Roleplaying Dangerous Situations

[Rindan]

I think people are blowing this issue out of proportion.  The issue at hand is a code problem.  If I challenge Amos to a duel, he accepts, and after some fighting Amos is dead, no one complains about the outcome.  The code determined if I was the better or warrior or not in a fair and even handed manner.  

The problem with running away is that the code doesn't offer any sort of assistance.  The code works one way every single time.  If you enter the same room as a raider, and the raider yells for you to stop, and you decide that 'to hell with that, I am turning my kank around and getting out of here', the code doesn't offer any sort of resolution.  The can't tell you if you decide to turn your kank around before raiders can get to you and stop you.  If your intention is to run, and their intention is to kill you if you run, the code is very unhelpful.  Unfortunately, I think the solution to this problem is some sort of approach code which means tearing the guts out of the current movement code.  Tearing the guts out of the movement code means tearing the guts out of, well, everything.  In other words, it isn't going to happen.

So, we have to live in a place where there is never going to be a satisfactory solution.  

If a Templar walks into a tavern with a wanted elf, there is rarely going to be a solution that satisfies all.  The elf is going to think, "Hey, I am a quick elf and this tavern is crowded.  There is no way he sees me yet, and even if he does, I am quicker then his two half-giant thugs.  I can get away." The elf then promptly stands and runs.  The Templar on the other hand sees an elf stand and bolt and is pissed off that the elf didn't bother to play the scene with the Templar.  The same could be said about all of the situations brought up.  One party feels that bolting is not only the right thing to do, but well within their capability, while the other party feels that they are close enough to prevent the other guy from getting away and so are pissed off when that other person simply runs as fast as they can.  As anyone who has tried it can attest to, catching someone on kank-back, even if you have a kank yourself, is close to impossible.  The code just isn't going to do any favors.  Whoever slams in some commands first is going to 'win'.

As to how to deal with this?  I would look at it from the perspective of realism first and game atmosphere second.

So, if I am sitting in a 'rinth bar and three elves sneak in, pop up behind my human, and tell him not to move, I would say that for realisms sake that running that point is down right stupid.  The elves are probably faster, I am out numbered, and while I could easily do a stand;n, it wouldn't be realistic.  I would play that situation out regardless of the outcome.  

If I am sitting in the Bard's Barrel with my quick elf and a Templar with two half-giants barge in, I don't feel much in the way of remorse running like hell.  There is another exit I can use, I am certainly faster then half-giants and a Templar, and seeing as how a Templar is not exactly low key, I probably saw the Templar come in so it is safe to assume I have a fair head start.  A fair head start combined with elven speed and an alternative exit makes me feel safe in deciding that stand;s is an a-okay response.  If I decide running is okay, I then next think about what sort of interaction I am going to get out of sitting there.  If I know that my character is probably doomed and I have a pretty interesting character going, I will simply run, call it realistic, and call it a day.  If on the other hand my character has been boring and I think I can get out of an execution, I don't mind having my character trip or simply forget to observe the half-giants flanking a Templar as they come in.

Honestly, I think there is not much else you can do.  Without code to arbitrate, you just need to make your own call.  If your call doesn't match up with the other person's call, try to avoid taking personal offense to it unless they do something that is over the top unrealistic.  Anyone who says that sitting around to RP your elf running like hell is always the right decision or anyone who says that always bolting is the right decision is just fooling themselves.  Some times it is right and some times it is wrong.  Until a staff member feels particularly masochistic and gives up all of his/her free time to touch the movement code, that is just how it is going to have to be.

[Halaster]

Maybe it's foolish of me, but I'm not going to stop emoting a dangerous
situation just because my victim/opponent/assailant might be too reliant
on the code.  I have a certain amount of trust invested in me by the imms,
none of which has to do with someone else's ability to player--or lack
thereof--realistically.  I usually just email the imms a description of what
took place, what the character looked like and when this happened.  I can
usually guess that these individuals aren't trusted much by the staff to
roleplay their characters.

It's all about setting a better example.

