Rant: Sdescs and Names

[Larrath]

One of the reasons why Armageddon displays sdescs instead of character names, in my understanding, is to allow misidentification.

This means that if "a sable-haired assassin" is being sought, anyone with black hair can and should be suspected, and not only people with that specific adjective in their sdescs.  Furthermore, if an adjective is particularly common or even obvious, there's really no point mentioning it.
Saying that the raider is "a swarthy, battle-scared man" is practically useless if you want to identify someone, since practically everyone in Zalanthas is swarthy.
If it's racially obvious like a lean/tall [half-]elf or a muscular dwarf or whatever, just don't include it at all.  This is just as logical as telling the FBI that the Asian murderer that they are looking for has slanted eyes.


Try to read people's main descriptions and see what features you *really* notice.  Do they have long black hair that reaches around their shoulders?  If you really come to think about it, most features you'll see in sdescs tend to be pretty generic anyway, and can't really describe anyone.  The only thing they are useful for is for matching specific words which, if you ask me, borders on abuse.
A short description is not a name and it should absolutely never be used as one.

Thank you.

[Rhyden]

Amen to that.

When describing the bulky, chestnut-tressed man (just using this as an example, sorry if this is somebody's actual sdesc. One could describe that character as bulky and having chestnut-colored hair.

Then again, one could call this person large, tall, muscular, strong-looking, beefy, big, huge and their hair color could be described simply as brown, mahogany, dark, or possibly like agafari.

One can also actually read that character's long description over and use other descriptive adjectives similar to that character's physicalities.

So please, when describing a character, try to be more general and steer a little further away from their actual sdesc keywords -all- the time.  

[Jorlain]

Well, while I agree to everything mentioned, I find one problem with this. You have to -look- at them to get the idea. If it was you that noticed the guy was there, you'd have an idea of what he looked like. Unfortunately for us, we have to type "look (person)".

And then for people like me who absolutely hate "looking" at someone because of the echo, it makes things twice as difficult.

If that makes any sense.

[Larrath]

If you didn't get a good look at them then you didn't get a good look at them.  Being shy of looking of people doesn't mean this person has to suffer people identifying him unfairly.

Also, you can attach emotes to your looks, so that's really not that bad.


"I didn't get a good look at him, my Lord Templar, but he has cerulean eyes" is kinda silly, too.  If you didn't get a good look at them, I doubt you should even be able to recognize them if you saw them again.

[Anonymous]

I'm trying to understand your point.  Are you saying that sdescs shouldn't be used as a fingerprint because there will be a ton of 'tall, brown-haired' men in a given city?

Because I think it depends.  If -MY- PC sees the tall, brown-haired man in the next room throwing exploding tregils at me I'm going to have my PC identify the 'tall, brown-haired man' as the attacker if they meet again.

However, if my PC tells someone else 'go find and kill the tall, brown-haired man' I think that's a little lame play on my part due to the plethora of people that fit that description.

Of course, 'the devil-horned, tentacled half-giant' is a different case altogether.

[Bestatte]

Unfortunately it doesn't work backward.

You "look" at Raiderguy, get a good description of him because he has his hood down and it's broad daylight. His sdesc: the brown-skinned ponytailed man.

Templar asks who raided your wagon:

Well, he has green eyes, pretty wide-set. He's tall, kind of young. Might be a breed, because he has pointy ears, but he's not as tall as an elf.

Templar tells his men: Look for the green-eyed man, tall, young, pointy ears.

His men walk RIGHT PAST the brown-skinned ponytailed man because they're not looking for a man with a ponytail. They're looking for a man with green eyes and pointy ears who isn't as tall as an elf.

[sjanimal]

Amen to the original post.

[Larrath]

I'm saying that the sdesc shouldn't be used as fingerprints because they're an ooc device, and also that most of the would-be descriptions people take from them are absolutely meaningless.

If you saw "the rangy, emaciated man" then I'd think it would just make more sense if they'd be described as a really tall thin guy.  Short-descs should never be used between characters in order to identify anyone.  A feature described by the short-desc can be used, but only if it makes logical sense.  Tentacles?  Sure.  Kank-tattooed?  Sure.  Rangy?  Nope.


For a character who already saw the person, it's fine to be able to recognize them again, but if you want to describe them then you'd better get a meaningful description somehow.  If you saw a dark-skinned man with black hair throwing exploding tregils, well, I don't think describing him meaningfully to any Militia is going to be easy.

[Anonymous]

If you saw a dark-skinned man with black hair throwing exploding tregils, well, I don't think describing him meaningfully to any Militia is going to be easy.

This I agree with.  However, I think there are people that use their sdesc, intentionally or not, in a way that creates a situation like Bestatte mentions.  And that is just as big a problem.

A tall dude with a 3 cord dorsal fin, scales and gills and brown hair shouldn't be 'the tall, brown-haired man.'  That's an absurd scenario, doubtlessly, but there are a lot of PCs that unintentionally or not don't have a sdesc that is indicative of the most striking parts of their main desc.

