Re:Guidlines for Creating Mutants

[FantasyWriter]

http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,36622.msg480935.html#new

Mutations available to players should never exceed a certain threshold.  Mutations should be more about making a character sub-human, rather than super-human.

If a mutation will affect you so strongly that your base race is no longer discernible, it is not acceptable for play as a character.  Your base race must be READILY apparent in both your short description and your main description.  Mutant is no longer acceptable as a short description keyword.

If a mutation might otherwise be deadly towards you (translucent skin), or give your character a severe power increase (laser beams from your eyes), it is also not acceptable.

Being a mutant may dramatically change your social standing, but it in no way changes the culture for your race.  Mutant dwarves still operate like normal dwarves, and mutant halflings still eat you.

While mutations are more prevalent in some areas, they are by no means the majority of any civilized population.  Minor cosmetic mutations (extra finger, mismatched eyes, mottled skin) may be applied for in any standard application. If a mutation would have a noticeable effect on a character's lifestyle (claws instead of fingers for instance), forcing them to adapt differently to mundane activities like eating, holding weapons, ect, the concept must be applied for with a special application.

Mutations that give an advantage (armor plating, stat boost, infravision) may be allowed through a special application, though each will be closely examined for potential imbalance and abuse.  Beneficial adjustments will only be accepted if they are coupled with appropriate disabilities.  Ie, armor plating without the ability to wear normal armor.

My heart sunk when I read this.  Although they have not been a big percentage of my PCs, my favorite concepts have been mutants (yes, both were spec apped and had mutant in their sdesc and both had their race in the first sentence of their mdesc since people looking at them closely WOULD be able to tell).
I can think of many mutations in a Fantasy-based world full of Magick that would make someone --at first glance-- not obviously human/elf/dwarf at first glance.

I guess I am posting this mostly for than anything to ask why the sudden interest/change as I thought the documentation was rather clear beforehand?


http://www.armageddon.org/general/mutant.html

Mutations abound on the surface of Zalanthas, and many have gone so far as to become species in and of their own right, such as the deadly psionic gaj, the Thryzn who assisted in freeing the north, the animate cacti known as Thornwalkers, and the fierce insectoid kryl.

Humanoid races are similarly prone to mutations, whether they be humans, elves, dwarves, or one of the common racial mixtures. Most mutations are small: oddly colored eyes, a bald patch, strange coloration, elongated ears, etc. A few take a more drastic form: scaly arms, horns, extra or misplaced limbs, and a smaller handful are lethal. Midwives are accustomed to the making the choice whether or not a child should live, depending on the lethality of his or her mutations, a fact that explains the high incidence of "stillbirths" among the nobility, who are less tolerant of appearance outside the norm.

Lacking a scientific rationale for mutations, most attribute them to magick, whether this be a commoner blaming their two-headed baby on an angry magicker or Silt Sea dwellers (mutations do seem to be more common along its shore) simply explaining it as "the Sea marks some for its own". Those knowledgeable about magick tend to refine this view and blame the mutation on a preponderance of one element, such as an albino baby being "Whira's mark", too much exposure to dreaded Nilaz, the antithesis of the other elements, or a result of sorcery. In the minds of many, mutantcy and magick-wielding are inextricably mixed, and any normal-seeming magicker is assumed to have some secret hiding beneath his or her robes.

No one has undergone a study of how magicks affect the embryonic, but there do not seem to be more mutations within the ranks of any given group, including magickers, with the exception of those living near the Sea of Silt.

In Tuluk, where the Thryzn of the Northern chasm played an important part in defeating Allanak, mutations of all sorts are not openly reviled, although only someone truly aberrant would wish one on his or her child. However, the link between mutants and magick remains there as well, and the strong bias against magick may influence some to react to a mutant with unease, timidity, or prejudice.

You are welcome to give your character mutations. Try to avoid clearly lethal mutations and mutations intended to give your character some sort of power or advantage. Anything that will involve a code tweak or special building must be cleared beforehand as though it were a special application. If you are a new player (have played for less than month), we strongly suggest running a regular character.

[Gimfalisette]

Looks more like a clarification than a change to me. Playing a mutant is supposed to be along the lines of playing a 'rinthi or UTer or city elf or breed; it's a reason for society as a whole to be prejudiced against the PC, not a method of being accepted or gaining an advantage. It should be a deliberate disadvantage taken on willingly by the player, in most cases.

[Uruz]

To write these guidelines, I pulled heavily from the existing documentation.  The problem was with players ignoring things like "Most mutations are small. A few take a more drastic form".  There have been changes, listed below, but mostly this was posted to serve as a reminder of the original documentation, and the place of mutants in the world.

The changes made are that "mutant" is not acceptable as an sdesc word, and that heavily mutated characters (which should be very FEW, as mentioned in the original documentation) must now be special applications.

Sure, there are mutations that are so severe that they would completely obliterate knowledge of your base race.  However, these have been deemed completely unplayable as characters.  You may be able to imagine the potential for abuse when the base race cannot be discovered by getting a good look at a character.

[FantasyWriter]

Gimf:
The change was that mutants (even those without spec-app-requiring code quirks) can no longer use mutant as a noun without spec apping.

[Gimfalisette]

The change was that mutants (even those without spec-app-requiring code quirks) can no longer use mutant as a noun without spec apping.

Doesn't seem game- or concept-breaking to me. Now you're "the blue, horned man" instead of being "the blue, horned mutant." I'm sure other PCs will still quickly and easily figure out you're a disgusting, freaky mutant.

[FantasyWriter]

Cool beans.  Thanks for the clarification.

Were there more "mutants" popping up than before, or were some people just not including their race in their mdesc?

[FantasyWriter]

The change was that mutants (even those without spec-app-requiring code quirks) can no longer use mutant as a noun without spec apping.

Doesn't seem game- or concept-breaking to me. Now you're "the blue, horned man" instead of being "the blue, horned mutant." I'm sure other PCs will still quickly and easily figure out you're a disgusting, freaky mutant.

It does if you wanted to play a flavor role (like a creepy thing that lives at the edge of the desert/forest/sea) that people should have to actually get close enough to see exactly what it was. (albeit, most of these would be spec apped anyway).  It was a complaint by any means.  Like I said, both "mutant"s that I played were spec apped.

