For writing stories, I much prefer third-person past tense, of course. But for RPGs, especially PBPs, why do so many GMs insist on it? Third-person present tense works the best for me for RPGs, considering the fluid nature of the scene you're describing. Past tense makes it sound like these events have already happened as described, only for you to have to adjust said description based on rolls and the actions of other characters.

Having this as a preference is one thing, but I've seen a bunch of potential games lately where the GM makes it a rule. It's just a bit frustrating, I guess, because for this one form of writing only I have present tense pretty hardwired into my brain.

I like to read it as a story, so third-person past tense feels better to me.

I am lucky enough to be playing Third person present tense games here.

I am 200% in agreement with you Samus.  Perhaps some of the GMs who prefer past tense will give us insight to their eccentricities ;)

I also don't understand why you would need to change your posts based on rolls or the actions of others. If you post in a reasonable order and don't make assumptions with your post (you attempt to hit instead of you hit), you should never have to change anything.

For me, third person present tense is written by a narrator describing the scene as it happens.

Third person past tense is storytelling.

First person, present tense is roleplaying, telling a story through your character's eyes and immersing yourself in that one viewpoint.

They all have their own feel, and I happen to prefer the storytelling aspect, so third person past tense works best for me.  As for why I insist on it when I run a game, to let people pick and choose  and have different tenses does not flow as smoothly.  If I'm the GM, I get to choose, so I choose what I like.

Pretty simple really.  :-)  Those who like something else can either run their own game or find a GM that will let them go with their preference.  It doesn't mean they're wrong and I'm right, or that they're right and I'm wrong -- just that we have different preferences.

Sometimes people post out of initiative order.  Sometimes someone else's actions will negate the need for yours.  Sometimes people post at the same time.
I like third person present.  Makes all the action seem urgent and feel more like I am a part of the story.
This message was last edited by the user at 20:57, Thu 15 Feb 2018.

You know, thinking about it, this could have easily gone in the vent thread. D'oh!

But trying to write "attempts" reads all wrong for me when it's in third person.

"Samus dodged the incoming fire and leaped high into the air. Training her cannon on the approaching pirates she launched an explosive blast at their feet."

To me, that sounds pretty definitive, but I also have to avoid too much detail because I don't know if the action even succeeded yet.

"Samus dodges the incoming fire and leaps high into the air. Training her cannon on the approaching pirates she launches an explosive blast at their feet."

That one feels a lot better to me. It's better suited to the collaborative and uncertain nature of the storytelling, where success and the resulting narrative is sometimes determined by dice rolls, and is better suited to being a bit more vague about results.

An admittedly minor thing, just sometimes irritates me, is all. :P Again, should have put in vent thread.

I require third person present tense in my game.  It's just weird looking at other games using past tense.  To each their own, I guess.

What really drives me nuts are games that are inconsistent.  Mixing third person present tense and third person past tense is jarring as bleep.

In my games, we tend toward third person past tense in forums, where passage of time for players is so much faster than that of characters. By the time anyone sees what you did, you did it yesterday, and so the past tense format works best. In games like MUSHes and chat room games, we often use third person present tense, because everyone's there and things are happening right now, and it would be weird to have that in third person (except for such things as submitting logs, where people then read the roleplay in story format but it's all in present tense and jarring). Around a tabletop or in a game call, we more often switch between third and first person, but it's always present tense.

For my groups, different situations call for different narrative perspective. But I do agree with most people here that jumping tenses in a single page is eye-burningly bad. It's gotten extra bad for me lately because it's been me almost every time. Within a post. If I'm in a game that's predominantly past tense, I find myself switching to present after a few sentences. If it's supposed to be present, I'll often have a single past tense in a sentence where other references are present. It's terrible, and I feel terrible for it. @_@

I personally prefer third-person past tense because once a player has posted the action, it has happened. It's not in the process of happening, and capable of being interrupted by another player (with exceptions for on-going actions, of course). It's done.

Ergo, past tense.

I insist on third-person past-tense for the same reasons Shannara outlined. My games are stories, and my players are storytellers, so I prefer they describes scenes the way a traditional novel would, and remain consistent about it.

Most are really a mix.  The character's  dialog (internal or spoken) is present, the narration is past.  Usually.

I slip sometimes.  Some games have a looser sense of continuity than others and I lose track of what tense I'm in.

