I made this because I don't think it belongs in the roleplaying forum.
I would like if the char creation section of the game more clearly described and ruled against subjective words in a sdesc.
And for players to try an not use them as well.
What is subjective you ask?
Well, Let me state, this does not apply to a special app where you were able to go outside the norm.
Otherwise, ANY word that describes actual height or weight is subjective. Aside from things like, normal, average etc, because, Unless you have a spec app your PC is inside the norm for the race chosen. You really are not a Tall human, you are on the tall side of the average is all. Of course since most people take max height, that is not exactly true either. :)
Half-giants, You are not Titanic, Massive, Gargantuan towering etc...to other half-giants you are in fact, average, to other races, Hey, we already know you are all of the above because of these two words which are in your sdesc HALF-GIANT. Same applies to elves, Yes, you are thin, we know that, your an elf, but you are average for an elf.
Etc Etc
Now, describing body "Style" Thats fine, Dumpy, rangy, sinewy etc.
And really, I start this thread because staff does not really want me to file a complaint on subjective PC/NPC. As that would be several dozen a week, sometimes a day.
Besides, picking things that actually set your PC apart will help out on some of these other arguements having to do with sdescs.
I usually assume that sdesc terms are relative to race. A gigantic half giant being larger than the average half giant, etc.
Quote from: Marauder Moe on December 01, 2010, 05:18:21 PM
I usually assume that sdesc terms are relative to race. A gigantic half giant being larger than the average half giant, etc.
I do the same.
I only really take issue with it if it is not true (they aren't tall for their race, they aren't old for their race, they show beauty subjectively, etc).
What Nyr said, and the others. Whenever I see true subjectivity in an sdesc or desc, I change it or reject it. We're pretty rigorous about it, and we see a LOT of it.
Its pretty normal to use things like size in terms of what it is being described. I'm a lot taller and heavier than a cat, but I can still call one 'that big, fatass cat.'
I've never run into anything truly subjectice like 'the gorgeous man.' That would be bad.
A truly subjective sdesc or desc imposes an opinion upon those that read it. Putting "tall" into even a dwarf sdesc is fine if the player is picking the maximum height for a dwarf. Putting "tall" into an elf sdesc and picking the minimum height wouldn't work though.
QuoteI only really take issue with it if it is not true (they aren't tall for their race, they aren't old for their race, they show beauty subjectively, etc).
See now, that's the thing, unless they are spec app, they are NOT tall for the race. They are in fact inside the average range not outside it. I'm 6' 200lbs, I am not tall or heavy for a human, Andre the giant was, Manute Bol was. But they are outside the norm.
To restate, I have no problem with somebody having the towering human, IF that human is outside the norm and really is past 78 inches tall. But if they are inside the 10 inch allowable range in chargen...
I mean hell, I'm 12 inches taller then my wife, So, yes, I'm taller, but the words Lofty, Towering etc still do not apply.
And I never even brought up how it looks when somebody outside the race is looking at them. Play the HG and look at the towering gargantuan man, he pulls his hood up and suddenly it is the tiny and thin hooded figure.
Then, as is stated in another thread. How exactly does the HG describe that guy if all he saw was the sdesc? Because to him, even with the hood down, that guy is no bigger then any of the other tiny beings.
And again, the max height for a dwarf in chargen is not the max dwarf height, it is the max average which is what is allowed without spec app.
And taking tall as a sdesc word on a min height elf, Well, why not, he is tall compared to humans and dwarves, Or a majority of the population. He might not be tall for an elf, but he is tall. It does impose an opinion inside the race and outside.
Also, my OP was and is still more suggestion then otherwise, it is less then creative IMO to go Hey, it is a HG, so he is big...checks the interweb, Oooh, Gargantuan!
Yes, We know, HG are huge massive beings, it says so in the docs, how about giving me something to work with?
One of my fav HG descs ever was the bushy-haired red-skinned half-giant. Another great one, The billowing black haired elf. That gave me something to work with, We know elves are tall and skinny, you don't have to tell us that after a stint on thesaurus.com.
I'm not sure where to start on this one, but I think the first thing to do is "dispellus preconceived-notionus."
Height ranges are the height ranges. The extremes are short and tall. Someone special apping shorter or taller is also short or tall for the race--just in an even more pronounced fashion.
Same with weight.
As for your hypothetical HG, it sounds like a fun situation in which to be involved.
Quote from: Marauder Moe on December 01, 2010, 05:18:21 PM
I usually assume that sdesc terms are relative to race. A gigantic half giant being larger than the average half giant, etc.
Grammatically speaking, adjectives are in the frame of reference of the noun they modify rather than any sort of absolute scale.
I don't expect "a tall glass" to be taller than a man, nor even "a towering glass". Why then would an adjective used to describe a dwarf be subject to different rules?
The descriptors for 'figure in blank cloak' are subjective because 'figures' dont have an assumed average height like 'man,' 'woman', 'elf' etc. do.
Dispellus all you want, So, your saying that ALL zalanthus races are so uniform that the average height is a 1 inch range?
Or that people any amount shorter then you IRL are Minute, Tiny, Small, and people any amount taller then you count as Lofty, Towering, etc?
Oh, and if that is the case, maybe put it in the docs, I've gotten quite different answers from OLs in the past.
And Moe, that is even more subjective, A tall glass could in fact be the name of the glass type not the actual size first of all, second, what you call a tall glass and what I call a tall glass would be totally different, even if we are the same height.
AND, EVEN if you go with the inside race argument. It still remains subjective. If Somebody says Moe is 6 foot tall and says he is a tall guy, and 6' is the max, if another 6 footer looks at him, is he still tall? According to code he is in fact...Not. Hood up, no tall, assess, nope, not there either.
EDIT
I wish to clarify again, this thread, at least for me is more in the range of a suggestion, to help out in making interesting sdescs where we have something to work with, or as Nyr said, be creative or rearrange wording IG when describing people to others in voice or the way.
With maybe a little peeve on HGs, because I'm never going to describe a HG in game as titanic, Gargantuan, Hulking, Massive or any of the other commonly used HG sdesc words. I mean really, at that rate all HGs have the same sdesc and should be named Amos.
