Less Thought Policing, More Physics

[jmordetsky]

New Edit: Guys, just as point. I'm with everyone on the hitching mounts thing. Consider it an oversight, I've editted it out. But let's try to focus on the idea behind the entire post rather then the specific code ideas in the post. Consider it a philosphical discussion, and try not to focus on the merrit of specific ideas. They were just examples.






(this is long post...but one with a concise point. Eventually. Consider this the crescendo of my posting career.)



As many have noticed, of late, there has been a fairly massive influx of mages, nilaz, psis, and sorcs in recent days. Poweful PCs that elicit powerful emotions from the PC base. The general consensus is that this has a two-fold cause. Firstly caused by a sudden rush of special apps to allow people to play roles they might not get to play in the new game. And secondly caused by a general new lax attitude toward the normal documented prejudices of PC's toward one another. Depending on who ask of course.

While I believe both areas are likely at fault, the problem is of course a valid one. I have played this game for a long time, and it is only in the last 6mo or so that I have felt, learned, been touched by every hidden supernatural force arm has to offer. This leaves me with a feeling of "dear me, what is happening?".  This isn't the point of my post. I'm less interested in the cause as I am the effect.

The effect is one I've witnessed on Arm before. It's a fairly common part our social glue. I've seen a player base and (likely some staff) begin to take a stance of finger pointing at other players and ridiculous levels prejudice applied to anything that seems slightly "out of the norm". It's a common pattern here, as I'll evidence in a moment.

It has specific feel: Were you nice to the half-elf? OMG you're a twink. Got a mage buddy? OMG you're a twink. Didn't emote before you stole from me? OMG you're a twink. Halfling left the gray forest? OMG you're a twink. Killed a prominent PC? OMG you're a twink. Stray from the norm? OMG you're a twink.

The recent rash of it can be attributed to the increased level of occurrence.  I am sure at least some of these "fringe relationships" are completely IC and kosher. A good deal of them likely are not. However, all of us will suffer accordingly. Our reactions are both inline and out of line. And likely, the issue is not special apps, or ooc canoodling, but rather something else that I will (again) get to in a moment.

But first lets take a short stroll to armageddonmud's not so distance past. I have observed this sort of outcry and "static" build up in the staff and player base before. It was in the days prior "the great Morgenes code spree" and it had to do with sneaky characters, who would steal and hide.
Before the days of watch, hemote and semote, everyone who stole or was stolen from labeled a twink for the way they behaved, depending on which side of the action you were on.

If you didn't emote when you stole you were a twink. If you did emote when you stole and the person you were stealing from automatically blamed you for stealing they were twink. If you hid in a tavern, you were a twink. If you scanned in a tavern, to someone, somewhere, you were a twink. Everyone involved with subterfuge was twink. It was fairly ridiculous to read the boards back then. And to be fair, some of it was twinky, but which aspect was very subjective, and there was little agreement on the subject to be found.

It was about as ridiculous as things are now with our "I hate mages" threads. Anyone who has a friend or a comrade that is mildly out of the arm norm being labeled as a twink and ooc powergamer friends with mages and benders for their OOC benefits.  Lots of finger pointing with little observation outside a cursory glance of the actual players involved before judgement is placed. It reminds of a time when I recall huge page long debates on the GDB about whether or not the "city hide" skill was blending into the crowd or hiding under a tavern table.  

In retrospect that sort of debate seems ridiculous. We have semote and hemote to convey hidden or subtle actions, so you cannot reasonably expect a steal emote. Hide has a message attached to it that *clearly* indicates that you are blending into the crowd, not hiding under a half-giant's skirt. And other echos that further delineate city hide from outdoor hide. Mature code at the hands of skilled and creative implementers with foresight and drive was our redeemer. (As is the case in the real world as well : ) )

So now we have a different debate? We again have often times fuzzily documented standards that are being broken and no one really knows what the standards are. We have a vague feeling that we should all fear and hate magickers, that magickers should fear and hate nilazis that everyone should fear and hate defilers and psionists but we have no idea where the grey area lies. When is it cool? It is ever cool?

Before the coders handle it, Armageddon's general solution to any of these issues is that the staff's needs to "get involved" and provided guidance to players in their roleplay or to punish behavior that is viewed as wrong.

My general feelings is that is this the fundamental flaw of Armageddonmud as a game. Many of you will disagree with this, likely many of you will flame me for having the "audacity" to post this, but I believe that staff involvement as a correcting element to the role play of players is flawed approach to the problem.  It not only invites bitterness from players who feel ICly justified in their actions, it also misses the *real* problem characters who are usually less visible to the staff. Rather leadership PCs are punished for creating strong organizations and then implementing plot lines that they feel are IC, exciting and interesting.

In addition on a more micro level it puts the kabosh on creative character concepts, invites a culture of "Us vs Them" between player and staff, and probably most importantly, it generally doesn't scale to facilitate a larger player base at all, and will never. We will never have enough staff to solve the problem, and it will always be a subjective problem that to some doesn't need solving.

Here is statement for you to consider as players and staff:

Armageddon's mud fundamental flaw that keeps it from reaching any sort of true potential as an MMO is that we attempt to enforce role-play standards through the practice of thought-policing and player brain eating, rather then through creative coded measures that highlight and enforce correct rp.

Boom. I said it. Wow that was a lot of lead up.

I will again site the great "steal dilemma" of our past as evidence of such. And please, know that this isn't a "blame" it is merely an observation. It is infinitely easier to add documentation outlining how to RP a specific situation, then it is to code creative and physical rules enforcing it. In some cases the later is impossible. (well, probably not impossible.).

All this being said, allow me to color my statement with a few example.

* Elementalists should hate Nilaz

* Elves should not ride mounts.

Both of these are well-known documented facts of Arm. And we as an RP community, (I'd go as far as to say a society of sorts) have accepted and embraced one fully, whereas the other is a bit fuzzy and given room for interpretation. Yet, you will find the staff is quick to enforce either via animating the world in reaction, and the player base is quick to condemn any and all infringers.

But I say this? Why not learn a lesson from Morg's fix of hide and sneak and add coded penalties to these things? Rather the require players to read the documentation, what if the game told me what I was doing is wrong?

For example an elf riding a kank:

Code Select Expand



> hitch kank

You hitch your kank.

> mount kank

You feel a forceful tear at your pride, and frowning with disgust you climb onto ~kank.

> e

You attempt to go east, but ~kank doesn't move.



In this case the idea that elves do not ride kanks is enforced by two coded items. 1) The elf's ride skill (if it exists) is set to -50000 : ). 2) The player is given code echos letting him know how his elf should feel about this kank.

Another instance would be the juxtaposition of nilaz against other elements. I would say very little of it understood by the player base and that the documentation for this is severely lacking. You will find like our hide issue of yore, player opinions flare on the matter, yet staff position is resolute.

So why is there so much confusion? Well, simply because there's no way for PCs to know what happening unless a staff member intervenes, which will unfortunately not happen quite so often enough to control a karmaless society.

So? What if we again got creative? What if when a elemental was in the same room for a Nilaz for too long, the infection of nilaz began to make their magick impotent? Or perhaps it could drain the mana of non-nilaz, granting the nilaz with vampire like ability? I'm suggesting this as  code, but imagine how many people would have trouble understanding the relationship of nilaz and other elements if there was simple coded phenomena such as:

Code Select Expand



100/100 100/100 100/100> l pete

Pete has brown hair, and wears a gem.

100/100 100/100 100/100> tell pete Hey bud, whats up. You're my nilazi buddy.

You say to pete: "Hey bud, whats up. You're my nilazi buddy."

100/100 100/100 100/100>

Pete says to you: " You know it. You're my whiran buddy!"

100/100 100/100 100/100>

You feel a stab of sudden pain. Your head swirls with dizziness as a drowning feeling of nothingness over comes you!

(Pete is inadvertently draining his whiran buddies mana just by being near him!)

100/100 100/100 90/100>  say What the?

You say: "What the?"

You feel a stab of sudden pain. Your head swirls with dizziness as a drowning feeling of nothingness over comes you!

Pete says to you "What's wrong?!?!"

Pete touches your arm.

You feel an incredible stab of sudden pain! Your head swirls with dizziness as a drowning feeling of nothingness over comes you!

100/100 100/100 70/100>  tell pete Get away from me!!!




So on and so forth.


These examples are just two instances, and this post is not really about code. In fact I'd go as far as to say this post is not about code ideas at all. It is about our fundamental philosophies and approach to administration of our world. It is a call to change our thinking about how we administer the idea of a roleplay enforced world and mature it to a level that allows it to continue to grow.

