Are you topless or not?

nauta · June 25, 2015, 11:40:37 AM

I IDEA'd this in game, but then I thought maybe there was a way to tell...

Is there a way to tell if someone is topless or merely has their cloak/robe closed (thus hiding whatever shirt they are wearing)? I know that PEEK will give you that information, but not all of us have PEEK, of course.

(This is kind of a 'code discussion'... although feel free to move it wherever.)

Marauder Moe · June 25, 2015, 11:45:24 AM

If their cloak or robe is closed, they are not topless.

Harmless · June 25, 2015, 11:46:44 AM

My characters all wear sunslits indoors, wearing naught but a closed cloak and something about the waist that you can't see. deal. :p

nauta · June 25, 2015, 11:47:21 AM

Quote from: Marauder Moe on June 25, 2015, 11:45:24 AM
If their cloak or robe is closed, they are not topless.

Right, but you can't (or at least I can't) tell by looking if that cloak is open or closed. So they could have a closed robe (with or without shirt)... or they could be topless with an open robe. Unless I'm missing something.

seidhr · June 25, 2015, 11:49:15 AM

So really you want to know whether or not someone's robe is closed or not, by looking at them.

nauta · June 25, 2015, 11:52:40 AM

Quote from: seidhr on June 25, 2015, 11:49:15 AM
So really you want to know whether or not someone's robe is closed or not, by looking at them.

Yeah, that's way more succinct. Is there?

Marauder Moe · June 25, 2015, 12:03:53 PM

Oh, I get it now.

Maybe... force all characters to get torso and genital "scars" on their body and.... waist?

Synthesis · June 25, 2015, 12:25:08 PM

If someone's robe or cloak is open, and worn <about body>, you will be able to see whatever they are wearing <on body>, <as belt>, <about waist>, and <hanging from belt>.

If someone is wearing a robe or cloak <on body>, they are by definition clothed.

If someone's robe or cloak is closed, and worn <about body>, you won't be able to see anything in the locations, above, without the peek skill.

The only time it's a problem is if a person is wearing nothing in the aforementioned covered slots, has no scars or tattoos on their body or waist, and is wearing an open or closed cloak. Under that unique circumstance, yes...without the peek skill, you cannot tell whether they are actually wearing stuff, with a closed cloak or whether their torso is naked with an open cloak. I'd guess that this is a fairly uncommon occurrence, given the popularity of the Armageddon Dress-Up minigame.

Does that answer your question?

Solution:

At chargen, every PC must choose from the following default "scars" for the <body> location:

1) a pair of fabulous tits, the best you've ever seen
2) magnificently shredded pectorals and six-pack abs

valeria · June 25, 2015, 12:32:11 PM

I would encourage someone to use a tdesc if they're going around bare chested. Since that would be noticeable and not the norm for either gender.

Sandstorm nipples. Sunburn. These just leap immediately to mind.

Talia · June 25, 2015, 12:37:57 PM

Quote from: valeria on June 25, 2015, 12:32:11 PM
Sandstorm nipples. Sunburn. These just leap immediately to mind.

I look forward to approving "the weatherworn-nippled man" soon.

BadSkeelz · June 25, 2015, 01:08:07 PM

I remember meeting some guy on the road who didn't believe in covering up his chest. Found him dead to a scrab three hours later. I loled.

John · June 25, 2015, 01:22:45 PM

Quote from: valeria on June 25, 2015, 12:32:11 PM
I would encourage someone to use a tdesc if they're going around bare chested. Since that would be noticeable and not the norm for either gender.

I once walked around without pants for 3 RL days before I realized.

Case · June 25, 2015, 04:23:01 PM

no

Jihelu · June 25, 2015, 06:29:16 PM

Quote from: John on June 25, 2015, 01:22:45 PM
Quote from: valeria on June 25, 2015, 12:32:11 PM
I would encourage someone to use a tdesc if they're going around bare chested. Since that would be noticeable and not the norm for either gender.
I once walked around without pants for 3 RL days before I realized.

