ruby, its beautiful crimson color mesmerizing her. So entranced with the jewel, Lilly didn't even hear Ali ask a question.
Of course, I have spoken above about the dangers of players deciding for themselves what their PCs will and will not hear.
Taking Liberties With Your Own PC
The potential for abuse is high, and one might use OOC or even inappropriate IC information in the decision making process of when to hear or not hear. But it may well happen part of Lilly's ALREADY EXISTING character concept is her inordinate fascination with rubies. This makes it acceptable. However, for example, if Wilma just doesn't want to be forced into having Lilly confess to Ali she stole the ruby, then it isn't really a fact that Lilly is mesmerized, but that she doesn't want to answer. Of course, Lilly can pretend to be mesmerized all she wants, but that's different from actually being mesmerized.
Jim then posts:
"Lilly? I asked where you got that ruby. Tell me!" she almost demanded.
This is where it gets tricky. Wilma may be miffed if she feels Jim isn't picking up on the fact her PC is mesmerized and Lilly is therefore not going to answer Ali's question. (Let's assume Lilly is actually mesmerized). Wilma may even decide to ignore Jim's second post since, in her opinion, nothing has changed and Lilly is still mesmerized and Lilly still will not be answering because of this fact. In fact, Wilma may even feel Jim has ignored her previous post, thinking Jim clearly should have gotten the hint Lilly was mesmerized.
This would be bad protocol form, however. Jim's IC post directed at Wilma's PC does deserve an IC response - or at least an OOC explanation of why no IC response will be given. But just because Wilma should give some response, this does not mean Ali deserves to be answered by Lilly. Wilma should post some response, however, just to keep the game moving and avoid misunderstandings.
In this posted response, it may help Jim decide what the facts are as Ali sees them. For example, if Wilma just post that Lilly continues to stare at the ruby, then for the first time Ali may have cause to suspect Lilly is mesmerized or pretending to be mesmerized and the possibility that Lilly simply 'didn't' hear that ONE question is considerably less than before. But the story will only unfold if Wilma continues to post some response for each IC inquiry more or less directed at or about her PC.
Under the above assumption that Lilly is indeed mesmerized, Wilma might post this:
Lilly continued to gaze into the ruby, almost totally oblivious to all around her save for the lovely jewel.
Now Jim may finally post and build on that. If Wilma had not posted at all, however, Ali would not know if Lilly didn't hear Ali, couldn't hear Ali, or was pretending not to hear Ali. Also, Jim might also feel Wilma hasn't gotten the post (some computer glitch, perhaps, so it's good to acknowledge receipt of the posts). The last post was Jim's, and building on your own post without some new input isn't particularly helpful.
NOTE: Bear in mind, what Jim learns may not necessarily be IC information Ali would have. In the above example, though Jim can read Lilly is mesmerized - and could even gather that from the first post of Wilma's - Ali cannot read this and does not know this - and the first post gives no clues as to how long this state may last. But Ali's persistent questions and lack of any response from Lilly finally gives Ali some clues as to what may be happening. Unfortunately, none of this could come about if Wilma had decided Jim's second post didn't even deserve an IC response.
THE LESSON: Each IC post more or less directed at or about your PC deserves an IC posted response, no matter what your PC may or may not do in it. It keeps the IC game moving. Failing to respond in an IC manner, some OOC post should be given instead explaining why and acknowledging you have indeed at least read it.
An undue repetitive string of question, no response, question, no response, question, no response, isn't likely to happen. Each post will probably contain some new insight, however small, so try to incorporate something new even if you feel that not much has changed. Paraphrase the situation, describe it again in different words, or do something that may help clarify the matter and your intentions so the other players may grasp the situation. Doing so will allow them to build, not on their own post, but on your IC post, or new information, even if it came OOC, since it implied that information could be gathered IC.
Only if IC posts become needlessly repetitive should the GM step in and adjudicate what he feels has become a stalemate of sorts. But if you favor IC play over OOC communications, this should be allowed to continue at least until it actually does become too repetitive. Don't assume it will before it actually does. Besides, unless it was Wilma's intent to never have Lilly answer, she should be willing to answer eventually. Letting the other player know WHEN or under what conditions your PC will eventually answer should be given. In fact, it probably would have been wise to give such information in an OOC line the very first time you have your PC NOT hear something. This might expedite matters a great deal and avoid lots of confusion.
