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?

[UnderSeven]

Looking at this my main problem with this idea is I'm nt entirely sure I want something that does an all or nothing.  Especially if it is adopted as a norm.

Besides morgs suggestion with the original idea (which I like more) a sort of brief command could easily prevent people from spamming it, or a coded delay between showing or just straight up staff punishment for being doing such a serious abuse.  I can think of more than a few ways to abuse the game more than that which are in game because they can't really be done away with, but no one really does them.

As far as morg's idea of a nosave peak and with the original idea, my problem with an all or nothing is what if you don't want to show someone everything in your inventory?  You're playing cards and might well and good have reason to be concealing something, say you're cheating in the game or what have you.  I would much rather you could show specific cards in your inventory, and well, you can, using emote or drop or junk you can display them.  Now I like that the original idea included a way to do that, you could show keyword.  Cool.  So then to morg's arguement, since his suggestion did not include a way to show specific items only, if something like this would be implemented, as a way of spam protection, I'd rather there was a way to brief or ignore it all together, just another toggle like the nosave peak idea, except once again it puts ths power totally in the hands of the receiving party.  That plus a small delay between showings and I think it's a working idea.

EDIT: I forgot to mention my last problem with this.  If this got implemented as a nosave peak and people say, 'lets show our hands' and you don't want to show your entire inventory, your only option is to use the old ways, emote, drop, junk to show and doing so would make people oocly suspicious of you.  Well it wouldn't be the first time ooc suspisions miraculaliously became ic suspicious.  And it's a lot harder to police small ic/ooc abuses like that then it is to say someone abusing code to spam someone.

[Marauder Moe]

If you're cheating at cards you should be using the slip/palm commands.

[Hymwen]

I think this idea is awesome, both because it might make gambling and card games more fun and frequent, and because it has other uses as well.

As for abusing this, well, pretty much any command can be abused, seriously. How is it different from spamming 'beep person' or some other command that noone can do anything against? I trust players not to do something like that, I've never seen it happen, and someone stupid enough to do so probably won't last long here.

Please don't turn down the idea because it is possible to annoy someone else with it. That's possible with almost every command there is.

Come to think of it, it'd be a neat way for a PC peddler to go "Pssst, wanna buy some rings?", "Sure, what ya got?" *emote opens ~trenchcoat* >show amos

[Hymwen]

Also, show hands would be much better for starting a card game. Each player simply shows that their hands are empty, and then the game can begin, instead of every single player having to peek every other player.

[Lazloth]

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.

Question:  couldn't you put "the control" on the recipients' brief lists instead?

This way presenter can still "show" (an activity), rather than the target "peeking" (passive control from the perspective of the subject)?  I'm thinking of application beyond card-games:  A corners B, demands to see what they've got.  B "shows" A - but with the nosave solution, people C-G also can see.

If the fear is someone can just spam and spam, let the victims have the ability to disable the feature rather than putting the onus on them to initiate the transaction.

(Just an opinion.)

[Dalmeth]

I don't really see the advantage with inviting everyone to show you over requiring everyone to let you peek at them.  It seems a bit less spammy to bystanders with nosave peek.

Personally, though, I'd really like to have a way to see the amount of cards in one's hands without checking the type.  You could probably palm as many cards as your character could carry without anyone knowing.

[UnderSeven]

If you're cheating at cards you should be using the slip/palm commands.

I beg to differ.  That's like saying, if you're going to get into a fight you should use the kill commands.  Many people wont have slip palm and even if you can use them to a degree, is that by any means the only way to cheat?  No.

Your arguement to me suggests that actions are written in stone how they are done and can only be done that way, when I feel that given this is a rpi game, creativity does have a role and belongs there.  

I'm completely opposed to the idea that in order to accomplish feats which in the past have been done as many ways as people have managed to think up ideas for should be limited to 'the slip/palm' commands.

[Marauder Moe]

Seriously?  There are TONS of things you can't do without the correct skill.

I can't run up to someone and grab their drink unless I have skill_steal.  
I can't walk in a straight line in a sandstorm unless I'm a guild_ranger.  
I can't hear what's going on at a table I'm standing next to without skill_listen.
I can't pick up a blunt object and smack someone in the back of the head without skill_sap.  
I can't cut a piece of cloth into a scar without skill_clothworking.

Need I go on?  Those are all things that require less skill than cheating with cards.  Restricting people who want to cheat in card games to playing characters with a certain skill (one available in multiple guilds and subguilds!) seems perfectly reasonable within the game system of Armageddon.

I expand my previous statement by saying that I believe that cheating in a card game by having a card in your inventory and then emoting with it or junking it is code abuse.

EDIT: it occurs to me that you may have interpreted my use of the word "cheating" differently than I meant.  By cheating, I meant sleight-of-hand, ace-up-my-sleeve type cheating.  Certainly I have no problem with use of peeking at opponents cards or Waying your buddy across the table.  