But those are the last lingering thoughts on Arm from a player who has seen a great deal of it from a multitude of angles and has many times seem the same debates over, and over and over again. I've watched players feel bullied by imms, and watched imms feel rejected and betrayed by players.  I don't blame either or take sides, I think both are equally at fault and not at fault. I think our general problem here is our approach.

One might say there are not enough coders to enforce all of our rules. To which I will agree and reply "open the source" and there will be.  I hope if you do take some time to flame me you'll take a moment to digest this for a bit first. 

[Coat of Arms]

Let's see if I got your point right...

I agree that there are some problems with vague boundaries and a lack of knowledge to what's right and wrong in some instances. To me, one of the biggest issues is that it's often up to the individual player what is right for them and that can easily create a conflict when someone has a different opinion.

Taking the recent magicker debate as an example, there are some who dislike how magickers can become very powerful in a hurry if they decide to (group A for later reference), and some who defend that and say that it allows the magickers more time to roleplay and interact instead of practicing in solitude (group B). Both sides have a valid point, one being that there's a power imbalance and the other that fun and roleplay is more important.

But what happens when these things clash? What happens when the player from group A loses a beloved character to a magicker from group B who was able to kill A because of the ability to grow in power so fast? Or what would happen if the staff sided with group A and made skill progress for magickers much slower, and several players from B give up and store their magickers after spending 10 days with little to show for it? There's never going to be agreement when there are so many opposing opinions, especially when it's often up to the players to decide what's right. I feel that the staff is often the passive watcher until things go horribly wrong, and that they should more readily guide and interfere with the players when these problems arise. But most likely they just don't have the time or numbers to hold the hands of hundreds of players.

Coded limitations would be one possible solution but I fear that it would make things much too restricted and force players' roleplay. To take the OP's examples as my own, what if that elf was special and wanted to ride a kank? That's not completely impossible, he could have a mental illness or any other reason. Or maybe the character is the type to never feel or show emotions, but now he's suddenly forced to sulk and frown because the code works that way. And it'll be almost impossible to remain a secret nilazi if every elementalist around you are instantly alerted to your presence. I'd rather have things such as was described in the example log be choices made by the nilazi, from spells and abilities, instead of automatic effects that just happen and essentially decide how the nilazi can ever act around other elementalists.

[Jherlen]

I'd much rather see docs be clarified and reinforced with other docs, npc scripts, staff interaction and player-driven support (such as a society of elves whose mission it is to hunt down and kill any traitor kank-riding elves). I don't think hard-coding solutions to reinforce roleplay is the right answer. The code is limiting and inflexible, and many issues would be simply impossible to enforce anyway. How do you hard-code the Tuluki stigma against nobles and commoners having sex? Scan all rooms for a naked Tulukis and make sure they're of the same caste?

I would also, if I ever played an elf, find it more interesting to be the elf who mounted that kank and rode it three rooms to escape from that tembo that was after me, then forever live with his shame, than I would to die to the tembo because the code has set my ride skill to -50000 and made it completely impossible for me to ever ride a kank.

And so on. Ultimately I feel that relying on "thought police" and docs to enforce roleplay rather than doing everything through code will give us a wider range of higher quality roleplay.

[Bushranger]

For example an elf riding a kank:

Code Select Expand



> hitch kank

You feel a forceful tear at your pride as you step closer to ~kank.

> mount kank

Frowning with disgust you climb onto ~kank.

> e

You attempt to go east, but ~kank doesn't move.



In this case the idea that elves do not ride kanks is enforced by two coded items. 1) The elf's ride skill (if it exists) is set to -50000 : ). 2) The player is given code echos letting him know how his elf should feel about this kank.

Just a quick observation about this part of your post jmordetsky, and I'm sure you realize this yourself but for any newbies reading this, Hitch is not always a command that needs to be followed by Ride. I believe desert elf tribes see nothing wrong with owning a few kanks and/or other pack animals for transporting some of the tribes heaviest possessions such as large tents - they just pride themselves in not needing to ride beasts to transport themselves. Stealing kanks is also a perfectly legitimate elven past time.

For example:

Code Select Expand



> hitch kank

You feel a sense of pride as you steal a round ear's kank.

> pack barrel

You carefully strap ~barrel onto ~kank before picking up the reins.

> e

You run east.
A fat kank enters from the west.

think That round ear will think twice before leaving his kank out in the open and this barrel of ale and fat kank will provide a nice feast for the tribe.



So I can't say I agree that Hitch should have a different echo for an elf.

[alger]

I actually don't agree with the kank thing.  While I do frown upon elves ridding ig for ic reasons, as a player I don't really think all of them are twinks just for doing so.  There are many reasons an elf would ride a mount.  While I can't think of a reason that would not be frowned upon by the elven society not all reasons mean that the elf is grudgingly doing it.  The reason for not wanting to ride is somewhat abstract as it can range from pride to fear to anything that relates to adaptation to social norms.  That being the case a code that restricts such reasons and emotions to one aspect makes it somewhat restrictive.

Another example on how code can be restrictive is the Nilazi example given.  While I agree that seeing a Nilazi and a Whiran(or any other elementalist) fighting side by side is very odd, me seeing the two together doesn't necessarily mean they're going against concept.  Again there can be many reasons for an elementalist and nilazi to be in the same room at least, if not working together.  Reasons, that range from deception to forced alliances, which would be hindered if such code was put in.

That's the problem with too much code.  The usual tendency is the more code you put in the less flexible such things become.

I do understand what jmordetsky is trying to say though in the sense that  it is hard (if not impossible) to moderate a lot of things in Arm without coded support.  The way I see it, the solutions for such things are never as simple.  Most proposed courses of action usually have a negative side to it.  While it is easy to see the benefits of a course of action especially in a time where such benefits are highlighted by a certain crisis a person always has to take note of the negative aspects.  If you have to sacrifice coded reinforcement in exchange for the flexibility of characters in the world what would you really choose?  If you were to choose between not seeing as many magickers and restricting players that could have contributed majorly to the richness of the world through such roles, what would you choose?  How about loosing players due to having too many magickers and loosing players because they can't play what they want to play?  In the end they're all tough decisions that will eventually make someone unhappy.

[Rindan]

Ignoring the examples, I don't think the general idea of "put in code when you can" is bad, but it is hardly practical or workable in many cases.  

Take the current blight of magikers.  The obvious coded solution is to tear apart the karma system and rework it such that there is a limit on the number of magikers in game.  The obvious coded solution to magikers running down the North road with floating balls of light and man eating monsters following them is to code soldiers, Templars, and pissed off mobs of Tuluki that chase them down when they run along the North road for too long with obvious magikal effects on.  The obvious coded solution to magikers chilling in tribal lands is to code tribals that sneak up on them and kill them.

Now, those are all certainly viable solutions, but each and every one is a major code change.  A quasi-outdoor crime code is no small matter.  Changing the karma system is an excellent way to get the playerbase to riot.

I think you vastly underestimate the difficulty of making any coded change.  Now, there might be some places where a simple code change could clarify... for instance changing the echo on hide.  For more complex issues the code change required is either extremely labor intensive or simply doesn't exist.  Many times, times it truly is a better use of staff time to throw up some documentation instead of trying to code circles around the playerbase.  I would rather see the staff work on a new combat system, than code an outdoorsy crime code that sets out NPC magik hunting bounty hunters to hunt down magikers who cast too close to cities.

The vast majority of the 'problems' in the game are not things that can be coded around.  There is no coded way to impart Tuluki culture.  There is no coded way to sink it through peoples' thick brains that talking shit back to a Templar is a really bad idea.  There is no coded way to impart the proper reaction that a commoner should have when dealing with a noble.  Short of resorting to some really silly echo's every time a magiker walks into the room, there is no coded way to convince people that any form of magik is to be regarded with paranoia and dread that only having your city wiped out and then occupied for 40 years can impart.  We need the ability to have culture in the absence of code.

So, do I agree that coded solutions are nice when we can have them?  Sure.  I just think that the vast majority of the 'problems' in the game either have no coded solution or the coded solution is far too costly in terms of staff time.

[Marauder Moe]

Yeah, I don't think we need to code things that people should know from the documents.  Reading the docs is a requirement for playing Armageddon.  That fact is made quite clear.

Now... do the docs need some reworking?  Maybe.  I don't think it'd be too bad if things were revamped and new players/characters had certain things repeated to them.  Like, after getting an elf character approved the acceptance email contained a mini-doc about elves saying things like elves don't ride mounts, elves all like to steal, elves do not trust those outside of their clan, and so on.  Heck, maybe flash those rules at the end of the application process before it is committed too.

[spawnloser]

I'm still debating with myself on a proper post to contribute to this thread...

