I'd like to open the floor for discussion on the topic of godmoding in hopes of getting some feedback on the topic.

Something I have recently run into in roleplays and my interaction with other characters is whether it is appropriate to take liberties with there characters in order to forward the story at an acceptable rate. My sort of standing rule for this is that it is never appropriate, but with posts between all participating parties spanning days I sort of feel like it slows down the progression of a sub-plot you might having with another character or cause inter-character dialogue to drag on and thereby slow down the entire plot.

For example, in one of the RPs I am participating my character, Miles, is approached by another character, Lacie, because her other character is drowning. So, I responded with a relatively short post and I was debating having us both run back to the river to help the drowning character but I didn't want to god-mod her character if that wasn't her attention. So, I leave it to her.

You can see what I am referring to here (it should be the last two IC posts).

I have also just started getting back into role-playing after several years of absence and I am not very far in any of the RPs that I am participating in right now so it possibly just works itself out.

Has any one else ran into this or do you have a certain approach for this?

Back at the old site I RP'd in, it was generally accepted that simple actions were okay. That is, you could make another character catch a ball that you threw, say hello back to you, etc. That was, however, an unofficial practice. The official practice was that you couldn't RP another character in any way. However, you could end your post with " *baton pass* ", indicating that it was alright for other RP'ers to control your character.

In all the RPs I've ever been in, this was a big no-no, unless the other person explicitly said you could. That said, if you are working THAT closely with another character, you could always set up a google docs and collaborate a post together. I've done this in a few RPs with a few different people. Not only is this amazingly fun, but it's also a way to get a lot accomplished in a single post :)

Whether something like that is considered abusive can vary from RP to RP. We personally consider it ok so long as it does not break with the CS on our characters or our plans for them. Benign things like simple answers/reactions generally cannot do any real harm.

We're not 100% sure, but we do get a feeling that problems with such use are more common in the less intricate RPs like Free & Casual than with Advanced. But then, character sheets are generally shorter in those, so the other players know less about what makes a character tick than the owner does. Especially when compared to advanced RPs like the ones we're in.

Still, the safest thing to avoid unpleasantry for this is to have it cleared up for everyone early on, maybe even have it as a clause in the RP's rules. There's few things as annoying as having an RP stuck because it requires the input from a single person, and that one is unavailable.

I think Godmodding is never acceptable unless the person allows explicitly it. If someone wants an action out of my character, they can easily present a simplistic form of the scenario and ask "what would [my character] do?" Or invite me to write part of the post jointly with them. A simple 'yes/no' or generic statement might seem okay, but every character has the ability to respond in a unique manner, and when someone else writes for the character, it dilutes the uniqueness of the character.

I give exceptions for people with whom I've known for a long time and become accustomed to their writing style. There's one or two people that I know can manage a phrase or two and be fine, or add in some actions, and it doesn't bother me any. It's important to note that these people have the same level of character integrity protection as I do, and would have issues if any random Joe decided to write their characters for them.

I think even simplistic actions can indeed be a problem. I've never had it be for me personally (yet) but even when it comes to just making a character go somewhere or walk....what if that RPer didn't want said character to go with the other? Even if you stick to the char sheets, I don't think one can assume what another character will do. You should always give the other person a chance to make their char respond how [i]they[\i] feel the character would act, not how you believe they would--even for seemingly benign actions.

Like I said before, there are ways around this. Asking the person before you make their char act, or collaborating the post with them.

I think it's generally to be avoided. The most I'll do is maybe have my character put their arm on the other player's and give them some kind of cue to follow. In a situation like that it still leaves the other player with a choice whether to comply or try to run off. Like maybe it's a character who doesn't like to be touched? I don't know that since it's not my character so I wouldn't know what their proper response would be.

I think light puppeting by GMs is okay assuming how well GMs know their players and trust them and vice versa. If it's a natural reaction to something that's not out of character, I don't see an issue. It's when you start making serious actions for other characters or fucking around with combat where things get sketchy.

For example, if you and another player's characters are walking and talking, I don't see an issue with saying the other character took something if offered by an ally or walked through a door that was held open if it's minor stuff like that. If it's something like a fight or another scenario that requires player input, you should never assume anything and let them do it. This is why collabs are great.

But mostly, never control another PC or assume you know their intentions.

Small actions are fine. If there is a problem, for ones such as walking somewhere, then in your next post you can say your character stopped after a moment of thought. That's not a problem and are things you can rectify with your next post. Small actions keep the story flowing, and reduces the need for the next person to take a moment to say yes, when the first person would have done it for them.

Big actions? Decisions(Fight or flight)? Things out of a characters personality? Then that's when its a problem.

Revelation; every single GM with a story that goes anywhere godmodes simply by using timeskips, in which they assume nothing to change the course of events happened, and by such control your character.