Keeping an extra card in your inventory and then having it appear as your playing hand is ICly a covert transportation of the object yet it's not backed by any coded skill with chance of failure.

[UnderSeven]

Seriously?  There are TONS of things you can't do without the correct skill.

I can't run up to someone and grab their drink unless I have skill_steal.  
I can't walk in a straight line in a sandstorm unless I'm a guild_ranger.  
I can't hear what's going on at a table I'm standing next to without skill_listen.
I can't pick up a blunt object and smack someone in the back of the head without skill_sap.  
I can't cut a piece of cloth into a scar without skill_clothworking.

Need I go on?

Yes you need go on.

You can run up to someone and subdue them and grab their drink, which would be the same as forcing it out of their hand and frankly, I think it would be pretty twinky and abusive to use the skill steal to take a drink in the first place EDIT: Depending on the circumstances.  Everyone can subdue.

There are ways for non rangers to move in a straight line in a sandstorm, find out ic, I have a non-ranger and I do it all the time.

Listen is a skill which is fairly common and easy to get, furthermore I can think of ways you might be able to get around that one if you were being creative enough.

No, you can't SAP someone without the skill sap, but you can pick up a blunt object and hit them on the head and knock them out.  Do it with the right circumstances and you can even do it in a single hit, just like a sap.

You can't turn a piece of cloth into a well made scarf without the skill, but I think that is different because unlike all of your other examines, this is a trade craft which actually requires it be done a certain way, where as everything else is a question about skills limiting rp, which as I've pointed out in all of my above examples, it doesn't.

What is my point?  My point is I disagree with you entirely because I feel when it comes to certain trade skills, hitting someone just right on the back off the head and getting a sap, yes, the skill sap is needed, it's something someone trains for extensively, but even without said skill you can still get the same effect with the right set of actions.

Now, lets go to playing a game of cards, if you have a command which automatically shows, or lets someone see your entire inventory, they will know oocly based on the success of the command if they can see your inventory, giving the player no option , aside from slip/palm to get around it.  This is where I take objection.  I would agree slipping a hand into your sleeve is a very specialized skill you should use the skill for, but I disagree that it should be the only way someone can mask what they have. Do you need a skill of slip or palm to hide something behind your hand?  Certainly not.  Though without such a skill you would probably do a poor job at it and someone observant enough might  easily detect it (say someone with the skill peak, a high watch skill, or just someone who has watched what items have been going into your inventory enough to know you're not showing the full picture).

So yeah, this is why I disagree with you.

[Marauder Moe]

Do you need a skill of slip or palm to hide something behind your hand?

YES!

Is not concealing and moving small items through clever fingerwork the very definition of "sleight of hand"?  If this should be RPed, what's the point of having the skill?  If you're playing cards and you want to get a card from your sleeve and into your hand without anyone seeing, that's sleight of hand.  If you want to hold the card in your palm until just before your cards are called, that's also sleight of hand.  Anything else is just a magick pocket in the void with teleportation at will, performed through unrealistic weaknesses of the Armageddon inventory code.

It's a skill ICly.  It's a coded skill.  It should be used when appropriate.  If you don't have the skill (your character doesn't have quick fingers) then you shouldn't try and cheat at cards.

[UnderSeven]

Inventory in a lot of ways includes a great deal of places, it doesn't just mean what is literally in your hands.  To my understanding it is anything you are carrying that doesn't fit the other locations already given.

A command that shows your entire inventory will negate any possibility of hiding something in your inventory.  Palm and slight of hand are NOT skills about hiding things in your inventory, they are about taking things in and out of your inventory.  

So it isn't really an issue about that.  I never really disagreed with slight of hand skills or that you need them to do slight of hand tricks, I am arguing that having such a command that shows an entire inventory gives other players an OOC edge to know what you have and know if you are hiding something by not using that command and showing them everything and that is what I disagree with.  If I have something hidding in my fist, should you KNOW I have something hidden in my fist because I want to show you what my cards are?  No, and if you look at my initial post you'll see that is exactly what I am arguing against having happen.

Your post initially said to my understanding that if you want to do something like that, ie, have something hidden like that or for whatever reason not be honest about your inventory it would need to use palm or slip and thus my arguement was moot.  This is more or less the idea I am arguing against in my posts related to you maurader.

I don't really care about the way palm and slip work, they work fine, I can even think of fairly clever ways someone could get around not  having the skill.  But ultimately, my point has nothing to do with slight of hand, except to say you shouldn't need slight of hand to cheat at cards.

[spawnloser]

Just because the 'sleight of hand' skill only includes the commands 'palm' and 'slip' does not mean it is only for getting things into and out of your inventory.  Codedly, you are correct.  Think outside the code.  If you want to cheat at cards by using anything that could be considered 'sleight of hand' which would include card up the sleeve, hidden behind the hand, etc, etc...you should be using the 'sleight of hand' skill which is represented by you using the commands 'palm' or 'slip.'