Best answer yet, and the one I was going to type.  Having played all ends of the spectrum, I agree, it's damn annoying when your victim doesn't RP and just runs.  But that's no excuse to resort to a KILL FIRST RP LATER RAWR mentality.  If your victim gets away, so what.  Email a complaint and it'll get dealt with on some level.  By resorting to "their tactics", you just lower the bar for everyone and the game as a whole suffers because the standard is now lower.  Don't expect it to improve if you're not going to keep the high standard yourself.

Generally speaking, people who keep their standards high despite what others are doing, are generally the people we trust more and typically play higher karma roles.  Those who take the attitude of "well, they're not RP'ing so I'm just going to kill first, RP later", are typically the ones who aren't trusted with more roles, and therefore don't have more karma - and you wonder why?

I understand the frustration of eventually saying "Screw it, I'm just killing the next one cause the last 8 didn't RP but ran", cause I've had it myself.  You just have to keep in mind that you're only contributing to lowering the standard by doing this.

Again, though, just because you -do- stand;run;e doesn't mean you're a poor roleplayer.  But I think that's a different situation that some of the examples LoD provided.  flee;flee;flee;flee;flee;flee while they're talking to you is rather lame and "bad form".  But in the example Rindan provided with the elf in the Barrel, I think it's ok in that situation.  Although, it couldn't hurt to: emote quickly makes his way out the side.  (of course, I'm a fast typer so I know I could actually get that done and still likely beat the templar from catching me, heh).

[Armaddict]

I'm very guilty of the lack of trust issue.  I just -hate- the situations where I tried to play, and end up getting screwed.  Not as in I lose my character, but as in I lose my character because of my attempts to liven the scene without any such effort on the part of the other party.

Halaster says to send in complaints...but I think most of the complaints would be pretty flimsy and dismissed.  Perhaps they might watch that character (in which case they wouldn't see any further actions worthy of complaint unless they're doing such consistently - this is rare), or forward the email to the other party, but in reality, it just doesn't do that much.

I haven't been in a situation like this recently, but I'll definitely be trying to give it more of a shot simply because I'm coming to grips that this is a game about fun, not necessarily survival.  I may lose my character, but creating new characters and starting the epic story anew is more fun than people give it credit for.  Particularly once you get pretty good at surviving those first 10 days or so.

However, I'm just stating that I see both sides of it.  It's a problem that has been brought up many times before, and I agree with Rindan.  Just try to keep a level head rather than going into instant instinctual mode where you just try to keep your character survive.  Look at what's happening, and try to do your best to make -your- part the better played part.  At least if you die then, you have the satisfaction of saying, 'Well, -I- played that better, for sure.'  It may not be better RP, but at least you can have a basis to say 'I'm better', heh.  It's more fulfilling than you think.

[Cenghiz]

Answer to the anonymous kank who answered me..

Yes, I do wait for a response when I enter a room, throw off a cantrip and 'wait' - wait=not typing anything to let the other one type an emote -. But as Halaster said, people running away instantly won't make me instakill. I will still enter a room, type an emote and 'wait', if the victim flees in an unrealistical manner, I'll remember only 'his' mdesc noted down not to RP against, then will keep on.

[Stroker]

As stated in numerous posts emoting does not equate roleplay, nor is it necessary to play out a well realised character concept (it only enhances it).

While emoting does not equate role-play, it is a necessity for role-play; and according to the help-files, one cannot achieve karma without it. Role-play encompasses a combination of facets, neither of which summarizes it completely, but together the components construct actual role-play.

Recently, I created a character that died subsequently in a raid (he was being raided): one of the best deaths suffered by any of my characters. Why? Because both the raider and myself role-played the situation realistically, both of us enjoyed it thoroughly (I expect) and, while my character died, I was not at all upset.

A meaningless death is not necessarily a poor death; most deaths on Zalanthas ARE meaningless. If you're slaughtered over a coin, a piece of bread, or a drop of water.... it is a GOOD death, as long as it involves more than just:

PC has arrived.
PC has puckered him lips.
PC kills you.

A truly meaningless death is meaningless OOCly and ICly: walking off a cliff, for instance (OH GOD I HATE THE CLIFFS!!!!); but a death such as that does not involve role-play (unless it was intentional) nor does it truly portray the essence of Zalanthans.