We said not wearing a shirt was weird, no one mentioned pants.

The Silence of the Erdlus · June 25, 2015, 07:00:06 PM

Quote from: Synthesis on June 25, 2015, 12:25:08 PM
without the peek skill, you cannot tell whether they are actually wearing stuff, with a closed cloak or whether their torso is naked with an open cloak.

You can by looking at their cloak by itself. Well, not if they are wearing something underneath.

Synthesis · June 25, 2015, 07:20:54 PM

Quote from: The Silence of the Erdlus on June 25, 2015, 07:00:06 PM
Quote from: Synthesis on June 25, 2015, 12:25:08 PM
without the peek skill, you cannot tell whether they are actually wearing stuff, with a closed cloak or whether their torso is naked with an open cloak.

You can by looking at their cloak by itself. Well, not if they are wearing something underneath.

Looking at the cloak itself doesn't tell you whether it's open or closed.

Eyeball · June 25, 2015, 10:26:25 PM

I've always figured character ldescs should include alerts when looking at a room.

E.g.

The blond, toned man is standing here. [armed]
The blue-eyed, shapely woman is standing here [lit torch].
The raven-haired, doe-eyed woman is sitting at the bar here. [half-naked]
The towering, tuber-nosed half-giant is standing at the bar here. [badly injured]

And so on.

In Dreams · June 25, 2015, 11:27:17 PM

Quote from: Eyeball on June 25, 2015, 10:26:25 PM
I've always figured character ldescs should include alerts when looking at a room.

E.g.

The blond, toned man is standing here. [armed]
The blue-eyed, shapely woman is standing here [lit torch].
The raven-haired, doe-eyed woman is sitting at the bar here. [half-naked]
The towering, tuber-nosed half-giant is standing at the bar here. [badly injured]

And so on.

Those would all be really great! You should start your own thread with this.

LauraMars · June 26, 2015, 01:52:20 AM

You can sorta do that now with change ldesc...but the onus is on the player to be a good rper and set their pose. I agree it might be nice if the code was smart enough to change your default ldesc for you under the right circumstances, kinda like how it does if you're injured.

The blond, toned man is standing here, sword in hand.
The blue-eyed, shapely woman is standing here, holding a flickering torch aloft.
The raven-haired, doe-eyed woman is sitting at the bar here, torso bare of clothing.
The towering, tuber-nosed half-giant is standing at the bar here, bleeding profusely. (the code takes care of this one for us, albeit in not-always-realistic ways)

Revenant · June 26, 2015, 02:43:55 AM

Quote from: valeria on June 25, 2015, 12:32:11 PM
I would encourage someone to use a tdesc if they're going around bare chested. Since that would be noticeable and not the norm for either gender.

Sandstorm nipples. Sunburn. These just leap immediately to mind.

Are there norms for one gender, that aren't allowed with the other? (trick question, I've observed already several times) Whether it's the "norm" or not, when you're inside, in the walls, it really should not matter.

bardlyone · June 26, 2015, 02:52:13 AM

Quote from: Eyeball on June 25, 2015, 10:26:25 PM
I've always figured character ldescs should include alerts when looking at a room.

E.g.

The blond, toned man is standing here. [armed]
The blue-eyed, shapely woman is standing here [lit torch].
The raven-haired, doe-eyed woman is sitting at the bar here. [half-naked]
The towering, tuber-nosed half-giant is standing at the bar here. [badly injured]

And so on.

I don't like this.

The stuff like that in tags is a big part of the reason why I dislike a lot of other muds.

If you want to see what someone is (or isn't) wearing, you have to LOOK at them. Just like RL.
Same if you want to see what they have in their hand (lit torch)
Same as if you want to see if they are injured or not.

I fail to see where this would add to anything, and in fact, I think it would just give people MORE reason to be unrealistic assholes who act like you're staring them down hard enough to see their soul just by using the look command.

If anything, I think that look should be a hemote.

