Hiding Mdescs: Ways to Implement It

[BadSkeelz]

I can't think of any other example where the player base is asked to go by the honor system in terms of interactions.  We almost always have code to rely on.  Who won what fight, who stole from who, did you notice the guy in the bushes or not.  There is code for that, it works.  It allows the player to leverage their skill list to help their RP, they aren't held to any system of honor that can be applied arbitrarily to any situation.  

Well, there's pregnancy.  So in a sense, our honor system kicks in when someone knocks us up or knocks us out.

We also go by the honor system for soldier PCs, trusting them not to give us the Pimp Slap of Half-giant Summoning Doom.

[RogueGunslinger]

Trying to trust the player-base to not give nearly-exact sdesc information, or identifying features that should be covered(He's got a tat of a spider on his shoulder that you probably should never see through his cloak...) has not worked up until this point. Why do people still continue to think it will work? Good luck changing the "culture" of the player-base. You'd have an easier time just getting rid of all the current players and start anew with some very stringent acceptance policies.

[LauraMars]

Also, if we want more conflict - allowing people to live double lives as criminals is a great way to encourage it.

Disagree. The reason players of these kinds of characters are paranoid about being ID'd is precisely that they want to avoid conflict splashing back onto their character.

To be fair, almost everyone in this thread has suggested code/commands/ways to determine the obscured player.  No one wants shady types having a 'fool proof' way of obscuring their mdesc.

I know you spoke of anecdote about a Templar smacking down a PC reciting line for line a mdesc.

But I've seen the opposite, down to the uncommon adjectives in their sdesc.  The situation was discouraging, yet funny, and at the same time understandable.  Stakes were high in that situation.  The particular PC describing said thief was put in a very difficult situation OOCly, a situation inherently unfair to both parties.  Purposely lose against the interests and motivations of your PC? For the sake of another you're in conflict with? That's a tall order considering the level of effort put forth into the game.

Too much of the current system makes the antagonist rely entirely on players respecting the honor system.   There no way to determine if a victim did in fact notice the tattoo on their arm or the color of their eyes and remembers them clear as day.  It's entirely within a PC victims agency, which puts a lot of competing pressure on that player.  Do they go for the 'win' for justice? Or do the accept loss for the sake of some one else's story?  Do they purposely forget the mdesc or the minor details.  Like brown eyes? Or Hazel eyes? Would you notice the different if some crazed spiced out raider is barreling down on you?

Players shouldn't have to deal with that dilemma in my opinion.  If there was code in place that allowed both the shady and the victim to engage in an interaction with the cold hard world of math and character sheets deciding the outcome of who noticed what.  Then they can simply worry about responding like their character would.

I can't think of any other example where the player base is asked to go by the honor system in terms of interactions.  We almost always have code to rely on.  Who won what fight, who stole from who, did you notice the guy in the bushes or not.  There is code for that, it works.  It allows the player to leverage their skill list to help their RP, they aren't held to any system of honor that can be applied arbitrarily to any situation.  

Fantastic post that doesn't deserve to be pagerolled.

[Case]

Trying to trust the player-base to not give nearly-exact sdesc information, or identifying features that should be covered(He's got a tat of a spider on his shoulder that you probably should never see through his cloak...) has not worked up until this point. Why do people still continue to think it will work? Good luck changing the "culture" of the player-base. You'd have an easier time just getting rid of all the current players and start anew with some very stringent acceptance policies.

To be fair, at least in the shoulder cases for tattoo, the covering code doesn't work properly.

[wizturbo]

The best way I've seen this handled is for all cloaks, facewraps and masks to hide the mdesc, but it was combined with the introduction of a "study" command that allows you to see their description. The study command has a "before" delay, and is visible as "look" is now. Make "look" a hemote and only reveal what it currently does.

Study could be skill based, and invoke the "watch" command.

You would not want mdesc hiding itesm to be at all rare or coveted, or you'd have people offering to pay 2k for a raggedy piece of cloth.

Soldiers have carte blanche, and are encouraged, to harass people who try to be anonymous at the bar.

This says all the things I would say.

Same here.

Same.

However, I would like there to be items available that give a penalty to the person's watch-check to see their description.  They shouldn't be rare or valuable, but they should be treated with suspicion, similar to how anyone in real life would be treated with suspicion if they showed up in a ski mask.