It is the responsibility of both parties to accurately and realistically portray their characters in-game. As long as my assailant engages my character in a realistic manner, I respond realistically regardless of the ensuing consequences. However, if someone -abuses- (keyword) the code to attain an -unrealistic- advantage over my character, I reserve the right to find you in RL and beat living crap out of you (oh and... also type flee without emoting [and believe me, it hurts me more than it hurts you]).
Nevertheless, I shall not harbor a grudge -ICly- (keyword) towards any specific character based on OOC manifestations.

Also, how can any of you disagree with a man/woman named GANJA - have you no reason or modesty?

Semper Pax,

Dirr

[Cuusardo]

The trouble with leading by example is that the people you want the most to follow you, don't.

[Intrepid]

Just as being a Helper, you know that at least some of the newbies you
are trying to help may not stick around or become some of the worst
twinks imaginable.  You still lead by example because it's giving something
back to the game.

The effort isn't futile just because not everyone accepts it.

[LauraMars]

The trouble with leading by example is that the people you want the most to follow you, don't.

But that doesn't always happen, and besides, it's no reason not to do it.  No sense preaching to the choir, after all.

[marko]

It might have been clearer if I'd said "... is that you decided that once your personal and arbitrary critera had been fulfilled, RPless PK was justified."

But you're also saying, "And if you're not going to RP, then screw you buddy, you're gortok kibble."

Perhaps some are saying that but I am not nor, do I believe, was LoD saying that.

In any situations where characters do what their character is supposed to do as determined by the player behind the character there is roleplay.  If a character attacks another character and kills them - that was roleplay.  Whether or not you agree with the reasoning behind the scenes that led up to that event, it was still roleplay.

The execption to this is when someone ignores the environment around them (ie, a dozen guards around a noble and then steals from said noble) without acknowledging it because the code allows them to do so.  Aka, twinking.

Let's go back to the templar example of a templar walking into a tavern and a thief-type instantly getting up and running out.  That's roleplaying and it's fine by me.  I've seen it happen countless times.  Just because there wasn't a series of emotes to indicate that the templar stood at the doorway and swept the tavern with his piercing gaze while the elf at the bar snuck a quick peek over at the templar and then slid off his stool.  Followed by the templar advancing towards the elf while the elf quickly scoots out the back entrance... ('course, if the elf scoots out of the entrance that the templar just came in... we're borderline twinking here since the entrance would be full of soldiers - but an argument can be made that the elf took off running and dodged through the cluster of bodies).

It still could have happened that exact way - there isn't always a need to emote out every single action.  Yes, emoting out major actions helps others understand what was going on but it really isn't necessary it is just useful.

The other version of the example holds the same interpretation: a templar who walks in and orders a soldier to grab the miscreant at the bar.  Again, one can infer that they came into the tavern, swept through the crowd and grabbed the guy.

My own belief and standard is that I will give someone time to react to whatever it is my character has done.  If they decide to take the fast way out, that's cool, but if my char gives chase then there won't be more opportunities given to emote out the original scene - that opportunity was granted and declined but I always give it.  After that original action (let's say it was to capture) then there will be ample opportunity given to interact and let things progress based on the actions of the characters.  

Typically, I try not to kill characters since I prefer leaving enemies alive.  I think that gives the game more breadth and excitement when you allow someone to escape so they can plot your downfall later.  The game of two rivals attempting to take down one another is so rarely acted out that I always try and allow that situation to exist.

Anyway, back to my point, my philosophy is that you should offer the opportunity for emoted interaction and if it is declined then just move on to the coded actions.  

One further mention, if you do choose to flee a situation, please remain online for a bit afterwards in case you are being pursued.  My own view in this situation (eg, my char has escaped evil meanie #3) is that I will remain online for at least fifteen minutes after the escape.  My char may be hiding in a deep, dark hole somewhere but they'll be online and available for the chase.

Again, that's a personal standard that I try and adhere to ('course, sometimes RL happens) but I figure since we're talking about this sort of thing I may as well share it.  

[Armaddict]

Followed by the templar advancing towards the elf while the elf quickly scoots out the back entrance... ('course, if the elf scoots out of the entrance that the templar just came in... we're borderline twinking here since the entrance would be full of soldiers - but an argument can be made that the elf took off running and dodged through the cluster of bodies).