Back on topic, however - I wonder if there's a way to show this with the code the way you can see if a liquid vessel is empty. (ie: just add 'closed' to a closed version of the garment, open to an open one, or both to the correct state, the same way as 'bloodied/sweat stained/etc' shows up conditionally in the sdesc of an item worn.

The7DeadlyVenomz · June 26, 2015, 02:55:17 AM

I'd really rather look be a silent echo, unless customized by pre or post emotes. If the tags were appended, certianly not as bracketed words, but rather as appended sentence structures, such as:

The hulking grey mul stands here, half-naked, lightly-injured, and armed.

Structured thusly, I could get behind it.

Revenant · June 26, 2015, 03:13:46 AM

Quote from: The7DeadlyVenomz on June 26, 2015, 02:55:17 AM
I'd really rather look be a silent echo, unless customized by pre or post emotes. If the tags were appended, certianly not as bracketed words, but rather as appended sentence structures, such as:

The hulking grey mul stands here, half-naked, lightly-injured, and armed.

Structured thusly, I could get behind it.

Better than getting in front of it.

The7DeadlyVenomz · June 26, 2015, 03:54:26 AM

Eyeball · June 26, 2015, 03:55:31 AM

Quote from: bardlyone on June 26, 2015, 02:52:13 AM
If you want to see what someone is (or isn't) wearing, you have to LOOK at them. Just like RL.

When you enter a room, you don't have to take time to explicitly stare in turn at each person or object present to notice unusual conditions. You immediately and pretty much automatically notice that naked person, or the one covered in blood, or the one waving a gun around.

But if you hate it that much, an option could always be provided to switch off the tags so you personally don't see them.

bardlyone · June 26, 2015, 07:21:49 AM

Quote from: Eyeball on June 26, 2015, 03:55:31 AM
Quote from: bardlyone on June 26, 2015, 02:52:13 AM
If you want to see what someone is (or isn't) wearing, you have to LOOK at them. Just like RL.

When you enter a room, you don't have to take time to explicitly stare in turn at each person or object present to notice unusual conditions. You immediately and pretty much automatically notice that naked person, or the one covered in blood, or the one waving a gun around.

But if you hate it that much, an option could always be provided to switch off the tags so you personally don't see them.

You're right. You don't have to stare at anything. All you have to do is LOOK. Funny how that's what I said, explicitly. A look is, by definition, not a long attentive stare. That's a stare. Like watching someone as opposed to looking at them. Just by looking at them, you can tell something's off. Again, that just seems to be working in a way that is intuitive and in line with RL.

And your toggle idea does nothing to allay the actual concern I have over this being implemented. Which is that people would treat a simple LOOK like it was a STARE. But I must be talking to the wrong person, because you did literally that exact thing to what I said was a simple look, in your response.

hyzhenhok · June 26, 2015, 07:28:48 AM

I am quite amused by the suggestion for mandatory "scars" on the torso location to make it very obvious when you're topless. Makes sense, right? Allanak's cultural dress is supposed to be conservative, it's something we should be able to notice immediately.

But if it makes sense to be able to easily, codedly recognize toplessness like that, it should be the same for full nudity. So we probably need another set of scars and a new "between legs" locdesc.

Marauder Moe · June 26, 2015, 10:47:54 AM

Come to think of it, I believe I've actually seen more female characters going around topless than I have male ones... and people reacted more to the male one. (Granted, most of that was probably because of who he was. You know who.)

Eyeball · June 26, 2015, 11:02:20 AM

Quote from: bardlyone on June 26, 2015, 07:21:49 AM
Quote from: Eyeball on June 26, 2015, 03:55:31 AM
Quote from: bardlyone on June 26, 2015, 02:52:13 AM
If you want to see what someone is (or isn't) wearing, you have to LOOK at them. Just like RL.

When you enter a room, you don't have to take time to explicitly stare in turn at each person or object present to notice unusual conditions. You immediately and pretty much automatically notice that naked person, or the one covered in blood, or the one waving a gun around.

But if you hate it that much, an option could always be provided to switch off the tags so you personally don't see them.

