Questions about coding/game-mechanics

[Anonymous]

When someone asks a question about support from the game code or game mechanics, they are often told that what they are asking is too IC.  Or they are told that game mechanics don't matter.

This post will show why such a response is unethical, why such a response is natural and instictive despite this, and why players have a legitamate right to know these sorts of things.

Firstly, the reason why it's unethical to tell someone that their question is too IC or that game mechanics are unimportant, is because this is a vary chastising sort of response.  People are inquisitive by nature, and want to have knowledge about the world around them, even game worlds.  Trying to make someone feel bad about their natural urge to learn is like trying to make someone feel bad for the natural urge to masturbate.

Much as most of us would feel somewhat uncomfortable with our teenaged sons and daughters learning sex, we have a similar squeemishness about noobs learning about game mechanics.  We don't want them to grow up.  Knowledge is power.  With a healthy knowledge of game mechanics, noobs can get into all sorts of trouble, and we don't want that for them.  So we tell them that game mechanics is bad, don't worry about game mechanics, game mechanics is dirty.  Just be good little girls and boys, and leave the game mechanics to us grown ups.  We'll take care of everthing for you.

So it's quite understandable that an experienced player WON'T want to share mechanics knowledge with a beginner.  Here is why we should:  We, as more experienced players, have a right to know what the noobs are thinking.  We want them to bring their questions to us.  If one noob is asking too many poignant questions, better for us to learn that this fellow is interested in twinking.  Better to find a problem like this early, so it can be corrected.

Should a noob be a party to everything?  No.  For example, most Noobs will have no legitamate need to know:

--the exact balances of every Kurac bank account
--the number of hit points Tektolnes has
--the number of arrows needed to kill a raptor

But reasonable questions deserve a straightforward answer.  Players have a right to know this kind of stuff, because this is...after all, a game.  It's not role-playing therapy.  It's not role-playing sex.  It's not role-playing training.  It's a role playing game.  The players have a right to learn the rules.  And if they're asking too many questions, someone needs to sit down with them and help them get into character more.

[Mr.Camel]

I personally think the closer the game's mechanics is to a black box, the more the playerbase would be immersed into the world. I believe I would enjoy the game less if I read its code. Seriously, I enjoy it more when I forget the mechanics, or try to as best as I can.

Note: I'm not saying good roleplaying anywhere in my little post, as that can be done regardless of knowing or not how the game works. I talked about enjoyment.

[wizturbo]

I agree with Camel.

The mystery of the game's various classes is destroyed when you get into mechanics.  I WISH I could forget everything I know about certain things, so the mystery and fun would still be there.  But I can't.  I think keeping information from noobs about certain topics is for their own enjoyment purposes, even if they hate mysteries, tough luck!  :-)

[Marauder Moe]

I think we should continue as we have been and keep undocumented game information off these boards.  I would begin addressing your peruasivly-structured post point by point... but its late and I'm tired.

I find your anonymity detracts from your perceived conviction, however.

[Xamminy]

This is a roleplaying game, not a hack 'n' slash mud.  Do what your character would do.  If a question asked on the GDB is giving too much information to the playerbase, we will say so by saying it is 'too IC' because you should find certain things out yourself, as giving away the secrets and the neat things really ruins it for some people that would actally prefer to put forth the work, and would feel cheated if they did but someone else was just handed the answer.

As far as mechanics go, again, this is a roleplaying game, not a hack 'n' slash.  Play your character the way your character would act, and you'll get better at what your character does, and maybe learn things somewhat similar through the process of branching.  Knowing certain things about mechanics changes how you will act with your character.   It really does.  We'd rather you play your character as you want envision your character as a person...and not encourage people to do things based off of code.

[wizturbo]

There are -some- things which are just quirks in the code that is irrational and dumb.  But I dont' think just spreading that information openly on the boards is the solution.  I think that the elder players should suggest ways of fixing these irregularities so they are logical.  For instance (this is completely made up) if you needed to practice riding to branch weaponcrafting, someone who realized this should email the mud requesting that weaponsmithing be crafted from something else.


Beyond the illogical stuff, i think secrets are good.

[Avril]

It's a strange interpretation, that old players are keeping secrets from new ones just to preserve their "elite" status, while at the same time ensuring the new players don't step out of line. From what I've seen, it might also be quite true. Still, there are plenty of reasons to withhold information from new players, just as there are plenty of reasons to hand it out. Few of these reasons ever have to do with role-playing itself, although some try to strap the concept of role-playing next to their own arguments to give them a false sense of legitimacy.

Knowing most of the mechanics (not the numbers and equations, but the general principles) helps you role-play accurately. It removes the suprise and frustration of finding things out on your own. It lets you enjoy the apparent randomness of the game, and those unique moments when the code kills you off for no reason. It helps newbies stay out of trouble, and gives them no defenses against veteran twinks. Just about every argument here has a counter-point, except for this: it helps you role-play accurately.

You might argue that knowing the code helps you exploit it. That's certainly true - I've recently learned of a twink who slipped right into an estate and took off with all the kanks because the guard at the gates doesn't scan, the VNPCs inside don't alarm him and the gates themselves aren't codedly locked. There's still no coded retribution from the clan in question, even though many of its members saw the thief, and many would have realistically reacted. If IC actions truly bring about IC consequences, why haven't the virtual leaders of the estate done something immediately about the theft of all their coded kanks? No reason, but until the gates get their proper code, the same thing might happen over and over again. And once they do get their code, the first fellow to open them from the outside will notice a pair of kanks slip out, along with a rider that's been waiting for real-life hours in the courtyard. It's still unrealistic, but nothing happens ICly to correct it.

From now on, the players of that clan will justifiably prefer to use the city stables rather than the ones their clan provides for free, and keep their tickets inside their closed backpacks at all times. For some reason, a public stable is far safer than a private one, but the characters themselves won't want to look into that reason. They'll know that public stables offer more protection, and they will realistically approach these stables. If the players behind them have a good heart, they will advise newbie members to do the same, even though it's not realistic for the non-coded gameworld. It's even less realistic to let your kanks get stolen and put faith in useless defenses, after all.

I find your anonymity detracts from your perceived conviction, however.

Much like the people who put any stock in it, conviction is worthless. Disregarding any beliefs because you feel they lack conviction will only cripple you intellectually, as it will provide you with a convenient excuse not to think seriously about things. Your judgement will become no more than a simple reflex, arbitrarily deciding that something is true or not. It's often what prompts the reaction of "find out IC".

Play your character the way your character would act, and you'll get better at what your character does

In most cases, that's simply not true.

As for playing out my character the way he would act, my character would sleep his wounds off once he found out that's all it takes to get healthy again. Good thing I know better. If he were in a company of soldiers, all of whom had been clawed up and bitten by a mekillot, and he was the only one who role-played injury after sleeping it off, everyone else would perceive him as a weakling or a coward - and justifiably so, because he was completely healed after the fight.

This is a roleplaying game, not a hack 'n' slash mud. Do what your character would do.

