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..

[crymerci]

I think there are more advantages to not having a baby-object than there are in having one.  Sarahjc pointed out one: the ease in desc-changes--after all, the first years of life have the most development and changes in them.  Your Arm baby will be an entirely different thing at birth than it is 3 RL weeks later.

Another advantage is handoffs between parents and other caretakers.  If you have the baby-object, you have to actually wait to see another caretaker in order to hand it over (or leave it seemingly unattended in a home), whereas with a virtual baby, you can settle a schedule, a signal, or use a brief ooc contact to settle who has the baby when.  Then, even if your partner had the baby the last time they logged out, you can have it when you log in.

I think it also challenges your creativity to come up with different ways to describe the same thing.  The sleeping, chubby-cheeked infant, the squalling blue-eyed baby, the fuzzy-haired, one-toothed babe...these could all be the same baby without any stretching whatsoever.

I'm not anti-baby-object.  I've seen them used well, and I've seen them used poorly.  No doubt the object-less babies will be played equally unevenly.  But the salient point here, I think, is that your baby-object won't be a baby for much longer than a couple of RL months.  It's really asking something to have an object made that gets that short a usage, especially since, as Sanvean pointed out, the original object-making isn't the only imm-help you'll need.  There's crashes and junkings and all sorts of other fun ways to mess with a baby-object.

As a side-note, it's not easy to play realistically with a baby.  When I did it, I had to do all sorts of research because I don't have kids so I'm pretty clueless when it comes to what they're like as newborns as opposed to year-olds.  I had to find out all sorts of things like when they start to smile, sleep through the night, reach for things, crawl, talk, etc. etc.  And because of the way Arm time works it was a constant process: the baby that was starting to teethe one day might have four teeth a RL week later.  And don't even get me started on the math and trying to figure out just how old the baby is, anyway.  Then you have to look up low-tech alternatives for things like diapers and baby food.  

It's a big undertaking, and looking back on the babies I've seen played in the game just sort of emphasizes my dislike of all the times I saw a baby held (or brandished, heh) and then completely ignored while the player went on with their RP.  Babies don't let you ignore them.  They are smelly, loud, and inconvenient.  They do and should hugely change your character's life.  So, although as I said, I'm not anti-baby-object, I think this change is good, because it will (hopefully!) cause people to be a little more thoughtful about how their characters interact with babies, instead of just getting the uber-eq of a cute baby-object (the imm's work, not theirs) and then neglect to put in any serious thought or work of their own.

[Rindan]

I don't see how the lack of a baby object is going to make for less realistic RP of a child.  I think that there is just less of a chance for abuse.  If you want to steal a child,  you still can, you just need to be realistic about it.  There is probably no subtle way to steal a child unless a person sets the child down.  So long as it is an object in the inventory and thus in the parents hands, no subtly is going to remove it.  Now instead of pick pocketing babies, you probably need to emote the parent into giving it up.  Instead of typing get baby, you need to emote snatching it.

So long as there is a baby object, if someone steals it you can't say they didn't take it, as they clearly have the baby.  If someone types 'emote pick pockets YOUR BABY!!!1!!"  you can just type OOC Go to hell.

[Flaming Ocotillo]

I'm sure you can count on your fingers the number of truly political plots that have evolved around a baby's kidnapping.

Every other baby theft seems to be the same typical behavior for the same old reasons:

Someone wants to hurt or kill a PC in some way, but they can't find a way to do it. Too many NPC guards, the crim-code system, their PC isn't skilled enough with poison, they don't have the money to hire someone capable, they don't want to make more enemies if word gets around, etc. So what is the exciting alternative they come up with? Using a mediocre steal skill to steal a baby object, because the low amount of risk (if any) versus the massive reward of having such a valued treasure is so, so worth it. Don't have the steal skill? Just wait for a PC to leave the baby somewhere while he/she isn't logged in, and make a strike against inanimate, brainless NPC guards.. RPing that no one saw your magicker or thief steal the baby from the crib. But what if the PC and his/her baby ALWAYS log out together? That's when you can start to OOCly complain that "she's never without the baby, day and night, it's unrealistic!"... and meanwhile you think to yourself, "Yes.. I just need one shot at the baby when no one's on-line! Or at least someone with low combat skills in a non-crim room."

