Erm, you shouldn't be writing a comparison between thoughts, unless it's in direct reference to what the other narrator said. Even then, it really depends on how you do it. You can write the same comparison with limited omniscience; remember, limited omniscience includes what would reasonably be discovered, not what your character can specifically reasonably discover. So if I'm x and you're y, and you write that y is charging in for a fast strike, I can, as the narrator, say that while y preferred fast attacks, x was one to take it slow and work defensively until he found an opening. That's entirely legit, because, even though the character wouldn't know this, you can reasonably determine this by seeing and examining what y is doing. It's the difference between actions and knowledge; you have to know the line. I can say that y is planning to feint to the left, because of the tenseness of his muscles and his minute tendency to put his weight on his left leg in preparation of moving to the right. Granted, that's only if the character's owner says as much, so that you're not bunnying. And unless your character can see and examine that, you can't use it IC. But I can't say that y was planning to shout an obscenity as he ran, because that's only knowable in y's mind. By that token, if no one in the scene has said y's name, and x doesn't know it, I cannot as a narrator know y's name.Originally Posted by Cyrus
Yes, that's true. But I don't see how that fits in here.When you're roleplaying, you are mixing narration with your character's perspective. Otherwise, you are writing purely action and dialogue. And that is dull as shit.
No one is saying that having the narrator know means the character knows.I could take what your character thinks and put a new spin to it as an omniscient narrator, improving our thread in general. Being an omniscient narrator doesn't mean I'm going to have Luc know your guy is thinking "Hey, it's a good thing Luc does not know I'm weak against the color yellow and my alter-ego is Steve Johnson."