For instance, if you have only a cloak with a hood,it should be easy to see your mdsec with a "study".   If you have a cloak with an extra deep cowl, a thick facewrap, and a pair of sunslits (which all would be very suspicious, and likely to get you hassled by the Militia if you're seen with it), it should be much more difficult for someone to garner your mdesc with a single study check unless they happen to be quite skilled in Watch.

[hyzhenhok]

If the consensus disagrees with me and thinks current abuse of >look figure is worse than possible abuse by the cloaked figures, then sure. I'm okay with my objections being overruled.

A "study" command to see through an mdesc-hiding getup could work to check that, as long as you make sure the study command is not as powerful as >look figure currently is so the change isn't completely moot. Make it echo immediately, but give it a short but significant pre-delay that can be interrupted by combat or if the target slips out of view. But make it not echo when you finish, and make the delay shorter the higher the character's Watch skill is.

And, yeah, I agree that if we're going to do it, hiding your mdesc should be as easy as having a raised hood, a closed "around body" item, and something on your character's face. Make that the rule rather than the exception, and then tag items that should not be diguising like kohl eyeliner as exceptions.

[hopeandsorrow]

I would still like to see this...

[RogueGunslinger]

The game really needs Mdesc hiding gear.

[Refugee]

I would like for 'look' to show me what my PC would actually see.  So yes, mdescs hidden when appropriate.

[IAmJacksOpinion]

Even though I frequently play criminals, I'm not a big fan of this idea. I played an RPI MUD that had this feature, and it was abused to the point of criminals sitting at the bar with the guards, hurling insults at them. To be fair, I trust the judgement of the players and staff of Arm more than those of that MUD, but it's still going to be abused.

The other reason I don't care for it is that I can't imagine it being implemented well. If wrist razors, masks, and climbing spikes are a way to measure, then mdesc hiding items will basically be cheap burlap sacks with eye holes poked in them that are only clan craftable, and market for just shy of 2,000 coins. If you think your rinthi and his 50 sid facewrap would enjoy the benefits of this change, you've got another thing comin'.

[Armaddict]

Even though I frequently play criminals, I'm not a big fan of this idea. I played an RPI MUD that had this feature, and it was abused to the point of criminals sitting at the bar with the guards, hurling insults at them. To be fair, I trust the judgement of the players and staff of Arm more than those of that MUD, but it's still going to be abused.

The other reason I don't care for it is that I can't imagine it being implemented well. If wrist razors, masks, and climbing spikes are a way to measure, then mdesc hiding items will basically be cheap burlap sacks with eye holes poked in them that are only clan craftable, and market for just shy of 2,000 coins. If you think your rinthi and his 50 sid facewrap would enjoy the benefits of this change, you've got another thing comin'.

Believe that is why they're supposed to be common, so that hiding your mdesc is not some sort of amazing ability to pay large amounts for.  In your example, that's incredibly hard to pull off in a state where their description can be seen in a short delay.

Sounds to me like your other RPI had some sort of rule, spoken or unspoken, against the soldiers plotting against these people.  Perhaps they had a station that allowed it.  Perhaps they had paid off the officers.  But that is not a case where anonymity protected them, because them standing there long enough to hurl insults is long enough for the soldier to use the above method to find out who they were.

[hopeandsorrow]

Even though I frequently play criminals, I'm not a big fan of this idea. I played an RPI MUD that had this feature, and it was abused to the point of criminals sitting at the bar with the guards, hurling insults at them. To be fair, I trust the judgement of the players and staff of Arm more than those of that MUD, but it's still going to be abused.

Have you every been there for the word for word description of a PC? Down the the uncommon adjectives? He had... atramentous hair Lord templar! And jaundice eyes!

[nauta]

Isn't the solution there for the templar to "ooc did you actually see that all -- perhaps they were wrapped up?" and to i(maybe) file a player complaint.

It'd be cool if there were a basic place in a help file (help masking) to point the new player / offending player to, something like:

Armageddon does not have mdesc masking gear or abilities.  Rather, we rely on the playerbase to be honest about what their characters might have been able to see.  If you are caught repeatedly abusing the look command, it will be taken away.

(Just joking on the last line.)

[Lizzie]

Even though I frequently play criminals, I'm not a big fan of this idea. I played an RPI MUD that had this feature, and it was abused to the point of criminals sitting at the bar with the guards, hurling insults at them. To be fair, I trust the judgement of the players and staff of Arm more than those of that MUD, but it's still going to be abused.