...but while I do that, I do feel the need to mention that I do NOT like the idea of making an elf feel dirty for hitching a mount.  That's the only way to lead a mount, and elves DO use pack creatures for carrying things.  They just don't ride the beasts.

To the rest...I'm still, as I said, arguing with myself over how to take the suggestions offered up.

[Tisiphone]

I think we also need to realize that some bitching on the GDB is a good thing. Prodding with complaints is one way we thrash out what does need improving, and how. The problem arises when people put entirely too much emotional investment in their side of the argument, because they would rather win than be right. (Assuredly, they see the two as the same thing - but how many times are you actually right without qualification? Being convinced by your peers does not stain your honor.) So, in order for screams of, "TWINK!" to stop, the main solution is the playerbase showing self control and not getting too wrapped up in individual passions.

Will this happen? Probably not. However, no coded limitations on roleplay of the sort mentioned will fix things. People will find something to complain about if they want to, and others will respond, if they want to, and without modulation and moderation on both sides, 'twill descend into little more than a shouting match.

In one sense you can hardly blame us, as we no longer have good teachers - the atmosphere of discussion on the boards heavily mirrors that in modern politics. Yet I digress, so back to the point. (If this comment kicks off a flame war, I'm deleting it. Don't latch on, please.)

To address the idea of coded restrictions to roleplay of the kind mentioned: it heavily depends on the situation. For example, a quasi crim-code in the wilderness in some areas might be rather neat. Perhaps a better solution is to have, say, the Muark overlook parts of the North Road and scrublands, the Blackwing patrol the northern Tablelands, or something of that nature. Of course, the main problem with -this- solution is that most twink magickers who waltz down the road with it showing like they're the character of note in The Emperor's Birthday Suit can take care of individual NPCs, or even small groups, without much trouble.

However, some interesting roleplay does, in fact, focus around when people break the guidelines in the docs for good reason. (Disclaimer: I do not claim that all interesting roleplay centers around these things, or even that much does, or even should. Part of what makes breaking the docs to the benefit of the game world is that they are normally in force, rather than being merely something said, and then ignored.) Certainly, this is not an excuse for every elf to ride a kank, but said elf is perfectly capable. Then, he goes back to his tribe and roleplays being alive, but horribly shamed and dishonored. Certainly this is not an excuse for every magicker to befriend a nilazi (or every mundane to befriend a magicker), but the magicker may not know who his friend is. Why is this regular guy so nice to me when I'm a taint shunned by society? He's just a regular guy! But I'm lonely, so horribly lonely...so I won't look a gift inix in the mouth too hard.

Good coded reactions to 'poor roleplay' which uses code might include things like: if you walk into Tuluk's gates wearing your mon un elkrosi pretty lights, the soldiers will chase you. They will track you down. They will not stop until you get way far away, and if you ever come back? They will sally forth again. Now, that magicker may in fact have a perfectly good reason for the effect (whether an actual IC reason or just from the fact that he can't cancel it and is tired of sitting in a cave for two RL days, not to mention being about to die of thirst and hunger) or not, but either way, the Legions would act the same. They hate 'gickers, they don't care if you have the best reason in the world to show you're a 'gicker, as far as they're concerned, you're going down.

In the long run, though, if possible, the best response to any problem is likely to be from the players themselves, through their characters, as such a thing is more likely to reflect the game world than anything else. (The following is an example only; I'm not concerned with its feasibility as a thing to do or the effectiveness of its possible results, insofar as this post is not a discussion on the topic below, but rather the one above.) Let's say you strongly feel that magickers are entirely too numerous, and too powerful. So, what you decide to do is have your character notice the same thing and feel the same way. At that point, your character is frightened and angered. Perhaps enough so that he or she feels it necessary, or even a positive act, to start a group of people dedicated to eradicating the taint. Another example (see above disclaimer): you think half-giants are played entirely too stupidly, like the modern conception of a retard, rather than a child touched in the head, with skill at mimicking. So you start an organization whose method towards a goal (let's say, destabilizing the city-state?) is to train half-giants in etiquette and espionage, which you think they should be able to pick up rather easily, since you can show them the methods of how to be polite for them to imitate, and otherwise have them check in frequently and repeat everything they have heard. After all, who would suspect a half-giant spy? Everyone thinks they're too stupid, right?

Hopefully you got some idea of what I think the ideal solution would be from the above. In review: code which does not outright restrict action against the docs, but rather penalizes doc-breakers with circumstantial consequences is good. Most of the problem of the hot-button issues about the game is in the players, not the game itself. And finally, if possible, the best solution to any problem affecting the game is an IC one, directed by skilled roleplay.

[helix]

...It has specific feel: Were you nice to the half-elf? OMG you're a twink. Got a mage buddy? OMG you're a twink. Didn't emote before you stole from me? OMG you're a twink. Halfling left the gray forest? OMG you're a twink. Killed a prominent PC? OMG you're a twink. Stray from the norm? OMG you're a twink.

There's always going to be people like this. Always. No matter what you do, sometime, somewhere, it will not fit into someone else's idea of roleplaying because at its base level, this is caused by a different point of view on the concepts of the game.

...My general feelings is that is this the fundamental flaw of Armageddonmud as a game. Many of you will disagree with this, likely many of you will flame me for having the "audacity" to post this, but I believe that staff involvement as a correcting element to the role play of players is flawed approach to the problem...

Essentially, what you're talking about is an MMO. Compare Arm to World of Warcraft. In WoW, you don't have to think. You don't have to wonder if the humans (or orcs, whatever) are your enemies - they are codedly made so. There is no chance to have a secret human ally. You don't have to find someone to pay you, it is codedly handled through quests. It is, essentially, 'roleplaying' by rote.

I think Arm has grey areas -because- it is a role playing game. We are free to choose (though, just like in real life, some choices may be 'wrong') what and who our character associates with. I actually think the answers to all of your questions lie, not in coded measures, but in updated, more expansive docs on -everything-. Right now there is so much mystery regarding everything, as you say there's a vague idea that I should fear a psionist.

Why? Honestly, my none of my characters has had -any- idea what a psionist can do. Why, in that case, do I fear them? This would be solved by updated docs, detailing what I do and don't know.

Armageddon's mud fundamental flaw that keeps it from reaching any sort of true potential as an MMO is that we attempt to enforce role-play standards through the practice of thought-policing and player brain eating, rather then through creative coded measures that highlight and enforce correct rp.

Here's the problem with taking coded measures. Keep in mind I'm a javascript/perl/java programmer. The number one rule of programming is this:

Less, is more.

When you code something, you have to take into consideration all possible situations that code will influence. All the times it will be referenced. Take your nilazi example, for instance.

Say Bob the friendly neighborhood nilazi is sitting at the bar, drinking a beer. In walks Sue and Sam, elementalists who desire to drink the beer. All of a sudden, they get stabbing pains in their heads. Since Bob, Sam and Sue are the only ones in the bar, BoB's uber-high karma suprsekrit class is now exposed. Even if there were other people in the bar, obviously Sam and Sue wouldn't have been around Bob before, making him a prime suspect. So now, either Bob or Sam and Sue have to die to protect Bob's identity. Possibly any other people in the bar who overhear if Sam and Sue say anything.

The other things that you have to take into consideration is that code is not pretty. It is not easy, especially something on this scale (which I imagine probably has between 40,000 and 100,000 lines of code, all told) to not introduce bugs and inconsistencies in the code - things which may be minor or major, up to and including crashing the server with some more major bugs. All these things are not only possible, but probable, when adding large segments of code.

When you can avoid doing that, you should. Its just that simple. You don't implement code without first very carefully considering its impact.

Lastly, what is 'true potential' as an MMO? Is it WoW? SoI? No thanks. I play here because I like it here, magicker discussions aside. You couldn't pay me to play WoW, and I'm not much for SoI, either. Face it, a permadeath MUD will never be mainsteam, it will never appeal to a large audience, no matter how pretty or cool it is. Most people just don't want to do it.

[LoD]

I appreciate all the time and energy the OP took to write this.  You've obviously put a fair deal of thought into the subject and organized your thoughts prior to posting.

That said, I don't agree with enforcing coded 'reminders' for RP situations that seem commonly abused or mishandled.  The issues are too varied and layered to solve with a simple code fix, which leaves the human element to deal with them.  That does introduce human limitations into the equation, but it also includes their strengths.  I would consider this flexibility to be one of ArmageddonMUD's strengths rather than one of its fundamental flaws.