[SmashedTregil]

I suppose too many people disregarded racial docs while playing mutant? Like a mutant with dwarf base race pretty much living life as a human. Or a half-elf one and so on.

[number13]

This seems to me more of a clarification and standardization than anything new.  I've been guilty of apping for very weird things, but the only weirdness I've ever had accepted has fit into these guidelines.   That particular character worked out very well -- probably much better than the more extreme characters would have.  Partly, I think that character worked because his weirdness was somewhat subtle.  

If a line isn't drawn in the sand, then all sorts of strangeness can result. There isn't a clear difference between a person successfully apping a mind flayer (seen it), a furry cat-woman with twitching tail (yes), winged pixie faerie, beaked owlbear, or five-headed chromatic humanoid-ish hydra.  An obvious line is helpful for being able to say 'no' and preserve the general flavor of the world.

When something honestly weird does show up, the appropriate shock value is present only if 'something honestly weird' isn't the status quo.  (see also: magickers/mindbenders becoming mundane expected encounters)

[Qzzrbl]

The only thing of this I don't get is that "mutant" is no longer an acceptable keyword, and that your race -must- be clarified in your Sdesc and Mdesc.....

I had gotten an e-mail from Staff after having a mutant application rejected (I play -alot- of mutants), and it read as follows:

"Unfortunately we are no longer allowing mutant applications that do
not include the race in the sdesc and main desc.  This is primarily
for fairness sake.  A pc from a distance should be able to tell if
that short or tall figure is most likely human, dwarven, half elven,
half-giant. . ect.  By not including the race, a player has to guess
on assess what they are looking at racially (including racial
abilities).  An official post about this is fourth coming."

Right.... So if I see "The tall, muscular man." from a distance, I really have no clue what race they are.

And the Staff even made it a point to make half-elves even -harder- to identify, so why pick on mutants all of a sudden?

That was literally half the fun of playing a mutant, watching people try to guess at exactly what the fuck you were.

[ibusoe]

Yeah, I think that the concept that descs may not be in any misleading is more problematic than it's worth. 

I question that any player needs to be able to tell, at a glance, my character's age, sex, race, background and class.

If this goes much further, we might as well just have open character sheets posted online for all to see.

"Unfortunately we are no longer allowing mutant applications that do
not include the race in the sdesc and main desc.  This is primarily
for fairness sake.  A pc from a distance should be able to tell if
that short or tall figure is most likely human, dwarven, half elven,
half-giant. . ect.  By not including the race, a player has to guess
on assess what they are looking at racially (including racial
abilities).  An official post about this is fourth coming."

[Qzzrbl]

"Unfortunately we are no longer allowing mutant applications that do
not include the race in the sdesc and main desc.  This is primarily
for fairness sake.  A pc from a distance should be able to tell if
that short or tall figure is most likely human, dwarven, half elven,
half-giant. . ect.  By not including the race, a player has to guess
on assess what they are looking at racially (including racial
abilities).  An official post about this is fourth coming."

And that little bit I've got bolded, that's another thing that kinda gets to me....

Racial abilities are generally total OOC knowledge. it's just silly that they require me to clearly state my character's race so other characters know what "racial abilities" to look out for.

[FantasyWriter]

A pc from a distance should be able to tell if
that short or tall figure is most likely human, dwarven, half elven,
half-giant. . ect. 

Then why do cloaks show "the short and thick figure in a hooded robe" instead of "the dwarf in a hooded robe"?

[FantasyWriter]

No, it wasn't a troll... If we can tell that the blue-scaled humanoid with horns is a half elf (i am assuming because of his body shape)--from a distance--, shouldn't we be able to tell that a half-elf sized figure in a blue cloak with a horned helmet a breed, too?

Edited to add: emphasis on --from a distance-- (sdesc)

[Clearsighted]

No, it wasn't a troll... If we can tell that the blue-scaled humanoid with horns is a half elf (i am assuming because of his body shape)--from a distance--, shouldn't we be able to tell that a half-elf sized figure in a blue cloak with a horned helmet a breed, too?

Edited to add: emphasis on --from a distance-- (sdesc)

I think that's a good point. I liked the mutant sdesc word too, and people could always 'assess' them to get an idea of the race, regardless. Maybe people were just writing too many crazy mutant descriptions.

[Myrdryn]

Posts deleted.

You guys just like to nitpick.  You're on your own.

[Thistle]

"Unfortunately we are no longer allowing mutant applications that do
not include the race in the sdesc and main desc.  This is primarily
for fairness sake.  A pc from a distance should be able to tell if
that short or tall figure is most likely human, dwarven, half elven,
half-giant. . ect.  By not including the race, a player has to guess
on assess what they are looking at racially (including racial
abilities).  An official post about this is fourth coming."

And that little bit I've got bolded, that's another thing that kinda gets to me....

Racial abilities are generally total OOC knowledge. it's just silly that they require me to clearly state my character's race so other characters know what "racial abilities" to look out for.

Since I'm the staffer that wrote this, I will clarify here.

A dwarf has the racial ability of being STRONG AS FRIGGIN HECK!! that is not an ooc piece of information, this is ic, you see a dwarf, you see something really strong, regardless of if it states the level of strength in the desc.  So, if I see the short, ruddy skinned dwarf, I know that typing 'hit ruddy' might result in serious consequences.  Where as if I see the short ruddy skinned mutant, I don't know what it is right off.  It could be anything, a short human, a shortish half elf.. ect. 

What we were seeing is mutant applications that appeared to be specifically hiding the race, giving them the mad abilities of the base race, without the other people around them being able to tell -this is a dangerously strong race- like dwarf, half giant or mul.  This is unfair.  This is a large part of the reasoning for this clarification.

[Qzzrbl]

Even if that were so, the Staff could have just said, "Stop making over-the-top armor-plated tentacled mutants." instead of saying "mutant" is no longer a keyword and that mutants must clarify their race in their sdesc and mdesc.

[Nyr]

We don't even have any npcs with mutant in their sdesc.  I just checked.

[MarshallDFX]

It's not so bad, your sdescs just have to be in this form now:

The slimy, mutated dwarf.

[Thistle]

It's not so bad, your sdescs just have to be in this form now:

The slimy, mutated dwarf.

This.

[FantasyWriter]

Posts deleted.

You guys just like to nitpick.  You're on your own.