One time, someone subdued my willing character to bring her back into the city. That someone ended up butchered at the gates, simply because the criminal code did something that the guards, as characters, wouldn't have done. This is one of many examples where you shouldn't do what your character would do, because you would receive an unrealistic response from the gameworld. It's also an example of "IC" information that needs being reminded of. I still don't know whether that character might have survided if I turned nosave on. I probably won't be able to find out IC (unless I decide to sacrifice a character for it) but that's what some players on the board will typically suggest.

Not knowing that a failed hide doesn't show an echo, either to the hider or those around him, can cause the hider to look like he's standing around like an idiot. The same thing happens when you put on your shiny new steel helmet and head out on your warhorse, then discover that you're hitting poorly. Is it your inflexible position on your warhorse? Is it the inconvenience your helm? Perhaps the bulk of that new longsword he just gained? Or is he simply carrying too much? The character would have some idea about it (particularly if his helmet's visor is to blame), but since no echos are provided, the player remains uncertain. All he feels is that the character's blows are askew. The horrible weight of his backpack might turn out to be the problem, but the player won't discover this until he tosses it away - after dozens of small battles in which the character could easily have noticed its effects.

The game doesn't act realistically in many ways. When you're using a piece of code without fully knowing what it does, you often won't be able to role-play it through with any accuracy. Sometimes, the knowledge you need comes so quickly and so easily that you forget how valuable it is. Bits of the crafting code make good examples - you have no idea that raw materials are usually destroyed on a crafting failure, when this might logically occour only when you made a catastrophic error. However, after a few tries and wasted newbie coins, it becomes obvious. If the crafting code simply removed the raw materials from your inventory and later gave you the product (or lack of) without an echo, confusion (and some "find out IC" comments) would arise. The crafting code would be severely flawed in this case, much like some parts of Armageddon are today, because it failed to provide the player with an understanding of what his character knew.

When I know that my horse, my helm, my sword, my encumberance, the fortitude spell cast on me and the fact that I logged in on Dzeda, taken together, explain why I kept losing to a vestric, I'm able to decide which of these things my character noticed and which of these he didn't. If he found that the horse wasn't doing a good job squashing the vestric down, he might reserve some time to train it. If he found that his sword swung too low and almost chopped the horse's tail, he might decide to switch weapons or train some more. If he found nothing wrong with his technique, he might just decide that he had a bad day.

[Reverend Jeff]

Wow.  It must be Wednesday if it's time for this discussion again.  Heh.

I dunno.  You know, I've read both sides of this and I do really see good points from each.  On one hand, there's an awful lot of stuff that I really think a "find out IC" response is crappy for.  Stuff like, "Hey... if I spend hours practicing lock picking on a lock that is beyond my skill level, would I eventually learn how to do it?"  Or maybe "Hey... if I try to smuggle spice into Allanak, will I be instantly killed?"  Or even "Hey... my character has lived in this city all his life.  Would I recognize that noble house's symbol?"

Eh.  And the only reason I feel this way about the whole "find out IC" thing is because, realistically, if I created a character whose goal was to smuggle spice into Allanak and, say, he got instantly killed, all of that valuable information I found out in character would be lost.  Because, sure enough, every time I created a new character that, say, had an urge to smuggle spice, realistically, they wouldn't know how to do it properly based off my previous characters' experiences, and the thought of playing an endless loop of three hour characters who get caught kinda sucks.

Now, on the other end of the spectrum, I totally see where the "find out IC" phrase is really correct.  I wouldn't want information about shadowy conspiricies or strange organizations leaking out.  Code specifics like the exact tonnage that a kank can carry or whether certain types of spice affect certain attributes or, eh, even whether I slur my speech when my character gets drunk... all of those are prime examples of things I'd prefer to find out in game.

But, yes, this is the only time I'll chime into this age-old debate and, frankly, the way things are now isn't horrible.  Could things be better?  Maybe.  But the policy we have now suits me just fine.  On one hand, it benefits long-time players (and this is reflected, in-game, by those rare few who you run into that have a intricate knowledge of how things work... as only a rare few should).  It does mean that new players are disadvantaged when they show up.  On the other hand, it also cuts down on the amount of exploits that could happen.

So, for now, I'll support the status quo.  I understand the frustration it can cause and I wish things could be better, but... eh... wish in one hand...

[Agent_137]

As for playing out my character the way he would act, my character would sleep his wounds off once he found out that's all it takes to get healthy again. Good thing I know better. If he were in a company of soldiers, all of whom had been clawed up and bitten by a mekillot, and he was the only one who role-played injury after sleeping it off, everyone else would perceive him as a weakling or a coward - and justifiably so, because he was completely healed after the fight.

Ok, first of all, I don't know what kind of soldiers you are talking about, but with the soldiers my characters have been with, they would see you RPing a major wound, and they'd go "Oh shit, he's right. We've probably got major wounds!"

And then they'd go, "OH! MY BLEEDING NECK."

Maybe it was just my quality company. But I think RPing some lasting wound after getting FUCKED UP is good, regardless of HP.

-----------------
Next subject:


Here's my rule for too IC or not too IC:


If a commoner in either city would know and understand the fact, piece of code, or whatever, it isn't too IC.

If he wouldn't, then it is.


A commoner would know that you are subdued by the guards if they catch you bringing spice in the gates.

A commoner would also understand that if he didn't submit immediately (nosave on) he would be beaten down and likely die.

A commoner might or might not know how effective a certain mount is in combat. He'll probably know that one is better than another, but no details.

A commoner would know the majority of the different house symbols.

I don't really feel I need to go on, but I urge you to think about the question posed in this manner, and then return the response based upon it.

[UnderSeven]

Okay, someone tell me when the last time you slept off wounds in real life was.

Here is a simple equation for what makes sense for your char to do.  Does it have real significance?  There are some things the game does that makes it more playable vs realism, like the fact that you can sleep off wounds fairly quickly rather than spend months recovering.  That's nice, the code does it for our benifit as players, but to say your char would sleep off wounds, that's not looking at the game beyond the code and mechanics and I feel that attitude can detract from rp.

In armageddon many things can affect say the way you swing, but I disagree that you should get a big fat pointer to what is doing it.  Here is a for instance.  Lets say you are trying to weld two electrical components together.  And when you finish you find that the device doesn't work right.  Do you know for certain what caused it? NO.  You can guess that maybe you accidentally welded the wrong things together, or maybe the tools didn't fit the job, or maybe you were doing the wrong thing entirely.  The same can be applied to combat,  The visor of your helm might be doing it, or the elbow piece that is heavily constrictive.  Does arm give you a pointer such as numbers or stats? Thank god no.  But they do give you descriptions to items that often will give strong indicators as to how the item may or may not affect you.  

I would agree there are instances where people should know game mechanics, but, let me give you further examples of things people should not need to know:

Numbers. . EVER.  
Exact comparison for what's better than something else (many factors go into quality and quality is ultimately subjective anyway)
A straight foward explination for combat or combat equipment.  Many factors apply, including the combination of different skills being applied.

These things are NOT self evident, you wouldn't be able to instantly know for sure in a real instance what was what either and no one sleeps off their wounds as if you'll wake up without a scratch.

[Larrath]

The only thing I have to say is that I don't think characters should be unable to figure out why they can't do physical things properly.

