Show Hands: For Zalanthan Gambling

[Galdun]

I'm really obsessing over the idea of gambling with my current character, creating some interesting card games, duping some poor bastards for personal gain...you know, some real good spirited, entrepreneurial, Zalanthan fun.  But I was thinking, as of now its pretty easy for anybody who has a deck of cards to cheat simply by keeping a couple of key cards in their inventory.  I mean sure, you could go for the whole palm and slip thing, but why do that when you can just cheat?  I propose a bit of code to promote more gambling and keep actual cheating a skill-determined tool(code wise through slip/palm).

The idea is an action that one would use to willingly show another player their inventory without having to rely on the other person using peek(which they may or may not have).
You could call it simply Show, or Show Hands.  The syntax would be something like this...

Show Amos

You hold out your hands to the tall, brown haired man.

Amos sees:

The scumy lookin' half-breed is holding:
A deck of Kruth cards
50 obsidian coins
A miniature kank key chain

I honestly can't see anything wrong with this bit of code and it could be used for other things, such as showing off a baby, or showing something to someone that you don't want everyone else to see.   I can't see the potential for abuse, only for increasing somebody's willingness to gamble with somebody else.

Let me know what you guys think.

[Northlander]

Excellent idea, let me be the first to say that I am behind it even if I have naught else to add!

[Malifaxis]

That's pretty well thought out.

[EonBlueApocalypse]

I like the diversity of its applications.  This is a pretty good idea, with the addition that anything that is affected by the new carrying code is not displayed in the show action.  All items listed as heavy enough to require one or both hands, and is therefore obvious to anyone looking.

[Cyrian20]

I am behind this all the way. Nice work Galdun!

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I dig it like a thirsty man does for water.

[spawnloser]

Indeed, I do like.

[Seeker]

Count me in on this.

"Turn out your pockets, miscreant. NOW."


Seeker

[Marauder Moe]

Ingenious, actually.  It'd also have the side effect of making palm/slip more useful.

EDIT: If possible, it should also take a whole list of character keywords so you can do ">show Amos Malik Trevor"

[Morgenes]

My main concern with this is it puts the 'show' in the hands of the presenter, not the viewer.  It could be used to spam somone by repeatedly typing 'show <person>; show <person>; show <person>'

In my opinion this would be better as a 'nosave peek' that allows anyone to peek in your invetory.  With this, it would be up to the viewer to decide to look and see if you are cheating.

[Marauder Moe]

Is that any different from doing ">whisper Amos SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM HAHA U R SUKC N00B! SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAAAAAAAM!"?

I would assume that this command should echo to the rest of the room as well.  "The tall, muscular man displays some stuff to the short, stocky dwarf."

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Morg, while your second solution is great, I think your first opinion might be a little off.

Why in the world would anyone spam anyone with this command? It's for those situations where a Templar tells you to show him what you have, or a fellow gambler tells you that he thinks you're cheating.

Your second option would probably be easier to tuck into code, though.

[Morgenes]

Marauder Moe: yes, it is.  You could continually whisper to someone 'you suck' and it would be completely in character.  However walking infront of someone and saying 'hey look at this', 'hey look at this', 'hey look at this', when the 'look at this' is 5-15 lines of spam is completely different.

Even beyond the potential abuse (which, sadly to say is often our first gut reaction to code proposals...we have to look at things from all angles), I don't think this really solves the trust problem. It puts the control of the trust check in the hands of the person who has the most to loose from being caught.  Sure you showed me at the start of the game that you don't have extra cards in your inventory.  But at any point a good gambler could slip/palm cards to/from containers with ease.

Going with a 'nosave peek' will force the viewer to decide when they want to check to see if they're cheating.  This also gives the 'watch' command exercise if you want to 'notice' if they don't trust you, or are keeping watch on you.  You can also turn 'nosave peek' off if you want them to have to try and peek at you with real skill.

[Eternal]

I really like the idea of 'nosave peek' and this would be a good fix to the situation outlined.  We have a lot of nosaves now, a lot of choice given to the player from (and with) the code... Good Work!

Lord Templar Hard Nose now has a small elven slave housekeeper.

[Marauder Moe]

I still think the abuse argument for this idea is silly, but I agree with your second counter-counter-point, Morgenes.

I change my vote to be in favor of nosave peek.

[Galdun]

I think thats pretty bogus, Morgenes.

As of now, gambling has too much potential for twinking.  Slip/Palm are worthless due to ones ability simply to withold a card in their inventory where nobody but the sneaky sorts can see.  And to limit serious gambling to coded classes with 'peek' just sorta puts gambling out of the hands of the upper class types, the types who could really throw some money around.  As of now, -anybody- can cheat with support from the code, and say simply that they were holding the card somewhere else...but really that should be handled by Slip/Palm.

I think the argument in regards to spamming is really just absurd.  Repeating a say command with "You Suck." would really be worse in my opinion than a beggar continuously showing you his petty wares, desperate to make a sale.  I mean both, in my opinion, are retarded abuses of the code, but if you want to justify the say example, I just justified the Show command.

Nobody, not even the sharp GBD posters who are quite willing to condemn an idea if its at all abuseable, has spoken against this idea yet.