If you don't mind OOC communications in lieu of IC ones, perhaps all one player needs - in this case, Jim - is some clarification about Lilly's situation and how Ali will see it. For example:
Wilma says OOC to Jim, instead of posting an IC response to Ali's second inquiry, the following:
OOC: Jim. Lilly is mesmerized by that jewel and will continue to stare into it unless she is shaken or slapped or something like that, or until 10 minutes have passed. Simply talking to her will not revive her.
After getting CLEAR instructions like that, though the last IC post was Jim's, now Jim has new knowledge via OOC and he can build upon the last IC post, even though it was his own post, as it is now assumed Ali ascertained Lilly's state. After all, Ali could glean all that information, given time, and unless the GM has some IC reason to think they wouldn't have that time, all this should eventually unfold. Then Jim will post what Ali does next.
One concern may be that some feel they are writing a story for other non-players to read. As this is on the Internet, more than just the players may be reading and following it. Maybe you are not all that interested in reading about the exploits of PCs in a game you are not playing in, but you might find it instructive. The point is if things are handled OOC and not IC, anyone reading the IC story may be confused if too much is handled in the OOC listing which they are not also reading. Thus, handling things IC is often preferred, wherever possible.
This protocol may seem overly complicated, but in my opinion, following this protocol will help avoid misunderstandings. Without some response to each of Jim's IC posts, Jim may make unwarranted assumptions about what Lilly is doing, why she's doing it, how long she's doing it, etc., and thus end up taking some unfortunate liberties with Lilly which may take far longer to clear up than the time any simple IC post to prevent misunderstanding would have taken in the first place. Or Jim may even assume Wilma didn't get the email and send it again, etc.
Failing to give an adequate IC reply, clear intentions given in some OOC line to help clarify the issue from the beginning can avoid all this messiness. Thus, if you are taking a liberty, like not hearing someone, please explain in the OOC line why, how long, or under what circumstances all this is occurring. Knowing enough to do that right away will probably save bags of time by preventing any possible misunderstanding from square one.
This section addresses the topic of intentionally misleading other characters by misleading their players, or keeping them in the dark. It deals with the topic of OOC/IC crossovers or mixing information between the player and their character.
There are basically two schools of thoughts on this. One of them, the HIDDEN style, simply keeps information away from a player when their PC would not be privy to it. Mostly this is done so one doesn't have to worry as much if a player is using inappropriate, IC or OOC information, and isn't too heavily coloring his PC's actions on player information their character doesn't have. In such a style of play, however, one would not be free to post the thoughts and feelings or motives of their PC - unless they actually "say" what these are, verbally, to another character. And even then they could be lying about their true thoughts, feelings, or motives. But that's the point. In this style, you have to decide for yourself who is telling the truth about what. You certainly get a more honest response, but it's a very different kind of game.
In the above HIDDEN style, the GM may even post secretly and behind the scenes. They labor long and hard to send posted information to just the players who have PCs that would be privy to it. If your PC weren't able to see or hear something, the GM would not send THOSE sections to you. And players will also be required to post several versions of their post and send them to only the appropriate players. Or even better for the players, though harder for the GM, the players just send all posts to the GM and he decides who gets to know what. He'll edit each post and send out the appropriate material to each player. Naturally, this is a lot harder to do for the GM, but it can be done.
The HIDDEN style is possible, but I feel it is not very fun or worth the extra effort. You will never see large sections of the game. Or the GM may just post them months later, so even if you eventually can see them, your PC's actions at the time actions could not have been based on them.
The OPEN style of play posts information even if your PC would not be privy to it. Thoughts, feelings, motives, etc. and actions that your character does not witness first hand, all can be read about. But the OPEN style of play assumes the players strive to keep IC and OOC information separate. Thus, this style demands more roleplaying sophistication and experience.
In this style, it would be considered unfair to deceive other players via posted thoughts, feelings, and motives that you knew to be untrue. For example, if you posted your PC was happy and her thoughts reflected that, this is assumed to be factual material, even if the other characters don't know it and probably shouldn't use it.