I'm not trying to nitpick, and I am sorry that it came off that way.  I'm just trying to offer a different point of view.
I believe that some things are strange enough not to know exactly what they are from a distance.

One of my old "mutants" for example:

the clawed, razor-toothed mutant

The height, weight and overall mass of a dwarf, this short reptilian mutant stands just a little over three and a half cords tall.  Blueish-gray serpentine scales cover his massive, sinewy body, showing hints of iridescence as they ripple with each breath.  Like strips of chitin armor, larger, thicker bony scales cover the more delicate areas of his body--the back of his hands, elbows, and lower back, around his neck, and across the front of his shins and chest.  Long daggeresque claws erupt from what would be the first joint of fingers, and from the ends of his wide, bootless feet, and grey, razor-sharp teeth jut up from the lower jaw and out over his upper lip forming a permanent, menacing grin.  His slanted black eyes are set halfway down the front of his flat face with a flared up nose sitting between them, and a single chitinous plate crests up from the base of his skull and extends out over his eyes, shielding them from the harsh rays of Suk-Krath.

Look him over up close and you would have KNOWN from his build that he was a dwarf, but at first glance from a distance, I don't believe that would have been the case.

Not to mention all the well written NPC mutants out there.

[Gimfalisette]

What we were seeing is mutant applications that appeared to be specifically hiding the race, giving them the mad abilities of the base race, without the other people around them being able to tell -this is a dangerously strong race- like dwarf, half giant or mul.  This is unfair.  This is a large part of the reasoning for this clarification.

This makes sense to me, because to be honest, whenever I saw a PC sdesced as "mutant" I just automatically assumed that meant they were a human mutant. I guess I could have been wildly and disadvantageously wrong. So I'm glad for the change.

Even if that were so, the Staff could have just said, "Stop making over-the-top armor-plated tentacled mutants." instead of saying "mutant" is no longer a keyword and that mutants must clarify their race in their sdesc and mdesc.

It's less staff-intensive to make a policy and enforce it rather than chase down all the players who may be trying to do this and individually enforce something where there's no stated rule.

[Qzzrbl]

"Unfortunately we are no longer allowing mutant applications that do
not include the race in the sdesc and main desc.  This is primarily
for fairness sake.  A pc from a distance should be able to tell if
that short or tall figure is most likely human, dwarven, half elven,
half-giant. . ect.  By not including the race, a player has to guess
on assess what they are looking at racially (including racial
abilities).  An official post about this is fourth coming."

And that little bit I've got bolded, that's another thing that kinda gets to me....

Racial abilities are generally total OOC knowledge. it's just silly that they require me to clearly state my character's race so other characters know what "racial abilities" to look out for.

Since I'm the staffer that wrote this, I will clarify here.

A dwarf has the racial ability of being STRONG AS FRIGGIN HECK!! that is not an ooc piece of information, this is ic, you see a dwarf, you see something really strong, regardless of if it states the level of strength in the desc.  So, if I see the short, ruddy skinned dwarf, I know that typing 'hit ruddy' might result in serious consequences.  Where as if I see the short ruddy skinned mutant, I don't know what it is right off.  It could be anything, a short human, a shortish half elf.. ect. 

What we were seeing is mutant applications that appeared to be specifically hiding the race, giving them the mad abilities of the base race, without the other people around them being able to tell -this is a dangerously strong race- like dwarf, half giant or mul.  This is unfair.  This is a large part of the reasoning for this clarification.

Maybe I don't share your view on racial abilities, my characters tend to judge other character's strengths and weaknesses from the other character's mdescs, and assess helps out alot too.

If I see a short, ruddy-skinned mutant, who is actually a dwarf, then that would generally be made clear by his size and weight, and I'm sure his mdesc would have it known he's a short, stocky, hairless chunk of muscle.

Short humans can't get as short as even the tallest of dwarves, and even still, dwarves tend to weigh more.

Does the staff cut back the strength stat of a dwarf that's described as frail and unhealthily thin, but has Exceptional strength? Because that's misdirection right there, and could also be considered unfair.

If I see the short, ruddy dwarf, and I type "hit ruddy", I know I'm about to hit a dwarf.

If I see the short, ruddy mutant, that's shorter and thicker than a human could manage, and is described as being hairless and stocky in the mdesc, then I still know I'm about to hit a dwarf.

Staff should lean more towards having players throwing in more racial features in their mutants, rather than forcing them to label their race right off the bat.

[ibusoe]

Since I'm the staffer that wrote this, I will clarify here.

A dwarf has the racial ability of being STRONG AS FRIGGIN HECK!! that is not an ooc piece of information, this is ic, you see a dwarf, you see something really strong, regardless of if it states the level of strength in the desc.  So, if I see the short, ruddy skinned dwarf, I know that typing 'hit ruddy' might result in serious consequences.  Where as if I see the short ruddy skinned mutant, I don't know what it is right off.  It could be anything, a short human, a shortish half elf.. ect. 

What we were seeing is mutant applications that appeared to be specifically hiding the race, giving them the mad abilities of the base race, without the other people around them being able to tell -this is a dangerously strong race- like dwarf, half giant or mul.  This is unfair.  This is a large part of the reasoning for this clarification.

Thanks.  That actually clarifies things.

[Nyr]

Actually, all of them give reference (in the sdesc) to the race they mutated from, too. 
You can safely say that we're not asking anything of PCs that the NPCs in-game and in use don't already have to adhere to.

[Qzzrbl]

It's not so bad, your sdescs just have to be in this form now:

The slimy, mutated dwarf.

Yeah.... But I dunno, maybe it's just me, sdescs like that just seem a little forced. That's fine for NPCs, because I'm not playing them.

That's making me write, "The hunched, mutated dwarf", instead of "The hunched, red-scaled mutant".

It greatly cuts back on the creativity in writing sdescs, because now I have to reserve 3-5 characters of a limited sdesc space to clarify race, which is usually covered in the mdesc anyway.

[Thistle]

"Unfortunately we are no longer allowing mutant applications that do
not include the race in the sdesc and main desc.  This is primarily
for fairness sake.  A pc from a distance should be able to tell if
that short or tall figure is most likely human, dwarven, half elven,
half-giant. . ect.  By not including the race, a player has to guess
on assess what they are looking at racially (including racial
abilities).  An official post about this is fourth coming."

