RE: No more baby items post in Staff Announcements

[Callisto]

This is the policy:

No more baby objects. If your character has a baby, that's an awesome opportunity for RP, but should be done virtually.

Yes, I am a huge meanie for saying this. However, the baby objects end up creating a lot more work than they're worth, particularly when we've seen people be wildly successful in emoting their existence. Accordingly, I'm willing to live with being known as anti-baby.

Baby objects:
- inevitably get lost in crashes or accidental junkings and require reimbursement
- are subject to unrealistic actions by pickpockets (I'm sorry, but someone WOULD notice if you took the baby out of their arms, I don't care how nimble your fingers are)
- require updates and lead to people then requesting NPCs, which require more updates

Just wanted to make this clear since it's been coming up recently in several emails.

Thank god, now I never have to fear my PCs child being kidnapped!

The uber elven burglar Ways you "D00d I have ur babey I want 400 'sid and a 1337 sward or u'll never see him again kthxbye"

You way the uber elven burglar "ur such a n00b, my baby was somewhere else in a safe place and u never got him hahahha"

With children no longer being coded (as objects and then NPCs), there is no more fear of people kidnapping children, no more fear of ransom, no more fear of your child being murdered as payback for pissing off a Templar, no more fear of a Defiler stealing your child away to raise it as its own, ... the list goes on.

When you make something like that virtual, a parent can rest safe on the default "she's somewhere safe" and leave it at that. Who is going to argue or role-play against that? You can't argue with it, you can't claim to have kidnapped someone's child when the child that doesn't exist is hidden in a non-existence place only the parent knows about.

The effort involved in maintaining coded PC children (IE: Baby objects, toddler NPCs, whatever) is well worth the conflict, expenses and interaction that come hand in hand with the fear that someone CAN come and take that child, that someone CAN come and kill that child, that someone CAN hold the child to force you into something, and that if you aren't careful there's nothing you could do about it.

We need a broad range of conflict in Armageddon and coded child objects and NPCs are a good source for unique conflict. When you make them virtual, you make all the conflict and interaction that comes along with them virtual too.

I'd suggest reconsidering, Sanvean.

[Bestatte]

My opinion on the matter is, I'd rather see PCs infertile and incapable of spawning at all. Let kids be the kids of virtual people, let them be NPCs that play with balls on the road. Let's just say that the staff had to -heavily- edit the document I wrote for the Arm website about RPing pregnancy and child-rearing, because it was so loaded with dripping sarcasm that it would've insulted a whole lot of people.

Mul mix is your friend, people. Embrace it, use it, love it.

-She who eats her young

[Xygax]

In my opinion, all of that conflict is still available.  Just because there's no coded object doesn't mean plots can't spawn around your spawn.  And if there ARE plots to be plotted then those brats can be whipped up, as needed (just as Sanvean suggested in her post, you'd better have a GOOD reason).  In the meantime, I rather heartily approve of the policy.

-- X

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I generally agree with you, Sanvean, but in this case, I am forced to also say that I don't think it the best decision possible. There should be a no steal flag...so make baby-objects non-stealable. Also, if NPC's are too much, just make the baby object grow instead. That would solve any of the problems assossiated with PCs having NPCs for devious bidding.

[Lazloth]

Also, if NPC's are too much, just make the baby object grow instead. That would solve any of the problems assossiated with PCs having NPCs for devious bidding.

Devious bidding?  What difference is it if the child is an object or mobile?  I think it's effort involved to add the critter to the game that the staff dislikes.

I'm in agreement with both camps here:  on the one hand, I hate you breeders from the bottom of my PCs' largely infertile loins!  It's not for me.  Callisto makes some salient points, however.  Xygax, without an object ingame, it is ludicrous to suggest that these events are possible.  There would be nothing impromptu, and if the parent were alerted with a suddenly visible baby, this OOC knowledge would impact any ensuing activity.  Furthermore, these 'caring' parents will now just repopulate the taverns as if the had never popped out their offspring, as everything is 'virtually' provided for.

[Xygax]

My general experience of PCs with baby-objects has been that they usually go back to their tavern-sitting lives within a few days of showing off the new object, and offer explanations like, "Oh, my mother-in-law is taking care of them."  And furthermore, my experience has been that the few "plots" that HAVE sprung up around the baby-objects, such as what Callisto mentioned are based on twinkish behavior like "stealing" the baby-object from the mother in a crowded tavern and then running through the streets with it.  So, I'm far from convinced that they add a great deal to the game that -can't- be added by making use of emotes, the "drop" functionality of changing long-description text, etc. (I've seen one player in particular do that -really- well).

[Anonymous]

Think people.  In order to have a baby object, you'd have to have mudsex.  Gross.

[Lazloth]

And furthermore, my experience has been that the few "plots" that HAVE sprung up around the baby-objects, such as what Callisto mentioned are based on twinkish behavior like "stealing" the baby-object from the mother in a crowded tavern and then running through the streets with it.