In your post, you compare the recent influx of magickers into the game with the problem when thieves/victims were sharing frustrations over stealing or being stolen from.  If they didn't emote, they were a twink.  If they emoted and the victim would instantly react, they were a twink.  These are two completely different issues.  One is dealing with a perception between the thief and victim and their interactions both preceding and following the event.  The other is dealing with an administrational choice that has greatly affected the demographic and feel of the gameworld for players sensitive to those changes.

Not every deviation from the Armageddon documentation or the "norm" is going to either require or benefit from a coded response.  It's probably more practical to find a balance between the code and the Imm Staff rather than opt for one over the other.  Having multiple tools for solving problems is always superior to mandating the use of one.

Even though I don't agree it's the solution, I did find some of your suggetsions (i.e. Nilzai passive drain effect) to be quite interesting.

-LoD

[Dalmeth]

I personally would like a bit more code to support certain attitudes that are expressed in the documentation.  However, jmortdesky's examples are entirely too simple.  As LoD stated, they don't amount to much more than "coded reminders."

I personally think that the "elves don't ride mounts" statement is the best example we have of a societal attitude backed up by code, but at the same time it is an example of how the code has failed to back it up.  Why don't desert elves ride mounts?  Because desert run is so bitchin' cool!  Then they can hide and sneak whenever they want.  It's not too hard for players to run their desert elf characters as proud of their abilities.

However, the only place where the "elves don't ride mounts" idea breaks down is in the case of city elves.  Yeah, they can run just fine in cities, but as soon as they step outside of a gate, their legs magically become useless.  They simply don't have code support for their pride in their ability to run.

Then there's magickers.  The problem here can be summed up in four words, "MAGICKERS ARE NOT DANGEROUS!"  They're plenty deadly, that's for sure.  Look at one the wrong way, and they'll toast you, but where's the backfire from their magickal abilities?

Krathis should lay waste to entire swaths of land once they get revved up.  Elkrosians should be just as dangerous to their allies as their enemies if they aren't extremely careful.  A Vivdaduan might risk starting a plague if she starts inflicting her enemies with diseases.

The problem is magick does exactly what the magicker wants and nothing else.  So, the issue is making sure that a magicker never wants to do anything to you (aka.,"Sucking up").

If you want Nilazi to be frowned upon, give them the incentive and capability to victimize other magickers for their own benefit.  Like maybe a Nilazi could anonymously drain a random magicker of their mana to take as their own within a certain area?  How about a certain useful spell draws a mana draining creature that is dangerous to elementalists, as haphazardly outlined here.

Societal attitudes should be supported by the code, not outlined by it.

[Dakurus]

Very thoughtful post.

In a very real way, every person that plays this mud is a staff member. Perhaps there should be a contract/wavier that you have to sign/click everytime you make a character/enter the game. This is because, when you play here, while it's a game, you shoulder a burden towards your fellow players and the game world everytime you login. You are implictly agreeing to follow and know the documentation with regards to racial, cultural, regional, magickal, and all the other standards. You're agreeing to be a consistent representative of such documentation to your fellow players. You're agreeing to spending time/effort/thought into making these, exceptions from these, and all sorts of other things about your character apparent in some form for those you play with. You're acknowledging that the game world is in large part virtual, be it people, wildlife, behaviors, and so on, but that you will do you very best to have your character react appropriately to things that should be represented by this virtual world, and act accordingly.

Each of you are policing yourself with following the above contract and likely more I haven't said. You're policing each other. And we as "other" staff are policing as well. I'm not sure policing is the most appropriate word, but I depends on if you have a constructive or critical view on it.

In the end it's a group effort. It's about being good examples, and doing your best. Sometimes we all slip, accidentally, or purposefully.

[Gimfalisette]

My preferred solution for problems where culture isn't being played appropriately is for players (who know the docs) to model that culture.

For example, I'm playing a human woman and some male elf comes onto me in a tavern. I will ridicule and scoff at that elf, and invite everyone else in the tavern to do it too, until the elf's player figures out that crossing racial boundaries is a no-no. Even more so if it's a breed that's hitting on my character. Sexual boundaries in culture should be one of the things easiest to model, and there are places where this is done well (the Tuluki caste taboo is generally very nicely done by both upper and common castes), but there are a LOT of places where the boundaries are crossed and people could be modeling better.

For another example, I'm playing a good Tuluki citizen and someone openly starts talking about magickers on the North Road in the middle of the tavern. I will make it clear to that character that they need to shut up...subtly, of course  (And ohhhhhhhhhhhhh I've had to do that a LOT of times.)

There have been many instances in game where other players have modeled culture for me as well, in a way that (usually) ended up being gently corrective while staying entirely IC and code-free.

I have always felt it my great responsibility, if I know the culture better than some other character does, to appropriately and correctly play out at least the public aspects of that culture.

And/but despite being a fanatic about cultural correctness in game, there are also times when my characters may significantly deviate from culture. I do this knowingly, and I do it for important IC reasons, and I don't want code telling me whether or not I can do it. Major cultural deviance should and does always bring major risk with it as well. I would not want to replace those risks with coded effects.

[X_Scars]

After reading through the original post, a certain idea came up that I thought would be nice to slip in.

Armageddon's mud fundamental flaw that keeps it from reaching any sort of true potential as an MMO is that we attempt to enforce role-play standards through the practice of thought-policing and player brain eating, rather then through creative coded measures that highlight and enforce correct rp.

(post directed to jmordetsky, as I feel it is more efficient in getting my thoughts through)
This ends up being the main concept of your argument, and while I agree to a certain extent, I'd like to apply this to a more general outlook as to how I view this issue, and you can let me know if this might be agreeable for you.

As it seems, the general mindset of players from my observations is like you say, "Before the coders handle it, Armageddon's general solution to any of these issues is that the staff needs to "get involved" and provide guidance to players in their roleplay or to punish behavior that is viewed as wrong." While I cannot say for what the staff might view as their own general solution to the issues that were mentioned, I believe that's a fairly accurate accounting, basing my observations upon posts, documentation, code, and the concensus on the discussion boards, in a broad sense.

Taking your example of the thieves and the stealing issue, the way that problem was handled was by adding the watch command, and a set of coded modifiers that allowed the code to a certain extent dictate how a thief could go about stelaing, and how potential victims could either prevent theft, or more accurately react to such situations (given by adding the hemote, semote, and the like).

Now that we have the benefit to look at the results of these changes, I can honestly say I'm glad these changes took place, despite concerns between proponents for less code and those pro-code. (I split the sides into two groups, for less code or pro-code, to make it easier to refer to, though I realize there are other shades between)

The way in which you seem to be looking at these issues is that the code is what brought about this seeming balance, and while I can certainly agree for this particular case, this can't very easily be applied to cultural issues like you mentioned between elementalists.

One thing you briefly mentioned in the beginning of your post and didn't expound upon further, jmordetsky, is the "fairly massive influx of mages, nilaz, psis, and sorcs in recent days. Powerful PCs that elicit powerful emotions from the PC base". What this has ultimately caused is an imbalance in the game, when comparing magick related to nonmagick related characters, plots, and developments.

If given that code should play a large part in bringing about a balance, one conclusion would be that there should be a set limit to the number of these powerful characters active at a time, but seen in the several posts proposing this idea, it creates alot of burdens upon players and staff that could possibly be avoided.

Another conclusion, given that code should play a large part in bringing balance to the game, is that these guilds could be dampened, to give them a lesser learning curve, making it more difficult to play these characters, and thus curb the tide of players willing to play them, unless they have the patience, willingness, and enough ferver for the role that they would stick to it until they become powerful. This also swings the issue in a direction that makes it less enjoyable for those players who might want to play these roles.

While I have only brought up one aspect of the issue here, it still leads me to conclude that code alone isn't the only measure that brings balance to the game.

Now looking at the 'less code' side of the argument, Coat of Arms came up with a couple good situations that reinforces the point I'm seeking.

Taking the recent magicker debate as an example, there are some who dislike how magickers can become very powerful in a hurry if they decide to (group A for later reference), and some who defend that and say that it allows the magickers more time to roleplay and interact instead of practicing in solitude (group B). Both sides have a valid point, one being that there's a power imbalance and the other that fun and roleplay is more important.

But what happens when these things clash? What happens when the player from group A loses a beloved character to a magicker from group B who was able to kill A because of the ability to grow in power so fast? Or what would happen if the staff sided with group A and made skill progress for magickers much slower, and several players from B give up and store their magickers after spending 10 days with little to show for it?

In the end, I think it all boils down to there requiring a point between these two sides that can offer enjoyment and fun roleplay for both parties, similar to how the thieving issue was dealt with, but not relying solely upon code to back up game balance.

I'd like to take this conclusion further by adding a more general concept that is ultimately the whole point of my post here.