He isnt tall as a figure with a hood, because the observer has no frame of reference. He is a tall man, however. Just because the taller fellow can say the other is short in reference to himself, does not make him a short man.
The desc is 'the tall man,' not 'the man taller than you, who codedly isnt.'
X-D, your arguments are making subjectively little sense. Ha ha, joking, right.
Tall, short, thick, gargantuan, etc. are adjectives to describe a certain size of a PC or NPC's race. They're not subjective because they describe nouns with with a difinitively assigned range of values.
Since races have those height and weight ranges, those closer to either extreme can be called tall/short, thick/thin, or any of the other descriptive terms. That is because they're being compared by their size and shape in relation to the median values for other creatures of that race.
Your semantical debate about the "tall glass" is pretty moot as well. There are no races called "tall humans" or "short dwarves." All races, with the exception of half-giants and half-elves, are simply that: humans, dwarves, elves, etc.. Since there are objects called "tall glasses" then your independent statment about them makes sense, but doesn't apply to racial description.
If I'm tall and I look at someone else who is the the same height, we don't stop being tall... we're both tall.
My only real issue with the subjective descs is when they're innacurate. Like..the tall elf, who is codedly shorter than average, but the player figured since elves are tall, it'd be okay to use tall as a keyword in his sdesc. He's not a tall elf. He's tall, for a humanoid, but as elves go, he's short.
Or the towering human, who is an inch taller than smack-dab in the middle. Okay so she's a little taller than average. But she's not towering. She's not really even tall, for a human.
If it's the same race, and the coded height doesn't coincide with the described height, then it's just flat out incorrect and should be fixed, and the imm should've asked the player "do you want your coded height adjusted, OR do you want to pick a different keyword for your description?" and rejected the app until the player made a decision.
Weight is harder to determine, because someone could be very skinny, but weigh more than average because they picked max height, and only "just below" average weight. Proportionately, they'd end up pretty skinny. Or they might say they're fat, but weigh less than average. But that's just because they're really short, and have skin-and-bone arms and legs, with all their bulk in rolls of fat on their back and belly.
Thing is though, the information should all coincide. The mdesc, sdesc, and coded stats should provide a "fair" interpretation of what the person looks like. If part of it is clear enough, but not perfect, then okay - it's off a bit, who cares. But when one part is in total opposition to the other part, then it becomes a roleplay problem.
The tall glass was a joke on my part, a bad one but still. What IS a tall glass. If I pull 6 out of my cupboard between 3 and 9 inches tall, which is the tall one? And what if my neighbor has six more all between 8 inches and 16 and he brings them over?
Totally subjective.
Now, Joe is taller then me, by an inch, Yes, between the two of us that does in fact make him the tall man. But If we are the same height and the only two in the room, does that still make him the tall man? Sure, we might both be taller then the norm in a larger group, but at that point and place we are not tall or short. All of these and others are in fact subjective, they might be subjective inside a race but subjective none the less.
Now if Amos is the black haired scarred man, These are not subjective, Black remains black and scars are scars.
The one-eyed sinewy man is not subjective, he has in fact 1 eye, assuming the person looking at him can count, and even if he cannot count the number of eyes remains the same. Sinewy describes a build type that might be a tiny bit subjective but over all anybody no matter the size or build will agree on the type.
And to go on with Lizzie, At what point, even inside the race do they become tall? If I'm 6' and everybody else is taller then me, then I am in fact the short guy. Now, Joe is 6'1, I am shorter then him, so he is not the short guy, so he can pick the tall guy, Meanwhile Mike is 6'2", he is also not the short guy, so he also picks the tall guy. Etc Etc on to 6'10" Amy Who, because everybody is shorter then her picks the tall woman. Now, even if you go, well hey, 6'5 is the middle, so nobody under that can pick the tall guy as a sdesc, Does that mean that 6'5"+ all get to pick the tall guy as Sdesc, and if so, does that make them equal? From an RP standpoint it all seems rather silly to me.
"Tall" isn't defined by just the people in the room at the moment, though. YOU'RE BOTH STILL TALL.
Quote from: Marauder Moe on December 01, 2010, 06:46:11 PM
"Tall" isn't defined by just the people in the room at the moment, though. YOU'RE BOTH STILL TALL.
As compared to what? And if so, are we still if somebody taller arrives?
What if your looking at us from 50 feet away and the only point of reference you have is the tree next to us which is half our height? But you get to within 3 feet and find out the tree is 12 inches tall, are we still tall?
Tall, short, fat, thin etc are comparative terms IE, subjective.
Quote from: Marauder Moe on December 01, 2010, 06:46:11 PM
"Tall" isn't defined by just the people in the room at the moment, though. YOU'RE BOTH STILL TALL.
And when those tall people go to a picnic sponsored by the National Gigantism Foundation...
those tall people will be considered short by everyone else there. Not just average, but short. They're only tall, in comparison to certain other people. Fact of the matter, is in some cultures, they'd be considered incredibly tall, not merely "tall." If they're in Japan, they'd stand out in their tallness. At that picnic, they'd stand out for their shortness, not their tallness.
Tall is completely and totally relative to whatever/whoever is doing the measuring. As such, "tall" and "short" are pretty meaningless keywords for sdescs because the value of their height is completely dependent on the people who observe them.
Your scenario would make sense if those two men were the only in existence, or if they knew of no other men. In the latter case I just mentioned, the objective description would be 'tall men.' Whatever they decided in the room would be subjective to their situation.
Ugh. I'm leaving this thread.
::)
Quote from: Feco on December 01, 2010, 06:53:41 PM
Your scenario would make sense if those two men were the only in existence, or if they knew of no other men. In the latter case I just mentioned, the objective description would be 'tall men.' Whatever they decided in the room would be subjective to their situation.
Objective? How can comparing be objective? Without a point of ref then they can be neither tall nor short. Something can only be tall relative to something else. But if that something else can be different heights then it becomes subjective.
Quote from: Lizzie on December 01, 2010, 06:53:11 PM
Quote from: Marauder Moe on December 01, 2010, 06:46:11 PM
"Tall" isn't defined by just the people in the room at the moment, though. YOU'RE BOTH STILL TALL.
Tall is completely and totally relative to whatever/whoever is doing the measuring. As such, "tall" and "short" are pretty meaningless keywords for sdescs because the value of their height is completely dependent on the people who observe them.
