Coded Voices

[Maybe42or54]

How hard would it be to code?

In the application process there could be an option to change your voice into your own little Description.

Such as "a slurred speech pattern" Or something along those lines.

Subclasses Bard and Con Artist have the ability to "change voice."

Now, how someone would get it is a little complicated.

I would really hate it if it was tagged onto every say.
I wouldn't mind it really if you could get it with "assess."

That way we could have more warriors with high pitched voices, and nobles with deep, sexy voices.

*eddited to fix my wording, changed tone to speech pattern*

[Bestatte]

Fortunately there are emoting tools you can use for talking; you can add inflections, tones, volumes, to your voice using those emote symbols.

I've played games that had coded vocal changes, and I have to say that these were some of the most insipid coded abilities I've ever experienced. Imagine everyone having their own tone..let's say we have JoeWarrior in a grumpy tone, SueNobleAide in a calm tone, BardJohn who always talks smoothly, and LadyLirathan who is exquisitely sultry.

Now get a nice gang of gith storming through the gate:

JoeWarrior says, his tone grumpy, "Shit, everyone get ready. And Recruit get your skinning knife out, we're gonna have us some gith stew tonight, yay."

SueNobleAide says, in a calm tone, "OMGOMGOMG we're all gonna die!"

BardJohn says, smoothly, "Uh, I think I just pissed my pants."

LadyLirathan says, in a sultry tone, "Oh shit, I broke a nail while beckoning for my guard."

Why would this happen? Because most people wouldn't be worrying all that much about changing their coded tone while the city is in the middle of a gith stampede.

[Maybe42or54]

That is why I want to change the voice, not the tone. Tone changes a lot during the day.  And that is why I don't want them to be in any of the says.

I want something that describes your overall voice.

For myself, I have a slightly deep, voiced monotonous voice.

Yes, mono-tone means one tone, but I can sound excited and all that jazz still.

[LauraMars]

I would really hate it if it was tagged onto every say.
I wouldn't mind it really if you could get it with "assess."

What he wants to build is the foundation for the sound of someone's voice.  After all, play a harp and the notes will sound the same, even if the melody, pitch, and tempo of the song you're playing changes.

It's a nice idea.  Especially if you'd have to talk to the person first before you could assess -v them and get their "sound".

[Seeker]

I don't know... I have had several characters with distinctive voices, but they all managed to do okay with dropping it into the occasional emote.

I made it a point, when I run across a new acquaintance, to be sure to slip in a description of her voice pretty early in their interplay, and it worked out alright.  I really disliked the automatic vocal tag dropped in by SOI, for example.  Every spoken emoted sentence coming out "in a scritchy, scratchy wheeze."

Where I can see this being most useful is more along the lines that flurry mentioned.  In a dark room.  Or when "someone" speaks.  Most anyone could tell the difference between a disembodied half-giant's voice or a halfling huntress's.

Maybe a tag to be applied in those situations.
"A booming male voice says, in an sirihish, "Where did da lights go?" "
"A higher-pitched, sonorous female voice says, in an unknown language, "sdivd?  Ataid kum vist." "

The only other concern I have was brought up in another discussion thread about the ease of being identified.  If the militia can just do an "ass -v dark" and find out that IF my PC were to talk, she would have a "sultry, melodic tone with breathy pauses" and use that to haul her away, that would kinda bite.

Seeker

[Maybe42or54]

I really like the tags for darkness and blindness.
Very good points about Assess -v.

Which may be fixed by not knowing how someone speaks until they spoke. As in the situation below.

The snaggle toothed thief has arrived from the north.

Assess -v thief

He is young for his race.
He is smaller than you
He is lighter than you.
The Snaggle toothed thief is in excellent condition.
The Snaggle toothed thief does not look tired.

The snaggle toothed thief tries to steal something from you, but fails!

Assess -v thief

He is young for his race.
He is smaller than you
He is lighter than you.
The Snaggle toothed thief is in excellent condition.
The Snaggle toothed thief does not look tired.

The snaggle toothed thief says, in sirihish, "Fuck me red!"

Assess -v thief

He is young for his race.
He is smaller than you
He is lighter than you.
The Snaggle toothed thief is in excellent condition.
The Snaggle toothed thief does not look tired.
The snaggle toothed thief has a deep voice.



Then, they would have to talk in the same room you are in or else you would get the first assess and no voice.

Everytime he enters the room, or you leave, the voice option resets.

[Seeker]

Thinking about it some more, what might be cool is a "close eyes" command for voluntary temporay blindness.

This command could be "forced" on PCs with various types of blindness effects, like spells or blindfolds as was mentioned somewhere else.

Someone blinded, voluntarily or otherwise, could get the special "in the dark" or "someone" tags that ?#'s is suggesting be associated with voices then.