If there is an influx of magicker-related plots and characters in the game, I feel there should be a similar increase in anti-magick plots and characters in order to balance what has been offset. If there is a rash of thieving, there should be countermeasures both IG and OOC in order to offset this imbalance, through use of IG organizations and coded support. If physicians are lacking in their usage, there should be IG measures and OOC measures together in order to increase their functionalities and bring a balance to that subguild and aspect of the game.

What I mean by this is that both players and staff should work together in assuring the game doesn't become imbalanced. I think the direction and starting momentum lies in the hands of staff, but it's up to players to make sure the ball keeps rolling.

While Arm 1 is in its last stretch, I think it's fair to give it some leeway in terms of -some (tiny bit)- of imbalance, but I really hope, with fingers crossed, that such imbalance can be minimalized in Arm 2, both in code and in culture and if there is, it can be handled with the attention issues such as the parry bug and steal code have been dealt with, by both players and staff. Efficient, practical, fair, and enjoyable for all in the long run.

(The only exceptions I see here are issues related directly with code, such as the bug in the parry/defense code. These deal with balancing out code and strictly OOC measures, rather than any particular effect with the roleplay, plot development, and other such aspects of the game.)

[A side note I'd like to make, is that while I think Arm 1 still has alot of attention and time that is required and will be needed in order to bring it to a great final conclusion, I think the staff is doing a wonderful job of it when juggling Arm 1 and 2 in each hand. So while I might gripe alittle about how things are now, I have confidence that the end result will end well. And, what ends well, goes well...or something like that.  :lol: ]

[jmordetsky]

I personally would like a bit more code to support certain attitudes that are expressed in the documentation.  However, jmortdesky's examples are entirely too simple.  As LoD stated, they don't amount to much more than "coded reminders."

I personally think that the "elves don't ride mounts" statement is the best example we have of a societal attitude backed up by code, but at the same time it is an example of how the code has failed to back it up.  Why don't desert elves ride mounts?  Because desert run is so bitchin' cool!  Then they can hide and sneak whenever they want.  It's not too hard for players to run their desert elf characters as proud of their abilities.

However, the only place where the "elves don't ride mounts" idea breaks down is in the case of city elves.  Yeah, they can run just fine in cities, but as soon as they step outside of a gate, their legs magically become useless.  They simply don't have code support for their pride in their ability to run.

Then there's magickers.  The problem here can be summed up in four words, "MAGICKERS ARE NOT DANGEROUS!"  They're plenty deadly, that's for sure.  Look at one the wrong way, and they'll toast you, but where's the backfire from their magickal abilities?

Krathis should lay waste to entire swaths of land once they get revved up.  Elkrosians should be just as dangerous to their allies as their enemies if they aren't extremely careful.  A Vivdaduan might risk starting a plague if she starts inflicting her enemies with diseases.

The problem is magick does exactly what the magicker wants and nothing else.  So, the issue is making sure that a magicker never wants to do anything to you (aka.,"Sucking up").

If you want Nilazi to be frowned upon, give them the incentive and capability to victimize other magickers for their own benefit.  Like maybe a Nilazi could anonymously drain a random magicker of their mana to take as their own within a certain area?  How about a certain useful spell draws a mana draining creature that is dangerous to elementalists, as haphazardly outlined here.

Societal attitudes should be supported by the code, not outlined by it.

I agree. I really like the idea of some classes we consider to be dangerous actually being modified to *be* dangerous. Backfire possibilities for Mages is genious. I would add the same for Psions, making it so that allow a psion to practice on you carried the possibility that they could cause you extended damage like long term vertigo or in ability to use the way.

[Gimfalisette]

I would add the same for Psions, making it so that allow a psion to practice on you carried the possibility that they could cause you extended damage like long term vertigo or in ability to use the way.

:shock:

I have never ALLOWED a psionicist to practice on any of my characters, and I never would. And yet over 70% of them, to my knowledge, have had unrequested interaction from psionicists. I am completely NOT ok with the idea that an unrequested, unwanted, unpreventable interaction could cause a negative long-term effect for my character. This is not at all the same as doing something willfully stupid, like letting your sparring partner train backstab on you.

[jmordetsky]

I would add the same for Psions, making it so that allow a psion to practice on you carried the possibility that they could cause you extended damage like long term vertigo or in ability to use the way.

:shock:

I have never ALLOWED a psionicist to practice on any of my characters, and I never would. And yet over 70% of them, to my knowledge, have had unrequested interaction from psionicists. I am completely NOT ok with the idea that an unrequested, unwanted, unpreventable interaction could cause a negative long-term effect for my character. This is not at all the same as doing something willfully stupid, like letting your sparring partner train backstab on you.

Understood and agreed. Again, it's just an example. It's the spirit of Dalmeth's post that I'm into. We won't be able to hash out all of possible "quick" fix code changes we might or might not need in this thread, nor should we try. But it's the concept that documented characters that should be feared/hated should have physical support for that feat and hatred.

I've found of late with so many mages floating too many chars have realized what uber friends a mage doth make. You might htink twice about hanging around with your krathi buddy if every 6 times he casted there was a chance he nuked you accidently.

I think a really super example of this in practice are muls. You have to be very careful about hanging out with muls, because there is a real coded threat to them.

[joyofdiscord]

You have never seen a mage cause all sorts of havoc by flubbing their spell?  Granted, a coded mechanism to cause this might be a good addition, but any player/character, especially a mundane, has very realistic reasons to be uncomfortable with magickal mumblings flying around.

[jhunter]

I would consider this flexibility to be one of ArmageddonMUD's strengths rather than one of its fundamental flaws.

This is how I feel about it exactly. Some folks tend to jump to: "Let's use the code to keep people from doing things that might be improper." I do not agree with this because too much hardcoding destroys flexibility.

(Kind of a minor sidetrack)I'm already of a mind that some changes that have happened in the last year or so have made the game less enjoyable to me...too long of coded delays on some things compared to what they used to be...etc. I start a craft (and am not going to sit and emote out in detail for the umpteenth time) go to another window and browse for a minute or two until the delay has passed. It seems to me that the game has started to go too far into the realm of hardcoding little details that do little to add to enjoyment or playability.
I think over all it was near-perfect about two years ago and has since started to decline. I hope that the new game will step back a bit from the direction Arm1 has headed the last couple years (as far as some coded aspects of the game).

[jmordetsky]

You have never seen a mage cause all sorts of havoc by flubbing their spell?  Granted, a coded mechanism to cause this might be a good addition, but any player/character, especially a mundane, has very realistic reasons to be uncomfortable with magickal mumblings flying around.

Nope. The only thing I've ever witness is flat failures and keyword miss types. The later of which is a bit lame. Could be they exist and I'm not aware. If so we should keep it IC. But if they do exist, they are certainly not common enough to cause concerns about partying it up with a few mages.

[Bushranger]

And when two Krathi work together, one out of every six spells cast will burninate the other Krathi? Or even worse a Krathi working with a templar suddenly burninates the templars soldiers? Ooops, sorry about your guard boss.

In essence you want to force magickers into solo roles?

[Southie]

I think giving the spells negative effects is an interesting idea. You could give spells significant but predictable downsides when cast, so that a mage who properly prepares or warns his friends would not be a detriment when working with them, but he sure would be a detriment to the area.

For example: a krathi sets an entire room on fire when using a powerful spell, and the room will stay on fire for a period of time, burning anyone inside it. The only way to not be burned is to be shielded with a fire shield spell which has a significant mana cost or expensive component.

Or when a vivaduan creates water, other water in the area has a chance to end up poisoned. The viv can check for that and cure it, if he cares.

Just examples. Rather than making the bad effects totally random, make it so you can account for and correct them.

[Forest Junkie]

Overall I thought that was a very good post j.

I generally dislike the idea of having code reinforce roleplay in the examples you mentioned, though this is a mud, and not a mush.

I really dug your example of having elementalists lose mana by simply being near a nilazi.

I think I'd be up for anything that helped keep the status quo. Seeing so many pc's play exceptions becomes disheartening after awhile.

[V1agraKank]

The original post is very interesting.

Personally, my opinion is that these sorts of problems are best tackled through working with players to develop maturity and building mutual trust rather than through draconian intervention by staff or by hard-coded implementations.

In at least the diagnosis of the problem, I think that the original poster was spot-on.  Good show, man.

[cyberpatrol_735]

I posted in the other thread.. but I'll bring my argument here.


Nilazi, Nilaz, the void. Absence of magick.

Why would a nilazi take elementalist's mana and use it for his own?

1. Nilazi are all about anti-magick, and the absence of it.
2. Nilazi NEGATE magick, they don't absorb it.
3. Nilazi would then be easily identified in cities, lame.


