A problem with (N)PC descs and clothing...

[Anonymous]

One thing I've noticed in the past is, for example, if the man with short black hair wears a helmet, he is still regarded in his sdesc as the man with short black hair.  I think that if someone wears something that conceals their hair, and their hair is in their sdesc, it doesn't make a lot of sense.

Another thing, when people are wearing veils or facewraps, one can still see in their mdesc that their lips are pale, or their nose is broad, even though those features are being covered by a veil.

I was thinking maybe that when people write their mdesc (this could be a problem for people who write their mdescs very originally), they should have some sort of code they can put in when they make their mdesc that identifies a sentence, or sentences, as (for example) the description of their eyes.

There would be a list of locations that this code supported, like eyes, nose, mouth, legs, arms etc.  It would be something like [eyes]His eyes are a pale brown, and are almost gray[/eyes].  So then, when a piece of clothing like a hood is worn, it would replace the text that had things to do with their facial feature with something corresponding to the clothing that conceals them.  "His face is dark, as a hood conceals his features".  Something to that effect that the code generates.  And suppose someone has a large tattoo on their wrist, but they wear a wristwrap or long sleeves, the code could take care of that.

One problem that I have seen already is if people put their eye description in the front of their mdesc and their mouth description near the end, it would cause problems.

Just an idea to add to the realism, which I think would take a hell of a long time to do.  Thoughts, comments?

[Hexxaex]

Sorry, the above post is mine, I forgot to log in.

[Marauder Moe]

It'd be nice, but impractical.  I think a better solution would be to have players just be responsible and not let their characters notice things they shouldn't logically be able to notice.

[Trenidor]

I agree moe...

I absolutly positively extreemly hate people who say stuff about a person's main description without being responsible enough to figure in clothing, angle from which they see the person...etc etc.

But Mleh...what can you do about noobs...

[Rhyden]

It'd be nice, but impractical.  I think a better solution would be to have players just be responsible and not let their characters notice things they shouldn't logically be able to notice.

I agree and disagree. The better solution -would- be to allow players to be responsible.

But -are- players responsible enough? Are -enough- players responsible enough? In Armageddon, there is a very large amount of trust and responsibility laid on every single player. The game would only get better if some of this trust could be uplifted by implementing the code to do so.

In brief, doing this would be difficult and impractical, but it would be reasonable and helpful to every single player, even those who are trustworthy and responsible.

[Spoon]

Yeah, I think it's up for other players to not notice, rather than making the app system more complicated. Things like this are always better to tackle with proper roleplay than the code.

[EvilRoeSlade]

I think that your idea has merit, but as others have said, it's too impractical.

Right now trusting the playerbase is the ONLY solution.  Not the best one, the only one.  I'd rather not have to be responsible for taking into account every piece of equipment the person I'm looking at is wearing.  I mess up all the time.

So in short, I would like to see something done to this effect.  But it would have to be something simpler and doable.

[elvenchipmunk]

It does say when you're writing mdesc that you're -not- supposed to factor in clothing or armor or anything that the player will be wearing later on in the game. You can't possibly know that you'll be wearing that helmet of face concealing +5. I always figured that you're supposed to describe your character as if they're standing directly in front of you, naked.

As has been stated before, it should just be trusted in the hands of the playerbase to act as if they can't see that person's hair -even- though it sayd in their -coded- description that it is pink, and -even- if they are wearing that helmet of face concealing +5.

Edit: I took out the quote I had in earlier, I realised I read the quote the wrong way.  :oops:

[JollyGreenGiant]

I'd rather not have to be responsible for taking into account every piece of equipment the person I'm looking at is wearing.  I mess up all the time.

Agreed.  And a helm might not conceal hair at all.  Or, it might conceal short hair.  Or you might have all your hair piled on top of your head under your helmet.  Or you might rp taking your helmet off and forget to actually "remove helmet."  (I hate it when I forget to codedly do things I've emoted about.)  Anyway, point is, too many factors to consider even with something as simple as a helmet, and I'd rather expend energy playing the game than trying to figure out from someone's description and their helmet's description whether or not I can see their hair.