The problem is, there is code in place that is supposed to reflect this that is rarely used.  A soldier 'guarding <exit>' shows that the doorway is full of soldier, not the templar having just come through that exit.  While logically he's still there, he doesn't have people taking measures to keep people in place, either.

Those dumb half-giants just let him by.

That's me being technical, and a lot of people don't like taking this that 'down to the line' with the code.  In other words, people like other people to make the same assumption as them.  The problem is, when the assumption isn't a shared one, one side is bound to get angry about it.  I was in this position recently and reacted that way, and it didn't end up good.  But at the same time, when you leave it to assumptions, things are bound to get 'unfair' for one side or the other.

To get back closer to the topic:  When engaging in a dangerous situation, one side always has to assume that the other will play this out in a good way.  Use as much code as possible, along with quick, non-descript emotes that get the message across that you're looking to role-play instead of insta-duke-it-out, and just hope you get it across.  Some people will take advantage of it, but you have to understand that in some, if not most cases where that happens, it's because they had a different assumption.

And as a derailment that anyone can post up if they think it has merit...why can't we have multiple targets for guard, with guard self being the only way to 'erase' what you're guarding, and another guard <target> being a sort of toggle where you are or aren't guarding them.  This shows the soldier who's blocking the door, but taking care that no one is harming his templar, either.  Or the fellow who's watching the merchant, but he wants to keep people off the pack they put down for a moment as well.  It would, of course, reduce the chance of succeeding at guarding either one, but that's where the value in a -good- guard is, too, right?

[Salt Merchant]

This isn't the Arm I used to play, where the code was the harsh mediator of PKing and that was good enough.

Let me make one last appeal then.

If you demand the victim stick around, it's always going to be vulnerable to an "I shot you first" kind of argument. One side says "I entered the room and he ran without emoting and that's bullshit". The other says it was an entire segment of main street, full of people. We weren't nose-to-nose the instant he arrived, so I got out of there". No one is right, and no one is wrong, because there's no reasonable way to resolve this. You just end up with two pissed off people.

Let the code continue to be the judge. Just make it more intelligent. Create a block command that templars can give to soldiers, for example:

> east
A rabid soldier blocks your way.
A rabid soldiers says, "You ain't going anywhere, fecker".
> west
A rabid soldier blocks your way.   etc.

Sort of an anti-guard.

Create barriers that can be built out of wood that raiders can camoflague by the road and roll out to block escape from each side.

Have people who struggle against being subdued wear out a bit with each attempt. You can only struggle wildly for so long.

But don't take away their chance for survival against your evil intentions by threatening to label them as poor RPers.

By the way, I was the anonymous kank that posted earlier. Thought I was logged in and I stand by what I said.

[Jherlen]

Subdue does make you lose stamina for failed attempts. Barriers might be cool. We could change the guard command, yadda yadda yadda.

But in the end I don't think we should expect code to define our roleplay for us.

I agree with the people who've said things along the lines that killing the victim shouldn't be your main objective unless plot stuff depends on it. For indiscriminate raiding, you shouldn't feel a need to murder everybody.

So, raiders: I think the "I'll kill without RP because none of my victims RP with me anyway" argument is flawed and in poor spirit. I think insta-subduing or insta-attacking is in sort of poor taste, unless you absolutely HAVE to kill the guy (and not just because you want his gloves or his sids).

Victims: Try not to get raided. Travel in groups. Don't let 5 people ambush you out of nowhere. If you do get ambushed, consider what your PC would do AND consider what is realistic. If they have you cornered, if they came at you from all sides, etc, maybe insta-running isn't good. On the other hand, nothing sucks worse than losing a PC you've put effort into and enjoy because of a few twinks. I'd say insta-running in some situations is fine, and in most is better than insta-attack. Preservation of your character's life is an understandable instinct ICly and OOCly and really when you come down to it, I don't think Arm's main focus is coded fighting and PKing and raiding folks.

On the flip side, instantly running means you miss some RP that might be cool, too. It's a tough call, sometimes you might get burned either way, but othertimes placing some faith in your fellow players might be enjoyable.

