A roleplaying game, at its heart, lies at an interstice between game and conversation: In a conversation, we informally take turns sharing information. In a game, we formally take turns using the mechanics of the game. Roleplaying games dance freely between these two turn-taking dynamics, and in that dance the GM and the players are partners.
One of the ways I find this analogy useful is thinking in terms of action and reaction: The GM takes an action, and the players react to it on their turn. But then, of course, the GM takes their turn and, playing the world, reacts to what the PCs have done.
Often this conversational handoff is unprompted: The GM talks, the players talk, the GM talks again, and so on in a seamless back-and-forth.
In some cases, however, this will be prompted. Probably the most typical example is the GM, after presenting events in the world, saying something like, “So what are y’all doing?”
There can be a lot of different reasons for using a specific prompt, but it usually boils down to clarity in the handoff (“I’m done talking, so now it’s your turn,” in a fashion somewhat akin to saying “I’m done” at the end of your turn in a board game) or an effort to refocus the table (“let’s stop talking about which flavor of Cheetos is the best and get back to fighting the bilious zombies”). It’s kind of like saying “over” when you’re using a walkie-talkie.
Open prompts like this are almost always the purview of the GM, but more specific prompts from the players aren’t exactly uncommon. For example, while roleplaying their PCs chatting about recent events around the campfire, one of the players might turn to the GM and ask, “Do I know anything about King Roderick?”
GMs can also use a targeted prompt. Instead of prompting the table as a whole, the GM instead prompts a specific player: “What is Emily doing?”
Targeted prompts will formally arise from initiative counts or similar priority mechanics. (“Emily, it’s your turn.”) Even without formal mechanics, however, they can also commonly occur as a process of elimination: Everyone else has declared their action, and so, “While that’s happening, what is Emily doing?”
A specialized technique is the inner monologue prompt. This is a targeted prompt in which the GM asks a player to share and describe the inner life of their character.
- “Emily, how does the music in the tavern make you feel?”
- “What does Alfarr think of the minister’s proposal?”
- “Roscrucia, is this is the first dragon you’ve seen since the death of your parents? How does that make you feel?”
This technique doesn’t work well for all players and, personally, I only find it appropriate for certain campaigns. But when it does work, it can have amazing results!
If we were all Hollywood screenwriters we would have both the time and the talent to expertly reveal our characters’ inner lives through expertly crafted dialogue. But we aren’t and we don’t, so the best way to bring those character dynamics into the light may be to just cut directly to the point. It can also be a way of crystallizing and making strong emotional choices that might otherwise remain undefined and unrealized.
As noted, for some players this technique will be disruptive to their creative process and their relationship to their character. That should be respected. But one reaction that can be useful to push through is a feeling that this is “fake” or “artificial.” This is true, but, frankly, if it was good enough for Shakespeare, it’s good enough for us.
We do not, of course, have to whip out a soliloquy in blank verse. But the basic function of laying bare the character’s thoughts for the audience remains dramatically valid and emotionally powerful.
In this case, of course, the audience is our fellow players.
Thanks to Seven Wonders Productions on my Youtube channel for suggesting this topic.
Wait, there are different flavors of cheetos? I mean there’s hot and regular right?
Crunchy, Flaming Hot, XXTRA Flaming Hot, Cheddar Jalapeno, Chili Fusion, White Cheddar, and Lime, off the top of my head.
And we have not yet plumbed the depths of puffy vs. traditional.
“As noted, for some players this technique will be disruptive to their creative process and their relationship to their character. That should be respected. But one reaction that can be useful to push through is a feeling that this is “fake” or “artificial.””
Wait, asking what a character is thinking is considered disruptive to some players relationship to their characters? And even considered “fake”? Thank god I’ve never encountered such players because that sounds like the anti-thesis of roleplaying.
Did you know that biodegradable packing peanuts taste like if Cheetos had a “plain” flavor?