I find the past tense works well in this medium because it establishes what you the player intended to happen more intuitively, at least imho.

Playing a game written entirely in the future tense would be so weird.

I'm with Shannara and Carakav. I much prefer third person past tense.

The reason? Perhaps it's a selfish thing. I'm the GM. As such, I'm not taking part in the action, I'm reading the players' actions as events in a story, and stories flow better for me in past tense.

Reading the story is much of what I get out of the game, and the GM needs to get something out of the game too, right?

However, I recognize that some players feel more comfortable and immersed using present tense, so I don't insist on it, I just lead by example with my NPCs and my narrative passages and hope that everyone follows suit. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't, so sometimes the games have a mix on the page.

So there you go, that explains the preference for past tense and the mixtures.

I'm not a GM, much (I inherited a game that I'm keeping limping along largely because I promised I wouldn't let it die, and five years later, I'm still keeping that promise...but I don't much enjoy wearing the GM hat.)  I prefer third person past tense, as a player, because it's a written format and that's just how I habitually write.  I could probably adapt to present tense and still be fine...shifting to first-person would screw me up (I've tried writing stories in first person and I hate it...it just doesn't flow for me.  I have, however, read some brilliantly-written first-person stories...but they were trying to spoof the old pulp detective novels, so it was a natural fit.)

I think that's largely the reason...it's habit.  It's what their brain is used to processing in text.  It makes the game material easier to digest, mentally, for them, so updating the game and staying on top of the action isn't as much of a chore.  I know I'm in a game where about half of us use past tense and half use present tense, and it jars me every time, not just because of the shift in tense, but more because I'm not used to reading actions as they happen and my brain sometimes loses track of whether that's something the character SAID versus something they DID (because unless characters are relating past events, people don't generally write their dialogue in past tense...)

I, personally, use third-person present tense. I just prefer to type in that fashion. I allow my players to use whichever method they like, as it doesn't bother me too much. I can still read and understand it all easily enough.

Just don't be that one guy I had who used second person for everything. That annoyed everyone.

I prefer present tense because, as others have alluded to above, I'm generally not completing an action, I'm initiating an action. I like to play around a little with timing sometimes, or I might complete an action ("Having reloaded my crossbow, I take aim at his head."), and of course I make mistakes, but I think I default to present tense.

More than a few stories are written in present tense: https://www.goodreads.com/shelf/show/present-tense

That list doesn't even mention Neal Stephenson, who has authored some of my favorite examples of present tense writing.

I've recently gotten a kick out of writing in first person. I like the additional time I get to spend writing in my character's voice. I challenge myself to do it without actually revealing my character's internal thoughts which I greatly dislike sharing, mainly because I greatly dislike reading those of other characters. Please show, don't tell, and please do more than "give an odd look."

I started doing while playing Dungeon World games, because I feel like that game explicitly encourages that. When I've done it in other games I've weirded people out and been urged to stop.

As long as everyone is writing in the same tense every post, I really don't care either way. Consistency is what's important to me.

I mean, isn't that how virutally every novel is written?

Mukashi, mukashi... (Once upon a time...)

A long time ago, in a galaxy far away...

Why third person?  Because first person can be ambiguous in a narrative, and second person, as already mentioned, is somewhat annoying if overdone.

Why past tense?  I don't know.  Perhaps it's part of our conditioning as speakers of English?  Perhaps, as I hint at above, certain narrative forms are better from the point of view of the reader at conveying the flow of a story.

I think making a big deal of it is a bit much, personally, but GMs have full control of their games here (as is only right), and are free to set rules that work for them and their players.

Interesting, almost all GMs I've been involved with want present tense.

I explain to my players that it's like reading a script--it should be in present tense and only describe things that other players can see, smell, touch, etc., just like you were interacting in real life with people.

Third person past tense is not the best use of RPGing, I don't think.  Around the table it is first person present or future tense, typically.

Third person past tense is also going out of fashion in normal writing of novels and literature as well.

Now this is an interesting claim. Why do you say that?

In reply to Samus Aran (msg # 23):

I do not mean to speak for Heath. But I have heard this comment made elsewhere. The context I heard it in was someone talking about how many new novels (as in just published) they had recently read that were in first person. Someone else replied third person was considered stodgy these days. That person made a point about video games, and how the act of playing from the POV of a video game character was informing our perception of what is a good narrative. Not sure I would agree but there it is.