You're right. You don't have to stare at anything. All you have to do is LOOK. Funny how that's what I said, explicitly. A look is, by definition, not a long attentive stare. That's a stare. Like watching someone as opposed to looking at them. Just by looking at them, you can tell something's off. Again, that just seems to be working in a way that is intuitive and in line with RL.

And your toggle idea does nothing to allay the actual concern I have over this being implemented. Which is that people would treat a simple LOOK like it was a STARE. But I must be talking to the wrong person, because you did literally that exact thing to what I said was a simple look, in your response.

The game is set up so that you look at the room when you walk in, dude.

Answer this simple question. When you enter a room with a naked person among a crowd of several people, do you notice immediately? Or do you have to make a conscious effort (look at <person>) to notice?

You shouldn't have to go through everyone in the room, typing 'look at <person>', to finally notice that one guy waving a massive sword. It should be instantly obvious.

The way things are structured now, you get the ludicrous situations people already described in this thread, such as someone walking about for days without wearing pants and no one noticing. All because it currently requires deliberate scrutiny to notice the most obvious things.

If you haven't realized it, the game already tags people who are injured. Do you hate that? Do you demand that it be changed so you have to deliberately look at that person to see it too?

Also, the look command is much more than a glance: (1) the person being looked at always notices you looking at him, and (2) you note every single last detail of what that person looks like (even if he has a mask or facewrap on) as well as what he is wearing. If you're upset about people treating it as a very deliberate gaze, then ask for some sort of glance that can include elements of the desc, or a silent look skill.

Alesan · June 26, 2015, 11:44:12 AM

Quote from: bardlyone on June 26, 2015, 07:21:49 AM
Quote from: Eyeball on June 26, 2015, 03:55:31 AM
Quote from: bardlyone on June 26, 2015, 02:52:13 AM
If you want to see what someone is (or isn't) wearing, you have to LOOK at them. Just like RL.

When you enter a room, you don't have to take time to explicitly stare in turn at each person or object present to notice unusual conditions. You immediately and pretty much automatically notice that naked person, or the one covered in blood, or the one waving a gun around.

But if you hate it that much, an option could always be provided to switch off the tags so you personally don't see them.

You're right. You don't have to stare at anything. All you have to do is LOOK. Funny how that's what I said, explicitly. A look is, by definition, not a long attentive stare. That's a stare. Like watching someone as opposed to looking at them. Just by looking at them, you can tell something's off. Again, that just seems to be working in a way that is intuitive and in line with RL.

And your toggle idea does nothing to allay the actual concern I have over this being implemented. Which is that people would treat a simple LOOK like it was a STARE. But I must be talking to the wrong person, because you did literally that exact thing to what I said was a simple look, in your response.

Under your logic, you'd have to LOOK at someone to notice their sdesc, too. So where do you draw the line?

John · June 26, 2015, 11:50:05 AM

Quote from: LauraMars on June 26, 2015, 01:52:20 AMthe onus is on the player to be a good rper and set their pose.

I don't like the suggestion that failing to set your change ldesc makes you a bad RPer.

Change ldesc is a real pain to use, especially if you're not remaining absolutely still and/or doing any crafting. Second you stand up, there's no more custom ldesc. Want to unpeel that bit of fruit? You've just lost your ldesc. Stand up to bow to a templar and sit back down? Better reset that damn custom ldesc.

Quote from: LauraMars on June 26, 2015, 01:52:20 AMI agree it might be nice if the code was smart enough to change your default ldesc for you under the right circumstances, kinda like how it does if you're injured.

The blond, toned man is standing here, sword in hand.
The blue-eyed, shapely woman is standing here, holding a flickering torch aloft.
The raven-haired, doe-eyed woman is sitting at the bar here, torso bare of clothing.
The towering, tuber-nosed half-giant is standing at the bar here, bleeding profusely. (the code takes care of this one for us, albeit in not-always-realistic ways)

I definitely like this, although do worry that it could get a bit excessive. So long as it's determined that the worst case scenario isn't excessively long then I'd be good with it. The longest I can imagine is:The raven-haired, doe-eyed woman is sitting at the bar here while topless, pantsless, armed, holding a burning torch and looking near death.