[Agent_137]

When I write my mdesc, I assume the character is lying on his back, passed out, in a ditch, with basic boots, pants, shirt on.

Why?

I want my mdesc to be what people see MOST of the time they look at me.

Anything beyond that, I reveal through emotes. Uber long templar? Emoted. Crazy ritual scarring around his right nipple? Emotes.

That's information I want to surprise people with . . . not force every single spam looker in the tavern to ignore.

Oh, and on a side note, no one REALLY cares what color your damn eyes are. Sorry. Doesn't help the mental image -that- much, unless, say, they're neon pink.

[Linedel]

The problem with going in any direction that generates even more descriptions on the fly is that you lose human element.. character creation becomes simply choosing descriptors for each body part, and everyone ends up being "the helmeted dude with %s skin and %s fingernails".

Regardless of any flaws that the current system may leak through helmets... it adds color to the game, and I wager less people would enjoy playing in a genericized world.

[Bestatte]

I agree with Agent's notion of main descriptions - that it's best and most logical to describe your character however MOST people would see him, MOST of the time, excluding the attire in the description itself.

elvinchipmonk wrote:

I always figured that you're supposed to describe your character as if they're standing directly in front of you, naked.

I firmly - vehemently - disagree. If that was the case, then I wanna see all those penises and nipples and pubic hair. And trust me, I will be first in line to comply. It won't be pretty.

I -do- however agree with the "as if they're standing" though - because it's a little nitpicking thing to me when descriptions start out, "Standing in front of you," or similar. What if the guy is sitting down, or passed out on the floor? Then, he isn't standing is he? So which do I believe? His description or the action in the game?

If you ASSUME that he's standing when you write your description, then you don't have to write "He is standing." It's already assumed, unless otherwise noted in the course of the roleplay.

Again, that's just a little nitpicking thing of mine, I don't get crotchety over it. Most of the time I try to follow some guidelines I learned in another game, when writing -any- description. The primary guideline is this:

Don't tell me what I see. Tell me what exists, and let me decide if I see it, and how I perceive it when I do.

Pretend the reader is standing, sitting, lying down. Pretend he's blind, sighted, deaf, not deaf. Pretend he's coming, going, and not moving at all. Pretend he's male, female, hermaphrodite, and neuter. Pretend that every single color in the rainbow is his favorite color, and that he is completely color-blind and sees only in black and white.

So - you don't tell me "His eyes are a lovely shade of green." Instead, tell me "His eyes are the verdant hue of a bimbal leaf." Let me decide if they're lovely or not, whether or not I even recognize it as being green.

Show, don't tell, in other words. That's me though, I would never expect anyone to have to adhere to this kind of rigid criteria. But when I do see others adhere to it, it makes me grin.

[elvenchipmunk]

Bestatte wrote:

elvinchipmonk wrote:

I always figured that you're supposed to describe your character as if they're standing directly in front of you, naked.  

I firmly - vehemently - disagree. If that was the case, then I wanna see all those penises and nipples and pubic hair. And trust me, I will be first in line to comply. It won't be pretty.

I -do- however agree with the "as if they're standing" though - because it's a little nitpicking thing to me when descriptions start out, "Standing in front of you," or similar. What if the guy is sitting down, or passed out on the floor? Then, he isn't standing is he? So which do I believe? His description or the action in the game?

Ya, I kind of meant naked, except don't describe the things that don't need to be described ie: penis, pubic hair and all that stuff that no one needs to know. I meant things like that long scar running from his chest to his waist, or his tanned skin or whatever...hope that makes a little more sense.

[Larrath]

Personally, I describe what would be visible if my character was dressed in what I normally expected them to wear.
In other words, shoes, a pair of trousers and a short-sleeved vest.  

Everything that would be visible in that state, I describe.  Scars on the back aren't visible, but burn marks on the forearms are.  If my PC is naked, I have emotes and ldesc changes to portray anything not covered in the mdesc.

[Sanvean]

I think it's a cool idea, but enforcing it would be a total nightmare.  And it would make the mud a -lot- harder for new players, which is not the direction I'd like to go in.