Also, I'd like to point out that items in ones inventory don't reflect whats in their hands directly.  They could be slung over a shoulder, concealed in a hand behind one's cloak...I mean if I can really hold 6 items in my hands, and thats what the staff has intended, I apologize.

As for the no save for peek, thats not a half bad idea either.  Implement one for the gambler's sake.

[Eternal]

I think that a 'peek' nosave would likely allow even those without the coded skill to utilize it.  Much like steal when someone is otherwise unable to resist.  I don't think it'd be limited to sneaky types, but I'm sure Morgenes will clear that up.

As far as abuse, I think that the 'peek nosave' is pretty much the best solution, leaving the showing in the hands of the shower while preventing anyone from madly flashing their goods at passers-by.  I see merchants annoying me senseless with a 'show' command as listed above, not for powergaming reasons, just because it's there.

Lord Templar Hard Nose only wants flashers when he's off-duty.

[Galdun]

I agree.

No Save peek is a stupendous idea and I understand that it wouldn't restrict it to sneaky types, just like it doesn't restrict subduing to warrior types.

No Save Peek!  Lets do it!

[Morgenes]

And to limit serious gambling to coded classes with 'peek' just sorta puts gambling out of the hands of the upper class types, the types who could really throw some money around.

Anyone can peek, however only certain guilds are really good at it.  I'm suggesting that we add the 'nosave peek' to allow you to allow anyone to peek at your inventory without contest (making everyone who peeks at you a master peeker).

I think the argument in regards to spamming is really just absurd.  Repeating a say command with "You Suck." would really be worse in my opinion than a beggar continuously showing you his petty wares, desperate to make a sale.  I mean both, in my opinion, are retarded abuses of the code, but if you want to justify the say example, I just justified the Show command.

2 lines of spam vs. 2-10+ lines of spam is completely different.  That beggar could just as easly 'hold' each item and emote/say holding it forward with the same amount of spam as a 'say' or 'whisper'.  

> hold bauble
You hold a useless bauble.

> say (shoving ~bauble in %customer face) please, look at my beautiful ball, don't you want to buy one...for the poor please!

In my opinion a beggar doing this is a heck of a lot better than someone trying to use a 'show' command (if it were implemented as stated above).

I've moved on from the abuse line on this, because I feel that it's an insignifcant point to the trust point.  I still say the 'show' command doesn't put the trust check in the hands of the right person.

Nobody, not even the sharp GBD posters who are quite willing to condemn an idea if its at all abuseable, has spoken against this idea yet.

Players have repeatedly asked for us to chime in on code ideas and I have done so.  I won't apologize for it or take it back.  It's my opinion that show would be abusable as written.

As for the no save for peek, thats not a half bad idea either.  Implement one for the gambler's sake.

Thanks.

[Alberic]

With nosave peek what's to stop me from peeking at your inventory during a card game and then folding or holding based on my knowing what your hand is?

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

MMMmm...that's a good point.

Damn.

Here's an idea: Cards could show up to someone peeking as 'a playing card' instead of 'Jack, the card of Doom'.

[Eternal]

what's to stop me from peeking at your inventory during a card game and then folding or holding based on my knowing what your hand is?

If you're trying to conceal your hand, you have the nosave peek off.  If you're trying to show it, you put the nosave peek on.  Otherwise, with the show command, you're must add slip and palm back into the equation as well, which brings us back to square one.

Unfortunately, it's hard to find a good coded way around gambling tricks, but then, there are millionaires in real life because it's hard to stop the cheaters.

If you have nosave peek off, btw, and someone's peeking at you... great, likely they fail, you know that they were trying to see your hand... and you both draw your pistols... umm... halfswords.

Lord Templar Hard Nose carefully slips a revolving hand-crossbow into his robes.

[Alberic]

I just don't see the problem with a show command. How's it any different than Sing? If I wanted to I can sit in a bar now and sing you suck | you suck | you suck | you suck | you suck over and over.

That's six lines of spam right there with no delay between sings. What's the difference? I don't think something should be kept out of the game solely because some jackass might abuse it. Really, when was the last time anyone was spammed by anyone? I've never seen it happen.

If you're trying to conceal your hand, you have the nosave peek off. If you're trying to show it, you put the nosave peek on. Otherwise, with the show command, you're must add slip and palm back into the equation as well, which brings us back to square one.

What about when people forget to switch the flag off? It's much easier to type show hand than nosave peek, say Have you looked yet?, nosave off.

Also, I'm not sure I understand about palm and slip bringing us back to square one. I think Palm and Slip should be used to cheat. That's kind of what sleight of hand is about.

[Djarjak]

Forgetting to type nosave peek to toggle it back on really isn't that much different than the newbie gambler who doesn't hold his cards close to his chest/table and everyone around can see them.

I would rather have a 'passive' show than an 'active show'. For example, if you "show cards" someone has to look at you to see them displayed.

As this would be pretty easily addressed by a peek nosave, that would suffice in my eyes.

People are going to be able to peek at you to cheat regardless. That's the point of the skill.

[Northlander]

What I see in a nosave peek is an OOC following "Let's show our hands!"

What if 'show hands' was a toggle that echoed to the room, and had everyone who 'looks' at you recieve all that they'd normally recieve plus your inventory-list?