As to why third person past...for myself it doesn't matter what POV is used, as long as it is used consistently by all the players. In sandboxes, where each player has their own storyline, this isn't a big deal. But if they are all on the same plot line, having to read four or five posts with different POVs can be confusing. Third person past tense is convenient because everyone knows it. Writing first person is a bit more difficult IMO. First is better for roleplaying, I agree. But not everyone on these boards really wants to roleplay. Many here are more interested in the gaming or rollplaying aspect. Third person past lends itself better to that as well I think.

One other advantage third person has for a GM is that players will use their character names instead of 'I' or 'me'. When it's in first person, the GM would need to check the side of the thread to see who posted a particular comment. When you have to do that for four or eight in a row, it can be confusing. I don't really find this to be a big problem. But I have to say it makes handling posts a little easier when you can glance through the text and know exactly who is speaking.

I really don't like to play first person; none of my characters are me, some of them are VERY different. To me that's the point of roleplaying, to play someone bolder, more adventurous, more damaged, whatever.  So the deeper I'm into the role, the less I wish to think of her/him as me, but as an alter ego.  In books, I prefer third person past, though some work well in first, even present.

When I was running a character using first person, part of the fun of it was posting in a way that made it clear that it was the character. In that case it was easy, because the character had a folksy way of speaking (though I still needed to think about how to get that across). I can see how that could get tiresome for all involved, but for the time I was doing it I had a lot of fun with it.

I don't think I've ever come across a game here that requires - or even suggests - first person for anything, irrespective of tense.  I assume it's a love note to tabletop gaming, where someone will be more likely to say 'I throw a fireball at the monster' rather than 'Trogdor throws a fireball at the monster' (though I've seen that vary in tabletop games, too).

For my own part, I prefer third person, present tense.  I feel it puts me into the action more thoroughly by placing me within as it is happening.  Past tense feels to me more like telling a story after the fact, which draws me out somewhat.  I've also been writing RP posts in third person, present tense for so long that it's much easier for me and I tend to slide into it, so if I'm in a game where the GM demands past tense I have to think about it more and rewrite parts, which is also a bit of a come-down.

I don't consider it to be a dealbreaker, however.  Of all the things roleplaying troupes could break apart over, tense seems a small thing.

The way I see it, ultimately, everyone has their preferred manner of writing posts.  What constitutes 'immersion' is different for every player and some simply have a specific written aesthetic they prefer.  As long as the game is fun, everyone understands the posts and the players are enjoying themselves, what's the harm?  Sure, maybe you might want to impose a specific tense/person combo for consistency's sake, but it's not like most games get stuck up on blogs for general consumption or compiled and made into a novel (or series thereof).

I see clarity as being more vital to an ongoing game, and in that sense 'Trogdor burninates the village' is only one letter different from 'Trogdor burninated the village.'  Either way there's no doubting Trogdor's intentions.

Very well said, Kioma!  Thank you.

I run a couple of games. I have never made my players compose their posts in any sort of way. So long as the meaning is clear, I do not care. Frankly, when I see a screen or more full of posting rules, I do not send a RTJ to play in such a game either. The closest I have ever done to requiring anu sort of format style is recommending that players use different font colors to represent different languages in a campaign wherein not everyone shares a common dialect. My players refused, and I folded and started doing things their way -- because I am not drunk on my teacup of power.

I've seen a lot of required colored speech, too, which bugs the heck out of me. At least, when it's phrased that it's done because otherwise it's too hard to read speech — I mean, how do you read dialogue in every story you've ever read? If someone's writing 1000+ word posts every time, I can see it, but otherwise it seems wholly unnecessary as a requirement.

To me, colored speech helps distinguish different characters, and with each post being written from a different POV, it can help, but the really jarring thing is when most of the posts use color, but someone doesn't. Not is it inconsistant, which jarring all on it's own, but you also get used to seeing color as speech, and even though speech might be easy to distinguish when all text is the same, it becomes harder when the expectation and norm is to highlight speech, as then non-colored speech "fades," figuratively speaking, into the background. It isn't that it's hard in an objective sense, but that it's hard in a circumstantial sense where non-colored speech is abnormal.

So basically, requiring it makes sense in terms of wanting consistancy.