Bye Moe!
Yes.
I can look at a tree and say that it's tall. However, it may be a short tree.
Again, it's 'the tall man', not 'taller man than you.' Different things.
Comparative descriptors are not subjective, nor are they objective. Of the three, two are allowed in descs and sdescs: comparative and objective.
http://www.armageddon.org/general/races.html <- This doc describes exactly what is meant by "short" and "tall" as each race has a height range associated with it. This doc does not cover the rare person (mutant?) born with dwarfism or gigantism, in which cases the person special apping such a character would likely be using a word or phrase like "midget".
QuoteMost humans stand between 68 and 78 inches in height
So "the tall, <adjective> human" is closer to 78 inches (that's 6 feet, 6 inches, or 198cm, which is certainly tall by our standards on Earth), perhaps over that if we're talking about a special app.
QuoteAll elves stand between around 75 and 96 inches in height
So "the tall, <adjective> elf" is closer to 96 inches... and so on and so forth.
References to height and weight about a Zalanthan race in a desc or sdesc are relative to those ranges in the documentation, not the observer... unless the observer has to then describe the person he saw, then they would have to know how their height compares to his or her own, instead of just parroting the sdesc.
This is not at all a big deal if you can assess and describe or imagine PCs in a sufficient manner.
Quote from: Feco on December 01, 2010, 07:07:18 PM
Yes.
I can look at a tree and say that it's tall. However, it may be a short tree.
Again, it's 'the tall man', not 'taller man than you.' Different things.
Same thing. If he is shorter then me then he is not the tall man, he is the short man.
And Yes Cutthroat, but not the point I'm really trying to make before the derail on definition of subjective.
Yes, Amos is tall compared to the average as long as he is over the middle point, but it still remains subjective on all counts first of all. Secondly, A SDESC is supposed to be the things about your PC that stand out at a glance.
QuoteThis is not at all a big deal if you can assess and describe or imagine PCs in a sufficient manner.
And that is much of my point, in most cases the use of subjective words in a sdesc gives me nothing to work with.
Your PC being 2 inches taller then the ones around him is really not going to stand out much, No matter if you use the word tall or something with 28 letters meaning tall. It is less then creative and gives the players around you little to work with or imagine.
Same applies but 10 fold for other races, The Towering massive half-giant is here...Hey Look, an average half-giant, I mean really, that SDESC literally means Big and tall. The strapping titanic half-giant is here, Hey look, ANOTHER big and tall half-giant.
I mean really, I enjoy that many of the people arguing (wrongly) On what subjective is are the same people who usually want to push for creativity.
Even worse when staff allow people with karma to get away with things like Brute...twitch...What does brute look like anyway? But ignore that, that is another thread as well:)
COME BACK MOE!
My dispel failed.
I see this is going to be a thread with one side saying "I can see how this is reasonable" and the other side saying "nuh uh! It isn't! Let me show you!"
I don't know that you can out-reasonable anyone that has the argument "x is not acceptable to me" when your position is "I don't see much of a problem with it."
Also, what Cutthroat said, and the last thing Moe said. Ya'll take care, now.
Less subjective, more seductive plz
If it's of any consolation, I just had an app rejected for being rejected.
Quote from: Case on December 01, 2010, 07:51:07 PM
Less subjective, more seductive plz
The long-legged, f-me female.... Oh wait..."long" is subjective. *facepalm*
(http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/4809/92972704yu6.jpg)
This is "the giant, fat housecat."
Unless I'm grossly misinterpreting what you're saying, by your reasoning, if I were standing in the room with it, it would be the "short, light housecat," because I'm mutch taller and much heavier than it.
I'm not seeing how that makes any sense.
Quote from: X-D on December 01, 2010, 07:19:52 PM
Quote from: Feco on December 01, 2010, 07:07:18 PM
Yes.
I can look at a tree and say that it's tall. However, it may be a short tree.
Again, it's 'the tall man', not 'taller man than you.' Different things.
Same thing. If he is shorter then me then he is not the tall man, he is the short man.
No. He is short compared to you, but tall when compared to all men. That means you are both tall compared to all men. I realize that is repeating what has already been said, but apparently it bears repeating.
Three people are placed into a room. Their heights are 64, 77, and 78 inches. You're the last one.
64-inch-guy thinks: Wow, those other two guys are tall!
77-inch-guy thinks: Har... Cutthroat said there would be three people in here, not two and a half.
Would you, 78 inches tall, think
These two guys are short.
or
That one guy is short, but that other guy is tall, almost like me.
Quote
And Yes Cutthroat, but not the point I'm really trying to make before the derail on definition of subjective.
Yes, Amos is tall compared to the average as long as he is over the middle point, but it still remains subjective on all counts first of all.
The problem is you're still assuming "tall" is according to your perspective. That would be subjective, but that's not at all the point of a sdesc.
Quote
Secondly, A SDESC is supposed to be the things about your PC that stand out at a glance.
An unusual size would stand out at a glance, as would other unique features. The concept of an sdesc isn't perfect, and it's impossible to describe a person with accuracy and in good detail with only 35 characters to work with. It is more than likely that players are trying to get basic facts into their sdesc which they can expand upon in the mdesc.
QuoteAnd that is much of my point, in most cases the use of subjective words in a sdesc gives me nothing to work with.
You have the entire mdesc, which will surely have objective descriptions in them (his hair is green, his skin is blue, et cetera) as well as more comparative descriptors.
Quote
Your PC being 2 inches taller then the ones around him is really not going to stand out much, No matter if you use the word tall or something with 28 letters meaning tall. It is less then creative and gives the players around you little to work with or imagine.
Same applies but 10 fold for other races, The Towering massive half-giant is here...Hey Look, an average half-giant, I mean really, that SDESC literally means Big and tall. The strapping titanic half-giant is here, Hey look, ANOTHER big and tall half-giant.
Perhaps many PCs could be tall, but there are also NPCs and vNPCs, so yes, they would "stand out". As to creativity, you're probably right. But sometimes it isn't easy being creative with an sdesc, and the mdesc provides a lot more space for a player to really get creative about how their PC looks.
Quote
I mean really, I enjoy that many of the people arguing (wrongly) On what subjective is are the same people who usually want to push for creativity.