If you tried to climb, believe me that you'd KNOW if it's because you are wearing bad gloves, or boots, or too much weight, or that the wall is just too smooth.  Same with combat - if your shoulder plates are holding your arms back, you'd KNOW that.


UnderSeven's electricity example is more of a black box one, and I think it applies more to things such as the Magick code than it does to mundane actions.

Numbers should not be revealed, generally, no.  Knowing too much of how the game works can be annoying, yes.  So what?
Some things should be learned inside the game, and some things should be learned outside the game.


Dwarves are hairless.  Referring to Tektolnes as 'the defiler in the tower' in the Temple of the Dragon is a bad idea.  Fighting an armed opponent without a weapon may be bad for your health.  Krath is the name of the Sun.  Sitting down while holding on to a ledge will make you plummet.

NONE of these things are secrets.  Think about this in a serious IC point of view.  Would you be able to fight the knife-wielding Joe Mugger as easily with your bare hands as you would with a steel katana?
Not to mention sitting down when climbing...this is an action the character would have to consciously do!  They let go of the ledge, and fall as a result.


In summary, I agree that *some* mechanics can be good for the new players to learn only after a month or so of playing and not right away, but there also has to be a limit.  I do not agree that every half-word not written in the Docs is forbidden IC information, and I don't think this is a good approach.

[jhunter]

No, but when it's a question about something code-wise that is quite obviously to use the OOC information to influence their IC decisions the information should be obtained ICly.

Alot of newbies are too quick to ask OOCly about something they can find out IC instead of putting forth the effort to do so. Shit, figuring alot of that shit out IC is alot of the fun.

[Cavus]

All of us has different style of playing, and different opinions. Let me share mine.

If a newbie wants to know something that could be too IC in your opinion, I would PM this person, and tell it may hurt your enjoyment, but if you want it anyway, ok here it is....

Of course, any plot information...I mean IC actions should not be shared, but you should tell him that desert is bad and there are raiders (icly or oocly). House symbols? Sure, they have to know because they are citizens of that city maybe for 25 ic years.

Anyway, let's say he wants to know penalties of slashing weapons, you should *suggest* that it may hurt your enjoyment, but he wants it anway. Is it my problem? No. He may enjoy more if he understands more things. Or, it may bore him after a while, then it's his problem and he give damage to himself. On the other hand, you may help our playerbase by not using rude (according to most newbies) answers.

In any case, GDB is not right way to ask any level of ic information, use PM, helpers, and make some friends and learn their GDB names :-)

The bottom line is:
This is their choice, and you will most probably be more helpfull than simply telling FIND OUT IC.

Of course, this is my opinion and I'm not telling it should be in this way, but any PM is welcomed. I always help newbies icly, and it does not bother me to spend some RL hours.

EDIT:

Alot of newbies are too quick to ask OOCly about something they can find out IC instead of putting forth the effort to do so.

That's right, but we should find better sentence than "Find out ic". You should explain also why.

[Sanvean]

Firstly, the reason why it's unethical to tell someone that their question is too IC or that game mechanics are unimportant, is because this is a vary chastising sort of response. People are inquisitive by nature, and want to have knowledge about the world around them, even game worlds. Trying to make someone feel bad about their natural urge to learn is like trying to make someone feel bad for the natural urge to masturbate.

I'm not sure "unethical" is the word you want there.  But in any case, I disagree.  There's a difference between saying "I'm sorry, but you should find that answer out IC" and saying "You are a twink!  You shouldn't be asking that!", and you seem to be lumping all forms of that answer into the second category.  Comparing an unwillingness to answer to prudishness about sex, while well-designed rhetorically, is just plain a false comparison.

Sometimes things -are- too IC, and being honest about that more of a courtesy than assuming someone is so thin-skinned they'll be crushed by that answer.

The rule of thumb I use, and which I have suggested other people use, is whether or not the answer can be found in the readily avaialble documentation.  If it can, it's not too IC.  Obviously there's edge cases there and there may well be things that should be documented and aren't.  We find that out when people ask.

Assuming that everyone supplying that answer is trying to get an advantage over new players by hiding the secret lore of Armageddon is a misreading of the situation.  Many of the people supplying that answer are helpers, who are working actively to get new players involved in and hooked into the game.  They're motivated by a desire to preserve the game as well as other players' enjoyment.

You can't lump game mechanics questions all into one big bucket.  Sometimes they're very valid and involve things that affect one's ability to play the game: how to talk at tables, how to draw an arrow from a quiver, how to buy things in a shop, how to use nosave, etc.  Other times, as other posters have posted, there are questions that are, in fact, matters that should be explored IC or answered by common sense, such as "Is arrow A better than arrow B?" or "Will I lose more stamina travelling in the forest than on the road?"

One of the things the game depends on is the allure of the unknown.  There is a lot of stuff out there to discover, and discovering it in-game is a lot more fun than reading about it.  I'm fine with seeing people err on the side of caution than in the opposite direction, because I feel the other way results in a lot more enjoyment being lost.

Your basic premise seems to be that reasonable questions are not getting answered.  Can you point to places on this board where that's occurring?  Because it doesn't seem to me to be the case, or if so, I'd suspect it's a pretty small number.  Perhaps definitions of reasonable questions differ in this situation.[/quote]

[Larrath]

I agree, but there are plenty of other OOC things that are much more interesting to discover than "Tektolnes doesn't like being called a defiler" that newbies have to worry about.

And the general common information, like dwarves being bald and Krath being the sun?  These are things *everyone* would know, and I don't think every single newbie likes to play the stranger who seemed to have lost his mind somehow.

Code things, such as sitting down when standing on the middle of a cliff you're climbing...how can you discover that ICly?  On a pure character level, you simply let go of the cliff and fell.  Is a second PC going to go "Whatever you do, Amos, don't look down and don't sit!"?  It makes no sense whatsoever.


I am not saying that all should be revealed, and I am not saying that discovering by oneself is not fun...but again, I think that people immediately hopping forward and going "IC info IC info" is bad.
People should at least try to limit themselves to doing this when it's appropriate.

[Seeker]

The help files do a marvelous job in making commonly known information available to all players, and the vast majority of questions can be answered with a search command of those files or of this website.

For questions that seem valid, but are obviously not covered by the help files, or previously raised threads on the GDB, there are many legitimate avenues for receiving answers.  

The Helpers are well suited to to this, and are often begging for these types of questions.  A polite email to the MUD account, or an individual IMM who has jurisdiction over the particular area in question, is also frequently suggested as a way to get information that is not commonly distributed but might be appropriate to your particular character or situation.  I have even seem some very good role-play in game, some connected with a polite "wish up" to animate a knowledgable NPC in the field the particular question pertains to, to have such answers appropriated revealed IC.

The GDB's policy, however, is "no IC-sensitive information."  There are ways to find answers for any particular character's justified questions without exposing the entire player base to facts that some have repeatedly stated they just want to be able to find out for themselves.

If none of these sources will provide you with an answer, then it is probably safe to say that it is a secret.

I agree that "find out IC," is not a terribly helpful answer.  "The GDB is not the proper place to have this question answered.  You might find out through creative play in the game, through the use of the Helpers, or perhaps a polite email to the staff," might be better.