And that little bit I've got bolded, that's another thing that kinda gets to me....

Racial abilities are generally total OOC knowledge. it's just silly that they require me to clearly state my character's race so other characters know what "racial abilities" to look out for.

Since I'm the staffer that wrote this, I will clarify here.

A dwarf has the racial ability of being STRONG AS FRIGGIN HECK!! that is not an ooc piece of information, this is ic, you see a dwarf, you see something really strong, regardless of if it states the level of strength in the desc.  So, if I see the short, ruddy skinned dwarf, I know that typing 'hit ruddy' might result in serious consequences.  Where as if I see the short ruddy skinned mutant, I don't know what it is right off.  It could be anything, a short human, a shortish half elf.. ect.  

What we were seeing is mutant applications that appeared to be specifically hiding the race, giving them the mad abilities of the base race, without the other people around them being able to tell -this is a dangerously strong race- like dwarf, half giant or mul.  This is unfair.  This is a large part of the reasoning for this clarification.

Maybe I don't share your view on racial abilities, my characters tend to judge other character's strengths and weaknesses from the other character's mdescs, and assess helps out alot too.

If I see a short, ruddy-skinned mutant, who is actually a dwarf, then that would generally be made clear by his size and weight, and I'm sure his mdesc would have it known he's a short, stocky, hairless chunk of muscle.

Short humans can't get as short as even the tallest of dwarves, and even still, dwarves tend to weigh more.

Does the staff cut back the strength stat of a dwarf that's described as frail and unhealthily thin, but has Exceptional strength? Because that's misdirection right there, and could also be considered unfair.

If I see the short, ruddy dwarf, and I type "hit ruddy", I know I'm about to hit a dwarf.

If I see the short, ruddy mutant, that's shorter and thicker than a human could manage, and is described as being hairless and stocky in the mdesc, then I still know I'm about to hit a dwarf.

Staff should lean more towards having players throwing in more racial features in their mutants, rather than forcing them to label their race right off the bat.

I'm not going to speak on this very much more, but to address some of this:

I agree it is an imperfect system, but it is what we have.  A short human is not as short as a short dwarf, and yet both human and dwarf can both have short in their sdesc.  If we allowed you to replace the race noun with the noun mutant, than there would be no way of telling at a glance how tall 'short' is.  By doing this you can get away with having a mutant human -or- a mutant dwarf and the only way to tell would be to look at the character and read their mdesc, or assess the character.  Now assume that the character in question is doing something that requires fast thinking and reaction.  Ie: attacking you, running through the room, ect.  .  There would be no way for a player to necessarily have time to get the information that should be available to them at a glance.  Therefore it is an unfair advantage.  

Are we altering stats to fit descriptions?  Of course not.  

While we have a system where a sdesc is supposed to give you some very important bits of information, from a glance, it is important we maintain certain keywords that have meaning.  Race has meaning.  It means relative dimensions and attributes of a creature.  This is important information that is used to determine the best course of action.  While you maybe able to cover your features with a hood, and thus your race, the hood forces your sdesc keywords to be relative to your race vs their race.  Perhaps if the code allowed us to do this with normal sdescs than we could have a different policy on mutations, but given our current limitations we feel it is very important that this information is available in the sdesc.

Also if cramped style bothers you so much, would you feel better or worse if instead of racial keywords we required your character to have relative height and build in your sdesc.  Personally I think it is the lesser of evils.

[Qzzrbl]

Eeks, accidental double-post.

[Qzzrbl]

I honestly didn't mind it so much when your race was revealed with the "Assess" command.

You guys made it to where half-elves could appear as elf, human, or straight-up half-elf.

Why not give the option to have your race be assessable if you're gonna play a mutant?

[Nyr]

It's not so bad, your sdescs just have to be in this form now:

The slimy, mutated dwarf.

Yeah.... But I dunno, maybe it's just me, sdescs like that just seem a little forced. That's fine for NPCs, because I'm not playing them.

That's making me write, "The hunched, mutated dwarf", instead of "The hunched, red-scaled mutant".

It greatly cuts back on the creativity in writing sdescs, because now I have to reserve 3-5 characters of a limited sdesc space to clarify race, which is usually covered in the mdesc anyway.

You actually have more space with all of the possible races except half-giant.  In that case you would be losing space in the sdesc.  With that example, you could still type the hunched, red-scaled half-giant and it would fit, and it would be obvious your character is a mutant since half-giants don't have scales normally.
Saying you have to reserve a certain amount for race/or gender is nothing new, since you generally do that already with any other application.

[Uruz]

The issue here was radical differentials, like where half-giants, dwarves, or halflings are concerned.

From a distance, are you properly afraid of "the tiny-eyed mutant"?

How about "the tiny-eyed half-giant"?

Would you like to wait until you're in the room with "the tiny-eyed mutant" to assess what it might be?

We aren't accusing anyone of doing anything wrong, or trying to cramp anyone's style, we're just trying to remove some potential ambiguity with the system that we work with so that nobody has to worry about it.

The ability for half-elves to potentially appear as either of their parent races was intentional and has nothing to do with mutants.  The blurry lines of sizes between human, half-elf, and elf are also not considered an issue.

[Qzzrbl]

Right, but say I've got a half-giant with one eye, and scaly, plated skin that's purple. Those are his most defining features, and are thusly best-suited to be put in his sdesc.

So I'd write up something like, "The scaly, plate-skinned cyclops.", and it's clear in his mdesc that he's a half-giant.

But now, I've got to pick and choose which of his most defining features to put up in the sdesc, to make room for "half-giant".

"The scaly, plate-skinned half-giant"
"The scaly, one-eyed half-giant"

Etc., etc., like I said, maybe it's just me who'd get annoyed by this when trying to write up a freak of nature.

I wouldn't be so miffed if it weren't for the sdesc change, as I'm sure everyone here is savvy enough with the english language to make their race clear enough in their mdesc.

I'm sure Thisle would at least -look- at that short, ruddy-skinned mutant before attacking, he'd know what he's up against.

[Qzzrbl]

From a distance, are you properly afraid of "the tiny-eyed mutant"?

I also wasn't afraid of "The large black beetle" at first, because when I thought "large beetle" I thought something maybe as big as my head.