Make sense?

[Synthesis]

I think the concept of "void magick" is ambiguous enough to accommodate passive or active mana drain.

As far as the rest goes...not really feeling it.

[Agent_137]

lol, words.

[jmordetsky]

I posted in the other thread.. but I'll bring my argument here.


Nilazi, Nilaz, the void. Absence of magick.

Why would a nilazi take elementalist's mana and use it for his own?

1. Nilazi are all about anti-magick, and the absence of it.
2. Nilazi NEGATE magick, they don't absorb it.
3. Nilazi would then be easily identified in cities, lame.


Make sense?

Once again. Can we consider the "theory" behind the post and not the specific ideas.

:kills himself for putting specific examples into teh post and then expecting people to consider the themes and not the details.

[X_Scars]

You missed my post?  :cry:

[Shoka Windrunner]

I like the OP ideas.  The idea of having coded reminders, is a good thing.  It can't hurt at the least.  Do I want all Staff to drop what they are doing and start brainstorming and coding, but I think if ideas were generated that a simple echo could 'reinforce' not make impossible, it would be great.  An idea that should go in, it's been proven to be effective in the past.

So I'm all for coded echo reminders and such.  It will help new players adjust to the world and realize they should act differently.  And remind old players who might have forgotten or let slip their mind.

Yes your supposed to read all the docs.  But even if you do...there are very few people who will remember or pull from them everything they should keep in mind.

[Maso]

I am not opposed to coded reminders - though I think enforcing some things is going a little too far. I don't like the idea that the code will tell me how I feel my elf tries to get on a kank - but I can deal with it if it will help people better learn the game.

What I wouldn't want to see is my elf getting captured in the middle of a desert and being held at the point of a sword and told to mount a kank so they could be bound to it and led back to the captors dens (yes, I am hoping in the future that mounts can be led with people on them - it makes no sense that they can't) and getting killed because the code says No.

[Belenos]

I'll be upfront, I have not read each respondent's post in detail, so my comments may or may not have been echoed elsewhere.

I agree with many of the points, I think the post was well thought out and reasoned.

As for the coded aspect, I think having code inplace to reinforce roleplay can and should be done where it makes sense.  However it is important that what is coded make sense and does not intrude on roleplay and the more creative aspects of the game.  

The example that was given about a kank refusing to allow an elf to ride him is a good example of how I feel is an inappropriate use of code.   In this case there is no roleplay restriction on the kank.  from the kank's perspective, who rides them is a moot point.   We could attach code to each elf echoing their aversion to riding, yet from my perspective this is micro-managing all players of elves to handle the extremely rare instance of someone not following the documentation.

A better area the code should enforce from my perspective are aspects of realism that are habitually ignored or are difficult for the player to do through pure roleplay.  One example of something I was working on before the arm.2 announcement came out were 'pet' items.  I was working on coding behaviors and actions that allowed them to work independently and in conjunction with the PC owner.  They would periodically echo back appropriate behaviors,  and if battle insured while the pet was being worn,  they would either flee or risk being killed by a stray blow.

Coded aspects of the game need to complement the roleplay, not trump it.

As to the question of brain eating, much of the issues surrounding it are  situational and a matter of a point of view.  While certain situations may seem the work of the blunt hand from above, this is often not the case.  As staffers with the big picture when we see a problem developing such as with elemental friendliness with nalzi, the preferred approach to find ways to enable the PC's themselves to confront the issue.   This is not to say  we use NPCs to order players into taking certain actions, although many times players will try to get us to make those decisions for them.  Rather we provide opportunities and tools for those players moving down the right path.

I also very much agree with Dakurus in echoing that it is you, the players, that have the greatest impact on how well things are handled in terms of the documentation.  Each one of you, from the lowliest rinth thief to the most powerful sorcerer, have the opportunity to present the most accurate picture possible.  We  can not play your character for you, only you can.

[jmordetsky]

The example that was given about a kank refusing to allow an elf to ride him is a good example of how I feel is an inappropriate use of code.   In this case there is no roleplay restriction on the kank.  from the kank's perspective, who rides them is a moot point.   We could attach code to each elf echoing their aversion to riding, yet from my perspective this is micro-managing all players of elves to handle the extremely rare instance of someone not following the documentation.

I agree with that. Fully. However, look at it from a different angle. The kank does not have an aversion to being ridden by an elf, but rather the elf has had most of his childhood, reinforced with ideas about riding a kank, and as a result, his ride skill is much, much lower then a human who would not have had the same mental block to riding a kank.  Let's say a human non-rangers initial riding skill starts at 0, an elfs might start at -55.  From this point of view the game is till open, you could in fact have an elf who rides a kank, but it would take a very long time for him to train himself to do so.  The idea of this isn't the elf/kank example though, it's rather the idea that the game itself should be viewed (viewed is an important word there) as having a greater responsibility for teaching new players how to play the game, rather then other players or imm intervention.

When I wrote this I was considering the evolution of video games. I remember when I was a kid, prior to firing up a new title on sega genesis I had to take a few moments of my time to read the instruction manual (good god..). I remember my first play station game (I think it might have been tomb raider) where the game started to teach me to play within the context of the story. I was amazed. I recall saying to my brother at the time "Why the hell hasn't anyone else ever done this?".

When I sat down to write this post, I was looking at things from the same point of view. And as I began to consider what people today consider oversights in other peoples roleplay, and I said, how could the game itself reflect what is correct and incorrect. Or at least have a larger role in it. The reason the game needs a larger role in things is because the code is not subjective and the opinions of players and imms are. Imms and players, unless they are reading all of a PCs weekly updates, monitoring all of a PCs thinks, all the time, will always come to subjective decisions on a PCs behavior.  This is evidenced by the amount of tiffs and squabbles solved by Imms and by the amount of disgruntled players who are at the blunt end of a rp correction. I'm not saying this happens enough to ruin the game, but it does happen, it's a fairly common player story. Believe it or not, it seems to me to be much more common with higher profile pcs then with lower profile pcs. PCs that most of us consider responsible contributors to the game.

I recall when I was playing, I think it was like 1996ish. I had apped an elf who would ride, because I had an elaborate background of him being raised by humans. Was this silly? Yes, quite. But I was "the n00b to end all n00bs" (ask me for some stories some time) and to my surprise my elf was approved. Someone even went as far as to swap out allundean for sirihish for me.  So the first thing I do is get on a kank, and I remember being like 3 squares out of luirs before was REEMED by a pack of Gith. Chance? Plausibly. Correction? Probably. And an understandable one.  At the time I remember getting really irritated because it was in my background, but likely there was just a misunderstanding. Someone who didn't know my background saw me doing something way outside the lines of reasonable behavior and corrected it.  But how much easier on this little n00b as a player would it have been if I had gotten that echo? And would have had to wish up so that my ride skill could be set to a correct level?

I equate this to later when I was a more experience character, I remember a n00b thief in the Gaj when a templar was looking for him.  He kept coming visible, and giggling, then diving under a table in the Gaj and emoting: "someone laughs evilly.". I recall saying to myself literally, "Fucking twinky retards." In retrospect with watch, and the hide echos we have now solved that problem. (and an awful problem it was). It used to happen all the time. And to be honest, I was wrong for faulting that player. I mean, as a new player he was using the "hide" command. Is it his fault that the code allowed him to play the invisible man? No. It's the code's fault for representing hide to him as a magickal invisible skill. The same can be said for players hanging out with mages. Most of them have likely ICly justified it to themselves that the usefulness of their new buddy out weighs the stigma of the mage. Which is completely reasonable. There is nothing that makes a trusted mage dangerous and scary if you are his trusted pal. Mage's are only really dangerous if they aren't on your team. By contrast, Mul's are dangerous even if they *are* on your team.

Are both of these cases applying micro management to the code to insure proper role play? I think so. Are they needed? More so for hide and steal, we really don't have a problem with riding elves. But again, it's this as a game building philosphy I wanted to focus on. Elves riding..meh, who cares?  But I do feel that this philosphy would allow arm to really evolve in the game it could be, rather then the game it is. (which isn't bad of course, there is just a lot more potential here). Think of it metaphorically. What if tomorrow we did have a sudden rash of riding elves? How would we settle it? Complaints? Board posts about how silly these riding elves are? Make gith start slaughtering elves? Make the tribal elves start attacking them out of disgust? These situations all require imm resources, and they don't scale. A proper solution is to teach through the channels that already exist in the game.

A better area the code should enforce from my perspective are aspects of realism that are habitually ignored or are difficult for the player to do through pure roleplay.  One example of something I was working on before the arm.2 announcement came out were 'pet' items.  I was working on coding behaviors and actions that allowed them to work independently and in conjunction with the PC owner.  They would periodically echo back appropriate behaviors,  and if battle insured while the pet was being worn,  they would either flee or risk being killed by a stray blow.