Dresses would need to be changed to make sure everyone wearing a dress doesn't suddenly get the pantsless tag though.

bardlyone · June 26, 2015, 12:11:17 PM

Quote from: Alesan on June 26, 2015, 11:44:12 AM
Quote from: bardlyone on June 26, 2015, 07:21:49 AM
Quote from: Eyeball on June 26, 2015, 03:55:31 AM
Quote from: bardlyone on June 26, 2015, 02:52:13 AM
If you want to see what someone is (or isn't) wearing, you have to LOOK at them. Just like RL.

When you enter a room, you don't have to take time to explicitly stare in turn at each person or object present to notice unusual conditions. You immediately and pretty much automatically notice that naked person, or the one covered in blood, or the one waving a gun around.

But if you hate it that much, an option could always be provided to switch off the tags so you personally don't see them.

You're right. You don't have to stare at anything. All you have to do is LOOK. Funny how that's what I said, explicitly. A look is, by definition, not a long attentive stare. That's a stare. Like watching someone as opposed to looking at them. Just by looking at them, you can tell something's off. Again, that just seems to be working in a way that is intuitive and in line with RL.

And your toggle idea does nothing to allay the actual concern I have over this being implemented. Which is that people would treat a simple LOOK like it was a STARE. But I must be talking to the wrong person, because you did literally that exact thing to what I said was a simple look, in your response.

Under your logic, you'd have to LOOK at someone to notice their sdesc, too. So where do you draw the line?

I don't see how. I can walk into an area and have a very general idea of what the people in my immediate vicinity look like without LOOKing at them (you know, like their most prominent feature or two, like an sdesc) - anyone can do so with peripheral vision. This is also already how it is.

Please don't try and superimpose something I did not say and suggest that it's my logic. You are wrong. It is not.

bardlyone · June 26, 2015, 12:15:53 PM

Quote from: Eyeball on June 26, 2015, 11:02:20 AM
If you're upset about people treating it as a very deliberate gaze, then ask for some sort of glance that can include elements of the desc, or a silent look skill.

I'm not upset. I disagree. There's really no need for you to superimpose emotions on me.

And I'm certainly not the only person who has held the position that look should be silent.

In fact, it's been asked for many times. And received no change or response. Repeating that in the hopes that the results would be different is the definition of insanity.

I can disagree with the suggestion of a new addition without requesting that something existing be changed, as well.

whitt · June 26, 2015, 12:33:19 PM

Quote from: bardlyone on June 26, 2015, 12:15:53 PM
And I'm certainly not the only person who has held the position that look should be silent.

In fact, it's been asked for many times. And received no change or response. Repeating that in the hopes that the results would be different is the definition of insanity.

Nope, just keep swimming.

If we could look at everyone in a room we walked into without worrying about spamming the dozen folks in the Gaj that would make it so much less of a bother.

There are many times I don't, for instance, look at NPCs to see what their descriptions are simply because I don't want to spawn the half-dozen looks in addition to the two to three PCs I want to look at too.

I think the better question really is why isn't look a hemote? Is it that complicated a code change?

Alesan · June 26, 2015, 12:38:23 PM

Quote from: bardlyone on June 26, 2015, 12:11:17 PM
I don't see how. I can walk into an area and have a very general idea of what the people in my immediate vicinity look like without LOOKing at them (you know, like their most prominent feature or two, like an sdesc) - anyone can do so with peripheral vision. This is also already how it is.

Please don't try and superimpose something I did not say and suggest that it's my logic. You are wrong. It is not.

I can walk in an area and get a very general idea of whether someone is armed, or bleeding to death, or shirtless. Are you saying eye color is much easier to see at a glance than a gaping, blood-gushing wound in someone's chest? Or a massive bastard sword in their hand? A lit torch?

Your logic simply doesn't make sense to me. And I have a feeling this argument will go nowhere, so I'm going to step out of it at this point.