And only war-beetles are talked about in the fauna docs, so I thought war-beetles were the really big bastards to be afraid of....

Boy was I wrong there.....  

I also wouldn't be afraid of "The frail, rail-thin half-giant" from a distance neither, but he could have AI strength and an elf's agility for all I know.

[number13]

the clawed, razor-toothed mutant
The height, weight and overall mass of a dwarf, this short reptilian mutant stands just a little over three and a half cords tall.  Blueish-gray serpentine scales cover his massive, sinewy body, showing hints of iridescence as they ripple with each breath.  Like strips of chitin armor, larger, thicker bony scales cover the more delicate areas of his body--the back of his hands, elbows, and lower back, around his neck, and across the front of his shins and chest.  Long daggeresque claws erupt from what would be the first joint of fingers, and from the ends of his wide, bootless feet, and grey, razor-sharp teeth jut up from the lower jaw and out over his upper lip forming a permanent, menacing grin.  His slanted black eyes are set halfway down the front of his flat face with a flared up nose sitting between them, and a single chitinous plate crests up from the base of his skull and extends out over his eyes, shielding them from the harsh rays of Suk-Krath.

That's a nice mdesc -- evocative and not too long. But, why wasn't that character wasn't killed on sight by city guards?  Anything looking like that wandering through any guarded gate (even Red Storm or Tuluk) would have to viewed as hostile -- same as a cloaked raptor. It's less of a mutant dwarf, more of a mutant  armadillo.

Starting to wonder if the PC/NPC/vNPC reactions to some of the more extreme mutants are being fully considered. I actually interacted with that dwarf, without an overtly hostile reaction.  In retrospect, that was a mistake. It would be like talking to a gurth. More likely a city-dweller would run and an experienced hunter would consider it a source of shell and meat.

[FantasyWriter]

Very good point. I never thought about that, to tell you the truth.

1. I can't see any Zalanthan being.... brave/stupid/reckless enough to attack something without knowing what it is.
2. I can only assume the guards would have "questioned" him when he started coming to any guarded civilization, a few times at least.
3. From the guards' point of view, "it" was walking along with the throngs of travelers entering the gates, not charging it and attacking people as cloaked raptors are prone to do.

[FuSoYa]

2. I can only assume the guards would have "questioned" him when he started coming to any guarded civilization, a few times at least.

I would think he would be killed on sight or at least imprisoned until further could be found.  That is a wicked creature you came up with but I would NOT understand seeing him walk around in polite society.

Brandon

[Myrdryn]

The race is the basis for the short description, it's the noun.  It tells a lot about the person (or creature).

Some examples:

Half-giant says: large, strong, has two arms and legs, has two eyes, etc...

Halfling says: very small, has two arms and legs, has two eyes, etc...

Mantis says: insectiod, compound eyes, mandibles, six limbs, exoskeleton, etc.

Elf says: pointy ears, skinny compared to humans, tall, etc

Mutant doesn't have defined characteristics like these.  Mutant while not as ambiguous as 'being', doesn't imply much information other than this being is mutated from something else.

[FantasyWriter]

I would NOT understand seeing him walk around in polite society.

Brandon

He didn't, the only time I recall him entering a city was at the request of (and escorted by) a templar.
I think he traded occasionally in Luir's, but was always facewrapped and cloaked before entering the gates for that very reason.

[Twilight]

Having played with a character that was a mutant where it took me a long time to figure out if he was a mul or a dwarf (lets see, both hairless, both muscular, both have pointy ears)....I have to applaud the change.

[FantasyWriter]

The race is the basis for the short description, it's the noun.  It tells a lot about the person (or creature).

Some examples:

Half-giant says: large, strong, has two arms and legs, has two eyes, etc...

Halfling says: very small, has two arms and legs, has two eyes, etc...

Mantis says: insectiod, compound eyes, mandibles, six limbs, exoskeleton, etc.

Elf says: pointy ears, skinny compared to humans, tall, etc

Mutant doesn't have defined characteristics like these.  Mutant while not as ambiguous as 'being', doesn't imply much information other than this being is mutated from something else.

After reading that, I have to say I understand the change and agree with it.

[Naida]

How about allowing 'mutant' in sdesc, as long as its in conjunction with a recognizable race label?  Its not how I would write one, and I've played a few mutants so far... but it sounds like some people like having it in the sdesc.   If you were 'the tentacled, blue halfling mutant' it would still be clear what you were.  I think being blue and tentacled would be enough for people to know he was a mutant though. 

But suppose then someone had a character that was only subtly mutated, and wanted to have mutant in the sdesc as an indicator that, from a distance, something seemed slightly off - even if you couldn't tell exactly what until you took a closer look (mdesc) and saw their hands and feet were revered from normal (left hand on right side, etc) and they had a third eye in their forehead?  If its just a figure running around a couple rooms away or that walks past too fast for you to take a look at, you might not notice what the details were.. just that something seemed a bit strange.  Then having a label like 'the dark-skinned mutant woman' would tell people they see something strange, without what it was til they take a closer look...

[Thunkkin]

Very good point. I never thought about that, to tell you the truth.

1. I can't see any Zalanthan being.... brave/stupid/reckless enough to attack something without knowing what it is.
2. I can only assume the guards would have "questioned" him when he started coming to any guarded civilization, a few times at least.
3. From the guards' point of view, "it" was walking along with the throngs of travelers entering the gates, not charging it and attacking people as cloaked raptors are prone to do.

Besides, there's one district in this one city somewhere that has lots of "saurian" mutants ambling around.  People with tentacles surrounding their mouths.  Etc.  Don't see why they'd make a big deal of your dwarf for just walking in the street.  Lounging at a bar, however ...

[Qzzrbl]

What about youth?

Or other commonly used keywords?

Can we no longer make, "The short, bright-eyed youth"?

Or "The tall, black-eyed amputee"?

Or any other words on the noun list that doesn't specify race?

[Nyr]

Don't be silly. Stop baiting players and staffers into an argument over such a small issue, please. You know staff position; you know staff policy on it now. You don't have to like it, but we will be adhering to the policy regardless.

[Qzzrbl]

That was actually a legitimate question so that I myself will know.

If mutants have to clarify their race in their sdesc, won't everyone else? Including ones that end with "youth" or any of those others that don't really list their race outright.... I'm seriously curious about this.