I don't see how those two groups are related, nor do I see the problem in arguing about the actual concept of subjectivity when the OP barely demonstrates an understanding of the manner in which words like "tall" are almost always, if not always, used by players in sdescs.
I can't put it much clearer than that, and I really tried.
Eh, human PCs can be up to what, 6'6"? I'd say that's well beyond average, if we're assuming the Zalanthan average is the same as the Earth average. No problem at all seeing someone with the sdesc word "towering," especially after spending Thanksgiving with a dude who was 6'7". He was, indeed, towering. Even another 6'7" man would be thinking, "Damn, that dude is tall, too." If you're beyond the norm of something, it doesn't mean you're epistemologically challenged such that you are unable to differentiate the population mean from what you experience as normal.
I'd like to add that I'm not ignoring the fact that a person who is 7' tall could consider someone 6'3" tall short. My point is that the man who is 6'3" would be considered tall if you know the entire span of human height (throwing out outliers). If you want to dispute the definition of "tall," than we need to stop arguing about this, and argue about that first.
Since we are aware of the ENTIRE range of different race's height/weight (excluding outliers), tall, fat, etc. are all fair adjectives.
Is "the tall, muscular man" the most creative, or best sdesc? No. I think it's dull and boring. That doesn't make it less legitimate.
I don't know, Is that a big fat house cat or a really small woman?
(BTW, Wow, that does "look like" a massive cat is it yours?)
Again folks, past the first few posts I'm mostly messing around with ya'll.
Though, I would enjoy seeing less Subjective (in any form) Sdescs and more, what is really interesting. After all, mdescs are not always available.
Synth, nothing at all in the docs says or even hints that zalanthus humans are in any way based on earth humans other then when it used to say they were the closest to compare.
And True Cutthroat, the point to a sdesc is to give the things that make your PC stand out from others. What would be MOST noticable about them. And I concede that if your PC is bland in every way but being somewhat taller or shorter then the ave then height might be sdesc worthy. Or other basically subjective descriptions.
But hey, what is the harm in asking people to consider other things, I mean what, is there not something like 30,000 words to choose from in the English language alone?
And wanting the section in chargen to maybe make a bit more of a push towards the less subjective or at least away from subjective or relative? I mean after all, they have found that even beauty can be measured, though I cannot use that to describe my PC.
How do you get an app rejected for being rejected anyway?
And Nyr, I'm less arguing reasonable and aiming more for preferable.
Not like it is a game breaker for me in any direction anyway.
Man, Bogre, we are so far past that.
Quote from: X-D on December 01, 2010, 05:48:34 PM
QuoteI only really take issue with it if it is not true (they aren't tall for their race, they aren't old for their race, they show beauty subjectively, etc).
See now, that's the thing, unless they are spec app, they are NOT tall for the race. They are in fact inside the average range not outside it. I'm 6' 200lbs, I am not tall or heavy for a human, Andre the giant was, Manute Bol was. But they are outside the norm.
The ranges of the normal distribution, I imagine, would be a bell curve. We are free to make short elves- those on the extreme low end of the average heights we can pick. IRL, people around or over 6 feet tall are generally described as being 'tall'. You don't have to be 6'7" to qualify as tall.
Quote from: X-D on December 01, 2010, 08:22:21 PM
I don't know, Is that a big fat house cat or a really small woman?
(BTW, Wow, that does "look like" a massive cat is it yours?)
Nah. Just Googled "big fat cat." ;D
I AM SO ANGRY AND AGREE WITH EVERYONE IN THIS THREAD.
Quote from: Zoan on December 01, 2010, 08:49:01 PM
I AM SO ANGRY AND AGREE WITH EVERYONE IN THIS THREAD.
Huh?
Doesn't lofty mean something about bearing anyway?
Ahh, yeah. Heck yeah. I was right. Anyway - if someone says lofty, I usually go with refined mannerisms or personal hygiene or something -- Square shoulders, tall posture. Something like that.
To be honest, I don't care if someone tells me that their face is common but also hard to forget. I don't care if someone says they have boobs as high up on their chest as the Shield Wall to the sky. I like reading peoples' descriptions, to see how they want their character portrayed. I'm not gonna get up in arms if a human man is 'towering' and a half-giant is 'stubby', or even if someone tells me their character is alluring.
That said, there need to be more short, Napolean-complex men in game. Please.
Quote from: Zoan on December 01, 2010, 08:49:01 PM
I AM SO ANGRY AND AGREE WITH EVERYONE IN THIS THREAD.
Zoan is correct.
Meh. It's racial perspective to me.
My titanic halfling was still one of my favorite PCs.
Woulda been mine too, assuming my PC could stop laughing long enough to fight or run away
Quote from: Malifaxis on December 01, 2010, 09:07:26 PM
Meh. It's racial perspective to me.
My titanic halfling was still one of my favorite PCs.
Did he get chopped up by a Jihaen with a subjective sdec, or was that a different halfling?
Quote from: Sephiroto on December 02, 2010, 12:01:05 AM
Quote from: Malifaxis on December 01, 2010, 09:07:26 PM
Meh. It's racial perspective to me.
My titanic halfling was still one of my favorite PCs.
Did he get chopped up by a Jihaen with a subjective sdec, or was that a different halfling?
The titanic halfling is here, fighting the diminutive Jihaen.
Wow...I really couldn't slog through all of this thread. But I'd like to comment:
I'm 6'5"...have been for years. And, while I am in no way abnormally tall, I regularly have people describe me as, "That tall guy".
In a crowd of "normal" humans, I, and perhaps two or three others, stand head-and-shoulders above the rest.
Yes, I am a tall human, and am described that way by damned near everyone.
A 3 year old little girl says to her mother in a supermarket, pointing at me, "That boy has hair."
That is, indeed, not a subjective desc. Well done, little girl.
If I ever make another PC it will be "the really tall and large half-giant"
Quote from: X-D on December 02, 2010, 02:55:32 AM
If I ever make another PC it will be "the really tall and large half-giant"
I seem to recall an anecdote where someone made "the tall, skinny elf," botched a pickpocket and ran off, and then a few minutes later had a templar in his head demanding that he turn himself in.