Marauder Moe · June 26, 2015, 12:43:44 PM

I doubt it's a complicated code change. Probably it's not a hemote because the majority of staff/producers don't want it to be.

I'm not sure the majority of players do either. I personally find myself on the fence about it.

That said...

Quote from: bardlyone on June 26, 2015, 12:15:53 PMIn fact, it's been asked for many times. And received no change or response. Repeating that in the hopes that the results would be different is the definition of insanity.

Staff change. Players change. Staff opinions change. Player opinions change. Armageddon codebase technology changes. A lot of ideas are worth bringing up again every now and then. Sometimes they are then enacted.

RogueGunslinger · June 26, 2015, 12:49:29 PM

Quote from: Alesan on June 26, 2015, 12:38:23 PM
Quote from: bardlyone on June 26, 2015, 12:11:17 PM
I don't see how. I can walk into an area and have a very general idea of what the people in my immediate vicinity look like without LOOKing at them (you know, like their most prominent feature or two, like an sdesc) - anyone can do so with peripheral vision. This is also already how it is.

Please don't try and superimpose something I did not say and suggest that it's my logic. You are wrong. It is not.

I can walk in an area and get a very general idea of whether someone is armed, or bleeding to death, or shirtless. Are you saying eye color is much easier to see at a glance than a gaping, blood-gushing wound in someone's chest? Or a massive bastard sword in their hand? A lit torch?

Your logic simply doesn't make sense to me. And I have a feeling this argument will go nowhere, so I'm going to step out of it at this point.

You do realize you're both agreeing, right?

Alesan · June 26, 2015, 01:07:15 PM

Quote from: RogueGunslinger on June 26, 2015, 12:49:29 PM
Quote from: Alesan on June 26, 2015, 12:38:23 PM
Quote from: bardlyone on June 26, 2015, 12:11:17 PM
I don't see how. I can walk into an area and have a very general idea of what the people in my immediate vicinity look like without LOOKing at them (you know, like their most prominent feature or two, like an sdesc) - anyone can do so with peripheral vision. This is also already how it is.

Please don't try and superimpose something I did not say and suggest that it's my logic. You are wrong. It is not.

I can walk in an area and get a very general idea of whether someone is armed, or bleeding to death, or shirtless. Are you saying eye color is much easier to see at a glance than a gaping, blood-gushing wound in someone's chest? Or a massive bastard sword in their hand? A lit torch?

Your logic simply doesn't make sense to me. And I have a feeling this argument will go nowhere, so I'm going to step out of it at this point.

You do realize you're both agreeing, right?

That'd probably explain why it doesn't make sense to me.

nauta · June 26, 2015, 01:10:28 PM

Quote from: Case on June 25, 2015, 04:23:01 PM
no

Thanks! It sounds like the cases where this is a 'problem' are pretty rare. It also sounds like two plausible solutions would be:

a) implement <nothing> in locdescs that have nothing in them

b) prepend the adjective 'open/closed' to cloaks.

(And I think the 'look' discussion is valuable, but maybe could be another thread.)

bardlyone · June 26, 2015, 01:19:20 PM

I like b. Nauta. a seems like it would be spammier. B seems like it would work out well, and be sort of in line with turning multiples into 'a couple/few/several/many' in ldescs.

@Alesan: We're not entirely in disagreement, but the example you chose (eye color) can be very captivating and attention drawing if it's unusual, and I don't see how anyone would notice that someone's not wearing a shirt before they can see the person's hair/skin/general coloration and build. re: the topless thing: look at all the topless male slaves around, and keep in mind that 50% of allanak's people (almost) were slaves according to the "official response" on it a while back. so I would think it would actually be a fairly common sight - though you'd have to pay more attention (actually looking) at them to see if they were a slave or not (despite it being mostly slaves that go shirtless). the weapon would entirely depend on size, but can already be seen if you're armed or not via assess. As to the torch example...

it's just as easy to be the one carrying it and not notice you are as the one in the room who doesn't see it. If people looked at the people they were talking to, I'd imagine it'd be fairly obvious, and if it's some rando you're not paying attention to, what would be so remarkable about a torch as to draw your notice?