I'm really not big on trolling here in the GDB.

[Thunkkin]

For Niamh ---

From the sketch inspired by Torgo's knees:

Joel: ...really huge forearms.
Tom:  ...one big droopy pinky, and I'd drag it behind me.
Crow: ...one buttcheek that was WAY bigger than the other...
Tom:  My head a canker, a big, giant canker, nothing but.
Joel: ...one really big flared nostril and inside would be lots of red matted
hairs.
Crow: An ear that would cover me like a shroud and a thumb the size of a
juggling pin, but not on my hand.
Tom:  Nipples, many sizes, many shapes, some on my back.
Crow: A tongue the size of a sleeping bag and my fingers would fold the other
way...
Tom:  My intestines on top of my head, where I would have to keep them
greased.
Crow: I'd remove my skin, restitch it and wear it as a cardigan.

[Myrdryn]

I think where race is implied, things like 'youth' and 'amputee' are fine.  That is assuming these are humans.

[Qzzrbl]

I think where race is implied, things like 'youth' and 'amputee' are fine.  That is assuming these are humans.

But if they're anything other than human, or breeds, they need to be clarified?

[mansa]

I think where race is implied, things like 'youth' and 'amputee' are fine.  That is assuming these are humans.

But if they're anything other than human, or breeds, they need to be clarified?

Yup.

[Qzzrbl]

In that case, would it then be acceptable to use mutant as a keyword if the race is set as human?

[mansa]

In that case, would it then be acceptable to use mutant as a keyword if the race is set as human?

Hmm.

That's how the rule is supposed to be.  However, they changed the rule for this specific noun.

[Myrdryn]

In that case, would it then be acceptable to use mutant as a keyword if the race is set as human?

No.  But you can use 'mutant human'.

[Fathi]

I can think of a few really memorable PCs that I've met in my time here that would no longer be allowed under these guidelines, which made me initially say, "that sucks."

On the other hand, I can see why staff thought it was necessary, even if I disagree.

I just hope that whoever is reviewing special applications for mutants is rather lenient, provided the application in question isn't asking for anything 'special' other than 'to be severely mutated.'

[Myrdryn]

Is there that much difference between 'mutant' and 'mutated man' or 'mutated humanoid'?

[Fathi]

Is there that much difference between 'mutant' and 'mutated man' or 'mutated humanoid'?

Nah, I didn't mean the sdesc part. I meant the part about barring mutants that aren't discernible as any particular race. I've played with at least three of these PCs and they were all very interesting and seemed to be playing by their racial docs. I'm just a little disappointed that they were deemed "completely unplayable" since I've seen it done so well before.

[Myrdryn]

Is there that much difference between 'mutant' and 'mutated man' or 'mutated humanoid'?

Nah, I didn't mean the sdesc part. I meant the part about barring mutants that aren't discernible as any particular race. I've played with at least three of these PCs and they were all very interesting and seemed to be playing by their racial docs. I'm just a little disappointed that they were deemed "completely unplayable" since I've seen it done so well before.

I think there may be some misunderstanding.  These kinds of roles (extreme mutants, monsters and freaks) are still available through special application.  I don't think anyone is saying monster/mutant/freak type PCs aren't unplayable.  They are playable, but they are special too.  To treat them otherwise just makes them common and not special at all.

[mansa]

Is there that much difference between 'mutant' and 'mutated man' or 'mutated humanoid'?

4 characters in a 35 character limit, my friend.

[Olgaris]

Please, take our word for it, this rule was necessary.

You guys saw what made it through the application process. We see the things that didn't. Some people were making some crazy things, often, that often hardly resembled their own races at all. Even in their main descriptions. You can still play something really crazy, you just need to submit a special application for it. Otherwise, you can still play things pretty crazy, they just can't be completely unrecognizable to the point that it would be hard to tell what race the thing might be with a glance.

That's what an sdesc is. A glance. Be it from far, or close up, it's the first thing you notice about someone. If someone has a pancake head, you're not going to see "MUTANT" because that could mean three eyes and horns. You're going to see a pancake head. You're also going to generally know the thing is a human. Or wait, no, it's hairless. Must be a dwarf. Therefore it would be "the pancake-headed dwarf" or "the dwarf with a pancake head" not "the mutant" or "the pancake headed mutant" or "the mutant with a pancake head."

[Xagon]

What about the cases where the base race isn't immediately discernible? The supremely tall (full blooded) human with pointed ears? The figure with reptilian features with vestigal wings? The Kylori sporting a pair of hands?

These may not be the best of examples, but I'm sure someone can think of some applicable mutation that isn't considered "unplayable."

[Cerelum]

What about the cases where the base race isn't immediately discernible? The supremely tall (full blooded) human with pointed ears? The figure with reptilian features with vestigal wings? The Kylori sporting a pair of hands?

These may not be the best of examples, but I'm sure someone can think of some applicable mutation that isn't considered "unplayable."

You can still play something really crazy, you just need to submit a special application for it. Otherwise, you can still play things pretty crazy, they just can't be completely unrecognizable to the point that it would be hard to tell what race the thing might be with a glance.

So make a special app, I personally don't think this is so hard to understand.

[Fathi]

Is there that much difference between 'mutant' and 'mutated man' or 'mutated humanoid'?

Nah, I didn't mean the sdesc part. I meant the part about barring mutants that aren't discernible as any particular race. I've played with at least three of these PCs and they were all very interesting and seemed to be playing by their racial docs. I'm just a little disappointed that they were deemed "completely unplayable" since I've seen it done so well before.

I think there may be some misunderstanding.  These kinds of roles (extreme mutants, monsters and freaks) are still available through special application.  I don't think anyone is saying monster/mutant/freak type PCs aren't unplayable.  They are playable, but they are special too.  To treat them otherwise just makes them common and not special at all.

This is a direct quote from Uruz's original post:

If a mutation will affect you so strongly that your base race is no longer discernible, it is not acceptable for play as a character.

Does he mean 'not acceptable for play as a character unless it is a special application'? That's not the impression I got from the post in Staff Announcements.

Read as-is, the post makes it sound like characters whose base race isn't discernible are not acceptable, period. My post was in reference to the fact that I was a little sad about that, because I have seen and enjoyed characters like that in the past.