But PCs may say ANYTHING, true or not, lie or speak honestly, or act in any deceptive manner they wish. But you may not fairly add to the weight of this deception with supplemental thoughts.
EXAMPLE ONE:
"I'm happy you won the music box, really," she said, genuinely glad for her friend's good fortune.
"I'm happy you won the music box, really," she said, though she felt nothing but sorrow at having lost it herself.
In both cases, what is "said" is identical. What the character's true feelings are, however, are quite different in each post. Other characters may or may not be perceptive enough to glean from body language, tonal inflections, facial expressions, etc. how one really feels. That issue was covered before. But now we address the topic of deliberately deceiving another PLAYER.
Suppose Wilma didn't want Jim to know her PC's (Lilly's) true motives or feelings. Naturally, Wilma can have Lilly lie about them to Ali, and this is acceptable. The other players should accept the fact their own characters are in the dark about how Lilly really feels and play accordingly. But to get a more honest response from Ali, Wilma feels she must add to the deception, else she feels she won't get an honest response from Ali since Wilma thinks Jim will color Ali's actions with too much OOC information. Jim may or may not, depending on how carefully he plays and keeps OOC and IC information separate, but assuming Wilma doesn't trust him to do this, she may try to deceive Jim and well as have Lilly try to deceive Ali.
EXAMPLE TWO:
"I don't mind if you go alone, Ali," Lilly said, actually thankful she'd have some time alone.
But Wilma really thinks Lilly WOULD mind, and she sure isn't thankful she's going to be left alone but may, in fact, act badly toward Ali for having left her. She may even justify this deception since the information is hidden and Jim shouldn't have Ali act on it anyway. If he does, Jim is roleplaying badly and deserves what he gets for mixing OOC and IC information. After all, how does Ali know what Lilly says is different from what Lilly feels? Of course, Jim may assume Ali knows Lilly so well she can see she is really upset or really happy, so Jim may justify using that information too. It's tricky.
But it would be unfair for Wilma to add weight to Lilly's deception in this manner. It is sort of like ENTRAPMENT. It is better not to lead Jim or others into bad roleplaying temptation, and if Wilma feels she cannot trust Jim to play Ali honestly about a particular matter, she should simply post what Lilly "says" and does in that instance and not add any hidden information about what she feels or *thinks* in the surrounding descriptive text.
"I don't mind if you go alone, Ali," Lilly said.
Thus, if Lilly lied and she really did mind, at least that's fair play.
EXAMPLE THREE:
Lilly just gazed into the ruby, its beautiful crimson color mesmerizing her. So entranced with the jewel, Lilly didn't even hear Ali ask the question.
In this case, let us assume Lilly is not really mesmerized by the ruby but simply wishes to have Lilly pretend to be mesmerized. If this is the case, Wilma is playing unfairly. ALL thoughts, feelings, and descriptive text MUST be as factual as possible. If Wilma wishes to have Lilly attempt deception, she may, of course, but she should NOT post it as a FACT Lilly IS mesmerized. She should instead only post what is actually said or what can actually be seen.
EXAMPLE FOUR:
Lilly just gazed into the ruby; its beautiful crimson color seemed to mesmerize her. Lilly didn't even respond to Ali's question, but simply continued to gaze into the jewel.
This is fair, since now Wilma is only posting what it seems to be to Ali - amazing things, words - without explicitly misstating facts. Yet Jim may well simply have Ali ask Lilly again, and if Jim doesn't just let it pass by, chances are Lilly's attempted deception will NOT work. Exactly how this will play out is tricky, but if the reasoning behind it is a deliberate attempt at deception and it doesn't immediately work, Wilma should accept the fact she didn't fool Jim or Lilly didn't fool Ali. Continuing to be evasive will usually not play out well. Lilly's best course of action here would probably be to now respond to any second attempt at inquires and pretend it was only a momentary thing rather than an attempt at deception.
EXAMPLE FIVE:
Lilly just gazed into the ruby; its beautiful crimson color seemed to mesmerize her. Lilly didn't even respond to Ali's question, but simply continued to gaze into the jewel.