The7DeadlyVenomz · June 26, 2015, 03:39:56 PM

Look needs to retain a default echo until a combination of face wear and cloaking hides the ldesc of assaulties. Until both change in unison, changing look breaks raiders and muggers worse than it is already broken.

nauta · June 26, 2015, 03:43:41 PM

Quote from: The7DeadlyVenomz on June 26, 2015, 03:39:56 PM
Look needs to retain a default echo until a combination of face wear and cloaking hides the ldesc of assaulties. Until both change in unison, changing look breaks raiders and muggers worse than it is already broken.

Wait, can you explain this a bit? I don't understand how look-without-echo would break a raider or mugger?

(I mean I get that sneaky types get screwed when you look at them, which is why my next sneak I'm definitely going to append in the tdesc in all caps: 'Yes, she is absolutely so covered up in that mask and that cloak and that facewrap that you absolutely should not have anything more than a vague size, tops, to take away from looking at her. Probably not even the sex.')

ETA, since I'm thinking about look, I forget what the arguments were on the side of keeping the echo...

The7DeadlyVenomz · June 26, 2015, 03:48:18 PM

Well, if that these gets taken into account, then you won't get screwed. I think code should ensure you don't get screwed.

hyzhenhok · June 26, 2015, 04:17:59 PM

Quote from: nauta on June 26, 2015, 03:43:41 PM
Quote from: The7DeadlyVenomz on June 26, 2015, 03:39:56 PM
Look needs to retain a default echo until a combination of face wear and cloaking hides the ldesc of assaulties. Until both change in unison, changing look breaks raiders and muggers worse than it is already broken.

Wait, can you explain this a bit? I don't understand how look-without-echo would break a raider or mugger?

(I mean I get that sneaky types get screwed when you look at them, which is why my next sneak I'm definitely going to append in the tdesc in all caps: 'Yes, she is absolutely so covered up in that mask and that cloak and that facewrap that you absolutely should not have anything more than a vague size, tops, to take away from looking at her. Probably not even the sex.')

If you are trying to keep your character's identity a secret in an encounter, the look echo is useful because it tells you when you've been compromised. Supposedly, PC raiders might be inclined to kill targets they otherwise would have let live if their target looks at them or contacts them. Keeping your identity secret isn't really necessary to play a raider or mugger, but if you don't, you're stuck between choosing between a short lifespan or a highly isolated role.

Personally I don't think it should be easy to live a double life as a social character who is sekritly a raider, but there are other circumstances where it makes sense and would be nice if you could realistically hide your character's identity.

The Silence of the Erdlus · June 26, 2015, 04:27:53 PM

Nevermind, is a bit baity.

FantasyWriter · June 27, 2015, 12:51:41 PM

Quote from: John on June 25, 2015, 01:22:45 PM
Quote from: valeria on June 25, 2015, 12:32:11 PM
I would encourage someone to use a tdesc if they're going around bare chested. Since that would be noticeable and not the norm for either gender.
I once walked around without pants for 3 RL days before I realized.

God, so wish I still had the log where my noble lost his pants and assaulted a Kadian merchant because they didn't have any pants in stock.
I think the staffer that was playing along with me told me that I had junked them while changing wardrobe.

CodeMaster · June 27, 2015, 01:28:22 PM

Quote from: FantasyWriter on June 27, 2015, 12:51:41 PM
Quote from: John on June 25, 2015, 01:22:45 PM
Quote from: valeria on June 25, 2015, 12:32:11 PM
I would encourage someone to use a tdesc if they're going around bare chested. Since that would be noticeable and not the norm for either gender.
I once walked around without pants for 3 RL days before I realized.

God, so wish I still had the log where my noble lost his pants and assaulted a Kadian merchant because they didn't have any pants in stock.
I think the staffer that was playing along with me told me that I had junked them while changing wardrobe.

I think I just heard the best reason to play a noble.

Code Select


A pair of silk pants whispers from the corner, "Don't forget meeeee..."