[Lizzie]

I'm not too concerned about the word "mutant" one way or another. However, if the argument is because of what gets passed through the application process, I think there's a lot worse than mutant that the staff should be looking at.

Such as:

• blaring typos.
• Things in the main description that stand out -so- much that they -should- be in the sdesc, but aren't. Things in the sdesc that -should- be in the mdesc, but aren't.
• Sentences that impose on my character's opinions.
• sentences missing verbs.
• Sloppy grammar/spelling/punctuation.
• The staff changing a word that wasn't incorrect to begin with, and resulting in a sdesc that doesn't match the mdesc.

I've seen descriptions that have been missing the entire bottom half of the paragraph, and I've seen descriptions that were duplicated, one right after the other. If mutant is so bad, why do these things slide by? If I'm *missing* information I need to describe someone when asked, and that's allowed, then why is a single word in an sdesc such a big deal?

At least with "mutant" it's just in the main desc. And when I -look- at them, I should expect to see an explanation of what that means.

One time, I typoed something that was really -really- bad and got a [send] from the staff saying that the player of that character was new, so they gave them a break. Thing is, the player of the IMM, is not new, and should've known better.  Teaching new players that they can make mistakes like that is setting a bad precedence. Especially when you turn it down the second time around. That just confuses the players. It isn't giving them a break.

[FuSoYa]

I think one should more consider the mutation then a -mutant-.

I don't know... perhaps I'm out of line or not within what everyone is thinking about but here is a sample sdesc/mdesc:

Short Desc: the cadaverous, gill-slitted man

Description:

Streaky, bone colored hair falls haphazardly about this mans narrow head,
tied back in a thin ponytail.  Smooth skin, so pale as to be almost
translucent, covers his hairless face.  Under where his eyebrows would be
are his eyes, pupil taking up almost the entire socket except for a tiny
blue nimbus.  His nose starts off straight then quickly skews to an almost
forty-five degree angle before righting itself over his thin, cyanotic lips.
Vestigial gills sit on either side of his neck, three useless slits,
impotent partings of his skin.  His four and a half cord frame is less then
spare, his body a jangle of skin and bones.  Two seductive, nude, ghostly
women are inked down each of his forearms, one's hair white, the other red.

I think it's fairly easy to tell this dude is a freak yet he still is easily discernible as a human from his sdesc.

My contribution.

Brandon 

[number13]

http://img2.pict.com/ff/af/1f/1738688/0/800/shocksuspenstories23010021.jpg

Posted to Daily Scans today; not by me.

[Olgaris]

What about the cases where the base race isn't immediately discernible? The supremely tall (full blooded) human with pointed ears? The figure with reptilian features with vestigal wings? The Kylori sporting a pair of hands?

These may not be the best of examples, but I'm sure someone can think of some applicable mutation that isn't considered "unplayable."

Then it would be a special application.

[Thistle]

I'm not too concerned about the word "mutant" one way or another. However, if the argument is because of what gets passed through the application process, I think there's a lot worse than mutant that the staff should be looking at.

Such as:

• blaring typos.
• Things in the main description that stand out -so- much that they -should- be in the sdesc, but aren't. Things in the sdesc that -should- be in the mdesc, but aren't.
• Sentences that impose on my character's opinions.
• sentences missing verbs.
• Sloppy grammar/spelling/punctuation.
• The staff changing a word that wasn't incorrect to begin with, and resulting in a sdesc that doesn't match the mdesc.

I've seen descriptions that have been missing the entire bottom half of the paragraph, and I've seen descriptions that were duplicated, one right after the other. If mutant is so bad, why do these things slide by? If I'm *missing* information I need to describe someone when asked, and that's allowed, then why is a single word in an sdesc such a big deal?

At least with "mutant" it's just in the main desc. And when I -look- at them, I should expect to see an explanation of what that means.

One time, I typoed something that was really -really- bad and got a [send] from the staff saying that the player of that character was new, so they gave them a break. Thing is, the player of the IMM, is not new, and should've known better.  Teaching new players that they can make mistakes like that is setting a bad precedence. Especially when you turn it down the second time around. That just confuses the players. It isn't giving them a break.

This is more or less already our policy.  We try to fix all typos in appliactions, we try to make sure the sdesc and mdesc are appropriate, we do not allow a sentence that dictates your thoughts and feelings, we do our best to fix grammar. .

But some things slip through, this is actually a lot of work to get it right every time.

The difference I see here is the issue with mutants is a policy issue, where as things slipping through like Lizzie mentioned are a failure to catch mistakes.

Are we letting newbies have blatantly misspelled descs that violate the rules?  I can say personally I've re-written many new player apps to make them appropriate and to allow them into the game.  So no, there maybe examples in the past, but we do our best to make the experience the best for everyone.

[askaran]

would the mammoth, scarlet skinned humanoid be too vague for say.... A half-giant?

[Kryos]

I'm not staff, but I'd say yes.  Trying to obfuscate your race with your sdesc is naughty, and I'd say a ooc lean for some sort of advantage. For instance, a mammoth humanoid could be a mul, who has mega-muscles.  It could also be a really big human.  Some people would call me mammoth at 6'7".  The relativity is tough to do in a static sdesc, though hoods and the like do convey it through the relatively scaling sdesc they generate. 

[number13]

Half-giants are in their own weight class, more than double the size of a human. Any half-giant character should therefore have "half-giant" in the sdesc, in my opinion.

[Naida]

http://img2.pict.com/ff/af/1f/1738688/0/800/shocksuspenstories23010021.jpg

Posted to Daily Scans today; not by me.

That's cute..  sounds like a normal baby to me, apart from being called atomic mutant.

Though if someone wrote up their desc in this manner and then used an sdesc of the helpless, twitchy infant, anyone looking at them would think it was a mutant.

[Qzzrbl]

There's only one thing about this I'm having trouble understanding. 

The reason you guys took out the keyword "mutant", was so it could leave no question as to if you fall in the general dwarf/mul, human/breed/elf, half-giant subtype in your sdesc.

Now that's all fine and dandy, it's a great idea to help ease confusion in such cases..... But other keyword nouns, like "youth", "brute", "amputee" are still being allowed. From what I can gather, the reason they're still allowed is because when such a noun is accepted, it's usually assumed to be human, or human-ish.

I don't get why "mutant" can't be treated the same way, why can't the noun "mutant" just be assumed human like these other keywords?