[Bebop]

Whew!  These are all long posts, and I don't have my glasses though I think what Halaster said was best.

I think the best word to be used is balance.  Just use your best judgement there are some circumstances when you can RP and when you can't some people will emote with you some won't.  Me personally I like having those last minute conversations, the terror of torture dying and betrayl, it fleshes out the death.  But some deaths are just as sudden IRL and in game that is shown too.  If someone said if you promise not to run I'll RP with you I would have been like AWESOME and consented but you just have to take what you can get.  

There are plenty of people that I don't always agree how they RP and some newbs you just gotta RP how you think is right and maybe it'll catch on.  I know I'm constantly taking bits and pieces from other characters I see.  Everytime you log on -is- a learning experience indeed.  I have done things and still will where I look back and think that is so stupid, did I do it right or hell no I didn't.  You just gotta be patient with yourself and the others around you.

[HardCarbon]

Movie.. The Princess Bride....

 "You killed my father.. prepair to die"


What does the Six fingered man do?


 Turns and runs like hell...  why?  Its what he would do.

[Kanky person]

I feel as I may of been the inspiration for this post.

Basically my character got mugged, and I tried my hardest to emote and do things realistically.

BUT first off my character isn't a push over so he WAS going to fight back or at lest flee to get the upper hand.  So it wasn't unrealistic of him to fight back or retreat so he could catch a breath/draw his weapon.

The problem was, I was trying at the time (sitting in a random room somewhere) to give myself a crash course on commands/emotes.  Because I haven't played in quite awhile.  Before the mugger came out of no where and started the scene.

If had not been there trying to read help files or if I had a chance to get familar with the game before hand, the scene would of played out better but I did what I had to too, fancy emotes or not. And  I really didn't fell like losing a character that I had made 3 hours prior just because I happen to be in the wrong place.

Just to note, I'm not mad at the mugger because he was a kick ass role player and the scene despite my failings was kind of fun.  Just from now on I'll make note to read help files/familiarize myself before logging on.

[Jakahri]

I prefer the scene, the idea in my head. I'm not playing to win. I'm playing to see a story told.

We play two different games.

And I can't figure out how to help us play the same game.

Great response Agent_137. I agree completely.

I've been on both the raiding/victim end in nearly any situation you could possibly imagine. I attempt to roleplay out the situation as best I can. And yes, that -does- mean throwing out an occassional emote now and then.

[jhunter]

I prefer the scene, the idea in my head. I'm not playing to win. I'm playing to see a story told.

We play two different games.

And I can't figure out how to help us play the same game.

Great response Agent_137. I agree completely.

I've been on both the raiding/victim end in nearly any situation you could possibly imagine. I attempt to roleplay out the situation as best I can. And yes, that -does- mean throwing out an occassional emote now and then.

Me too. The way that Agent_137 put it is exactly how I feel in those situations alot of the time.

[Salt Merchant]

But in the end I don't think we should expect code to define our roleplay for us.

But I think we should expect the code to define the world for us, and what is or is not possible.

All of these kinds of posts are about second-guessing the code to establish the sort of world you want to play in, and so in the end are just your opinion. I'll wait until the Imms hand down a definitive ruling or put it into the code, thanks.

[LoD]

But I think we should expect the code to define the world for us, and what is or is not possible.

The code does define the world, and what is or is not possible.  There are still many areas that are considered "bad form" or "poor RP" that the code fully supports.

1. You can hide or sneak away while someone is talking to you.
2. You can carry 10 bowls of uncovered soup in a cloak.
3. You can be near death and, in 2 game hours, be perfectly fine.
4. You can ride from Allanak to Tuluk in probably 5 minutes.

The code allows all of these things, but I think most people would agree that they shouldn't really be done.  They are examples of game abuse in one way or another.

All of these kinds of posts are about second-guessing the code to establish the sort of world you want to play in, and so in the end are just your opinion. I'll wait until the Imms hand down a definitive ruling or put it into the code, thanks.

This is like saying that you're going to put gigantic stickers on people's car windshields until you get arrested and automotive companies design sticker-proof windshields.  Just because something is POSSIBLE doesn't mean it should be done.  The same holds true in Armageddon.