"Yeah, Lord Templar, it was the tall, skinny elf that tried to pick my pocket!"
Doesn't really bother me and I think someone's still tall, even if someone else is taller.
Quote from: hyzhenhok on December 02, 2010, 03:11:48 AM
Quote from: X-D on December 02, 2010, 02:55:32 AM
If I ever make another PC it will be "the really tall and large half-giant"
I seem to recall an anecdote where someone made "the tall, skinny elf," botched a pickpocket and ran off, and then a few minutes later had a templar in his head demanding that he turn himself in.
"Yeah, Lord Templar, it was the tall, skinny elf that tried to pick my pocket!"
Anyone who submits a character with the sdesc "the tall, skinny elf" deserves whatever nonsense comes their way.
There's technically nothing wrong with "the tall, skinny elf" even if it is highly likely there are more descriptive possible sdescs than that, and the person that chose it just tried to screw around with us. It can be argued that it's intentionally deceptive if the elf isn't particularly tall or skinny compared to all elves.
An actual problematic sdesc would be something like "the hairless dwarf" or "the pointy-eared elf"... those are actual features that virtually all members of that race possess, therefore the adjective could be removed from those sdescs and they would still have the same meaning. I doubt sdescs like that get approved at all.
That's a nice, nuanced point you bring up there. The question is whether, in the heat of the moment, the average player will reach the conclusion that "this is an elf who is tall and skinny, even for an elf," or the conclusion that "this is an elf who is tall and skinny, like every other elf."
However, given the vast number of sdesc descriptors that are available to the player, I would be immediately suspicious that the choice of these descriptors was intentional, and intended to make the character in question as nondescript as possible. After all, if all you have in your sdesc is "tall and skinny," the mdesc that goes along with it can be exceptionally ambiguous, without technically violating any rules.
I've changed my mind, my next PC will be "the fat man" He will be one tenstone over the min.
My first character was "the tall, thin elf"... facepalm
Quote from: X-D on December 02, 2010, 09:36:45 AM
I've changed my mind, my next PC will be "the fat man" He will be one tenstone over the min.
You can be obese and still weigh less than the mean for the population if your height is also substantially below the population mean.
And another thing - while we're on the whole thin/fat subjective comparative:
Does it bother anyone else that you can't pick medium weight?
Most of the time, I really want my characters to be medium. Not slightly heavier, or slightly lighter, than medium. I want average height, average weight. Just average. But when you pick human, chargen gives you 7, 8, 9, or 10 ten-stone as options. A stone is similar to a kilogram. A kilogram is a little over 2 pounds.
So - a ten-stone would be somewhat higher than 20 pounds, probably around 25 pounds, rounded to the nearest 5.
Seven 10-stone would be 175 pounds. 8 10-stone would be 200 pounds. 9 would be 225 pounds, and 10 would be 250 pounds.
That's a pretty significant difference in proportion, from one ten-stone to another. So if I want my character to be in the middle, that'd be 212.5 pounds. Round it up to the nearest FIVE..because everyone knows 5 pounds doesn't make that much of a dent when you're looking at someone who weighs 200... and you're talking 215 pounds.
But that isn't an option. I can weigh either 200 pounds, or 225 pounds. Bigger than middle, or smaller than middle. Middle-weight is not an option. I'd like to have that extended. Maybe..just add another number to one end: your human characters can now range between 6 and 10, with 8 being smack dab in the middle. Or, from 7-11, with 9 being right in the middle.
In summary, I want the option to pick an middle-weight character.
Quote from: Lizzie on December 02, 2010, 11:34:52 AM
So - a ten-stone would be somewhat higher than 20 pounds, probably around 25 pounds, rounded to the nearest 5.
Seven 10-stone would be 175 pounds. 8 10-stone would be 200 pounds. 9 would be 225 pounds, and 10 would be 250 pounds.
Your math is significantly off.
One kilogram is 2.2 pounds. A ten-stone is 22 pounds, not 25.
6 ten-stone = 132 pounds
7 ten-stone = 154 pounds
8 ten-stone = 176 pounds
9 ten-stone = 198 pounds
You still can't pick a precisely middle weight, and it would be nice to have greater extremes available without special app, but heights and weights are very tied into the code so it's not an easy-fix situation. You can, however, special app for heights and weights outside the normal range.
Nah, I just want to be able to pick something in the middle. I wouldn't ever special app just to get someone overly tall or overly short for their race. I don't special app anyway. Not my thing.
I once successfully apped: the petite, jewel-eyed half-giant. Poor ol' Tiny did the biggest double-take; it was glorious.
(Edit: Oops, I've already bragged about this. Classy.)
If 'tall' were too subjective, then what about other descriptors like muscular, curly-haired, broad-shouldered, heavily-tattooed, brutally-scarred, wide-eyed, buxom, big-eared, bushy-eyebrowed, right? All of those terms describe qualities that each exist on some kind of continuum.
Should read the entire thread before replying.
I've never used tall/short etc in an sdesc but I have stated in my mdescs that the PC is short/tall and so on.
Quote from: flurry on December 02, 2010, 01:02:39 PM
If 'tall' were too subjective, then what about other descriptors like muscular, curly-haired, broad-shouldered, heavily-tattooed, brutally-scarred, wide-eyed, buxom, big-eared, bushy-eyebrowed, right? All of those terms describe qualities that each exist on some kind of continuum.
All those examples are suggestive of a certain style or even personal opinion. But are less on the subjective side. None of them really require that you think of them as relative to. Cept for maybe curly-haired which has a quite definite set., having curls, the form of coils or ringlets and so is not subjective at all.
Also, none of them, cept maybe tattoos and scars have coded backing. Which is why I stuck with only height and weight in my examples. IE, Code backed subjectivity.
Also my complaint was against redundant descriptions as well. The skinny elf, the bald dwarf, the giant half-giant, the round-eared human. Even if you spent time in thesaurus.com to pretty it up the massive half-giant is still just the giant giant. The lean elf is still the skinny elf etc etc etc.
Of course some people might think this is a good idea because at least then if you are the type that does not use exact sdesc words when describing somebody you can truthfully state, Oh, what did the murderer look like? He looked like a half-giant...Huh, can you say more, No, he was Big and tall...well, all half-giants are big and tall...Yup, like I said, he looked like a half-giant.