Seeker
(just offering suggestions that have been offered before)

[ashyom]

Like it or not, we do not advocate spreading information on GDB.  This policy is written in several places, one of which on GDB's Posting Guidelines, "Do NOT post information that is IC-sensitive. While debates over definitions of this term have raged in the past on the discussion boards, one fact has emerged: some people really prefer to experience things in the game, rather than inadvertently have the experience spoiled for them from reading this board. Therefore, when asking yourself whether or not what you're posting is too IC-sensitive, err on the side of caution."

Our helpfiles are written in a way that encourages people to read between the lines, and to RP in game to find out exactly how it works, whether through trial and error, talking to people, or thinking about it.  Most of it is pretty much common sense, and can be deduced from hints provided.  That's why many people on GDB will say, "Find out IC" or just provide links to the helpfiles/docs.  However, I will cede that not all of our documents and helpfiles are clear; if there are any that you feel needs fleshing out, feel free to idea it or email it to the mud.  

Incidentally, if someone wants to write a document of things that should be common knowledge, feel free to take a stab.  I think that'd be a worthy contribution.

Addenum:  Someone posted elsewhere about the crimcode - I want to note that we're very aware of the problems with that, but revamping that is a huge project that is on a very long list of to-do.  Sanvean has said this a few times in the past.  
Hope these insights helps a little.
Ashyom

[Halaster]

Okay, someone tell me when the last time you slept off wounds in real life was.

When was the last time you were stabbed several times by a longsword?  When was the last time you were near death, bleeding heavily from numerous deep gashes?

In the game you don't have to sleep off every wound, you only have to sleep off the really bad ones.  And to me, that's somewhat realistic.  If you get a nasty cut on your arm and need stiches - no, you don't have to sleep that off.  But if you're nearly killed by someone sticking a sword into your gut several times, odds are high that you'll be sleeping a LOT as you recover.  Also consider that realism has to be balanced with playability.

[Kill4Free]

*gets stabbed through heart*
*goes to sleep for the night*
*wakes up all better*

[jmordetsky]

Okay, someone tell me when the last time you slept off wounds in real life was.

When was the last time you were stabbed several times by a longsword?  When was the last time you were near death, bleeding heavily from numerous deep gashes?

In the game you don't have to sleep off every wound, you only have to sleep off the really bad ones.  And to me, that's somewhat realistic.  If you get a nasty cut on your arm and need stiches - no, you don't have to sleep that off.  But if you're nearly killed by someone sticking a sword into your gut several times, odds are high that you'll be sleeping a LOT as you recover.  Also consider that realism has to be balanced with playability.

I think playablity is great. My issue is why people are often complained to when they react to code in it's playable sake.

For example, I hunt, I get hurt, I sleep, I'm better, I hunt again. This often criticized as unrealistic. But it's playable right? So why not? Do I need to tavern sit for an IC month after I get beat down by a tembo even though the code healed me?

And if not, why is it so IC to tell a player the sleeping heals major wounds that resting does not? Wouldn't that be common sense?

Isn't understanding the UI and effects of the code really just an analogy to a rudimentry understanding your body and physical world around you?

If I have a tame rhino, and a tame horse...the tame rhino is going to be  better at charging...it's just intuitive. Whats wrong with asking if the code supports it?

(note...I read no ones post but halasters because I'm lazy. PLease feel free to ignore me)

[Agent_137]

IC, just sleeping for a night won't heal a broken leg, or a huge fucking gash.

IG, it will.


IC, you rp whatever else you are doing to fix that wound, splinting it yourself, going to a healer, or finding a real or virtual physician.


So if you get knocked down to very very low hitpoints, please don't sleep it off with nary emote. I mean, uhg. Roleplaying wounds is FUN. I've always enjoyed it, even roleplaying it alone when I have to animate the physician with my own emotes.

But if you don't look at it that way, if you see sleeping to heal your massive HP loss as just a down time between hunting more or getting back to mudsexing more, maybe you're taking this game in the wrong light.

And I'm not fingering you in particular, jmordetsky. I'm speaking in general, here.

[Kill4Free]

Personally, if I get brutally injured, I do sleep it off (while thinking and emoting on my way to my sleep-place) But then after I recover enough so it will recharge on its own, I go to a tavern, and rp it, wear a bandage over my wound, drink lots and lots of alcohol, and talk to people.
As an almost dead person might be a bit too much of a tempting target to someone who has little to lose (new char for instance).

[Kill4Free]

But basically, you have to work with the code, there are many disparaties between the game and reality, and you just have to accept them.  RP what you can, and work with what you cant

[Sanvean]

Is there actually a post on this board where someone asked how to heal their wounds and was told to find out IC, or is that a total straw man?

[Agent_137]

Not recently, but I didn't run a search.

This thread is rooted in the "find out IC" answers to the war mount thread.


SEE! POST WHORES DO COME IN HANDY SOMETIMES.
(talking about me)

[jmordetsky]

Agreed, I was just trying to draw an analogy. To me it's linked to the same issue. I know that if I hurt my leg, I need to keep of it.

I also know that a tank is better war mount then a car. I also know I can't drive a tank.

N00bs should know the same, they know this via the code. It should be intuitive to a person in game that a war beetle has certain advantages over a kank, and if a n00b asks if a driving a war beetle gives certain + and -'s in combat, the question shouldn't be met with find out IC....

Find out IC should be reserved for portions of the code that would not be intuitive to a normal person yea? And the code should be played as the code allows, imho.

There isn't anything twinky about buying a war beetle because the code allows for it to be a great war mount. Nor is sleeping off wounds. To me anyhow.

That was the point I was trying to make....

Personally...If a n00b asked me IC if a war beetle was good for war, I'd kill them. But I like to kill n00bs. Thats just me.

[flurry]

I've recently learned of a twink who slipped right into an estate and took off with all the kanks because the guard at the gates doesn't scan, the VNPCs inside don't alarm him and the gates themselves aren't codedly locked. There's still no coded retribution from the clan in question, even though many of its members saw the thief, and many would have realistically reacted. If IC actions truly bring about IC consequences, why haven't the virtual leaders of the estate done something immediately about the theft of all their coded kanks? No reason, but until the gates get their proper code, the same thing might happen over and over again. And once they do get their code, the first fellow to open them from the outside will notice a pair of kanks slip out, along with a rider that's been waiting for real-life hours in the courtyard. It's still unrealistic, but nothing happens ICly to correct it.

From now on, the players of that clan will justifiably prefer to use the city stables rather than the ones their clan provides for free, and keep their tickets inside their closed backpacks at all times. For some reason, a public stable is far safer than a private one, but the characters themselves won't want to look into that reason. They'll know that public stables offer more protection, and they will realistically approach these stables. If the players behind them have a good heart, they will advise newbie members to do the same, even though it's not realistic for the non-coded gameworld. It's even less realistic to let your kanks get stolen and put faith in useless defenses, after all.

For goodness sake, Avril, if you know of a bug that can be unrealistically exploited like this, email the mud.