Come on. You've either seen it all before, or you've thought it yourself. The baby theft is almost always a cheap shot at someone using the imperfect code against someone. The people who are truly interested in seeing a baby-kidnapping for some credible reason, done the right way, aren't the ones who have anything to fear from the lack of baby objects. You already -know- that things will be arranged accordingly to fit the situation. The rest of you will eventually cope with being "unrealistically" forced into role-playing a kidnapping with the help of the staff.

[Lazloth]

Using a mediocre steal skill to steal a baby object, because the low amount of risk (if any) versus the massive reward of having such a valued treasure is so, so worth it.

I'm off this thread since further discussion is undoubtedly moot, but would add that the fix, if this is what it combats, is inane.  How difficult would it be to add one !STEAL item flag and an if-check within the steal function?  "I don't like the taste of oranges .. I won't ever eat again!"

Don't have the steal skill? Just wait for a PC to leave the baby somewhere while he/she isn't logged in, and make a strike against inanimate, brainless NPC guards.. RPing that no one saw your magicker or thief steal the baby from the crib.

And this is different from how the carbon-copy PC Zalanthan thieves act how?

The baby theft is almost always a cheap shot at someone using the imperfect code against someone. The people who are truly interested in seeing a baby-kidnapping for some credible reason, done the right way, aren't the ones who have anything to fear from the lack of baby objects. You already -know- that things will be arranged accordingly to fit the situation. The rest of you will eventually cope with being "unrealistically" forced into role-playing a kidnapping with the help of the staff.

Not everyone can bend the ear of the staff at whim.  Not all babies are political creatures that will ellicit some sort of immediate, roaring attention.  I'm guttertrash that can't see past the following week and feel like ransoming that pretty commoner's kid for seventy-five 'sid .. the girl that nurses it in the Barrel .. so I catch her with a quick stunning blow to the head, and lift the rodent in the ensuing street confusion, only to later dangle it.

*shrug*  I've never had a kid on Zalanthas, don't intend to, don't care for them, but don't see what the big deal is.

[aeshyw]

Probably not the best idea to open up another can of worms around this subject, but its made me think about something I've considered a few times before.  What if there was a 'carry person' skill?  By this, I do not mean subdue, but a skill where if PC 1 passes a strength and size check and is allowed to by PC 2, they gently lift a person and carry them around?

Its just a thought.  Babies could be NPCs and require the players who request them to jump through all neccesary hoops to create NPCs rather then just asking for a cute object to be loaded up, and the 'steal baby from mom's arms' idea gets a lot harder to do, initiating combat.

The only real huge problem I see with this are the coded limitations on size and weight for NPCs/PCs.  I personal raised a couple of NPC brats from baby objects up to adulthood and it used to give me a snicker to note they were coded taller then me at age 4.  That and a requirement to update them about once every 3 IC years as kids grows a bit ponderous but really is neccesary.

I will say that looking back on it now, having the objects made playing my character harder, and I think that's a good thing.  They were involved in some political RP and because the other characters around them took them seriously, the objects themselves became the center of more then one plotline, a couple of them brutal and cruel in true Armageddon style.

[John]

Also. Aeshyw stuffed up one time with a baby object which got me more involved in stuff which made playing that char a lot more fun It would be impossible for that to happen now since the baby objects are going to become extremely rare, but it's probably a good thing considering it was an OOC mistake

[Angela Christine]

I think it would be helpful for future breeders if some of the examples for how to manipulate virtual children were added to the pregnancy doc.  This thread will eventually die (we can hope) but the breeding will go on and on, so a "how to" section in the docs would be good.

How to express a virtual baby.
 - emotes
 - drops

How to age the baby realistically.

How to organize a schedual of activities so that you know where the baby should be and who it should be with when you are not logged in, or when you are doing something that is not baby-friendly.

I assume most large organizations would have some kind of virtual creche or nursery for taking care of small children for busy employees.  Not only would it keep a valuable employee from needing to take time off if little Amos gets the sniffles, it would also give the House a chance to impart their values into the children, making them better potential employees for the future.  If you tell the little blighters tales about how great House Moneybags is, they are more likely to want to sign up with Moneybags when they are old enough to be useful.  It wouldn't even be that expensive to set up, because you could have pregnant, nursing, or elderly slaves doing most of the baby-related dirty work.  Don't get me wrong, I think most employers would be pretty breeder friendly and not object to you taking your kid with you on duty, but some work would be too dangerous or delicate to have babes around.  You don't go scrab hunting with a baby strapped to your back ... unless it is bait.  :twisted:

AC

[spawnloser]

Lord Moneybags probably doesn't want the rugrat screaming in his ear during a nice dinner either.