Then to add in, the staff does not have good rules on the subject. If you try and app the hairless dwarf it will be turned down because all dwarves are hairless. If you app the colossal half-giant (which I've seen) You are good to go, even though all half-giants are colossal. If you app the burly dwarf you will get it, though all dwarves are burly. shrugs.
Lastly, Hey, least if I see the brutally-scarred big-eared man I have something to work with in getting some kind of picture. sdescs with more subjective terms simply give me nothing to work with, And honestly, if I cannot "see" the PC in my mind by sdesc, I am unlikely to interact much with them, not that I avoid them, but they don't stick so I don't remember they exist to interact with.
From now on I am only special apping pcs. All pcs will be outside the normal height or weight range. My sdescs will include words like biggest, and shortest. It's gonna be awesome.
Alright, revamp, Not the fat man, the slightly fat man.
A GDBer and her friend sit down at a bar. The GDBer says, 'I have a boyfriend now.' The friend asks, "Oh yeah? Is he hot or not?" to which the GDBer answers, "Yes."
Quote from: X-D on December 02, 2010, 08:28:48 PM
Alright, revamp, Not the fat man, the slightly fat man.
I don't think I've ever seen an adverb in an sdesc.
Quote from: hyzhenhok on December 03, 2010, 12:50:07 AM
I don't think I've ever seen an adverb in an sdesc.
Same.
the horribly-scarred man
the well-tanned elf
the amply-endowed woman
the very tall figure in a dark, hooded cloak
Quote from: Synthesis on December 03, 2010, 03:53:53 AM
the horribly-scarred man
the well-tanned elf
the amply-endowed woman
Nope. Those are hyphenated, compound adjectives. And not comparable to X-D's example, you'll note, because the adverbs are modifying verbs, not adjectives (thus creating the compound adjective). They act as a single adjective. In fact, you could argue they are
more precise than most adjectives.
The comparable example would be the semi-well-tanned elf, or the moderately-amply-endowed woman, which no, I haven't seen.
Quote
the very tall figure in a dark, hooded cloak
Code generated figure sdescs are adjusted by the observer's relative height and weight. This makes sense because absolute height & weight become relevant when your comparative base (their race) is not readily apparent. For player-written sdescs and mdescs there are rules about your race being apparent, so this isn't comparable.
Quote from: X-D on December 02, 2010, 05:47:48 PM
Then to add in, the staff does not have good rules on the subject. If you try and app the hairless dwarf it will be turned down because all dwarves are hairless. If you app the colossal half-giant (which I've seen) You are good to go, even though all half-giants are colossal. If you app the burly dwarf you will get it, though all dwarves are burly. shrugs.
Just thought I'd chime in here.... Sure, all half-giants are colossal-- but it's very well possible for one half-giant to be physically more imposing than another.
So in a relative sense, a half-giant
can be colossal.
True with any dimension of size with most any race....
But dwarves?
There's no real way to be any more or less hairless than another.
I think this thread has progressed far enough that I don't feel too bad with this potential derail.
I wish sdescs weren't allowed that only had eye color. If you want to be the hunch-backed, pymlithe-eyed man ... fine.
But when it's just the pymlithe-eyed man, it drives me crazy. I know this is something that beginners often do, so I do try my best not to let it bother me.
Flailing his hands in excitement, the acne-covered, gangly youth exclaims in sirihish:
"Sarge! I saw someone fleeing the scene of the murder!"
A hint of relief in his voice, the scarred, slump-shouldered man says in sirihish:
"Well, speak up, private, what did he look like?"
Excitedly, the acne-covered, gangly youth exclaims in sirihish:
"He had pymlithe-colored eyes!"
The scarred, slump-shouldered man eyes the acne-covered, gangly youth for a moment.
With a deep sigh, the scarred, slum-shouldered man asks in sirihish:
"Anything else? What was he wearing? Was he big? Small? Fat? Skinny? Tattooed?"
Bouncing up and down on his toes, the acne-covered, gangly youth exclaims in sirihish:
"I didn't get a good look, Sarge! I just saw his eyes! Staring right at me, like. Shouldn't we go look for him?"
Rubbing a hand slowly down over his face as he shakes his head, the scarred, slump-shouldered man says in sirihish:
"You can head to drills now, private."
Quietly, his voice cracking as he turns to go, the acne-covered, gangly youth says in sirihish:
"I'll never forget them eyes, Sarge. Beautiful they was, and haunting. I could have gazed into thems forever ..."
I have to agree with Thunk...and funny example too.
Q, Yes, I know, many people have stated, But he is big compared to other half-giants.
My point is, NOBODY ELSE would notice.
Look
The gargantuan sky scraping half-giant is here
The short skinny half-giant is here.
Both raise hoods.
The gigantic and obese figure is here.
The gigantic and obese figure is here.
Assess Gargantuan
He is more then three times your height and many times your weight.
assess skinny
He is more then three times your height and many times your weight.
Sure, Gargantuan could be max HG size and Skinny could be min, but to beings outside that race, for all intents and purposes, they are some big fucken half-giants of basically equal size.
So, saying how massive your HG is, is redundant at best, same for saying you have a thin elf or bald dwarf or round-eared human.
And even inside the race, Come on, even a min weight HG is not going to think a max weight HG is Gargantuan.
Skinny HG looks at Gargantuan, assess gargantuan
He is somewhat taller then you
he is somewhat heavier then you.
Thats is specially funny/annoying when your playing a human around middle size and you see another human, The massively obese man.
Assess obese
He is the same height as you
He weighs slightly more then you
ooc Dude, you should get your sdesc changed to the slightly pudgy man...Oooh
writes that down
PC idea
the man with a little baby fat
And this really breaks your game? I mean, do you really get annoyed when you see that in game? Did you ever actually see two half giants of vastly different heights raise their hoods? Why don't you bug all the 'petite' NPCs that a tall character has to look up at?
X - D, you're being sort of petty with this.
To humans, a dog is small. But we can tell the difference between a big dog and a small dog.
So srsly, you're being a little petty.
Quote
The gargantuan sky scraping half-giant is here
The short skinny half-giant is here.
Both raise hoods.
The gigantic and obese figure is here.