[mansa]

...
I don't get why "mutant" can't be treated the same way, why can't the noun "mutant" just be assumed human like these other keywords?

Give it a year, and then maybe they will reassess their decision.

[Nyr]

Because that's not what we're doing.

[Rhyden]

...like "youth", "brute", "amputee" are still being allowed. From what I can gather, the reason they're still allowed is because when such a noun is accepted, it's usually assumed to be human, or human-ish.

I've never seen amputee or brute used. Youth is usually human, or half-breed if it's not noticeable. Otherwise, you would probably need to do 'elven youth' or 'dwarven youth', etc.

Not that I'm against using 'mutant' as a sdesc noun, but I can see the reasoning behind staff's decision.

[Qzzrbl]

...like "youth", "brute", "amputee" are still being allowed. From what I can gather, the reason they're still allowed is because when such a noun is accepted, it's usually assumed to be human, or human-ish.

I've never seen amputee or brute used. Youth is usually human, or half-breed if it's not noticeable. Otherwise, you would probably need to do 'elven youth' or 'dwarven youth', etc.

I think I've seen a couple of "brutes" and an amputee in my time, and I had no clue what their race was until I looked at them, humans all around.

The same goes for "Crone", there's been a few of those around.

With other races, I'm sure you'd have to put "elven crone" or "half-giant brute" or "halfling amputee", but if the character's a human or a breed, you wouldn't have to denote race in the sdesc.

But "mutant", you have to denote race no matter what race it is.

I'm just having a little trouble following the logic behind the change. 

[Myrdryn]

What do mutants look like?


























Now, what do crones, brutes and amputees look like?

Which is most definitive?  Which is least definitive?

[Qzzrbl]

"A human mutant" still leaves me no clue whatsoever of what the mutant looks like.

And if we follow the same guidelines with "crone" or "youth" or any of those other nouns, then anyone with "mutant" in the sdesc will be assumed to be human.

Because here's what I'm seeing:

Half-giants: Must denote race in sdesc.
Elves: Must denote race in sdesc.
Halflings: Must denote race in sdesc.
Dwarves: Must denote race in sdesc.
Muls: Must denote race in sdesc.
Humans: Can end with "man", "brute", "crone".... Heh, pretty much anything. No need to put "human" in there. But you can't use mutant unless you denote race too.
Half-elves: Can end with "man", "brute", "crone".... Heh, pretty much anything, so long as you selected "human" as to what it looks like, you don't need to put "human" in there. But you can't use mutant unless you denote race too.

[Nyr]

It's that way because staff said so after staff discussion on it.  There's no IC reasoning on it.  It is OOC policy; it is staff policy.  It's okay to disagree with it, and you do.

[Qzzrbl]

Well what's the OOC reasoning behind it then? And why has it become OOC policy?

"If a mutation will affect you so strongly that your base race is no longer discernible, it is not acceptable for play as a character.  Your base race must be READILY apparent in both your short description and your main description.  Mutant is no longer acceptable as a short description keyword."

That's pretty much the reason I got out of it, the change was made stop any misdirection as to what race a character was, and why "mutant" is no longer an acceptable keyword. Even if the character's mutations still allowed him to make his race clear in his mdesc.

But just about every sdesc that doesn't have "man" or "human" or lacks any denotation of race in it leaves everyone in the dark as to what race the character is at a distance just as well. Yet they are still allowed.

And saying, "It's that way because we say so." is, no offense, a pretty weak argument, and certainly doesn't answer my question as to why only "mutant" was taken out as a main noun, while others that equally hide race at a distance are still allowed.

Nouns that are definitely okay to use in an sdesc       

   * adolescent
   * amputee
   * blond/blonde
   * brunette
   * brute
   * crone
   * female
   * hag
   * humanoid
   * lad
   * lass
   * maiden
   * male
   * man
   * midget
   * redhead
   * teen
   * teenager
   * youth
   * woman

Any sdesc using these nouns without denoting race does -exactly- what "mutant" did when it was still allowed.

But every race other than humans or breed pretty much have to say what their race is anyway, so humans are the only ones that use them, thusly it can be safely assumed any PC not denoting race in their sdesc is either a human, or a breed.

If all these can be used in lieu of "human" in a human or half-elf sdesc, why can't mutant?

And you're right, I do disagree, and I'll continue to disagree until I get sound reasoning behind the change.

[Cerelum]

Half-elves: Can end with "man", "brute", "crone".... Heh, pretty much anything, so long as you selected "human" as to what it looks like, you don't need to put "human" in there. But you can't use mutant unless you denote race too.

Half elves who are trying to fake being human can use deceptive nouns?

If this is true that's awesome, cause the problem with playing a half-elf that is creatively designed DESC wise is that any twink can go, contact figure, you connect with blahy, blah half-elf and know they are a half-elf, at least with a creative, deceptive noun you have a way around that.

[Yam]

Half-elves: Can end with "man", "brute", "crone".... Heh, pretty much anything, so long as you selected "human" as to what it looks like, you don't need to put "human" in there. But you can't use mutant unless you denote race too.

Half elves who are trying to fake being human can use deceptive nouns?

If this is true that's awesome, cause the problem with playing a half-elf that is creatively designed DESC wise is that any twink can go, contact figure, you connect with blahy, blah half-elf and know they are a half-elf, at least with a creative, deceptive noun you have a way around that.

You never had to use half-elf as an sDesc noun when creating one.

[Nyr]

You seem to be hung up on (and have admitted to this being a personal bother) something pretty minor:  that the word mutant can't be used in sdescs.  This (and all argument about it) should only deal with mutants, because that is the only thing we've addressed with this policy.
Other staffers and myself have offered explanations and elaborations and discussion on this matter as well as the overarching reasoning behind it.

The OOC reasoning behind it is that people were creating mutants that were too mutated.  We hope to curb that with this new policy.
It has become OOC policy by necessity to reduce staff workload on deciding whether or not a mutant is acceptable.
We're only dealing with mutations and mutants because there appeared to be too much leeway in the existing policy and documentation to allow full-out monsters rather than minor mutations.

Bringing up all sdesc words is a red herring.

[Adhira]

I'm locking this thread now. I'm sorry that some people are upset with the changes but these are in place and will remain in place for the forseeable future.