I'm not even saying to "tattle" on the twink (although I'm not saying that's a bad idea either), but if you're aware of a bug that bad, you'd be doing a favor to everyone in reporting it.    If you haven't, please do.

I don't think it would ever get to a point where people would be afraid to use a clan stable, because sooner or later the bug would get reported and fixed.

(I'm not saying a clan stable should be foolproof either, but the situation as you describe it is extraordinarily unreaslitic IMHO).

[Gilvar]

Game mechanics that relate to IC things should not be aired on the board. At all. There are helpers, and the all-knowing MUD account for those types of questions. Then again, your intial post is very vague and sets an improper tone from the beginning. No one said "mechanics questions are not allowed".

For example...
"How do I make a kank follow me?" is a mechanics question that is perfectly acceptable. That being because kanks are established in the documentation as existing, and the very method is also in the documentation. Anyone could answer and it would be perfectly fine to be talked about on the boards.

Anything your character needs to know is in the documentation, including house symbols, information on raiders, and that the desert is bad. If you have a question that isn't in the documentation you should mail the mud or a helper (and CC the mud in this case so they can make sure its not too IC).

It is not your (or any other player's) responsibility to decide what information you can or cannot share with others. You shouldn't share anything that isn't in the documentation.

And the general common information, like dwarves being bald and Krath being the sun? These are things *everyone* would know, and I don't think every single newbie likes to play the stranger who seemed to have lost his mind somehow.

Dwarves being bald is in the documentation. I dont think there is a list of common slang, but if you'd like to put one together (including that Krath is a word for the Sun among other things) that would be great. There is also nothing wrong with answering a question on either of these if someone asks.

For example, I hunt, I get hurt, I sleep, I'm better, I hunt again. This often criticized as unrealistic. But it's playable right? So why not? Do I need to tavern sit for an IC month after I get beat down by a tembo even though the code healed me?

And if not, why is it so IC to tell a player the sleeping heals major wounds that resting does not? Wouldn't that be common sense?

Isn't understanding the UI and effects of the code really just an analogy to a rudimentry understanding your body and physical world around you?

It sets up a situation that allows for roleplaying without totally destroying your gameplay experience. It is VERY unrealistic to hunt, get hurt, sleep and hunt again like nothing happens. Sure we could make it so that you stay wounded for days on end, or we could make it so your major wounds heal over time and leave it up to you to decide how injured your character was and how long they need to rehabilitate. If I got majorly hurt, but didn't really break any bones or lose any kidneys, sure I might be out for a FEW days (like I was in a car accident and was up and walking a few days later), but not an IC month. Even waiting a day to resume your spam-hunting is better then immediately.

If I have a tame rhino, and a tame horse...the tame rhino is going to be better at charging...it's just intuitive. Whats wrong with asking if the code supports it?

I dont really get the analogy, but there is nothing nescessarily wrong with asking, its just the answer may not want to be known by everyone, which is why it shouldn't really be asked on the GDB. Helpers, or Imms (through email) would be a much better choice in my opinion.

The problem is people shouldn't be worrying about coded advantages (like was discussed in another thread) but instead just acting realistically. Someone asking "Will riding Mount A give me a coded advantage to my charge skill over riding mount B?" is very bad, and when the information becomes 'common knowledge' by way of being on the board, people will typically use that information inappropriately. Like going out of their way to ride Mount A when charging, doing it specifically for the coded advantage.[

[Kill4Free]

Yeah, the code has limits :/
But for lots of the stuff, that you can do realistically, but cant do in the game, it isnt wrong to say if it is possible or not.  Specific details, can be found out IC, but general questions, about if it is possible or not (while it isnt stated in the help files) should be met with a direct answer.

[Gilvar]

it isnt wrong to say if it is possible or not.

Yes actually it is. Because alot of things CAN be possible, and people either just dont know how to do it themselves, or are not intrepid enough to try.

Like way back in the day (possibly) someone asked "Can I feed my kank?" and people answered "no",  and very few people feed their kanks to this day, because its been established it cant be done codewise. This is one in a handful of cases where people dont act realistically because codely it cant be done. Sure, even I dont do this, but that is because I probably was brainwashed early on into not doing it by not seeing it done.

So yes, saying "No that is not possible" can be wrong, and harmful in alot of situations, and for the most part its alot more fun to experiment, try out, and find out for yourself if something is possible or not, rather then being spoon fed information.

[Kill4Free]

True, somethings you might need a more descriptive answer then just yes or no, but my main point was, is that it should be answered.
Using your kank example, if some newb wanted to know if he had to feed his kank, and told to find out IC'ly people might say yes, even likely they would say yes, but he wouldnt be able to find out how to feed it, and then he might really worry bout his kank dying.

But if someone posted something along the lines of
The code doesnt support feeding kanks, but it is good roleplaying style to feed it using emotes, and food that you have no wish to eat.

To be honest, I dont feed my kank often, but when they start making noises and move their heads from side to side, i take it as they are agitated about something, so my char has to roleplay calming him down.

Also one can assume that when you place a kank in the stables, it gets fed, and watered, and being insects, can go for even a week without food, and many days without water, so it wouldnt -need- food or water between stabling.

[Anonymous]

True, somethings you might need a more descriptive answer then just yes or no, but my main point was, is that it should be answered.
Using your kank example, if some newb wanted to know if he had to feed his kank, and told to find out IC'ly people might say yes, even likely they would say yes, but he wouldnt be able to find out how to feed it, and then he might really worry bout his kank dying.

When I consider answering a code-related question on the board normally two things pop into my mind:

1.  Would the PC know the answer?
2.  Is the player best served by getting their answer on the board.

So, if someone asked if Zalanthans drank water I'd answer them, because it's silly to say 'go ask icly'.

But some questions aren't quite so cut and dried in regards to the first question I ask myself and that's generally when it's time for an ask ICly response.  Which isn't flippant at all, at least when I do it.

The other thing that goes through my head when considering answering one of those questions is how often I've had a PC sitting at a bar with 3 other PCs none of them seeming able to strike up a conversation.  It's times like that when a 'Hey, you know of any kank breeds that will bite at gortoks?' question would be a godsend.  Because regardless of whether or not people have an answer more conversation always follows.

[Kill4Free]

True, it is a good way to start a conversation, but my personal favorite is to try to get the pc soldiers that are around there drunk

[Kill4Free]

And obviously it is impossible for me to make some kind of explanation on wether to help the dude oocly or not all the time, there will always be an exception.

[House Rising Sun]

I highly doubt this is arm policy. I'm positive. But this is how I do and always will treat code questions that are directed towards me:

Armageddon's code is the translator between Zalanthas and Earth. If there's something not quite understood about the code, such as "do war-trained mounts give me bonuses in combat?" I will do my best to answer the question, "ic sensitivity" be damned. It's the individual's responsibility to use code knowledge in a mature manner (not twinking it out). It's certainly not my responsibility (and in most cases, right) to withhold information about the coded translation of the story that I've learned throughout the years, from newer players. That's just an unfair advantage.

Naturally, actual ic secrets relating to the code should not be spoken of. That's just friggin stupid. Magick, mindbending, the truth about tek... all never to be spoken.