It's like a super-bad word but I've pushed a number of stories simply by things like "Character X their attention was caught by event Y." Technically that's god-moding. And I've even forced some, Fonz forbid, auto-hits as a GM when a character didn't get out of the way after a first warning or wrote their selves stuck. Sometimes you have players that require that push. You don't do anything major, but you do push people into a situation that forces them to respond. That's not a bad thing, some players need that. As long as you don't take someone's freedom. A perfect example of this is a GM I had that, IC, forced my character to choose A or B because if no choice was made, the story would drag on needlessly, but when I made my character choose C, they applauded it and rolled with it. You can push someone to action, as long as yu allow them to choose that action by their selves.

Kestrel said
Revelation; every single GM with a story that goes anywhere godmodes simply by using timeskips, in which they assume nothing to change the course of events happened, and by such control your character.It's like a super-bad word but I've pushed a number of stories simply by things like "Character X their attention was caught by event Y." Technically that's god-moding. And I've even forced some, Fonz forbid, auto-hits as a GM when a character didn't get out of the way after a first warning or wrote their selves stuck. Sometimes you have players that require that push. You don't do anything major, but you do push people into a situation that forces them to respond. That's not a bad thing, some players need that. As long as you don't take someone's freedom. A perfect example of this is a GM I had that, IC, forced my character to choose A or B because if no choice was made, the story would drag on needlessly, but when I made my character choose C, they applauded it and rolled with it. You can push someone to action, as long as yu allow them to choose that action by their selves.

I've been finding myself nodding in agreement with your posts, of late. All excellent points. I meant to touch on the time skipping, but I figured that might have been a give in.

Wow! I did not expect so much response. Thank you!

I think I find myself agreeing with the solution of collaborating on a post with another character where a post warrants a detailed dialogue or the like, and that very minute actions are passable such as a returned hello or something of the like. It seems to drawing a definite line and using a good sense of judgement.

As another point, I think GMs who to a degree god-mods their characters to put them in specific situations or navigate them from one scene to the other is necessary depending on how the GM is running the RP. In one RP I am in the GM plays his own sets of characters and navigates the roleplay that way while in another the GM controls the entire environment we find ourselves in navigating us to specific situations. I guess it is just a different style.

I think you can't GM without Godmodding to some degree or other. That said, as a GM you do not and SHOULD not ever exert control over another PC. You just flat should not do it. It's not a GMs place to make PC A do action B--that is up to PC A. Now, time-skipping is something I've done in my own RPs, it is very necessary at times; but I always give my players a chance to write down their actions prior and leading up to the time-skip.

I still say even small actions can be a problem. What if my character isn't the type to say hi back? Or what if my character is the type to just let the ball go uncaught? THAT is the problem with even minor godmodding.

That's a good point. Anyway you look at it godmoding takes control away from the character's author no matter how minute, which is why it is a problem. Then the solution really would be to just set up a collaboration if you have a situation wherein you need to act a specific scene with a character that will span more then a couple of posts. That being said, you can't be collaborating on every other post so it comes down to judgement.

See, when I RPed before this almost every RP was one on one so I never really ran into this scenario. It was very rare that an RP included more than two people.

GM's? Yes, it's fine, their world, their rules, though if they disrespect their players they shouldn't be surprised if the players leave. Ergo, you godmode when you must, and typically never more than that.

Players? No. Use a collaborative post. It's the best tool ever for coordinating thoughts onto the same page anyway.

I would say it depends on your definition of godmoding. Some people get super annoyed if you so much as mention that their character is in the room with all the other characters where all the stuff is happening, because they didn't specifically mention that s/he was or was not, and you're totally controlling their character and omg GM ban this skrub.

Taking direct control of another player's character is only acceptable in a few very specific cases:
1. The player gave you permission in advance
2. The player has been inactive for an extended period of time, their character is vital for story progression AND the GM/consensus has given you permission to do so.
3. You are the GM and have explicitly stated before the RP that this was something you might occasionally do.

I don't personally believe that it is the right of any GM to just stick a middle finger up to the player and say 'Screw you, your character is doing X whether you like it or not' except in extreme circumstances. And even then, most of those extreme circumstances would be better solved by just kicking the offending player, or at least politely asking him to bugger off.

Sarge said
I would say it depends on your definition of godmoding. Some people get super annoyed if you so much as mention that their character is in the room with all the other characters where all the stuff is happening, because they didn't specifically mention that s/he was or was not, and you're totally controlling their character and omg GM ban this skrub.Taking direct control of another player's character is only acceptable in a few very specific cases:1. The player gave you permission in advance2. The player has been inactive for an extended period of time, their character is vital for story progression AND the GM/consensus has given you permission to do so.3. You are the GM and have explicitly stated before the RP that this was something you might occasionally do.I don't personally believe that it is the right of any GM to just stick a middle finger up to the player and say 'Screw you, your character is doing X whether you like it or not' except in extreme circumstances. And even then, most of those extreme circumstances would be better solved by just kicking the offending player, or at least politely asking him to bugger off.

Agreed--like u said, the exception being a plot-vital inactive character and u r the gm. I like to deal with inactives by killing them off xD >: D