That may very well be the case; I am not an authority.  I don't believe I've ever roleplayed anything around someone's child myself, but have thought the possibility interesting several times.

I personally have no real opinion here, though -- I simply have difficulty seeing the problem with these critters.  If it's due to the effort involved in generating the "object", that could be worked around, I think, very quickly with some generic pregnancy code.

[Anonymous]

some generic pregnancy code.

>craft semen ovum
You can make a cherubic, blue-eyed angel out of that.

>craft semen ovum
You set to work screwing.

>
You badly mix the baby batter, salvaging only a life-ruining brat in the process.

[Angela Christine]

I would like to see a good selection of examples for expressing virtual children.  I've seen 'em here and there, like that Vivaduan with the little redheaded kid a couple years ago, but I'd like something a little more concrete than, "we've seen people be wildly successful in emoting their existence."  What did they do, exactly, that lead to their wild success?

Not that I plan on breeding anytime soon.  I'm not a kid person.

AC

[John]

Whenever a baby is stolen, Imm support is going to be needed to ensure the baby is "in the room" and what virtual people are looking after it.  But I guess Imms figure that amount of involvement is easier then having to create baby objects that only get eaten.

My opinion on the matter is, I'd rather see PCs infertile and incapable of spawning at all. Let kids be the kids of virtual people

Well that's missing out on a lot of roles. True, most people I've seen RP having children terribly, but to completely refuse to EVER have children limits you from a whole range of characters.

[Ayashah]

Thank god, now I never have to fear my PCs child being kidnapped!

Nix that.  

I had a pc with a virtual baby that the imms made into a object for a plot for a kidnapping that was going down. heheh Nothing like getting an IM with "what did your baby look like"

This happened RL years ago, so I dont think that's too much IC info.

[Carnage]

We can only pray for a ban on child characters next.

[player of child character]

We can only pray for a ban on child characters next.

Weren't you complaining about "elitist crap" on the other thread?

[Carnage]

Weren't you complaining about "elitist crap" on the other thread?

Right. Are you trying to say that personally disliking child characters and making sarcastic references is an 'elitist' thing to do? I don't think you fully understand what an elitist is.

[Bestatte]

It's no more or less elitist than someone who expects players to be actively playing their characters the majority of the time they're logged into the game.

Love and kisses,
The elitist

[Stroker]

You do realize that by making that exact statement ... uhh nevermind, let the hypocrites roll. Hell, we all are.

[Carnage]

It's no more or less elitist than someone who expects players to be actively playing their characters the majority of the time they're logged into the game.

Do you even have any idea of who or what I was referring to in that thread or are you just making wild guesses? It seems like the latter.

[Brixius]

Are any of you actually going to post on the topic or is it pretty much
down to a series of flames?

Brix.

[Stroker]

I think we all know the answer to that one.

[sarahjc]

I don't know.. No baby objects does not bother me..I never had the need for a baby object and actually learned how to emote better becuase of not having a baby object..

I would go as far as to say that I had a huge success without the baby object.. It did annoy me that everyone would look at my character to see if I had the baby object, but all and all it wasn't too bad. I mean making the baby do all sorts of stuff without actually having the object wasn't that big a deal. Infact most people new my kids name and others would interact with it easily..



I think the only time one would really be needed is if someone was planning it to be taken, stolen, kidnapped.

But you could emote that too.. just be creative people.. It's much more fun and less work.

Baby objects.. I say Bah..overrated

[Bakha]

For the person wanting to know how some of the techniques that Sanvean referred to in her post that allow you to get around the lack of baby objects:

Effective use of the drop command is one such technique. I've seen lots of people do that. For example.

drop ball being played with by the bright, blue-eyed boy
giving:

A red ball is here, being played with by the bright, blue-eyed boy.

[spawnloser]

Personally I think the lack of baby items is fine.  It will prevent people from becoming savage cannibals.  *roll eyes*

[tortall]

I personally am in favor of baby objects. I mean, how else are they going to tell what the baby looks like? It doesn't have a desc! I have to tell every single person what it looks like, when they could tell just from looking at it. Plus it's a pain in the butt to type out the sdesc I made for it every time. :-)


-Tortall, who has had 4 babys, but always died before she got the objects.

[sarahjc]

Its a baby..I think a short description works fine..

The bald, green eyed infant..

And oohh Look how easy you can change that to:

The black haired, green eyed infant

And oohh Look how easy you can change that to:

The spunky black haired, green eyed Toddler.

Perfect example of making it a living breathing game world person..

:As me pulls at the arms of his tiny blue silk jacket, the bald, green eyed infant struggles to get free, puffing his chubby cheeks in frustration.

Drop bottle gripped tightly in the hands of the bald, green eyed infant..

Look

A small red bottle is here, gripped tightly in the hands of the bald, green eyed infant.

There are two perfect examples of bringing an Vnpc to life..Not hard and I would rather see that, then look at the Main desc of a baby object that does nothing..