Have you every been there for the word for word description of a PC? Down the the uncommon adjectives? He had... atramentous hair Lord templar! And jaundice eyes!

On the other side of the coin - sometimes I get the feeling people pick obscure/unusual adjectives and adverbs for their characters on purpose just so they can cry foul when someone actually uses them in conversation.

I'm of the mind that - if you don't want someone to eventually USE the word you have chosen to describe your own character in your Sdesc - then don't use that word. I'll still TRY to avoid using it but - if it comes down to a templar demanding a description of someone, or them killing MY character - I'm going to find a way to bring up "atrementous" in a sentence in the most IC way possible. "His skin was real black Lord Templar. Seriously black. Oh oh yes I remember also! The Lord Blepharectomus Tor once said to his aide that the guy was positively atrementous! Does that help, Lord Templar?".

[Asmoth]

Even though I frequently play criminals, I'm not a big fan of this idea. I played an RPI MUD that had this feature, and it was abused to the point of criminals sitting at the bar with the guards, hurling insults at them. To be fair, I trust the judgement of the players and staff of Arm more than those of that MUD, but it's still going to be abused.

Have you every been there for the word for word description of a PC? Down the the uncommon adjectives? He had... atramentous hair Lord templar! And jaundice eyes!

On the other side of the coin - sometimes I get the feeling people pick obscure/unusual adjectives and adverbs for their characters on purpose just so they can cry foul when someone actually uses them in conversation.

I'm of the mind that - if you don't want someone to eventually USE the word you have chosen to describe your own character in your Sdesc - then don't use that word. I'll still TRY to avoid using it but - if it comes down to a templar demanding a description of someone, or them killing MY character - I'm going to find a way to bring up "atrementous" in a sentence in the most IC way possible. "His skin was real black Lord Templar. Seriously black. Oh oh yes I remember also! The Lord Blepharectomus Tor once said to his aide that the guy was positively atrementous! Does that help, Lord Templar?".

Or on the opposite side, they are the most cookie cutter description ever and giving a description will be the same as saying he was like that guy on tv, you know that guy on the show?

[RogueGunslinger]

Or on the opposite side, they are the most cookie cutter description ever and giving a description will be the same as saying he was like that guy on tv, you know that guy on the show?

This is how I usually describe my characters. We've got enough characters who stand out that you actually stand out when you're normal.

[hopeandsorrow]

Even though I frequently play criminals, I'm not a big fan of this idea. I played an RPI MUD that had this feature, and it was abused to the point of criminals sitting at the bar with the guards, hurling insults at them. To be fair, I trust the judgement of the players and staff of Arm more than those of that MUD, but it's still going to be abused.

Have you every been there for the word for word description of a PC? Down the the uncommon adjectives? He had... atramentous hair Lord templar! And jaundice eyes!

On the other side of the coin - sometimes I get the feeling people pick obscure/unusual adjectives and adverbs for their characters on purpose just so they can cry foul when someone actually uses them in conversation.

I'm of the mind that - if you don't want someone to eventually USE the word you have chosen to describe your own character in your Sdesc - then don't use that word. I'll still TRY to avoid using it but - if it comes down to a templar demanding a description of someone, or them killing MY character - I'm going to find a way to bring up "atrementous" in a sentence in the most IC way possible. "His skin was real black Lord Templar. Seriously black. Oh oh yes I remember also! The Lord Blepharectomus Tor once said to his aide that the guy was positively atrementous! Does that help, Lord Templar?".

That's my point though, one should have to worry about playing against themselves or being entirely meta about it either.  That's super unfair that you may lose a pc because you were trying to go by the honor system.  Or that another player with equal time in their pc, might lose their PC cause everyone has eyes that can pierce even the thickest of face wraps.

Code should decide, that way no one can cry foul.  The Templar gonna have to suck it up, that your look/watch check only caught a glimpse of the PC.  I was thinking that the mdesc items would generate a generic description based entirely on the PC's weight/height/racial/gender values.  With the chance to see the mdesc based on the watch + wisdom values.

Generated values (like taller then you/heavier then you/ racial frame/ equipment/) Still would give a good descriptor of the raider/criminal, if they were as dumb to continuously use the same equipment.  

I'm all for stuff that helps PC maintain double lives and takes the onus off Players so there's no 'unspoken' obligations there.  No one want to be smacked down for not being meta, nor do they wanna be smacked down for being meta, shit sucks and it's a dubious place to be as a player.  Do I go for the win? Fuck that guy, he was immense, with stormy eyes! Or do you lose on purpose, He was a big guy... didn't get a good look!

