Re:Guidlines for Creating Mutants

[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.