We are forced to second guess the code, because the code is loose. This opinion of doing what the code allows until an Immortal comes to tell you it's not acceptable and changes the code is, in my mind, twinkish.  People should police themselves and consider what is realistic within what the code allows instead of waiting to be punished.

The code remains loose to allow the most freedom and functionality while restricting only the most serious opportunites for abuse.  This leaves a lot of middle ground that requires some degree of experience, maturity and self-discipline to navigate.

-LoD

[jhunter]

But I think we should expect the code to define the world for us, and what is or is not possible.

The code does define the world, and what is or is not possible.  There are still many areas that are considered "bad form" or "poor RP" that the code fully supports.

1. You can hide or sneak away while someone is talking to you.
2. You can carry 10 bowls of uncovered soup in a cloak.
3. You can be near death and, in 2 game hours, be perfectly fine.
4. You can ride from Allanak to Tuluk in probably 5 minutes.

The code allows all of these things, but I think most people would agree that they shouldn't really be done.  They are examples of game abuse in one way or another.

All of these kinds of posts are about second-guessing the code to establish the sort of world you want to play in, and so in the end are just your opinion. I'll wait until the Imms hand down a definitive ruling or put it into the code, thanks.

This is like saying that you're going to put gigantic stickers on people's car windshields until you get arrested and automotive companies design sticker-proof windshields.  Just because something is POSSIBLE doesn't mean it should be done.  The same holds true in Armageddon.

We are forced to second guess the code, because the code is loose.This opinion of doing what the code allows until an Immortal comes to tell you it's not acceptable and changes the code is, in my mind, twinkish. People should police themselves and consider what is realistic within what the code allows instead of waiting to be punished.

The code remains loose to allow the most freedom and functionality while restricting only the most serious opportunites for abuse.  This leaves a lot of middle ground that requires some degree of experience, maturity and self-discipline to navigate.

-LoD

*nods when LoD hits the nail on the head with a perfect stroke* Like Agent_137 said, it's people playing a different game.

[Jherlen]

Was going to reply, but LoD put it much more eloquently than I could have. I'll just cut my response down to this:

The code defines what is or is not possible, loosely. If we defined the world solely down to what the code defines, we would all be playing a much different (and IMO much less interesting) game. I had a guy in one of my clans once who sat and asked our autocook for steak 99 times in a row. (No joke.) He kept all these steaks in his backpack. The code let him do it, but...  :shock: That's not the kind of world I want to be playing in, and I think I can argue that its wrong based on something a little stronger than just "it's my opinion".

Furthermore I think in many cases it's either too hard to tighten the code to make perfect realism, or sometimes might even be too restrictive to allow people freedom to RP. By leaving the code loose, we keep that freedom, and we're just expected to use it reponsibly rather than twink out.

[Salt Merchant]

1. You can hide or sneak away while someone is talking to you.
2. You can carry 10 bowls of uncovered soup in a cloak.
3. You can be near death and, in 2 game hours, be perfectly fine.
4. You can ride from Allanak to Tuluk in probably 5 minutes.

Yes, you have a point. 1, 2 and 4 are clear cut, and so was the part about people spamming flee when subdued by raiders.

This particular issue and the one about being at near death, however, are not clear cut. It's going to be really fuzzy now when it's ok to leave a room and when it's not, and I hate that. Fuzzy grey areas lead to bad will; it's inescapable. In this case I'd rather have an objective judge (the code) decide, and have some tools put into the game that let people trap others with a bit of work so they can unambiguously have a dramatic showdown then.

The argument on the near death to full health issue is still open. Halaster (I think) came out and said they could implement longer healing periods but will not, exactly because sitting around for two hours waiting to heal is not fun. I wish he had just said "Zalanthanians heal super-fast" because then that would have been that, but it's been left open for individual players to interpret.

[LoD]

It's going to be really fuzzy now when it's ok to leave a room and when it's not, and I hate that.