Keeping something in your inventory is chauncy.  It's bypassing the code because people can't currently look into your inventory without 'peek.'  Either of the ideas above would solve that, and I would be happy.

I see it this way, though...picture if you will a 'magician' or 'illusionist' in the real world getting up to do a card trick.  You know the line, "Nothing in my hands.  Nothing up my sleeves."  If the idea is to prove that you're not cheating, wouldn't someone WANT to give that proof if possible?  It's no different to expect the person that wants to show that s/he isn't cheating by showing 'nothing up [his/her] sleeves' to type 'nosave peek' than to type 'show' (which I'll note is a simple enough way to work that idea, why 'show hands' when 'show' should work fine?)...I mean, sure, the checking of trust should come from the viewer, not the viewee, but I would see this best as a non-targetted command.  You type 'show' and everyone in the room codedly sees your inventory, and then everyone that is a good roleplayer and shouldn't have seen pretends that their character didn't see what they shouldn't have.  It's beautiful.  The 'nosave peek' option, to me, would accomplish much the same, but really, if you leave this on, it's like the person having left it on is walking around with his arms spread out and with those things in his inventroy held in those outstretched hands.  It just seems kinda...counter to how things work.  Like my magician analogy, anyone around sees that he has nothing in his hands WHEN AND ONLY WHEN he shows his hands being empty.

I don't think 'nosave peek' is bad.  I just prefer the 'show' idea better.

[daedroug]

ok i've never played any of the Zalanthan card games but if i were playing poker i would never want my hand always showing, secondly i think the original idea would be to stop just a random merchant cheating by abusing the code and giving shady types the advantage of being able to have 'a card up their sleeve'

[Alberic]

Underseven, I have no idea what you are talking about. Could you please give me a roleplaying way of explaning how I could be holding a hand of cards and then switch one out for another without having people at the table getting a chance to notice WITHOUT anykind of sleight of hand?

At least with palm/slip players with high watch have a chance to notice you cheating. Currently it is absolutely impossible without the peek skill to see if someone has a whole deck of loose cards in their hands and is cheating. No roleplay, just emoting showing the same card over and over and over without any opportunity for anyone at the table to see that person is cheating. This is basicly the reason I refuse to play for sid with any of my characters currently. OOC it's impossible to get caught cheating. Even if someone with peek catches someone else, how can you prove it to anyone else at the table as chances are they won't have peek?

[EonBlueApocalypse]

This is basicly the reason I refuse to play for sid with any of my characters currently. OOC it's impossible to get caught cheating. Even if someone with peek catches someone else, how can you prove it to anyone else at the table as chances are they won't have peek?

Why would you refuse to do something with your characters just because you have OOC knowledge of something?  That doesn't seem in the spirit of roleplaying.  People who are codedly able to cheat should be able to do so, as cheating at cards is as old as playing cards itself.

And if you catch someone cheating?  Pick a fight if you think you can beat them.  Or if you're a weakling character, then let it slide and vow not to play cards with that character again.  Or better yet, get revenge on them.

It's attitudes like this that makes games on Zalanthas no fun.

[Alberic]

Why would you refuse to do something with your characters just because you have OOC knowledge of something?  That doesn't seem in the spirit of roleplaying.  People who are codedly able to cheat should be able to do so, as cheating at cards is as old as playing cards itself.

I have no problem with people cheating IC and would be happy to play if they were cheating IC. I still play cards IC, just not for anything that matters and I just RP that my character is afraid of being cheated. However, using OOC knowledge of how the code works to cheat and know you can never ever be caught makes playing a waste of time. If I wanted to I could just throw the sids down a well and then RP having spent my time gambling and lost without having been cheated OOC. It's the equivilent of someone using a bug in the code to take my money out of the bank. They can RP that they ninja'd into the bank all they want, but it's still just bug abuse.

[EonBlueApocalypse]

If the staff is aware of it, and they feel it is abuse, it would be fixed.  I strongly believe that to be true, after seeing the way this game works.  If you feel that way, and think they may not know, I would recommend reporting this bug/abuse.  Using sleight of hand and peek, however, could not be construed as code abuse, unless they're doing something that the commands are not intended to do.

[daedroug]

the abuse is not in using sleight of hand and peek it's in NOT using them it's in having a spare deck in your inventory that no one with out peek can see, and then picking and choosing which cards you want to show people. This idea is to make it so that people with sleight of hand would be the ones cheating (as it should be) instead of random fools that probably would have the grace of a half giant when trying to keep cards hidden.

[EonBlueApocalypse]

Nosave peek is hawt, that should work.

[Cegar]

Nosave peek is.... er... well, I think show would be much, much better.

[daedroug]

personally i think Show would be better however i would just like to see one or the other implemented