The gigantic and obese figure is here.
In that case, the figure is gigantic and obese compared to you, and indeed, both half-giants are far larger than you even if one half-giant happens to be short and skinny compared to all half-giants.
While you would say "NOBODY ELSE WOULD NOTICE", I would say it is very possible for a few characters to see different descriptions of the half-giants' height and weight when they "assess", and that this example
Quote
Assess Gargantuan
He is more then three times your height and many times your weight.
assess skinny
He is more then three times your height and many times your weight.
Would only happen under specific conditions. In the case it does happen, tough noogies - the "gigantic and obese figure" is something the code creates to tell you there is a hooded or masked thing in your view that is far larger than you are. If the short and skinny half-giant lowers his hood to reveal that he is indeed a half-giant, then you would be able to see that his weight and height are unusually low for half-giants. Keep in mind that this figure could be virtually anything, even if you would be inclined to guess that it is a half-giant.
Also,
Quote from: X-D on December 01, 2010, 08:22:21 PM
Again folks, past the first few posts I'm mostly messing around with ya'll.
It's getting really hard to take these new points you keep bringing up as if they were things you were actually concerned about, although it seems like you are.
Sheesh, you guys seem to think I'm upset or something.
And 7, you are doing like so many, comparing apples and racecars.
Can I tell which is the 20lbs dog and which is the 100lbs dog, Yup.
Can you tell the 7500lbs elephant from the 8,000lbs elephant? I very much doubt it.
What annoys me, is the invisible line where double standards for sdescs begin to apply or not. There are tons of 'grims', 'stalwarts' and 'sombers' out there...But get a little creative with tossing in a 'laconic' or 'saturnine' and it gets shut down with a direction to the help file. It seems inconsistent.
Quote from: X-D on December 04, 2010, 12:47:04 PM
Sheesh, you guys seem to think I'm upset or something.
And 7, you are doing like so many, comparing apples and racecars.
Can I tell which is the 20lbs dog and which is the 100lbs dog, Yup.
Can you tell the 7500lbs elephant from the 8,000lbs elephant? I very much doubt it.
Touche. Shuddup.
Quote from: Clearsighted on December 04, 2010, 12:56:03 PM
What annoys me, is the invisible line where double standards for sdescs begin to apply or not. There are tons of 'grims', 'stalwarts' and 'sombers' out there...But get a little creative with tossing in a 'laconic' or 'saturnine' and it gets shut down with a direction to the help file. It seems inconsistent.
RE: Saturnine
Not only is it subjective, but it's mildly anachronistic, highly subjective, and has more to do with lead poisoning than actual 'gloominess'. I would not approve it. I would let it sit in the queue for someone else to look over. Because I -have- seen such pcs, and I feel that it is NOT something I want to help add to the game BECAUSE of the way fact that there's a good reason the help file was given as a reference.
RE: Laconic
I would outright deny that. If you look it up, the reference there is someone terse and of few words. You can't tell that just by looking at a person. Period. That would be like having something in mdesc or sdesc along the lines of 'thoughtful' or 'lazy'.
I can see the weight difference between the ten pound cat and the twelve pound cat.
Quote from: Anaiah on December 04, 2010, 01:07:19 PM
Quote from: Clearsighted on December 04, 2010, 12:56:03 PM
What annoys me, is the invisible line where double standards for sdescs begin to apply or not. There are tons of 'grims', 'stalwarts' and 'sombers' out there...But get a little creative with tossing in a 'laconic' or 'saturnine' and it gets shut down with a direction to the help file. It seems inconsistent.
RE: Saturnine
Not only is it subjective, but it's mildly anachronistic, highly subjective, and has more to do with lead poisoning than actual 'gloominess'. I would not approve it. I would let it sit in the queue for someone else to look over. Because I -have- seen such pcs, and I feel that it is NOT something I want to help add to the game BECAUSE of the way fact that there's a good reason the help file was given as a reference.
RE: Laconic
I would outright deny that. If you look it up, the reference there is someone terse and of few words. You can't tell that just by looking at a person. Period. That would be like having something in mdesc or sdesc along the lines of 'thoughtful' or 'lazy'.
Still think you're on a slippery slope with a whole lot of other subjective words allowed in all the time. And I assure you saturnine has more ot do with 'gloominess' than lead poisoning. lol.
I'm not denying its subjective, tho. But in the same way that 'towering', 'grim', 'somber', 'stalwart', or 'titanic' is. Hell, I once saw someone described as 'sanguine'.
All the lead comment did was show me the first response was to look it up in some online dictionary.
So here you go:
–adjective
1.
sluggish in temperament; gloomy; taciturn.
2.
suffering from lead poisoning, as a person.
3.
due to absorption of lead, as bodily disorders.
You'll notice that 'gloomy, taciturn' is number one. The lead poisoning example, I don't think, anyone knows. Saturnine has a rich literary history.
EDIT: So you know, in dictionaries, words are numbered based on their prevalence of usage. You don't add them up, and go like, 'well gee, lead is mentioned twice, at 2 and 3, but gloomy is mentioned once at 1, so lead must be more common!'. Cause honestly, that online dictionary, where I'm assuming you found it, cause it's the first one that came up under 'google' is the only time I've seen saturnine mentioned in the context of lead. Other dictionaries put it as thus:
1.
Born under or being under the astrological influence of the planet Saturn.
2.
Gloomy or sullen in disposition.
3.
Having a sardonic or bitter aspect.
Quote from: Clearsighted on December 04, 2010, 01:16:40 PM
Quote from: Anaiah on December 04, 2010, 01:07:19 PM
Quote from: Clearsighted on December 04, 2010, 12:56:03 PM
What annoys me, is the invisible line where double standards for sdescs begin to apply or not. There are tons of 'grims', 'stalwarts' and 'sombers' out there...But get a little creative with tossing in a 'laconic' or 'saturnine' and it gets shut down with a direction to the help file. It seems inconsistent.
RE: Saturnine
Not only is it subjective, but it's mildly anachronistic, highly subjective, and has more to do with lead poisoning than actual 'gloominess'. I would not approve it. I would let it sit in the queue for someone else to look over. Because I -have- seen such pcs, and I feel that it is NOT something I want to help add to the game BECAUSE of the way fact that there's a good reason the help file was given as a reference.
