I suppose I didn't really think about the implications if someone makes an ooc agreement and then just breaks it. Although I do want to say that without some level of ooc consent, even new mercy rules won't particularly help with people being so danger avoidant.

I did a couple things that kind of 'trained' me to use thinks/feels.

Firstly, early on I played in the North almost exclusively - no longer an option, really, but thinking that that Templar over there can read your mind and is quite possibly bored out of their skull always gave me a lot of incentive to have a vivid internal life for my characters.

Secondly, I love dwarves. Yep. And I like to think about my Focus. A LOT. I mean, I figure that when I, the player, am tired of hearing/listening/thinking about my character's focus, I'm probably roleplaying a dwarf pretty close to what it should be.

After those experiences, it kind of became second nature. I like to think that it was entertaining - and I recently requested my account notes after many years, and one of the notes on one of my characters is something along the lines of, 'deliciously spiteful thinks about their fellow aides'. It actually warmed my heart to think that some imm, somewhere, got a kick out of it. Whether it be an imm or a mindworm, you never know who might be watching. I just hope I enrich someone's experience of the game.

I have had these kinds of discussions IC and would prefer for them to stay that way. There is always a risk of lying, betrayal, or accident that should remain an IC action, not an OOC one. [Agreeing with Halaster, above]

However, I can just respond to "OOC: Wanna safe duel?" With "OOC: Please keep it IC."

I don't think it takes anything away from my preference to allow this for those that want it, with the caveat that it will be between those players, not staff enforced.

I would not like to see it because I think it has the potential to be misused and cause bad blood between players. You're essentially turning it into an OOC agreement and if one side decided to go against the deal or betray it, then the other party would say they were breaking an OOC rule or agreement, and it would get messy.

It also puts pressure on the other player to potentially alter their intended behavior for OOC reasons that are not, IMO, justified.

That is not, in my opinion, within the spirit of a roleplaying-required game.

I think using the OOC command to enable more and better RP is exactly how the command should be used. Personally I'd probably accept if it made sense for the personality of my character and the context, even losing in this case means your story continues and develops further, honestly a fabulous idea. Also I might negotiate if I felt the need to tweak some things.

Overall, gets a big thumbs-up from me personally.

How you feel (player OR Staff) if you encountered this IG:

You have a rival.  She thinks you probably need to be knocked down a few pegs too.

The two of you meet and chest-thumping ensues.  After things build through standard RP, they OOC you this:

OOC "I propose our characters have it out, right here right now. Here's the guidelines: Both have Mercy On.  No intentional murderizing through poison, spell or other means.  Whoever cannot continue the combat either by being knocked out or saved by Mercy must accept maiming, torture or disfigurement by the other."

OOC "Defeat may mean the removal of a limb, an eye, adding a disfiguring scar or even requiring new mdesc or sdesc, VICTOR'S choice.  You in?"


1)  Would you feel this is a reasonable use of the OOC command?
2)  Do think something proposed like this through OOC (an handshake agreement between players about guidelines for their PCS to work within) is interesting?
3)  Would you accept?  Would you negotiate?  Would "draw perraine.dagger;kill rival" instead of answering?

Whatcha think?

I always thought the tagline should reflect the gameworld actively playing out. An interesting opportunity with each season.

Armageddon Season 1:

"Shifting sands and strange skies"
"Tektolnes meat preview"
"No Muk No Cry"

May 29, 2024 (Wednesday)

Halaster
- fixed a couple of issues with various files and Makefiles so that the game will compile on a newer OS
- removed an old, outdated automatic process
- fixes to for compatibility with apartments and simraider for the new Save room flag

Ursun
- fixed a rare crash bug
- added a "where" command that shows how many visible PCs (one, a couple, a few, etc) are in each local tavern
- create internal tool for helping to find duplicate npcs
- misc bug fixes with zone saves
- another fix towards eliminating npc duplicating

Zorkbob the Inhaler
- made it so staff cannot accidentally attach the same script on the same command multiple times
- misc. staff command fixes

Quote from: Agent_137 on May 29, 2024, 06:28:12 PMThe dune stalkers were popular and had very player driven docs. I hope that if the RF ever become playable again that they adopt the cool DS interaction hooks that allow for trading, alliances, mage-hunting, and for being hired out. Otherwise the RF can only be hostile with the entire player base.

Fun fact: Dune Stalkers had trained pet gortoks. 

That sounds like a great idea for the future Red Fangs Storyteller! Thank you. 

This update makes me think I should have stayed to be involved, but I thought it was just gonna be building southern things. :-/

Good setup for the season though, and good name drops of some pcs.  But I would have liked to see additional PC names, and see the delves trot out some elven sorcery instead of just getting owned. 

The dune stalkers were popular and had very player driven docs. I hope that if the RF ever become playable again that they adopt the cool DS interaction hooks that allow for trading, alliances, mage-hunting, and for being hired out. Otherwise the RF can only be hostile with the entire player base.

Fun fact: Dune Stalkers had trained pet gortoks.