This is something I see relatively often, but I don't think many people realize they are doing it. I call it "passive-aggressive" godmoding. It's not blatant godmoding, but it is GMing nonetheless. I thought I would bring it to everyone's attention.
Descriptive text should be just that. It should be describing actual events, actions, or objective facts. Your character's thoughts, opinions, and beliefs are not objective facts, and thus have no place in the descriptive prose of play-by-post RPing unless they are either a) contained within a speech bubble, or specifically demarcated as a thought or opinion.
An example of passive-aggressive godmoding:
A better way to write the very same post and still convey the emotions present:
Another example of passive-aggressive godmoding:
The same post, rewritten to remove godmoding:
The point is this: as a writer on a play-by-post site in cooperation with other people, you unfortunately do not have sole ownership over what is objective fact like you would have if writing a novel. The only thing you own is your character. Because you do not have sole editorial point-of-view, you need to write your posts as if you were writing an essay (though hopefully it will be a less boring experience). You can't simply drop facts without citing sources - that's plagiarism at worst, and shoddy writing at best. Every time you write something that isn't a speech bubble or specifically noted as an opinion, think to yourself - is this objectively true? Can I back this statement up with empirical fact? Especially when it comes to fighting or dueling other characters. Maybe in some cases, where an Apprentice fights a Master, your character really is stronger, more powerful, or wiser than your opponent's. But the vast majority of confrontations and duels take place between relatively similarly powered characters of equal rank, thus these rules become pertinent.
Descriptive text should be just that. It should be describing actual events, actions, or objective facts. Your character's thoughts, opinions, and beliefs are not objective facts, and thus have no place in the descriptive prose of play-by-post RPing unless they are either a) contained within a speech bubble, or specifically demarcated as a thought or opinion.
An example of passive-aggressive godmoding:
Let's look at what's wrong with a post like this. "He was astonished at how weak and feeble Obi-Wan had become" - Is this objectively true? Maybe in Vader's mind it is, but it doesn't necessarily make it empirical fact. "Such a pathetic opponent" - again, Vader's own opinion. Using language like this is a good way to create animosity between you and another writer. Imagine if you were the writer of Obi-Wan. Would it make you too happy to read your character being trashed as though it were undisputed fact, without any input from you? Again, this isn't explicit godmoding - Vader isn't overtly landing hits on his opponent or dominating him physically. But it is still technically godmoding, because it is assuming something about another character is true, when it may not necessarily be. What's worse, the writer of Obi-Wan will typically feel obligated to write back an equally passive-aggressive reply, stating that it is not his character who is weak and feeble but Vader, in order to correct the perceived injustice. Thus perpetuating the cycle.
A better way to write the very same post and still convey the emotions present:
Much better. Vader's feelings and opinions are contained within a speech bubble, so we know that they are just that - his opinions. They may indeed be true, but by containing them within speech, we're not self-righteously becoming the arbiters of truth and assuming they are because we said so.
Another example of passive-aggressive godmoding:
This one specifically has to do with your character's beliefs. "What a fool he had become" - according to whom? Just because Obi-Wan thinks Darth Vader is a fool, doesn't necessarily make it so. "The ideologies of the Sith were based upon pure stupidity" - again, according to whom? This is Obi-Wan's opinion, not an objective truth. Who died and made your character the sole keymaster of what constitutes philosophical truth?
The same post, rewritten to remove godmoding:
We see Obi-Wan's disapproval of Vader's actions and beliefs, yet it is also clear that these are his opinions. It is up to the reader to decide what is objectively true and what is not. It can also be done without text bubbles. If you absolutely have to keep the line about the Sith's ideals being stupid, fine, but do it this way - "In Obi-Wan's opinion, the ideologies of the Sith were based upon pure stupidity." Let us know it is Obi-Wan who thinks these things and not the writer.
The point is this: as a writer on a play-by-post site in cooperation with other people, you unfortunately do not have sole ownership over what is objective fact like you would have if writing a novel. The only thing you own is your character. Because you do not have sole editorial point-of-view, you need to write your posts as if you were writing an essay (though hopefully it will be a less boring experience). You can't simply drop facts without citing sources - that's plagiarism at worst, and shoddy writing at best. Every time you write something that isn't a speech bubble or specifically noted as an opinion, think to yourself - is this objectively true? Can I back this statement up with empirical fact? Especially when it comes to fighting or dueling other characters. Maybe in some cases, where an Apprentice fights a Master, your character really is stronger, more powerful, or wiser than your opponent's. But the vast majority of confrontations and duels take place between relatively similarly powered characters of equal rank, thus these rules become pertinent.