Coloured speech is a bit off topic, but it's useful from a GM POV.

Frodo is reacting to something Pippin posted two days ago. Now, did Pippin actually say that, or did he only think it?

Sure, your GM can wade through all that black text and figure out whether Frodo is mind-reading or not, but it's a lot easier if the speech is in colour.

Anything that makes the GM's job easier, makes the game better.

And most GMs insist on <insert idiosyncrasy of choice> because <idiosyncrasy of choice> makes their job easier or more pleasant. That's reason enough.

I'm curious about the reason for that level of review and scrutiny. What if Frodo is found to be "mind-reading"? Is he required then to correct his reaction? Does the GM work with the players to make Frodo's reaction make sense (such as by assuming that Pippin ended up saying the thing aloud at a later, undescribed time)? Does every reaction Frodo make receive that kind of scrutiny?

Frankly, I just wish people wouldn't post in the clear anything they don't want others to know. Actually, I would much rather that people relax about what others know, but I don't expect that to happen.


Maybe. Anything that makes GMs less controlly often makes the game more pleasant too. I say this as a GM.

As I see it, the purpose of a RPG is to bring a bunch of people together to create an alternative reality in which they can have enjoyable adventures together.

Part of the GM's job is to adjudicate these make-believe actions. The GM needs to adjudicate both roll-play and role-play. If a PC has made an invalid dice roll, it's the GM's job to correct that. Likewise, if a PC has made an invalid contextual assumption, it's the GM's job to correct that, too. I see no difference.

How the GM corrects these matters, whether by asking for a re-roll or applying a corrective modifier, or whatever, is a matter best decided in that particular game.

Some matters are less important than others. If a PC has rolled 1D12 and scored 3, when he should have rolled 1D6, does it really matter? If he scored 8, then something probably needs to be done about it. Likewise, the GM will use his judgement if a PC has made a contextual error.

I wish people would actually read what their colleagues have posted, and determine for themselves whether their actions are valid (a process which is also aided by coloured text) but I don't expect that to happen all the time, either.

The most pleasant game is one in which everyone works together to create a valid and immersive game reality that everyone can enjoy.

What does that have to do with formatting?

I'm notorious for changing tenses and narrative perspectives. People I play under usually don't mind, as they never complain, or those that do I leave the game of. If there's really confusion, I try really hard, but otherwise, I think it's just an eyesore. Everyone understands. It's a game, and not professional edited or administrated one. It's not like I want to publish the threads as a verbatim novel.

So I couldn't give two shoes about all this literary voice and tense. People who do, they sit at other tables. It's their prerogative. It's ALSO mine. I don't mix with those people. If it bothers them, they or I leave. In any case we parts ways, unless I have five times the allotted time to edit and triple check my posts. I don't even grammar check. It's for relaxation, not being polished. I DO use RPoL to learn how to write, but grammar and narrative structure can be taught, the actually interesting parts can't be simply taught, these things have nuance. The plot, the themes and devices to illustrate these issues, are why people write and tell stories. Stories and all art needs imperfection. By definition.

Every author has their quirk, this is mine, and many other peoples'. Also, again, this isn't a novel writing site. Hell! My writing circle gets to that shoe last! AFTER everything else is discussed, it's not even the cherry on top. It's basically inconsequential to writers unless they do their own editing (which yes, many $ strapped people have to). I pay or trade editing. That's not my thing. It's an annoyance. I worry about the conventions of story-telling, not the crunch. Word choice is much more important than grammar. People don't SPEAK with perfect grammar. It's just simply fallacious to claim they, or you do. So sue me, or just choose other company. *shrugs*

It's the same issue (to me) as people worrying about colored speech. I like it. You can always turn it off. You can always edit my posts if you care that much. I'm here to cut loose. I worry about engagement, choice and consequence, not crystal clarity. If it's unclear, just ask a question you silly gnat. It's not a big deal. If it is, we'll never agree. Best to be transparent, than placate and ruin fun and waste time.

But yeah, people also get onto me about things I stress over that are little nitpicks. It's subjective. We all have peeves and all have passions. I'm with Marilyn Manson. I don't like pet peeves. I had a few pets, a cat and few lizards. My cat's name was Percy, or Gooda when he was being cute. I don't have time for pet peeves. Peeves aren't pets.
This message was last edited by the user at 13:21, Tue 27 Feb 2018.

