Quote from: "Naiona"Feel is in place exclusively for emotions.  If you are hoping for a hidden emote command, you would probably have more success advocating fora hidden emote command rather then insisting on using feel for other then what it is intended.

There are multiple reasons in game that the feel command is coded the way it is, and it functions perfectly for what it is intended.  What you are looking for is something altogether different.

I'm for leaving feel as is. But I think we could remove "feeling" from think.

Why not kill two birds with one stone and allow slight gestures to be expressed via think?

For example is:

think (eyes flickering nervoulsy to entrance of the tavern) Oh boy....

Really so wrong? I think it would work pretty nicely. I mean you could easily sub in:

think (nervous, his eyes flickering to entrance of the tavern)  Oh boy...

By why place the limit on it? I love the command as is, and use it all the time, and like I said this isn't really that big a deal, but from a purely stylistic point of view, I would love if we weren't tied to the "feeling" prefix for thinks.

Because it gives other PCs no chance to catch those small gestures of yours. You could just as easily play it out as:

>pem eyes flicker to the entrance of the tavern.

>think (nervous) Oh boy...

Quote from: "HaiWolfe"Because it gives other PCs no chance to catch those small gestures of yours.

My thoughts exactlly.

QuoteFeel and emote are the same format command.

This is false, though. Emote does not put any limitations or imposed phrases into the sentence, save your own sdesc, which you can move around. If emote placed the word 'Moving' at the beginning of every emote, then they would be the safe format.

That aside, I can understand why the Imms would be hestitant to let it be set up to be used essentially as a hidden emote feature. I'll survive either way.

But as was mentioned above, the fact you have to start with "Feeling..." doesn't really stop you from using this 'hidden emotes'.

Quote from: "Naiona"Feel is in place exclusively for emotions.  If you are hoping for a hidden emote command, you would probably have more success advocating fora hidden emote command rather then insisting on using feel for other then what it is intended.

There are multiple reasons in game that the feel command is coded the way it is, and it functions perfectly for what it is intended.  What you are looking for is something altogether different.

*falls upon his knees* Then I beg of you, please give us a hidden emote command.  I love using hidden emotes (currently, in my foolishness, using the 'feel' command) to further describe the mental and physical effects that are taking place with my characters. Examples follow:

You feel your ribs cracking under the weight of the kank that has fallen upon you.

You feel your blood boiling, the searing pain flowing through your veins as the poison takes hold.

Yellow dots dance across your vision as you stagger back from the blow of the half-giant's club.

A sense of dread permeates your body as the templar glares at you, causing your heart to skip several beats.

Your wounds from the blades of the gith burn as you ride your kank hard across the desert.

Perhaps a thread should be started to avoid hijacking this thread?

Quote from: "rishenko"Perhaps a thread should be started to avoid hijacking this thread?

Hijack away. A hidden emote command would be just as useful to me as changing the feel command.

Chanting in english, Moofassa says:' Hemote, hemote, hemote, hemote!'

I would love hidden emotes.

Quote from: "Moofassa"Chanting in english, Moofassa says:' Hemote, hemote, hemote, hemote!'

Didn't X-D lose the poll?  semote, semote semote

Quote from: "Lazloth"

Quote from: "Nusku"Apologies, Delirium, you're right in that feel can be used to describe anything that you would feel, be it physical or emotional. It is not for hidden emoting, as Rindan points out.

> feel the weight of your weapon on your shoulder is "okay" then?  When I read the helpfile initially, I remember it pointing to <emotion> specifically.

It's somewhat open to interpretation and motive. Your example seems fine. What probably wouldn't be fine is:

> feel the weight on your shoulders ease off as you drop your weapon

I'd break that example up into two things instead of just one. One of those is a feeling, one is a physical action. One is a legitimate target for feel, one is an emote. Does that help?

Quote from: "Nusku"It's somewhat open to interpretation and motive. Your example seems fine. What probably wouldn't be fine is:

> feel the weight on your shoulders ease off as you drop your weapon

I'd break that example up into two things instead of just one. One of those is a feeling, one is a physical action. One is a legitimate target for feel, one is an emote. Does that help?

So long as the action of lowering the weapon is also played out in an actual emote, what's the harm?

Quote from: "Nusku"One of those is a feeling, one is a physical action. One is a legitimate target for feel, one is an emote. Does that help?

It makes sense, but it's not consistent with what I see --

Reference:

Quote from: "Naiona"Feel is in place exclusively for emotions.

Quote from: "help feel"Feel    (Communication)
This command is used to express what your character is feeling. Use this as a role playing tool for the emotions your character would like to experience.

Syntax:

feel <emotion>
Examples:

> feel annoyed
> feel joyful

Was simply looking for clarification, as there's semantic variance between feeling hot or feeling the sand in his/her boots and feeling angry.  To counter what I remember spawnloser posting, a syntactical difference exists between feel and emote (namely in how to the pronoun refernence can float) and if we start to blur the line between silent/hidden emote and non- in how we portray "feelings," we run the risk of infering the staff position on semote/hemote which I don't believe was ever ratified.

A few, personal comments:

1.  Embedded feel was introduced in the hope of giving everyone a shortcut instead of mandating the use of both the feel and think commands separately.  It is not intended to be abused to perform hidden-emoting.  If its usage is terminally unclear between how feel and think work, I have no qualms about removing it entirely from think and let things stand with using both commands separately.  The reason the word "Feeling" is hard-coded into the command is because when the command is used properly, it makes grammatical sense.  I'd rather keep the shortcut, myself.

2.  Hidden emotes.  I don't care for them at all.  If you're performing a physical action, there's no reason why someone else cannot observe it.  We have skills in place for the surreptitious handling of objects and stealth so that the conditions and consequences of the action are identified and constrained.  There would be no such constraints or control for hidden emotes, which is why I remain a firm opponent to the concept.  Think and feel are the only two commands that come to my mind where they're considered IC and are not physical actions.  Perhaps that's why the shortcut is confusing/difficult to understand, because we are all used to the cool syntactical approaches for emotes and now we have to override them for think.  This offers up another good reason to remove feel from think: inconsistency.

3.  Emotions vs Physical 'feelings'.  Personally, I prefer emotions.  There's a fine line between an emote and a physical feeling so I'm willing to cut a little slack on things that seem to be borderline.  E.g. "think (overwhelmingly exhausted) That was a long ride." seems reasonable while "think (the coarseness of the sand as it sifts through your fingers) How did I end up here?" does not.  You'll note that emote parsing isn't performed on what's specified in an embedded think, further separating it from emote.

4.  Thoughts on "feel" overall.  It's new, which means we don't really have a lot of other examples to refer to and say "It'd be a lot like...".  The policy on it is still being fleshed out as we observe what comes of it and form our opinions on whether or not it would be considered "acceptable".  "Think" was less ambiguous as it can be viewed as an internal dialog.  Feelings and emotions are not so clear-cut.  Philosophers have long debated emotions / "moods" and entire schools of thought have been developed from any effort to scientifically quantify emotions.  It's an unanswered debate that philosophers will continue into the very distant future.  What this means is that expecting a cut & dried, black & white policy is probably going to end up as another "highly subjective" one and be another example of how things go.  If you stray too close to the fringes, the staff will most likely do what we usually do in similar circumstances, and try to steer you back towards the commonly accepted usage.