I think some players might dislike having to have their characters inner thoughts on display for the rest of the group. Some of my players I imagine would not take well to being asked how their character feels in response to a situation, but that doesn’t mean they can’t roleplay. Some people just prefer to have their actions speak for them. Though when a player does react well to the prompt it’s awesome.
@Theo: Many players have an immersive and/or instinctive approach to roleplay. They want to think and act like their character.
Their character is not periodically having the world freeze around them, hearing an omniscient voice say, “HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THIS?”, and then stopping to verbally explain their mental state to the omniscient voice.
For these roleplayers, this process literally means that they STOP roleplaying and then brutally dissect their character like a frog in a high school Biology class. Then they’re expected to quickly stitch the frog back up and bring it back to life.
Other players have an authorial approach to roleplaying, where their creative process is already analytical. They’re much more likely to be receptive to an inner monologue prompt because it already mirrors their creative process; they’re just vocalizing it.
“Many players have an immersive and/or instinctive approach to roleplay. They want to think and act like their character. Their character is not periodically having the world freeze around them, hearing an omniscient voice say, “HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THIS?”, and then stopping to verbally explain their mental state to the omniscient voice. For these roleplayers, this process literally means that they STOP roleplaying and then brutally dissect their character like a frog in a high school Biology class. Then they’re expected to quickly stitch the frog back up and bring it back to life.”
Yeah, that’s me, 100%. I would really hate it if the GM asked “How does that make you feel?”
I think this technique can be made much less desruptive to those players who don’t like it (such as myself), if the question is asked not by the GM themself, but by an NPC (or a fellow PC, if other players are interested in that sort of roleplaying). So the player can remain silent or lie if they want to (for some reasons) and don’t feel obliged to describe the feelings of their character fully and completely truthfully. It also feels more natural and immersive. For example:
1: Emily, one of the tavern wenches comes to you and says “What a lovely music we have here today! It makes me feel a little sad, though. And what about you?”
2: Alfarr, your squire, while helping with morning routine, asks “I heard the minister has maid an interesting proposal to you? What do you think about it?”
3: “Roscrucia,” – the guide says – “haven’t you told us that your parents were killed by a dragon? What are you thinking about now? Do you want revenge?”
@Theo: If someone is used to being entirely inside their character, and is resistant to anything they consider “meta”, than sharing their internal monologue or revealing anything about their character’s personality can feel like providing information that shouldn’t be available to the other characters. IE they are playing a brooding edgelord who is internally conflicted but never lets it show. It doesn’t even have to be extreme…basically they figure that in real life people barely ever reveal the dilemmas that are going on inside them.
The problem with this is that it neglects the fact that other players are not just their characters, they are also the audience. And if the audience only ever gets to see what the characters in-fiction see, than there’s no difference between a stoic character with a robust internal conflict, and a flat one-note murderhobo. Both of them grunt dismissively when the party lets the princess die, and it doesn’t matter if the player is *thinking* about how distressed his character is by this, if he only ever shares the icy exterior that the other characters can see.
“the world freeze around them, hearing an omniscient voice say, “HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THIS?”, and then stopping to verbally explain their mental state to the omniscient voice.”
Is this… not a really common thing everybody else does while going through their day?
Also curious if anyone here has read the Angry GM articles about Inviting the Principle Character to Act, which is a series of meditations on what Justin called Targeted Prompts, and if so, if anyone has any reaction to that article.
Most people don’t experience inner monologue at all, and not everyone spends much time in introspection, so having the GM ask ‘what are you thinking/feeling about this’ can sometimes yank people out of the experience.
On top of that, the player might disagree with the GM’s implicit statement that the character’s thoughts/feelings on something matters enough to spend time and focus on.
And most importantly, the other players’ characters shouldn’t know what another player character is thinking/feeling at all. So really the GM is asking: ‘given XYZ, how does your character visibly react to this?’
IMO that’s a much better question to ask. It gives the option of the character saying exactly what they’re thinking/feeling, while still permitting them to cover it up, shrug, speak through actions, leave their reaction ambiguous, etc.