Instead of an assess -v, a PC would have to close their eyes to focus on the vocal qualities of the speaker, but I think it would work, and might be an awesome touch.


Seeker

[Maybe42or54]

I like it.

[Rindan]

I personally hate the idea of setting a 'tone'.  I could think of few things more irritating then everyone talking with a certain type of tone 24/7.  It just adds more spam to talk/says and in general doesn't add anything that a simple "( )" can't.  If you really want to constantly remind everyone that your talk "with a deep voice", just make an alias.  It isn't that hard to do with most MUD programs.  Personally, I would much rather just leave things as they are.  Trying in incorporate your how your voice sounds into your emotes is a good thing.  Having your tone permanently set is just irritating.  Twenty tall, dark-haired men speaking "with a deep voice" really isn't going to add much.  Just learn how to incorporate your voice into emotes.  This has the added bonus of allowing you to change up how you describe your voice a little.

As to the assess -v thing... we already have a dozen and one ways to identify someone that are completely and utterly impossible to prevent short of pulling out magik.  We don't need another way.  The blind PCs on the MUD will just have to live with getting robbed... well... blind.

[Agent_137]

as long as it's just in assess -v, it won't hurt, so why hate?

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Actually, Rindan has a very, very good point.

An extremely good point.

[Agent_137]

no, he's misconstruing the original idea.

It's not about tone. It's not "the so and so guy has a calm, sultry, fuck-me,  voice."

It's about actual SOUND.

If some one has a raspy voice, they have it ALL THE TIME.

If some one has a deep voice, they have it ALL THE TIME.

Are you honestly going to say, "No, that's a bad idea, because every buff warrior will have a deep voice?"

I mean, krath, SO? If there's no limitation on the number of Buff warriors, even though it might edge into unrealistic numbers, why even BOTHER limiting these people from having a deep voice?

Further, this will cause people to think about their character's voice. I know i've never given it thought until this thread. But if you all of a sudden put it in game, people would have to think about it. And once they had, then they'd actually start fleshing it out in emotes!

What, if size wasn't coded, would you be against virtual body mass being represented in assess -v because all the buff warriors would choose to be tall and buff? Pah!

As long as it's limited to actual SOUND and not subjective things like "calm, easy-going, gentle, and loud", we're alright, and it's a beneficial way to flesh out people's characters. (AND having the voice replace the basic "someone" when the lights are out would add SO MUCH realism and playability, and take away nothing at all!!)


p.s.
his only objection to the "assess -v thing" is that it's another way to identify people. Pah again! You're going to sacrifice realism and playability for -everyone- so that the sneakies has a slightly easier time hiding from twink militia men?

[jhunter]

I don't think adding it to ass -v is a good idea personally. But as far as the rest of it, adding it to replace "someone" and all I think it's a great idea.

[Rindan]

My point is that takes away more then it adds to the game.

At your seat, the ugly, bald headed man says in southern accented Sirihish, with a raspy voice, while chuckling as he rubs his chin thoughtfully,
"Sounds like a lot of needless spam and awkward wording to me."

It just creates more text to fill the screen and makes the wording communications more bulky then it already is.  Worse still, it is going to set your voice as some sort of constant, when the truth is that while you might have a deep voice, you very well could squeak like a pre-pubescent girl some times, in which case you will get flatly contradictory say messages.  Further, I don't think that there are that many original ways to describe your voice unless it is somehow unique.  Most people just speak "normal".  If I had to sit down and describe the voice of my friends, most of them would just be 'normal'.  One of them would be a slow talker, but I bet if you put a gun to his head he could speak quickly, so it isn't exactly a universal constant.

Even if you could describe your voice, I don't want to be reminded every single second what it sounds like any more then I wanted to reminded how slender your palms are, how dirty your face is, or any manner of needless information.  Leaving it up to the discretion of emoting it in lets you remind people when it is relevant.  Imagine of each time you spoke the code reported if your shirt was clean or not.  Is it information that you should probably know and take into account?  Sure.  Do you want to remind everyone every time you speak?  No really.

There is also the issue of artistic quality and style.  By making it something that is always on, you are crippled in your ability to express yourself in an original and unique way.  If you always have "a deep voice", what happens if you decide that you want to do something like "his bemused rumbling voice"?

As to the assess –v, like I said, there are already a bazillion and one ways to identify someone.  People already key word drop sdescs and mdescs all the time.  We don't need to throw voice on top of it.  I can think of many other things I would rather see then coding a way to remember someone's voice.

[Agent_137]

Yes, adding it to every say is a BAD IDEA.

Now, for further detail, I'm just going to refer back to the post i already made to refute all that you just said again.