I think that's awesome, and am with you 100%. I would go as far as to say if we don't like seeig those hawks and snakes worn on peoples shoulders day in and day out, they should be coded to shit on them .

As to the question of brain eating, much of the issues surrounding it are  situational and a matter of a point of view.  While certain situations may seem the work of the blunt hand from above, this is often not the case.  As staffers with the big picture when we see a problem developing such as with elemental friendliness with nalzi, the preferred approach to find ways to enable the PC's themselves to confront the issue.   This is not to say  we use NPCs to order players into taking certain actions, although many times players will try to get us to make those decisions for them.  Rather we provide opportunities and tools for those players moving down the right path.

I would agree that this is the general rule, for most imms. However, I know even today there are a great deal of exceptions. I know in the last 4-5 years I've been a victim of it on a few occasions where my RP decisions made my immortal advisor very irate. To the point where emails were flying around as we tried to get a hold of what should happen next, and I had to explain my actions in two or three emails.  Are we going to avoid this? Probably not. The code will be limited at some point and that is very much where I agree with Dakurus that the community comes in as a function. But I also speak to a lot of other players, and often times things that I would consider enrichment of my experience by imms is construed as punishment.

But I think as we review these situations, we should always as a community stop and say "okay, why is this happening? Rather then muscle it back to correctness, what physical change in the world could we make to insure that the physical world reflects the imagined world we have in mind."

I think the line of thought that mages be made "dangerous" as opposed to just "deadly" is brilliant. We actually already have this in the game now. Take a look at Muls. Everyone who has played for some time knows that it's very dangerous to hang around with Muls. As a result (though they are more rare) Muls tend to be treated as more of a pariah then other characters. I remember being in the Byn, I used to duck out of contracts the Mul was going to be on. Because I didn't want to be around him when he freaked went beserk and tore someone's head off.

I would argue that Mages, Psis and other classes should have similar "side-effects" coded onto them so that they are much more dangerous to be around.

[Cenghiz]

I should say, I'm a mage-man. 90% of all characters I make are mages. I'm proud with the note in my account: "Can handle all mages." and I believe I deserved it. So I have a lot of experience in magickal alliances, too.

Once I had a gemmed krathi, allied with a rukkian. We had very similar playing times, so we spent most of our times together. We did train together, go hunt forgotten artifacts together, drink together, sometimes even sleep together. (In the same magickal housing I mean, not sex).

Only thing that bothered me, even though I RPed fear against his powers and he did also a very good job fearing mine IC, we knew out of character that we wouldn't ever harm each other if we didn't accidentally mistype a keyword.

It would be understandable that my mage could cause fire raining from the sky instead of forming a simple light with a very very low percentage and it would again be understandable if his character accidentally did weaken me while he summoned strength for himself. It wouldn't be instadeath, there would be workarounds for such problems but it would give us a coded reason to fear each other and empower our RP.

Magick could backlash.. It would be good for many situations.

[Dalmeth]

I've never thought of magickal backlash as a random chance a spell will not do what it's supposed to do.  Instead, spells will do exactly what they're supposed to do, but with certain spells or at certain levels of power, certain logical things happen.  Like if a Krathi really wants to blast something, she's going to start a rather nasty fire or instantly set other people in the room alight.

The idea is to make being with other people something of a burden, that if magickers really "cut loose," they'll become a real threat to those around them.

[Cenghiz]

I liked that better, Dalmeth.

Are you a rukkian concentrating to summon a demon? Remember the earthquake will nearly destroy your temple. Are you a vivaduan trying to draw the very life from someone? Remember to check your waterskin for poison next. Are you a whiran trying to summon someone from the other end of the world? You can of course. Just remember your allies will be thrown about with such strong winds swirling around you.... Priceless!

[Marauder Moe]

The idea is to make being with other people something of a burden, that if magickers really "cut loose," they'll become a real threat to those around them.

I think this idea has some real merit.  Add a skill or something, call it careful casting, and it significantly reduces the chance of a magickal backlash but also reduces power and increases casting time, maybe give it a slow mana or stun cost too.  Cutting loose would be casting at high power levels without activating this skill first, and your spells would be stronger and faster, but more dangerous.  

Magickal side effects could be chance of setting yourself, others, or the room on fire, earthquakes that slightly damage people or knock them over, sucking the moisture out of nearby people and making them thirsty, electrical shocks, extinguishing light sources, winds that knock people over or out of the room, and so on.

If curses are implemented you might have a chance of accidentally inflicting one on yourself or others when not casting carefully.


If we really wanted to be fun we could go further and add a berserker casting skill.  It would be the really dire life or death, losing control, blind rage type situations.  All your spells would be significantly stronger, cost less mana, but side effects are almost garaunteed and there is the chance that you could seriously harm or kill yourself or others.

[Dalmeth]

I think this idea has some real merit.  Add a skill or something, call it careful casting, and it significantly reduces the chance of a magickal backlash but also reduces power and increases casting time, maybe give it a slow mana or stun cost too.  Cutting loose would be casting at high power levels without activating this skill first, and your spells would be stronger and faster, but more dangerous.  

Magickal side effects could be chance of setting yourself, others, or the room on fire, earthquakes that slightly damage people or knock them over, sucking the moisture out of nearby people and making them thirsty, electrical shocks, extinguishing light sources, winds that knock people over or out of the room, and so on.

If curses are implemented you might have a chance of accidentally inflicting one on yourself or others when not casting carefully.


If we really wanted to be fun we could go further and add a berserker casting skill.  It would be the really dire life or death, losing control, blind rage type situations.  All your spells would be significantly stronger, cost less mana, but side effects are almost garaunteed and there is the chance that you could seriously harm or kill yourself or others.

No.

What you're suggesting is moving away from my idea.  There is no chance of a side affect, the spells simply do what they're supposed to do all the time, but the spells do more than what you might want.   So you can't have a special skill that would decrease the chance of these other effects occurring.  The only way to decrease the danger is through proper preparation.

For instance, if a Vivaduan curses someone with some sort of wasting sickness, occasionally those around the victim occasionally take a hit something like the effects of general poison.  Their maximum health takes a temporary hit until they start feeling better.  Just think of people selling charms against the side effects of a Vivaduan's curse, or people thinking someone who was cursed by a Vivaduan was a magicker themselves.

Cenghiz's examples work best.  If a magicker wants to cast an extremely powerful spell, they're going to have to find someplace isolated.  Not simply so they don't hurt anybody, but so nobody hurts them as crazy things happen around them.

[Marauder Moe]

There is no chance of a side affect, the spells simply do what they're supposed to do all the time, but the spells do more than what you might want.

How exactly is the underlined statement different from a "side effect"?

So you can't have a special skill that would decrease the chance of these other effects occurring. The only way to decrease the danger is through proper preparation.

Well, the skill would represent mental preparation, taking time with the words and channeling of power and such.  The drawback is, as I said, that the spell has a lesser effect and a longer casting delay.  Seems like a fair tradeoff to me, and better than just having all magick be wildly uncontrolled magick.

For instance, if a Vivaduan curses someone with some sort of wasting sickness, occasionally those around the victim occasionally take a hit something like the effects of general poison. Their maximum health takes a temporary hit until they start feeling better. Just think of people selling charms against the side effects of a Vivaduan's curse, or people thinking someone who was cursed by a Vivaduan was a magicker themselves.

I'm not sure how that's different from what I said.  There could be many different side effects for each element, or for each spell even.

Cenghiz's examples work best. If a magicker wants to cast an extremely powerful spell, they're going to have to find someplace isolated. Not simply so they don't hurt anybody, but so nobody hurts them as crazy things happen around them.

I thought Cenghiz and I were thinking the same thing.  *shrug*

[LoD]

There is no chance of a side affect, the spells simply do what they're supposed to do all the time, but the spells do more than what you might want.

How exactly is the underlined statement different from a "side effect"?

I think what he's taking issue with the word "chance" not "side effect".  There is no chance of a side effect, there is one associated with a given spell at a given power level.

For example, let's say that the "side effect" of a fireball cast at the mon power level is a heat wave that emanates from the origin of impact for fifty yards.  Anything flammable within that range would ignite and suffer small burns.  There is no chance of this happening - it just happens.  However, how, where, and upon whom the mage chooses to use this spell might determine how much the side effect is felt.