I'm going to say that a lot of staff members are dead-ass wrong on this topic. The coded functions currently represent the physical laws of Zalanthas, which every pc will be intimately familiar with, for the most part. Only the most tight-assed dipshit of a player is going to say anything like "no, I won't tell you how this certain skill checks success, or how lights work in storms." Forcing a newbie to learn these things on his own is more code abuse than just telling him outright. -Hack'n'slash games- are where you learn the cool features of the code through play time and experience. An RPI is where you know them from the start, and utilize them where appropriate. Quite often, doing what your character 'would do' is going to require some understanding of how the code is going to penalize or reward you, or you'll end up acting unrealistically.

If someone asks what coded effects certain weapon types have, I'll tell them, no questions asked. Because those are the zalanthan laws of physics.

Bah, I spent too long at a bar tonight ot get this all out straight. The bottom line is, if a question involves the translation from idea to roleplay, in any way, not including sensitive roles, let the damn player have it. Otherwise, you ***** ************* are perpetuating the ooc advantage that experienced players have over newbies. Like we don't already have enough.

[wizturbo]

House Rising Sun, your opinions are...well your own...but I hope you have no karma.  Wouldn't want someone with that attitude behind the player of a magicker or dangerous race.  Simply because then you'll be ruining the mystery for all the people who ask you about it, and also, because its not your damn job to be spreading that information.  The staff, who RUN this game, can make that decision.  NOT YOU.

[jhunter]

It should be intuitive to a person in game that a war beetle has certain advantages over a kank, and if a n00b asks if a driving a war beetle gives certain + and -'s in combat, the question shouldn't be met with find out IC....

I completely disagree with this.

I think it's the same as asking: "What special abilities/skills do any npc creatures in the game have?"

I believe that such things should be found out icly.

[House Rising Sun]

"Naturally, actual ic secrets relating to the code should not be spoken of. That's just friggin stupid. Magick, mindbending, the truth about tek... all never to be spoken."

Telling a newbie the coded effects of certain weapon types is a far cry from spilling the secrets of a whiran's spell list, chief. Yeah, I have karma. And if this policy of mine says otherwise, fine.

My point is, there's no reason to keep these things from players other than to make sure they don't abuse them. I say, let them abuse them, and ban them once they do. I'd rather have a few players we can trust than a whole mess of players that we're not quite sure of.

[Larrath]

I agree with House Rising Sun.


Wizturbo: Please read the post more thoroughly.

Naturally, actual ic secrets relating to the code should not be spoken of. That's just friggin stupid. Magick, mindbending, the truth about tek... all never to be spoken.

About war mounts, I don't think people should answer "What advantage does using a mekillot instead of a kank has in combat" with "You get a two skillpoint bonus to your parry skill and are less vulnerable to the Nilazi spell "Transmute Flesh into Nothing".

However, saying that it may be more comfortable fighting on a war-trained animal than a pack animal is a perfectly fine answer.  If you tell this player to find out IC, after all, what will he do?  Ask a player.  And how will that player know?  Did they ask the kanks?
Either they used a ton of characters to find out by themselves, or they found out OOCly or back in the Old Days when this information was probably more available.


Is it some closely guarded secret that an elephant can use its trunk to whip a human into a pulp?  Or that some snakes will rely on their poison bites and that others will constrict?  Yes, this IS the same.

Let's take gwoshi as an example.

These woolly quadrupedal mammals stand nearly as tall as a human at the shoulder. Although they can sometimes be tamed for use as mounts, their name, originating from the Allundean for "biter," can give a potential rider pause. Attacks on nomadic humans and elves have been reported, their large, clawed paws adding to their painful bite, but they are normally relatively solitary beasts. Gwoshi travel in small family units as opposed to herds, and do not take well either to being herded or being domesticated. Their unusual woolly coat is very highly sought after by certain Houses. Some tribes are rumored to hold superstitious beliefs regarding them.

So a gwoshi is more or less the size of a pony, have large clawed paws and their name is a bastardation of the word "Biter".

If you ever got bitten by a horse, you'd know that they can bite pretty damn painfully, but people are still far more worried about their kicks, since it is well known as their preferred method of attack.  Is this some closely guarded secret, or common knowledge?  If you lived in a third-world village where you had wild and ill-tempered flesh-eating horses riding outside, don't you think you'd know what attack you're going to have to fear?


A gwoshi should not have great trouble trampling a dwarf to death and could probably throw a mean kick, but it's still the bites that people are afraid of.

Why do people treat this like confidential information?


It was said what type of an attack a particular animal uses is the same as saying what skills an NPC has.  I disagree.

A raptor fights using its claws, and a humanoid fights using a weapon.  Or is the existence of swords and daggers also IC information?
This is NOT the same as saying what type of tactics a raptor may use, and what type of tactics are most useful in order to take one down.  This, the tactics issue (which is the step after the "what am I afraid of" that every single commoner would know and thusly IC information), but ONLY it.

It is important that true IC information is kept hidden while the lesser IC information (such as - taking a hit on the head might stun you a little) is given to anyone and everyone who desires it...and those who do, well, reading it does not tell them anything their PCs already knew.

[jhunter]

Your example is different Larrath.
The information is in the docs, and there is other information pertaining to those beasts which is -not- in them and can only be found out through IC means or the trading of OOC information.

[jhunter]

My point is, there's no reason to keep these things from players other than to make sure they don't abuse them. I say, let them abuse them, and ban them once they do. I'd rather have a few players we can trust than a whole mess of players that we're not quite sure of.

I say, fuck that.

You may think that's all fine and dandy but I've seen people lose their pcs because another was twinking shit out.

Sure, they were punished for it but it doesn't bring back the other person's character.

That's like saying: "Hey, let's hand out free loaded guns to everyone...whoever doesn't kill someone else we can trust and the rest we'll take their guns away afterward."

Doesn't save those that were killed during it does it?

[House Rising Sun]

Yeah, twinks are really going to disappear if we stop telling people The Way Things Work. We'll keep all the genuine roleplayers, who are interested in their characters' stories, from knowing the same things about the ic code functions, so their carefully crafted personas are perfectly out of synch with the game world.

Oh, wait, that was thinly veiled sarcasm. I hate that. Let's not do either of those things, so we all know how to play. En passant isn't really that big of a secret, after all.

[dolores]

Well, first off, I have to agree with the idea that encouraging inquisitive folks to get in touch with helpers or staff may often be more helpful and/or appropriate than either giving an explicit answer on the boards or leaving it at, "Find out IG." (I don't know that true game mechanics/code questions necessarily have IC answers.)

Otherwise, I just wanted to comment on the few of the examples. To piggy-back of Larrath's, I as a newcomer might read the gwoshi helpfile and wonder, "If I have a gwoshi mount, but my ride skill is low, do I have to worry that it will bite me?" Now, everybody isn't going to want to see that answer on the board, and anyone whose character hasn't been around gwoshi or their riders (ICly) probably shouldn't know it, but I can imagine legitimate reasons for a discrete helper/staff response. For example, the answer could be either, "Well, it's not coded, but it would be a good idea to rp out," or, "Anything's possible, but it's okay to assume/rp that your character is good enough that it doesn't happen unless the code tells you otherwise."