I think you are missing a real big point. For some people, those nitpicks are requirement for relaxing and enjoying the game.

For example, some people can listen to a story with more plot holes than swiss cheese and enough inconsistancies to make the most hardcore conspiricy theorist's head spin, and yet they'd be able to become immersed in the story and enjoy it any way, but other people just can't, as all those plot holes and inconsistancies literally force them out of the immersion making it impossible for them to enjoy it.

The same can be said here. You V_V might find it relaxing to not worry about, but others will have such things be as obvious and attention grabbing as a nudist bursting into their bathroom popping balloons, and thus can quite literally deny them the enjoyment.

I'm sure that for many it is just preference, but also for others, it goes beyond mere preference.

I know, cause I'm one of those people that notices everytime the gm makes an inconsistant call, hence my preference for simulationist systems like d20, instead of storytelling systems like Fiasco.

They force themselves out of the immersion. The inconsistencies don't decide that for them, they decide it for themselves.
This message was lightly edited by the user at 15:20, Tue 27 Feb 2018.

No.  There are books and movies where I can ignore the contradictions and have fun, and books and movies where even when I'm really trying to shut my brain down and just follow along, I keep getting jolted out of immersion.

Some people are really bothered by things that aren't explained, but I can get past missing info.  Some lucky people can maintain immersion in almost any circumstances, far better than I can.  It's an individual thing.

3rd person past tense works best for me in written RPs (fixed first person is great, rapidly rotating first person not so much).

But it's not a thing set in stone. I used to dislike Star Trek for how unrealistic it was, and then I stopped doing that so I could enjoy it, and now I do. Attitudes and preferences can change.

If we're bothered by something that isn't done deliberately in order to bother us, we're letting ourselves be bothered. Indeed that's true for quite a few things that are done deliberately in order to bother us.

I was about to say that I have a mild preference for present tense, because it makes it easier to write flashbacks and memories without having to linguistically separate all the varying past tenses.

But really I have a preference for games where no one takes the subject too seriously. In the same way, I wouldn't get along with a GM who was very serious about only posting things that other characters can perceive.

I colour dialogue when I'm ordered to, but only because my opinion on the matter is in the extreme minority (despite it being the most correct opinion- weird how that happens, huh?).

I can't imagine playing in a game that ran in first person. That's fine around a table, but I couldn't get into it on PbP.

All these things are completely arbitrary of course, and the impact of them is almost entirely dependent on how important they are to any given reader.

So, like almost every human relationship, the trick is to find people that either agree with the things you find important, or who don't find them important enough to fight about.

+1

No, I implied some people find it insufferable. I just don't play with those people. Objectively, hear me, OBJECTIVELY and scientifically it has been PROVEN people can decipher misspelled, poorly written and utterly bare minimum text. It's an eyesore.  Nothing more, objectively nothing more.

It's an eyesore. I did say this. To some that is not worth trouble....in my case to write, and their case to read. They are no more justified than I am. WE just don't mix. I see it as pedantic they see it as lazy, we are both subjectively right. We just don't mix.

I hate WATCHING sports. I play them on a casual level, but ball game is hell for me. Are sports wrong? maybe to some, to me though, I just don't spend time dwelling on that.

So no, I didn't miss anything. I do acknowledge there is not just one point to see/miss though. ;) huh?

I understand people disagree. It's best they know where I stand, and I know where they stand. It's also been shown being agreeable and tolerant increases relationships. I'm tolerant of other things. So I expect tolerance if someone is going to play under me. They are welcome to quit though. I certainly don't want someone in a game that isn't having fun. Seriously, no beef with that. I'm just not going to change. They don't have to either. Pick a different table. Nuff said.

Very much +2 now.

This is the essence of life with people. Sweat over the very consequential and systemic problems Plato brought up so many centuries ago. Basically fight over the huge problems. For the stuff that matters, to YOU, or ME, just find those of like mind or who tolerate it. Yeah, very well said.

There was an episode of Good Mythical Morning (though I admit I rarely watch that channel) where Rhett was tasting all these (food?) flavors and he liked msot of them, and Link was like "no, don't like it" and Rhett was like "You know, that's why I get more dinner invitations. More people get along with people that don't say that. 'no, I don't like it'"