Code Select Expand

Sandy Barrens [NEWS]
The sandy scaled gith is here, holding a spear.
>cast 'mon fireball' gith
You send a searing ball of flame toward the sandy scaled gith.
The searing ball explodes, sending waves of heat over your body!
The sandy scaled gith cries out in pain.
The sandy scaled gith crumples to the ground.

Code Select Expand

Wall Road [NS]
The figure in a dark hooded cloak is here, dagger in hand.
A street urchin is here, ducking between the alleys.
A swarthy, ebon curled mercenary walks through the area.

>cast 'mon fireball" figure
You send a searing ball of flame toward the sandy scaled gith.
The searing ball explodes, sending waves of heat over your body!
The figure in a dark hooded cloak cries out in pain.
The figure in a dark hooded cloak crumples to the ground.
You are now wanted!

A street urchin screams as a wave of searing heat burns his skin.
A street urchin panics and flees south.

A swarthy, ebon curled mercenary screams as a wave of searing heat burns his skin.
A swarthy, ebon curled mercenary panics and flees north.

The two examples experience the exact same "side effect" to using the fireball skill at that particular power level, but one environment is obviously a much worse place to use one's magicks.  This would make it difficult for people to be near magickers, or magickers to be near people, when working particular powerful and scary magicks -- which I think is a good idea.

That's the difference I think he's making, Moe.  There's no way to "lessen" the chance of it happening.  It happens.  And it's part of what happens to having such great and fearsome power.

-LoD

[Marauder Moe]

Ah, I get it.

I know of a couple of spells that have indiscriminate effects like that.  They're not very useful because of it.  A garaunteed harmful effect to others in the room from workhorse spells is just going to discourage mages from working together or from working with others, though.  I don't think that's a good thing at all.

Though, if these things only happened at the highest power levels it's really be almost the same things as the careful/neutral/beserk idea.

Wek, yuqa, kral: careful.  No side effects
Een, pav, sul: neutral.  Possible/likely side effects
Mon: beserk.  Severe side effects.

You'd just have the same 7 degrees of a spell, versus 7x3=21 degrees if you had careful/neutral/beserk skills/modes to represent how much control/power you were using.

[Cenghiz]

A garaunteed harmful effect to others in the room from workhorse spells is just going to discourage mages from working together or from working with others, though. I don't think that's a good thing at all.

It's a good thing. One magicker is... scary.. two magickers? Ultimate doom. Five magickers working together? An unstoppable clan.

I believe there must be something not to let magickers becoming a biiig big happy family. Some simple flaws not to let them 'fight' your army in the same room without consequences could be a good start.

[spawnloser]

So we're going to encourage them to all become isolated marauders, since their opportunity for teaming up with others is minimized.

[Dalmeth]

So we're going to encourage them to all become isolated marauders, since their opportunity for teaming up with others is minimized.

If they want to nuke anything that comes across their path, yes.

If they want to relegate their magick to a support role, then no.

Keep in mind that magickers will be dual classed in the next game, so they won't need to be as dependent on that skill set.

[Shiroi Tsuki]

I would love to see some magick backlash, myself.  I think it should only rarely be anything serious, but it would be fun to have to work around minor problems.

Then again, maybe I'm just sadistic.

[Mook]

Despite the not-completely-thought-out examples, JM's original post is (imho) one of the most meaningful ideas that I've ever read on these boards.

Don't want players to practice backstab on non-humans?  Make the code check to make sure target is a humanoid, and disallow the attempt if they are not.  If people -really- want to backstab scrabs, make it a separate skill.

Don't want an elf to ride a kank?  Disallow elves from codedly gaining the skill.  "Exceptions" can special app to be able to ride, if they have a good reason.

Don't want players to spam-scan?  Only allow one attempt per certain number of rl minutes.  Same with listen.  Make hunt a similarly on/off passive skill and this could be applied to it as well.

I wouldn't expect the imms to implement all of these kinds of measures before the release of arm 2.0, but some could be incorporated, and some could be added later when coder's time permits.

[spawnloser]

Some of what this has to do, and one of the biggest flaws in jmordetsky's idea, is that some of it has NOTHING to do with ability but desire.  Elves don't want to ride.  It's not that they're unable.  They have the ability to, so removing the coded ability to do so just means that in those few occasions where an elf needs to use the 'mount' command, they need to wish up for assistance.

Fixing things with code isn't always the solution.  I'm not saying that it isn't the solution in some occasions.  We have to realize that sometimes hard and fast rules are more restrictive than they should be.

[mansa]

I think the reason behind the original post is this:

If someone makes a mistake within the roleplay - how do you correct someone?  

Which leads to this question:
Do you tell them to stop it?  

Which leads to this question:
Do you explain everything about why they were wrong, or do you just say you're wrong?

Which leads to this question:
How does the player react, when an invisible force tells you to stop being stupid?  

Which leads to this question:
How can we make this all be 'smoother' than it already is?

Which leads to this question:
How can you prevent people from judging how you play the game, when you feel you are justified in playing the way you play?

Which weakly leads to this question:
How can you prevent gossip of the game, about how people play the game?


It's solely an Out-Of-Character problem for a Role-Play game.

Joe wants the system to control everything, and to limit the 'government' of immortals.  Joe wants to create more hard-coded rules that enforce roleplay - thereby eliminating some of the interaction of immortals and players.

Therefore, Joe hates immortals and imaginary rules.

[Forest Junkie]

I highly disagree with your logic, mansa.

A can be B but not C, and B can be A and C. and C cannot be either of all of them.

Things are more than one dimension.

[Mook]

Per the spawn's post:
Elves who have no desire to ride will not learn to ride.  Playing an elf who desires to ride is, imho, enough of an exception that it should require imm permission.  I just can't think of a good reason why an elf would want to ride.

As for the situation where someone pulls out a crossbow and threatens to shoot said elf if he doesn't ride, he would still be no more able to ride than a human burlgar that (like the elf) has never tried riding in his life.  So in this situation the elf should still not be able to climb aboard the kank and suddenly know how to ride, even if he has the desire to do so.  The human burglar would be similarly screwed.

If one would like to argue that the human burglar can probably ride a little bit, after spamming the directions countless times, then alright.. give elves a secret 5% riding ability, just so they can attempt some very crude riding in such a situation.

And anyway, you don't need to have the riding ablity just to mount a mount.  You only need the skill if you want to ride into another toom.

[FiveDisgruntledMonkeysWit]

The probem with this line of thinking is how players will respond. If players learn what is and is not acceptable roleplay based on code alone, what happens when there's a crack in the code?
Let's say an Imm makes a mistake while building a new apartment complex. Some jackass player discovers the bug, which also them to use their kank as a room-mate. If this philosophy is what we go with, the player will figure: "The code lets me do this, so it must be okay."

[Shiroi Tsuki]

I am not quite following the 'the code lets me do this, therefore it is ok' argument.  That's like saying 'the laws of physics let me shoot this gun at this other guy, so that makes it ok'.  The code should not have to babysit and handhold the players, it should simply make the environment work.  If you don't want to read, you're playing the wrong kind of game.  If you don't want to read the docs, rolll a human or don't be surprised you get yelled at for behaving outlandishly.

I don't see why these things -need- to be hard coded when the majority of the playerbase seems to handle them just fine.  It is only the new people that don't read the documents that make stupid errors, and the vast majority of the time I'm betting they only needing one warning to get things fixed.  That's such a small portion of the population.  The people that aren't making the mistakes are the twinking type, and they'd still be twinking types even if you hard coded difficulties in their way.  Their elves would -practice- riding so that they could do it well and/or ignore any coded warnings.

In short, I think coding time could be better spent.

[Mook]

FDMW:  I am not suggesting that players should learn what is and is not acceptable roleplay basd on code alone.

I merely think that in some situations, coded realism improves the believability and balance of the game.

For example, insta-skinning of animals seems a bit silly.  Why should hunters ever be able to spam "kill x, skin x, get all, mount kank, e"?  It might make sense to add a short delay to account for the time spent removing useful pieces from the corpse.  This time could even give the player a chance to interact with anyone he's hunting with, or to do a little solo rp (if that's his cup of tea).

[Coat of Arms]

There are some things where I really wouldn't bother inserting too much realism. Sure you could add a delay to skinning, no skin (ha) off my nose, but it wouldn't accomplish much. When has anyone ever been negatively affected by someone doing the skin;get all;scoot thing? If somebody habitually does that, someone (staff or fellow players) will probably comment at some point. If they only do it when they're alone, who cares? Time on Armageddon is already a warped and way beyond realism. You can sew a gown in two minutes, cook meat without lighting a fire first, or ride from Allanak at dawn and arrive in Tuluk before high sun. You probably shouldn't do it all the time, but sometimes the Byn just likes to spend less than eight RL-hours on a contract.