For that matter, sleeping off wounds is a good example of a case when what a player might "learn" by experimenting in-game contradicts generally accepted rp-practice. It would be better for them to ask on the GDB and advised on rping out wounds than to "find out IG!" (This was touched on earlier in the thread, but I wanted to state it more directly if I could.)

Similarly, on the topic of feeding kanks, the IC answer ("Yes, they need food.") is different from the code answer ("No, they won't starve to death."). So there's some room for discussion on the board, kanks being exceedingly common creatures. Potentially helpful responses (given various code situations) might range from (again), "It's not coded, but it's good to rp," to "Most people assume/rp that part of the stabling fee covers food," to "Yes, the command is XXX, and it is considered twinkish to rp without using the command and expending real (coded) food."

Note: All sample responses, code descriptions, and rp advice in this message should be considered wholly hypothetical. You may notice that some are mutually contradictory.

--Dolores

[Avril]

Like I said, bringing up the plain "find out IC" in any form, no matter how complicated, is acting out on reflexes. It doesn't contribute to the discussion or provide any valid arguments.

Regarding the opinion that everything outside the docs should be found out in-game... It presumes that the only instances where information is needed are global and syntax-based. Things like "are all rooms in an apartment designated as safe rooms?" or even "is there a quit safe room anywhere around the Hole-in-the-wall pub?" are code-related issues you wouldn't find in the helpfiles. Things like "can you see coins in the victim's inventory when you peek?", "does the ammount of clay you scoop up from the pit depend on your character's strength or his tools?" and "what actions cause you to lose your grip while on a ledge?" are still valid, but some would rather have it that people found out IC. There are things that your character, but very few others, would know - whether the visor on your helmet makes your attacks weaker or less accurate, for instance. The character wearing the helm would quickly realize his attacks are all failing because he can't tell where he's swinging his sword, but the player might not know if this feature is coded or not. There should be an echo about this, or a straightforward mention in the item desc. However, if he saw another fellow in the same type of armor fight, he could only guess it was the problem, just like an electronics expert could only guess what's wrong with a big circuit, or a medic could guess what's wrong with his patient. Here, a localized way of telling the player why he's failing would work splendidly - a "whispered" echo in the middle of combat would be ideal for this kind of thing, as it would explain the problem to the player in question, and him only. It would make sparring a more valuable experience, for both novice and master fighters.

There are some things that the imms don't want to cover because they'll "get to it eventually" - the analyze problem and the criminal code are good examples; Sometimes the world just doesn't make sense, preventing you from foraging in places where it's realistic, for example. In that case, it's merely an OOC convenience for people to know they can't just scavenge bones anywhere in the bonelands, but only next to the "tower of mekillot skulls"; In some cases, my character couldn't ask certain questions to PCs, but might ask to NPCs... These questions could be appropriate for the GDB, but would receive bitter remarks from IC-sensitive people. For instance, what's the cost of water in Luir's, or the cost of tailoring in Allanak? I sometimes had a lot of trouble just for not knowing these things, when realistically, my character would have asked them before handing his coins or clothes away.

Sometimes wishing up is your only choice - and in those cases, you're dealing with things that might take hours to handle. There's one very recent situation (which involved learning about some things) I would have liked to role-play thoroughly, but I couldn't just come up to people and ask direct questions... That might have gotten me cheated, killed or worse. It would have taken half an hour for me to get to the point of my query without causing suspicion or being taken for a fool... So should I bother the imms about it, hoping they either have an hour to spare or a good dose of sentimentality, or should I just ask around OOCly?

Is there actually a post on this board where someone asked how to heal their wounds and was told to find out IC, or is that a total straw man?

I'd say the discussion about this has to do with people being froced to role-play through the code, rather than questions not being answered on the GDB. If some "war mounts" are worthless for both riding and fighting, there will be a tacit agreement among players that these mounts shouldn't be used. If people sleep and rest out in their tents for a few hours to heal their wounds (even while emoting how hurt they are), then jump up and ride back to wherever they were going in the first place, there will be a tacit agreement that they can all role-play to their hearts' content, so long as nobody delays the trip with their silly wounds. You can groan all you want while you're resting to recover, but if you tell everyone in your team you can't go on, expect to cause a great deal of frustration.

Like way back in the day (possibly) someone asked "Can I feed my kank?" and people answered "no", and very few people feed their kanks to this day

There are several reasons why no one ever role-plays feeding kanks. None of them have anything to do with brainwashing. The first thing to consider is that you take kanks out into a codedly hostile world, where you usually don't have enough time to emote at length before nightfall. Unless you're a ranger who keeps quitting in the desert, you take your kanks on long, emoteless trips through the coded wilderness and send them into the stables, where they're supposedly fed by a crew of stablehands. There just isn't any situation when you can safely role-play feeding them, and besides, they're kanks... Self-sufficient buggers, aren't they? Another problem is that you have no idea what kanks eat, anyway. I've role-played them eating grass and refusing fruit, but that might not have been realistic.

If I feel something should be done, code-wise, I'll ask about it before I start role-playing. Crafting a virtual item when its coded counterpart exists would be pointless most of the time, for instance.

[wizturbo]

I think that newbies can figure out parts of the coded world on their own.  Yes, it would be great to know some of the game mechanics, but honestly, i'd rather they be patient and find out like the rest of us rather then be told everything and someone's character gets killed because one twink decides to use this information improperly.  

I'd rather upset ten newbies who want to know what the best weapon out there is, then kill one great PC who was contributing a lot to the game, but because they chose a weapon that was IC for them, but not some uber weapon they died in a fight against that twink who had maxed out uber gear.

This game has a HARSH learning curve.  I don't mind making that learning curve a little less harsh, but there are ways without giving away game mechanics information.

Also, you can ALWAYS email the mud asking questions like this.  I've found it a great way to get informative responses about various mechanics issues i've had.  They knows it me asking, they can look at my account notes to see if i'm a twink.  And they can make the call whether to divulge the information, rather then some player who just decided to take it upon themselves to spread dangerous information around.

[Larrath]

You prefer that newbies are patient?

Here's a newsflash: impatient people are unlikely to join Armageddon in the firstplace (applying for a character and all), and are even less likely to come back after a month or so.  Newbies have a very hard time as it is, and nobody was talking about telling them -everything-.

Why should they be 'patient like the rest of us', exactly?  Why can't Armageddon strive to be an easier game for new players?


You prefer that ten newbies are frustrated and annoyed than on long-lived PC is killed by a twink.  Well, this long-lived PC's player is pretty likely to create a new character...and since leading *roleplay* (which is what good players actually do; they generate play and not just give people orders) is a thing that does not depend on what type of a PC is played (hermits excluded), the loss is not immense.
These ten newbies, however, are probably struggling enough as it is and may decide that they had enough and just give up trying.


The game has a HARSH learning curve, and one of the causes is that the mechanics are so different than stock MUDs.  Syntax is different, doing stuff is different, everything is different, and giving proper mechanics information is may very well help make that curve a little more forgiving.