[Aldiel]

I usually handle this something like, "in his blahbedy, blah voice, <character> says, blah"  By using his or her, it lets the viewer know that this is how he or she usually speaks without having to spam it constantly.  I try to  sneak this emote in from time to time, particularly when interacting with new people.

[Halaster]

Use the code already in place for this exact thing.

say (smurfily) Hello!

[LoD]

It's not about tone. It's not "the so and so guy has a calm, sultry, fuck-me,  voice."  It's about actual SOUND.  If some one has a raspy voice, they have it ALL THE TIME.  If some one has a deep voice, they have it ALL THE TIME.  Are you honestly going to say, "No, that's a bad idea, because every buff warrior will have a deep voice?"

His only objection to the "assess -v thing" is that it's another way to identify people. Pah again! You're going to sacrifice realism and playability for -everyone- so that the sneakies has a slightly easier time hiding from twink militia men?

I believe one of Rindan's points is that something like this is a solution to something a lazy man sees as a problem instead of an opportunity.  You already have the tools necessary not only to express your deep voice, but to add a variety of pitches, fluctuations, rates and tones to help convey your character's current emotional and physical state.  In addition to the way someone talks, they usuall will walk, laugh, cry, yell and run the exact same way.  Do we really need the code to define and represent each of these for us as well, or would you rather we retain the freedom to express them how we see fit in a given situation?

Assess tells you what a quick "glance" would tell you.  I'm not quire sure how it's realistic or playable to know what someone sounds like from their physical features.  I've never been able to discern from a subtle glance what someone sounded like.  Surely you can understand that this would have no place, and make no sense to implement when you have many situations where the characters are in motion and not speaking?

Which brings us back to Rindan's point.  One's character isn't going to sample their voice in every room they enter, so having their voice labeled in a command like assess -v is not only unrealistic, it is also somewhat abusive.  Logic would then conclude that the only viable implementation of a static tone describer would be either tagged onto every say, or randomly added to their speech.  I am in agreement with Rindan that this idea would do more harm by simply encouraging a less interesting and canned atmosphere to the game than it would help by reminding players of a character's tone of voice, which they can already do.

-LoD

[Agent_137]

No one said it would be perma attached to assess -v. It was stated that it should only show up after hearing them speak in the same room with you, and then it would disappear after you are no longer in the room together.

Perhaps this is not possible with code, then we have some of the issues you describe. But the lot of you seem to be harping on issues with some other implementation of this idea than the one suggested.

Lastly, how many times do you see people actually describing their voice in emotes, other than temporary subjective things like excitedly or sadly?

This would provide encouragement for people to flesh out something they already ARE NOT DOING. How can you say it will kill something that isn't there?

Further, this adds the "in the dark" element which is just damn awesome.

[Anonymous]

Lastly, how many times do you see people actually describing their voice in emotes, other than temporary subjective things like excitedly or sadly?

I do it probably once a conversation.  Flavor text detailing a 'dark|reluctant|irritated|gregarious|etc tone'.  The sound of reluctance in my character's voice, etc, etc.

[agent_137 (2L2L)]

Irritated, gregarious, and reluctant would, in my opinion, fall under "temporary subjective things."

But I'm going to stop, because I'm apparently not being clear enough for people to understand what I mean, and it's not worth putting more time into.

[Xygax]

I played a character whose voice was wrecked by a throat injury.  I brought it out in a say-emote from time to time and it seemed to work out okay.  Anything more than this supported in code seems like (at best) a very low priority item.

-- X

[Seeker]

Agent,

It looks like many of the respondents didn't bother to examine the ideas presented, and instead hit <submit> quickly to speak against a much simplier and much poorer concept before considering what was being discussed.... er... which might have totally different flaws, come to think of it.


Seeker

[Xygax]

Actually, I think most of the negative posts were relatively well-considered and on-point.  Another issue which I'm not sure people have mentioned is that a feature like this would encourage some people (in some cases) to think about their character's voice even less.

If you want to bring your character's voice to life, do it yourself and come up with ways to explore it in your emotes (differently each time -- not via canned emotes or having it show up in assess every time someone checks you out).

-- X

[Rindan]

Agent,

It looks like many of the respondents didn't bother to examine the ideas presented, and instead hit <submit> quickly to speak against a much simplier and much poorer concept before considering what was being discussed.... er... which might have totally different flaws, come to think of it.


Seeker

I don't believe that this is true at all.  I read the entire thread from start to finish before my first reply.  After I was accused the first time of not listening or understanding, I read it again.  After being accused a second time of not listening I read it a third or fourth time.  Each time I read the thread my understanding of it remained pretty much fixed.

You might disagree with my assessment, but stating that people have not bothered to read the thread in detail is flatly wrong and untrue.