I couldn't ask a player to wanna 'lose' on purpose or risk their PC because their mdesc/sdesc retelling of the bad guy wasn't as accurate has the militia PC or Templar wanted.

Slap on the code, call it a day, reduces the amount of possible misgivings about those interactions.

[Lizzie]

There are some issues with that though hopeandsorrow, which is why mdesc-hiding items are no longer in the game. There really is no way to "fix" it properly.

If you consider an mdesc-hiding mask, that makes no sense because theoretically, your mdesc is comprised of more than just your face. Your body type, size, any scars that might be visible with ordinary clothing, if she's got huge noticeable knockers, if her hair is a vivid hue of green that flows down to her ass, etc. etc. etc. None of that should be hideable by a mask.

If it's a full-body head-to-toe costume, then it needs to replace the entire rest of your wardrobe. Or, it needs to be hard to move around in, if it's covering your entire body including all your armor, your cloak, your shoes, your helmet, etc. etc.

The only way to fix this, really, is to require everyone to have two mdescs. One would be the usual one which includes head/face/hair/body type/tits/bulging crotch/always walks with a limp/has flat feet/whatever else. The second is all of that - minus all of the head information except for the eyes, which would be visible at close range even if you were wearing a mask.

Of course - there are people who whine about having to write a singular mdesc for their characters and run to auto-generators for this stuff, who would whine a whole lot louder - and might even talk with their feet.

So I'm thinking making it useful and practical and believable, would result in driving people away, which doesn't help anything at all.

[catchall]

There really is no way to "fix" it properly.

Actually, the simple, elegant, and (I'll be so bold as to say) correct solution has already been mentioned several times in this thread:  Easy mdesc-hiding + easy study/examine command to see through it with a delay and echo. That's it.

It's fun to sit around and think about how to make a complicated code system that represents a bunch of crazy variables, and then conclude that the task is impossible, but in fact, none of those concerns are relevant.  You just give the tools to conceal and defeat concealment directly to players who then use them in the scenes they create together.  There is no "abuse" because the tools are equally available to all.  It really doesn't have to be more complicated than that.  Simplicity really is the best solution most of the time.

[Dresan]

There should be items that hide your Mdesc but they should be very expensive/rare, master merchant stuff. While I know this might be a little unrealistic, the thing is I rather not see everyone and their mother sitting on the bar hiding their mdesc.

I like the idea of everyone having the ability to examine someone who is hiding their mdesc.

There should be a generous delay involved and the other person should get and echo like: The blue dwarf begins to study you closely. You would also be able to do this in combat with a delay as well. However this gives the person using the mdesc a chance to run or react.

Examining someone with an Mdesc should have a small chance to fail, but that would improve based on your watch skill. 

[Cabooze]

If someone has the ability to completely hide their mdesc through means of a mask or whatnot, then a player should have the ability to forcefully remove said mask or whatnot once the masked/whatnotted person is subdued

OR

Allow things worn on the face/head to be stolen

[RogueGunslinger]

There should be items that hide your Mdesc but they should be very expensive/rare, master merchant stuff. While I know this might be a little unrealistic, the thing is I rather not see everyone and their mother sitting on the bar hiding their mdesc.

God no. You wouldn't see everyone at the bar hiding their m-desc as that would look conspicuous as fuck.

[Jave]

I used to play a different MUD and in that MUD hoods and masks did hide your mdesc, but there was a "study" command people could use which echoed they were studying you, it had a bit of a delay, then it showed you their mdesc and sdesc.

[Lizzie]

I used to play a different MUD and in that MUD hoods and masks did hide your mdesc, but there was a "study" command people could use which echoed they were studying you, it had a bit of a delay, then it showed you their mdesc and sdesc.

I don't get the logic behind that. If my face is covered by a mask, no amount of studying my mask is going to reveal anything about my face - except for the color of my eyes. In addition, no mask worn on the face, or hood worn over the head, is going to obscure my character's figure, or the fact that her right arm is markedly shorter than her left, or that she's missing a pinkie, or is flat-chested and has narrow hips.

This is why I'm against masks/hoods obscuring an mdesc. Because it makes no sense for them to do so.

[Nergal]

Some posts were trimmed from this thread. Refrain from bashing other MUDs on this forum. It's poor form.