Sure, you can email the MUD account if you have a question or two that you couldn't get anywhere else, but do you want every third player spamming the account with the same questions day after day after day?  Think about the poor people who'd have to *answer* these things and about the goop their brains will become after two days.

Besides, I somehow doubt that a lot of newbies email the MUD account very often.


Now, wizturbo, with all of this out of the way...NOBODY in this thread, at all suggested that people told other people what the best mount/equipment/magicker guild/cup size is the best to play.  Or if they did tell them, they'd probably name some ancient artifact-like weapon that these people can only dream of finding in the next RL year.  (bronze chestplates and obsidian-hilted iron longswords come to mind).

What we are suggesting is more along the lines of letting a newbie know how to tell whether a given weapon is from the Slashing or the Piercing category in order to help him know whether his Slashing-Only combat character can or cannot efficiently use this weapon.  Yes, this gives the newbie a measure of power, but let's be realistic for a moment.

First of all, newbies have characters just like everyone else, and have a power to harm.  This is an IC thing and it's actually true!  Every idiot with a knife can kill someone, which is why people don't like seeing people walking around holding knives.
Second, let's face it, it is VERY easy to kill a given newbie if you set your mind to it, especially if you use their lack of knowledge.  Get them to sleep, give them a militia weapon to sell, ask them to tell that templar friend of yours over there that his sister is a bad lay.

Don't worry about it, Wizturbo.  No matter how much we try helping newbies, they are still newbies for the first month or two that they play and they don't threaten to completely destroy the game.

The idea is NOT to have a good RPI that has a tier of elite roleplayers that enjoy the game and a layer of newbies that pollute it, but rather to have an RPI with the "elite roleplayer" and the "elite roleplayer in training" tiers.
There is no reason for these trainees to have to constantly recieve discouraging and frustrating answers to their legitimate questions.

I'm running out of things to say, wizturbo, because I already said everything.  My only conclusion is that your argument is on an emotional level instead of a logical level, and it is plainly impossible to have a debate in such a condition.

I have nothing more to say here and I believe that everyone already made their points.

[wizturbo]

Its not on an emotional level what so ever.  And yes, telling people stuff like using ASSESS to discover if a weapon is slashing of piercing is 100% fine by me.  Anything in the documentation is fair game to me.  And anything that is in common room descriptions in non-hidden places.  Like the Ratlon.  Its a rather unknown creature, its not in the documentation, but there are references to it in Allanak, so a player should know if they are from that city that a Ratlon is a strange mount that templars there use.  

I don't mind spreading information that should be known, I DO mind spreading information that can lead to aiding twinks.  I just think, some people have a far too liberal idea of what to tell newbies about mechanics, I would err on the side of caution.  The idea that experienced players (which fuck, i'm not even one) divulge as much as they can about mechanics so long as its not about secret stuff, doesn't really thrill me.  Yes, I agree that very good newbies who aren't abusive could take this information to help them roleplay a bit more realistically.  But sorry, I'm a pessimist, and don't believe that most newbies should be trusted to do so.  Like I said, I'd rather have 10 newbies that have to figure things out on their own, while avoiding that 1 twink that ruins a good character.  

Please don't get me wrong, and think my stance is dont' help them at all.  I help newbies all the time actually.  But telling them if such and such echos this, or such and such echos that.  Or where hide rooms are, or are not.  What rooms have a low chance of getting crim-coded, which ones don't.  Or things that might be 'realistic' to know, but are codedly difficult to discover is completely out of the question for me.  Yes it gives experienced player an advantage, but it also prevents inexperienced players from doing things that are unrealistic, like the example of stealing kanks from a guarded estate just because the gate isn't coded right.

Phew...hope that clears things up.

[Bestatte]

duplicate post - sorry.

[Bestatte]

No comment on the main discussion stuff - I think I already did and I just woke up and I'm too groggy to go back and check.

But regarding the "sleep to heal" issue:

Sleep is a coded command - and there exists no coded command to allow someone to pass out/fall unconscious except in combat situations (SAP being a good example of that)

In most situations like this, I don't see ANYTHING wrong or unrealistic with tossing out a single emote, something like this:

>Bestatte groans loudly, clutches her bloodied broken leg, and passes out.

sleep

change ldesc lays unconscious with her left leg oddly angled.

In summary: Sleep doesn't necessarily mean sleep. It is a coded syntax that can be used for becoming unconscious, if you let other players know you're doing it that way by using emotes (and ldesc - that's fun to use if you haven't yet!).

[da mitey warrior]

I tend to be more liberal when it comes to discussing game mechanics.  

My rule of thumb is that anything an average player who's played a month would know should be fair game, plus anything that the average commoner IG would know.  This includes anything that's in the helpfiles or public documentations,  how to use the more common mundane skills plus basic things like strategies for surviving or make a living in any of the non-karma guilds or classes.  

We should be more lenient with the newbie stuff and crack down on the advanced info.  I don't like reading that mindbenders can read your thinks in one post and a newbie being rebuffed when asking where to buy water in Allanak in another thread.

Two things I don't like are saying "Find out IC" and quoting helpfiles in response to questions.  Both responses seem rather rude to me and imply that you think the poster is lazy.  Simply answering the question in your own words, or explaining that the topic is sensitive and should not be discussed OOCly, are much better responses.

[jhunter]

Please don't get me wrong, and think my stance is dont' help them at all. I help newbies all the time actually. But telling them if such and such echos this, or such and such echos that. Or where hide rooms are, or are not. What rooms have a low chance of getting crim-coded, which ones don't. Or things that might be 'realistic' to know, but are codedly difficult to discover is completely out of the question for me. Yes it gives experienced player an advantage, but it also prevents inexperienced players from doing things that are unrealistic, like the example of stealing kanks from a guarded estate just because the gate isn't coded right.

Exactly what I'm trying to say Wiz'.

[Katsumata]

I just wanted to say thank you for House of the Rising Sun's post.

I've thought about this issue from time to time but he put it into context for me. I've felt like an actor on stage who has no clue what the stage looks like or what the props are for when I go to make a new character.

Without some realistic expectations of how the game world operates its hard to come up with new and interesting ideas because when I try to apply them in the game world, they just don't apply. My expectations do not fit the game reality.

This is very frustrating and makes it hard to enjoy my character. Its like dressing up for a Halloween party and showing up where every one is in coats and tails. My charcter is out of place in game and all it takes is anyone to talk to my character for 30 seconds to determine this. I am unable to play the role I chose because I have no realistic idea how the world responds to what I do.

This isn't to say that game secrets should not be kept. But realistic ideas about how the world operates would be incredibly useful.

[Agent_137]

Katsumata, and others who experience similiar problems,

USE THE HELPERS.

I can't stress that enough. They can give you hints and answers that we on the GDB aren't allowed to give.

Add them to your buddylist. IM them. I've needed them from time to time, and it's rare i can't find at least one online.

And even if you email them, you'll likely get an answer in at least a day or two.

For code questions, sensitive questions, I wouldn't use the board here at all. Use it maybe for general roleplay questions, but not for the stuff you're needing.

Use the helpers.

[Xamminy]

The Helpers are there for a reason.  We trust them to help you without giving out too much information.  Use them.