[wizturbo]

I agree, the identifying thing totally sucks.  Playing a covert identity in Armageddon is extremely difficult.  You can change absolutely everything you wear, cover your face, wear a hood, and still be identified by someone who just gets a passing glance at you.  It even gets worse if your hidden/invisible and that happens.

Makes me really want description hiding masks to be put back into the game, and either closely monitored or karma restricted, to prevent abuse.

[EvilRoeSlade]

Well, while I agree to everything mentioned, I find one problem with this. You have to -look- at them to get the idea. If it was you that noticed the guy was there, you'd have an idea of what he looked like. Unfortunately for us, we have to type "look (person)".

And then for people like me who absolutely hate "looking" at someone because of the echo, it makes things twice as difficult.

If that makes any sense.

Looking is essential for RP.  I strongly advise you to get over this as soon as possible.

[EvilRoeSlade]

Unfortunately it doesn't work backward.

You "look" at Raiderguy, get a good description of him because he has his hood down and it's broad daylight. His sdesc: the brown-skinned ponytailed man.

Templar asks who raided your wagon:

Well, he has green eyes, pretty wide-set. He's tall, kind of young. Might be a breed, because he has pointy ears, but he's not as tall as an elf.

Templar tells his men: Look for the green-eyed man, tall, young, pointy ears.

His men walk RIGHT PAST the brown-skinned ponytailed man because they're not looking for a man with a ponytail. They're looking for a man with green eyes and pointy ears who isn't as tall as an elf.

Finding someone based on a description should be HARD.  This isn't a problem in my opinion, it's the way the game should be.  If I were you I'd describe the person in as much detail as possible to the templar.  The templar will probably use less detail when passing the description to his men, and his men will probably never find the raider.

Only an incredibly attentive character, possibly only a character who was trained to memorize descriptions and then attempt to match them to people as they look over a crowd would have a chance of success.

There's a reason raiders don't often bother with disguises.

Then again, if YOU see the raider again, he's easy to identify now.

As an aside, sorry for the double post.

[flurry]

I agree completely with ERS.  If you refrain from 'looking' at PCs that your character has a reason to look at, you're putting up an obstacle for yourself that's bound to interfere with roleplay.   If look echos bother you that much, append something on the look command and it's as good as an emote.

[wizturbo]

Well, while I agree to everything mentioned, I find one problem with this. You have to -look- at them to get the idea. If it was you that noticed the guy was there, you'd have an idea of what he looked like. Unfortunately for us, we have to type "look (person)".

And then for people like me who absolutely hate "looking" at someone because of the echo, it makes things twice as difficult.

If that makes any sense.

Looking is essential for RP.  I strongly advise you to get over this as soon as possible.

Got no problem with look myself, only got a problem that look is this magickal reveal all ability that can see past facewrappings, cloaks, hoods, and crowds upon crowds of people.

[JollyGreenGiant]

Only an incredibly attentive character, possibly only a character who was trained to memorize descriptions and then attempt to match them to people as they look over a crowd would have a chance of success.

If this were true, police sketch artists would quickly be out of work.  While recalling a face to describe it might be difficult, reconstructing a face when asked the right questions is not hard.

In other news, I do this, and I'm going to continue to do it.  I have a hard enough time keeping track of people's short descriptions.  I'm also lazy, and this is an approximation of reality, not reality itself.  I have no inclination to start keeping a text file of mdescs just so I can appease a handful of people who take offense to my using the sdesc of the frumpy, square-headed dwarf as a ... *gasp* short description of him.  There are characters that my character has been interacting with for several RL months.  I've used the "look" command on them many times.  I don't remember a single mdesc of any of those people well enough to even begin to describe them just using their mdesc.

If someone would like to offer me a reasonable* alternate to what I'm currently doing, I'll consider it.

*By reasonable, I mean anything that requires approximately the same amount of effort as my present method.

[Bestatte]

I was thinking more on the order of someone who walks into the same room you're in, you see their sdesc clearly - they walk out before you have a chance to look at them. And then (since you're "watching" the direction they just entered) you see them cast a evul magicker spell. It's a clear day, middle of the day, no storm, no sand, air is still, they just passed you...and you just saw "the ponytailed skinny human male" just cast a spell up north where you know magicks are illegal.

How do you describe that guy to the templar?

Here's how *I* describe him:

"He was thinner than most men, definitely a man though, human looking, had a ponytail. I didn't get to catch a better look at him to see scars or anything, but that's what I noticed when he ran past me."

If that's wrong, then - oh well, I'm wrong. And I'll continue to be wrong, because that's the sdesc the PC's player picked out - those are the outstanding features he wanted other players to notice immediately, and so those are the outstanding features I will describe if I ever need to.

[sarahjc]

I agree to an extent... It depends on the Short Desc. A lot of people put their most predominate features in the short desc.  The Big eared, white haired man.. or the silvery skinned woman.

I do think you should look at the person as a whole and identify them as you see fit. I once identified some elf to a templar with what I thought my PC would notice about this person when he had his hood up.