OOC: Jim, Lilly is trying to fool Ali and she is playing for time. Hopefully, they will be interrupted before Lilly is compelled to answer. Given the current situation, I think this is even likely.
Unlike before where Wilma tried to hide information from Jim, by letting Jim 'in on it,' Jim is more likely to accept it and might even decide that Ali is fooled, giving Lilly's class of rogue all due consideration. Or Jim may actually ask the GM for some 'deception' roll, fast talk, sleight, or some other skill roll at deception, and accept the results. Together Jim and Wilma are helping to write a story, and this deception may play well, both players might agree, and the story will unfold with both players using good sense and keeping OOC and IC information separate. In fact, if Wilma knows how careful a player Jim is, or how good he is, being honest about Lilly's dishonest attempt may actually be Lilly's best chance of getting one by on Ali. Trying to do this by manipulating the game or the player, on the other hand, will usually end badly.
The problems of keeping IC and OOC information separate are too numerous to exhaustively cover them all. The guiding principle, however, is simple:
Before basing your PC's actions on certain knowledge, ask yourself this question:
"How did my character come to have this information, or what would they say if someone asked, IC, where they got that information?" If you can't answer, then you probably shouldn't use it. I mean, it's silly if the answer your character would have to give was "The GM told me," "That character's PLAYER told me," or "It was divinely revealed" - though the latter one could happen, but make sure the GM agrees first. And before your PC can fairly use ANY information found in the OOC channel, you should first answer IC HOW they came to have that information. Without being able to do that, you are probably cheating or at least violating a roleplaying ideal.
PBEM tends to limit the interaction between players and their characters. These limits, however, are usually forced by the constraints of time and the pressure to move forward than any actual limitations. By that I mean though it is possible to have what should be a 30-second conversation between two individuals, since it could conceivably take days or even weeks in a PBEM game, there is a greater tendency to avoid it or gloss over that exchange instead of taking all that time to roleplay the matter out. The more trivial the matter may seem, the more likely it will be ignored, even though in real life we almost certainly would deal with it. And why not? It would only take a second. In PBEM, however, it usually takes at least a day.
Why is that important? In RL (Real Life) games, face-to-face and over the traditional tabletop, certain character concepts, though difficult, may be played since they will 'eventually' resolve themselves. EVENTUALLY, however, in a RL game can translate to ALMOST NEVER in a PBEM game. Thus, certain character concepts are better avoided.
Here are a few I can see would be too problematic to allow in my PBEM games.
The LONER. This character concept does not lend itself to PBEM very effectively, though RL games may move quickly enough to make them more realistic additions. Even a loner should play at some time each session as the game moves quickly enough to get to them. A PBEM game, on the other hand, may not move so quickly. Loners may find themselves sitting outside of town or in a tavern, waiting for the others to attend to matters that do not concern the loner. This wait could be weeks or even months of real world time, even if only a few hours may pass in the game world. If you are happy with the thought of reading your email everyday but only interacting infrequently, fine, but most players would rather play. Thus, loners are not recommended.
There are many reasons your character may wish to be alone, but let's face it: The more often they are alone, the more you will not play AT ALL for weeks at a time, unless the GM keeps contriving some ways to make sure your PC isn't alone. That can get to be pretty unrealistic after a time.
And I don't mean to make it sound like PBEM is dreadfully boring or tediously slow. It will only seem that way if you are not actively participating and posting as frequently as you can. With a loner, you almost certainly will not be doing this. Thus, even a seemingly mild tendency not to like large groups of people and avoid cities will probably put your PC out of action for weeks at a time. Fortunately, most games do not require this tendency for any class or character concept to make it work. So it is better to avoid it when you can.
The HACKER. Naturally, those who revel in combat are not going to like PBEM too much. Combat is mostly handled by the GM and is far less interactive in PBEM than in most RL games. If the sheer excitement of fast paced combat is what you live for, PBEM will probably not work for you. Similarly, even standard character classes such as fighters may seem dull UNLESS you have more interests than simply fighting. Fortunately, there are many other things that can occupy one's time. Similarly, if you wish to write detailed descriptions of fighting techniques and weapons and armor, etc., you may have more to say and contribute.