I think it would be good if when you

Code Select


look man's cloak

alongside the smelly, sweaty, etc. flags it also told you whether it was open or closed.

John · June 27, 2015, 10:35:53 PM

Quote from: CodeMaster on June 27, 2015, 01:28:22 PM
I think it would be good if when you

Code Select Expand
look man's cloak

alongside the smelly, sweaty, etc. flags it also told you whether it was open or closed.

I think this would be a great alternative to the above suggestions. It's not as comprehensive obviously. But it's something.

Taven · June 28, 2015, 02:34:07 AM

Knowing if someone is topless is important. So is knowing if they're bottomless.

If somebody has a cloak closed you can't tell if they're wearing a dress or if they're just nude down there.

The Silence of the Erdlus · June 28, 2015, 08:36:47 PM

That's pretty much why I don't close my cloaks if i'm wearing a dress or a loincloth about the waist.

Are you topless or not?

June 25, 2015, 11:45:24 AM #1

June 25, 2015, 11:46:44 AM #2

June 25, 2015, 11:47:21 AM #3 Last Edit: June 25, 2015, 11:49:12 AM by nauta

June 25, 2015, 11:49:15 AM #4

June 25, 2015, 11:52:40 AM #5

June 25, 2015, 12:03:53 PM #6

June 25, 2015, 12:25:08 PM #7

June 25, 2015, 12:32:11 PM #8

June 25, 2015, 12:37:57 PM #9

June 25, 2015, 01:08:07 PM #10

June 25, 2015, 01:22:45 PM #11

June 25, 2015, 04:23:01 PM #12

June 25, 2015, 06:29:16 PM #13

June 25, 2015, 07:00:06 PM #14

June 25, 2015, 07:20:54 PM #15

June 25, 2015, 10:26:25 PM #16

June 25, 2015, 11:27:17 PM #17

June 26, 2015, 01:52:20 AM #18

June 26, 2015, 02:43:55 AM #19

June 26, 2015, 02:52:13 AM #20

June 26, 2015, 02:55:17 AM #21 Last Edit: June 26, 2015, 02:56:58 AM by The7DeadlyVenomz

June 26, 2015, 03:13:46 AM #22

June 26, 2015, 03:54:26 AM #23

June 26, 2015, 03:55:31 AM #24 Last Edit: June 26, 2015, 04:02:41 AM by Eyeball

June 26, 2015, 07:21:49 AM #25

June 26, 2015, 07:28:48 AM #26

June 26, 2015, 10:47:54 AM #27

June 26, 2015, 11:02:20 AM #28 Last Edit: September 21, 2015, 01:08:00 AM by Eyeball

June 26, 2015, 11:44:12 AM #29

June 26, 2015, 11:50:05 AM #30 Last Edit: June 26, 2015, 11:51:59 AM by John

June 26, 2015, 12:11:17 PM #31

June 26, 2015, 12:15:53 PM #32

June 26, 2015, 12:33:19 PM #33

June 26, 2015, 12:38:23 PM #34

June 26, 2015, 12:43:44 PM #35

June 26, 2015, 12:49:29 PM #36

June 26, 2015, 01:07:15 PM #37

June 26, 2015, 01:10:28 PM #38 Last Edit: June 26, 2015, 01:12:12 PM by nauta

June 26, 2015, 01:19:20 PM #39

June 26, 2015, 03:39:56 PM #40

June 26, 2015, 03:43:41 PM #41 Last Edit: June 26, 2015, 03:48:15 PM by nauta

June 26, 2015, 03:48:18 PM #42

June 26, 2015, 04:17:59 PM #43

June 26, 2015, 04:27:53 PM #44 Last Edit: June 26, 2015, 07:07:35 PM by The Silence of the Erdlus

June 27, 2015, 12:51:41 PM #45

June 27, 2015, 01:28:22 PM #46

June 27, 2015, 10:35:53 PM #47

June 28, 2015, 02:34:07 AM #48

June 28, 2015, 08:36:47 PM #49