He had long unkempt white hair, pale skin and some weird hue of eyes.. I took with me the fact that some of his hair might creep out the hood and he did not wear gloves so I picked out his pale hands. The elf's short desc I think was the White haired, pallid elf.. Or something along those lines.. .

Anyway I didn't even know what his short desc was, but just on guesswork I picked out his key words.  My opinion is that if it's an unusual short desc, then I think it's fine to use those words.

[flurry]

I do that as well, Bestatte, and I'm sure everyone from time to time is asked to describe someone for whom they only have an sdesc.

Paraphrasing the sdesc is so much better than reciting it verbatim, I think.  You're at least adding some ambiguity and getting away from looking at an sdesc as a fingerprint.

[Larrath]

Well, that depends on what kind of description they are given.
Bestatte's example description is extremely uninformative, and one would gather that she only caught a glance at the figure in question.

And police sketch artists can't do much if nobody got a good look.


Here's what someone who got a good look would normally describe someone.

the rugged, bald young man
This is a well-built human. His darkly tanned skin lends a rugged tone to his well-muscled frame. Wiry, ropy muscles adorn his arms, which each have one long, pale, and thin scar cutting from elbow to wrist. His hands are thick and calloused, with the faintly rubberlike scars of a victim of fire lining his knuckles and backhand. His torso and midsection are scarless and smooth, with well defined muscles stretching beneath the skin. He has well-developed legs, the sort with power and endurance. His head is bald and shines like polished ebony, his pate covered with an intricately detailed white-inked tattoo that resembles a crown of claws. Large and bushy white eyebrows perch atop a set of large, seeking eyes the color of slate grey. His boldly shaped nose juts out with stature. Beneath it squarely rest large lips and a defined jawline. His whole face has the tanned nature of one who spends much time in the sun, with smiling, patronly wrinkles framing the mouth and eyes, although he seems otherwise young.

There are so many ways to describe this character meaningfully and realistically that just saying "bald and very muscular" would be silly, even though bald truly is a special thing here.

You can just talk about those burn marks on his hands and say he has white eyebrows.  You can say he had a white tattoo on his head.  You can say what he was wearing or riding.
You can say he had a big scar from his elbow to his wrist, I'm sure that scars that big are rare even on Zalanthas.

Any combination of these things (and more!) could be used to make a good description that would allow the Militia PCs to go on a manhunt, the Templar PCs to take bribes to take the wrong man (or just release the criminal) as well as allow that criminal to get away.


"He was very rugged, sir...and he was bald.  Looked young, too.".
Which do you prefer?

[Larrath]

If that's wrong, then - oh well, I'm wrong. And I'll continue to be wrong, because that's the sdesc the PC's player picked out - those are the outstanding features he wanted other players to notice immediately, and so those are the outstanding features I will describe if I ever need to.

At the very least, then, you can neglect a detail or two, because you know that this player will be found out with 100% accuracy even though there are probably at least six thousand other thin human men with ponytails just around the corner.

If you say that it was a man with a ponytail, for example, and neglect the skinny (not like it's that easy to notice through a cloak and when they're running, right?), this will change things dramatically for everyone involved.


So the villian got away.  Boo-fucking-hoo.  Who cares?
I'm sure that the people playing in the Militia and in the Templarate aren't doing so just because they want to kill as many outlaw PCs as they possibly can.  This is simply not what it's about.  In fact, I daresay that it's more befitting a two-bit PvP MUD where Heaven and Hell meet in the final showdown, yada yada yada.

The more rampant this common decency is, the more people who will be willing to play raiders who do more than bash all the time, so come on people.  Give a shit.

[Kankman]

Criminals get away.

Nothing is broken.

[Larrath]

Criminals don't get away nearly as often as they should, if not from the Militias then from the hordes of guards and hunters who magickally can pick them out of the horde for no particular reason.

[Kankman]

My last character, and my current character were/are both involved in apprehending criminals. I am serious when I say - criminals get away. I honestly do not see the problem you are pointing out. Even if someone pukes up the exact sdesc of a criminal in a report, you also must keep in mind the players of militia characters and their leaders are usually quite responsible players. For the most part, they won't automagickly subdue/incriminate on sight of a shifty person's sdesc unless said criminal is known to automagickly run away as soon as a soldier/templar PC enters the room, regardless of NPCs and VNPCs.

Editted to add -

I am somewhat delerious from medication so I didn't notice your argument against guards/hunters. This actually does bother me as well. While playing a criminal type, I've noticed a whole lot of players (usually not in law-enforcing positions) will see you act somewhat shifty ONCE then brand you a thief for life. Shame on said players. Shame.

[Larrath]

That is correct.
However, there are many combatative characters who are, well, not as fair playing.  When a PC goes to Tavern X and proclaims (or even writes a rumor) that "The tall muscular man is the killer!!!1" and then goes to the templarate, *someone* is going to hunt that exact sdesc down, and that someone will more than likely manage to make a full mob to go with him.