It shouldn't be fuzzy if you just play the scene as your character and not as the player.  I haven't seen anyone say the action of getting up and leaving a tavern is poor role-play, certainly not to the degree to make one feel as if they now don't know what to do in a given situation.  What I have heard is that several people feel that ignoring the circumstances in an effort to avoid a dangerous situation is poor role-play.

The argument on the near death to full health issue is still open. Halaster (I think) came out and said they could implement longer healing periods but will not, exactly because sitting around for two hours waiting to heal is not fun. I wish he had just said "Zalanthanians heal super-fast" because then that would have been that, but it's been left open for individual players to interpret.

It's left open to players to interpret because the damage may have been caused by a several different things: poison, falling, blunt weapons, sharp weapons, claws, teeth, fire, magick, etc...  But anyone who comes to "near death" from a result of any damage should probably not be up and around after a RL 10 minute "sleep".  That's the point.  The code isn't going to take the initiative and tell you exactly how long you should sleep, rest, RP a broken rib, mend wounds, etc...because the game wants to develop mature players, not micromanage immature ones.

The problem isn't the code.  The problem is that players need time to understand why their character shouldn't steal from a man with 5 vigilant guards, sneak away in the middle of a conversation, provoke newbies into attacking them in a bar, fight->flee->sleep->fight->repeat, keep 99 steaks in their backpack, suicide characters for good stats, etc...

Once a player comes to view their character as a person, the code will cease to represent your limitations and begin to represent your endless possibilities.

-LoD

[HardCarbon]

How many online games  require you to spend say 6 weeks in game healing from a broken arm?  How many even HAVE wound codes let alone  good ones..  (lets not even go into those toon games).

Example..
 Why do some woodcutters put logs into item X.  When its really not the right size?    Answer because they can't make them into a sledge and drag large numbers to town they way it was historicly done.

1. You can hide or sneak away while someone is talking to you.
2. You can carry 10 bowls of uncovered soup in a cloak.
3. You can be near death and, in 2 game hours, be perfectly fine.
4. You can ride from Allanak to Tuluk in probably 5 minutes.

Yes, you have a point. 1, 2 and 4 are clear cut, and so was the part about people spamming flee when subdued by raiders.

This particular issue and the one about being at near death, however, are not clear cut. It's going to be really fuzzy now when it's ok to leave a room and when it's not, and I hate that. Fuzzy grey areas lead to bad will; it's inescapable. In this case I'd rather have an objective judge (the code) decide, and have some tools put into the game that let people trap others with a bit of work so they can unambiguously have a dramatic showdown then.

The argument on the near death to full health issue is still open. Halaster (I think) came out and said they could implement longer healing periods but will not, exactly because sitting around for two hours waiting to heal is not fun. I wish he had just said "Zalanthanians heal super-fast" because then that would have been that, but it's been left open for individual players to interpret.

[Armaddict]

We are forced to second guess the code, because the code is loose. This opinion of doing what the code allows until an Immortal comes to tell you it's not acceptable and changes the code is, in my mind, twinkish. People should police themselves and consider what is realistic within what the code allows instead of waiting to be punished.

I didn't say if the code allows it, it's fine.  I said that there is code in place that can reflect what you're trying to prevent...in this example, it was a templar walking into a room and someone leaving even though his guards should be keeping him from leaving.  However, if the templar doesn't actually set his soldiers to guard, then they -aren't- preventing that person from leaving.

I didn't say this makes it permissable to leave.  What I said is that there is code in place that just doesn't get used because people instead rely on emotes fully.  If they would just utilize that code, then not only would the game be supporting their emotes, but neither side could really feel screwed, either.

"Oh man, that soldier stopped me from running and I died.  I should have tried to talk my way out of it, or let him take me to prison and see if he offered me something."

"Oh man, the guy ran and my soldier's guard failed.  He got away.  Man that sucks, I almost had him."

Just saying...use the code as well.  We all love a good scene (one of my favorite death scenes is one where a magicker was getting uber-whacked by an imm-controlled uber-character.  I had my character panic and forget incantations that could have saved him), but they are subject to get spoiled when people -do- assume that they can get away or whatever, simply because the code doesn't reflect what was actually going on.  Use the code where available to support your RP, don't just dismiss it because you want to emphasize your trust.

Edited to remove content offensive to some players.