The SOCIOPATH. This aggressively antisocial character concept might be played in RL games, but even there it is hard to do properly. It takes a great deal of time and interaction, and in PBEM games, you really don't have it or aren't willing to take the time. Also, there is the unfortunate tendency to lose sight of the fact that how this PC treats other PCs is not necessarily how the player feels about you - that PC's player. After all, players cannot easily see across the table how to take it as a player, or as readily divorce a PC's feelings from the player's own. As little as our PCs interact with each other, it is frequently the case the players interact with each other even less in PBEM games. They may even never have met in real life, nor even intend to. Thus, the Sociopath runs too great a risk and may destroy a game, and few want that. It's better to avoid them than to try to play such evil, antisocial characters.
The BIGOTED, RACIST, SEXIST, PREJUDICE PC. True, these concepts are easier to play than some others are, but dealing with such complex issues takes inordinate amounts of times and open communications. Thus, they are less likely to happen in PBEM. Therefore if you wish to play such a concept, it is recommended you resign yourself to either NOT having a problem with any of the PCs, or any such problems you do have will readily and quickly resolve themselves and you will swiftly come to some understanding with these other 'less than desirable' party members.
For example, if your PC hates elves, this is fine if there are no PCs who are elves. But if there are elves in the party, then your character concept should be designed such that though they may initially act badly toward elves, at least they will quickly come to some accord with the PCs who happen to be elves. They may even continue to hate elves in general, but if such hatred is continuously directed at fellow party members, this concept will likely cause too many problems and too many bad feelings to be an acceptable addition to the game. So whatever opportunity comes along to make peace should quickly be snatched up, and, in fact, if no opportunity immediately presents itself, you might consider making one before intraparty relations deteriorate to the point where sticking together becomes pretty unrealistic.
The SILENT PC. Strong and silent types are fine, but they have little to say or add, and in a game that is mostly all about saying and adding things, they are not all that fun to play or deal with. They make better NPCs than PCs.
The SECRETIVE PC. Having secrets is fine. In fact, many character concepts depend on them, at least initially. So there are two main types of secrets that work well.
The first is one that makes your PC who they are today, but they never wish to discuss this secret. This is good, but only if you don't tend to dangle it in front of the other characters. Their attempts at ferreting out information that you have no intention of revealing are often too frustrating at the normal pace of PBEM to be fun. And any time spent trying to uncover information you have no intention of allowing to be uncovered is just a 100% waste of time. In a game where what little time you have is at a premium, deliberately wasting it is unconscionable. If you need the secret for your character concept, fine, but only you and your GM need to know about it. So be resigned to keeping it a secret. This means the other PCs, and maybe the other players as well, should not even know your character has a secret to keep. It is only there as a sort of explanation or justification for some attitude, ability, or what not.
The second is the type of secret that you keep, but only until a little coaxing by other PCs draws it out of your character. It is designed to be shared - eventually - at least with some, if not all traveling companions. You can even share it with only one other, if you wish, but it should be shared IC. That way the other players know about it even if their characters do not, and they will be expected to roleplay this appropriately. There will be no inordinate pressure from curiosity pushing them to violate your character's personal privacy. As players, we are often interested in all parts of the story, even when our PCs may not be privy to them. It's part of the game. Thoughts, feelings, true motives, and yes, even 'some' secrets are no different.
If you can think of a character concept that didn't work well in your PBEM game, write me and let me know about it. Thanks.
Email Jim Your Comments (Send Praise, Critique, Complaints, Suggestions, Ideas, Corrections, or Submissions).
It is often tempting, and certainly easier, to backtrack in time and write about past events. This might occur since some player's post has taken the game forward in time, perhaps before you were finished with the current setting. In fact, some players may have an unfortunate tendency to get ahead of everyone else and go too far, frequently impatient with the game's pace, and thus post actions far beyond where everyone else still is. If so, the GM might tell them to slow down, or a player may ask them to do so as well.
However, forward is better than backward, so when it's possible to do so, one should opt to play it forward and accommodate the new time frame. For example, if Dan's post takes the party to the next morning, you might have wished to post some items earlier that night. Your post would, therefore, step back in time to do this, and might actually be at odds with things in Dan's future post.
