Less Thought Policing, More Physics

[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.