If what you wish to post is going to cause paradoxes in time, you might have no choice but to do this. Yet, if this is not the case, it might be better to play it where it lies.
For example, you might be able to recall, ponder, mull over, etc. the previous night's events and post your desired material from that vantage point, thus remaining current in time and not requiring anyone backtrack.
Mystir regretted the sleep he lost the previous night while he stared into the morning campfire. *I hate taking the middle watch,* he thought, thoroughly displeased he had gotten stuck with it. *Now I'm all tired and cranky!* he lamented to himself.
Nevertheless, despite the ill-suited watch schedule, he had managed to prepare the spells he wanted. Picking up his spellbook, he stuffed it into his backpack and got ready to leave the camp.
Of course, Mystir's player might have written this post from the perspective of one during the previous night - when he actually did some stuff - but since it was possible to recount those actions while remaining in the latest timeframe, this was a better option. It gets the players in the habit of playing forward, and this, in turn, tends to move the game forward at the quickest possible rate. To do otherwise often bogs the game down and might confuse the players as to WHEN actions are actually taking place.
Thus, when possible, play it forward and not backward from the last IC post, whoever sent it, and try to move forward in time and do new things.
The literary technique of recounting past events is especially important in PBEM games. It is through this device one may introduce past events - much further back than simply from he previous night. For example, one may recount why they came to feel a certain way or have a particular attitude, or how they acquired a skill, or what led to their current plight. This can all be done by someone in the current timeframe, though they are thinking, feeling, or telling others about past events. It is still a current action (thought, feelings, dialogue) despite when it may have originally occurred, since they are currently thinking about it, feeling it again, or telling others of their past events. This method of adding depth to one's character is quite important in PBEM games, and should be cultivated and developed.
The fact one may also use this literary technique to 'play it forward' is just a lucky happenstance.
It is sometimes encouraged to rapidly exchange information in private between two or more players. They may discuss character concepts, feelings, responses, plans, reactions, "if A then B" scenarios, or almost anything. Once done, one of the players may then edit this information into a collaborative post, and then post it to the IC game channel or IC email list.
I spoke earlier about literary tricks so one might ask numerous questions, and then get responses, and how all that might work while staying IC. Another way to accomplish this is with a collaborative post.
For example, Ben sends Rick a private post, saying his PC (Jamal) is going to ask Rick's PC (Silverman) a string of questions. Then Ben lists the questions.
Question 1.
Question 2.
Etc.
Rather than contrive of a way to compose this into an IC posted response, this post is first built OOC. Now either Rick sends Ben his PC's answers and then Ben composes his post around them, or Rick may compose his post around the questions, and answer them then and there. Once done, the post is sent to the public game list.
Another task that might be accomplished through collaborative posting is to figure out a story direction, or find a common goal two PCs might work toward together. Details can be worked out in private, and when both players feel ready, they can write the post.
Rather than one player writing it and then sending it to the IC list, they will probably send it back to their partner for approval or last minute changes. This back and forth might go on until both are satisfied no more changes are warranted, and then one of them would post the final draft to the IC list.
NOTE: This type of collaboration is fine, but it take days, even weeks sometimes, and might drag the game down if others are waiting for the results. Thus, it is often better to work on these when the theme of the post is not the main story thread, but is instead a side issue between these two characters. They may post it IC when an appropriate opportunity for inclusion presents itself, and they need not hold up the game while doing this.
As handy and as detailed as this process may be at times, it is slower, and players are encouraged to use it sparingly, unless the collaborative effort is a side issue that will not bogged the game down while they work on it. If the matter is of more immediate concern, it's better to work things out IC and by means of literary tricks, and to keep the game moving forward for everybody.
As an ongoing article, I end it thus by inviting submissions and comments. If you have had a problem in your PBEM game that you feel wasn't adequately addressed here, I'd like to hear from you.
Email Jim Your Comments (Send Praise, Critique, Complaints, Suggestions, Ideas, Corrections, or Submissions).
In the meantime, happy gaming, and may your PBEM experience be a memorable one ;-)
© December of 2000
by
James L.R. Beach
Waterville, MN 56096
|