RE: Laconic
I would outright deny that. If you look it up, the reference there is someone terse and of few words. You can't tell that just by looking at a person. Period. That would be like having something in mdesc or sdesc along the lines of 'thoughtful' or 'lazy'.
Still think you're on a slippery slope with a whole lot of other subjective words allowed in all the time. And I assure you saturnine has more ot do with 'gloominess' than lead poisoning. lol.
I'm not denying its subjective, tho. But in the same way that 'towering', 'grim', 'somber', 'stalwart', or 'titanic' is. Hell, I once saw someone described as 'sanguine'.
All the lead comment did was show me the first response was to look it up in some online dictionary.
So here you go:
–adjective
1.
sluggish in temperament; gloomy; taciturn.
2.
suffering from lead poisoning, as a person.
3.
due to absorption of lead, as bodily disorders.
You'll notice that 'gloomy, taciturn' is number one. The lead poisoning example, I don't think, anyone knows. Saturnine has a rich literary history.
EDIT: So you know, in dictionaries, words are numbered based on their prevalence of usage. You don't add them up, and go like, 'well gee, lead is mentioned twice, at 2 and 3, but gloomy is mentioned once at 1, so lead must be more common!'. Cause honestly, that online dictionary, where I'm assuming you found it, cause it's the first one that came up under 'google' is the only time I've seen saturnine mentioned in the context of lead. Other dictionaries put it as thus:
1.
Born under or being under the astrological influence of the planet Saturn.
2.
Gloomy or sullen in disposition.
3.
Having a sardonic or bitter aspect.
If something is the color of blood, sanguine is hardly a slippery slope. Stoutly built and robust are the first things mentioned which have to do with stalwart - which are very definite observable physical characteristics. Somber would depend highly on the context - such as one with somber silver eyes (dull silver), as opposed to silver eyes, or grey eyes. Grim is highly subjective, as is somber. I can't recall seeing anyone titanic recently. And yes, when you are at the maximum range of height, towering is an apt descriptor. When it comes to it, it's not a slippery slope. It's not a case of one thing will lead to another to another. It's a case of creativity and each individual application not only being unique, but subjective, and judged against a (somewhat) lenient set of criteria in order to encourage creativity to flourish. Because unlike some other muds, you don't just choose all the one word options for physical characteristics and have them block-formatted into an automatic description. And so long as there is more than one staff (and, with staff being human, even if there WERE only one member of staff) judging the applications, there are going to be certain amounts of slack, and given the alternate options, I think that's pretty okay. That said, if it's a case where you can't see their actual description - I would say you probably didn't get a good enough look at them to identify them too well. I'm done with this thread now. Take it where you want.
Quote from: X-D on December 04, 2010, 12:47:04 PM
Sheesh, you guys seem to think I'm upset or something.
And 7, you are doing like so many, comparing apples and racecars.
Can I tell which is the 20lbs dog and which is the 100lbs dog, Yup.
Can you tell the 7500lbs elephant from the 8,000lbs elephant? I very much doubt it.
Perhaps. But when half-giants have features very similar to humans, except more exaggerated (just paraphrasing what's in the docs), you would suspect that lighter half-giants actually have features to differentiate themselves from heavier ones, just like people do (chubbiness of cheeks, number of chins, width of limbs, muscle definition, etc).
(For the record, I don't think you're angry, I just question if you really believe what you're posting at this point, since before you suggested you were playing Devil's Advocate.)
Quote from: Clearsighted on December 04, 2010, 01:16:40 PM
Quote from: Anaiah on December 04, 2010, 01:07:19 PM
Quote from: Clearsighted on December 04, 2010, 12:56:03 PM
What annoys me, is the invisible line where double standards for sdescs begin to apply or not. There are tons of 'grims', 'stalwarts' and 'sombers' out there...But get a little creative with tossing in a 'laconic' or 'saturnine' and it gets shut down with a direction to the help file. It seems inconsistent.
RE: Saturnine
Not only is it subjective, but it's mildly anachronistic, highly subjective, and has more to do with lead poisoning than actual 'gloominess'. I would not approve it. I would let it sit in the queue for someone else to look over. Because I -have- seen such pcs, and I feel that it is NOT something I want to help add to the game BECAUSE of the way fact that there's a good reason the help file was given as a reference.
RE: Laconic
I would outright deny that. If you look it up, the reference there is someone terse and of few words. You can't tell that just by looking at a person. Period. That would be like having something in mdesc or sdesc along the lines of 'thoughtful' or 'lazy'.
Still think you're on a slippery slope with a whole lot of other subjective words allowed in all the time. And I assure you saturnine has more ot do with 'gloominess' than lead poisoning. lol.
I'm not denying its subjective, tho. But in the same way that 'towering', 'grim', 'somber', 'stalwart', or 'titanic' is. Hell, I once saw someone described as 'sanguine'.
All the lead comment did was show me the first response was to look it up in some online dictionary.
So here you go:
–adjective
1.
sluggish in temperament; gloomy; taciturn.
2.
suffering from lead poisoning, as a person.
3.
due to absorption of lead, as bodily disorders.
You'll notice that 'gloomy, taciturn' is number one. The lead poisoning example, I don't think, anyone knows. Saturnine has a rich literary history.
EDIT: So you know, in dictionaries, words are numbered based on their prevalence of usage. You don't add them up, and go like, 'well gee, lead is mentioned twice, at 2 and 3, but gloomy is mentioned once at 1, so lead must be more common!'. Cause honestly, that online dictionary, where I'm assuming you found it, cause it's the first one that came up under 'google' is the only time I've seen saturnine mentioned in the context of lead. Other dictionaries put it as thus:
1.
Born under or being under the astrological influence of the planet Saturn.
2.
Gloomy or sullen in disposition.
3.
Having a sardonic or bitter aspect.
Allow me to place this in simple terms. Bite size terms, if you will, for those who are obviously getting something stuck in their craw.
"sluggish in temperment" Subjective because it denotes mood, and actions.
"gloomy" Subjective because it denotes mood, and actions.
"taciturn" Subjective because it denotes mood, and actions.
"Born under..." Saturn doesn't goddamn exist.
"gloomy" Please see above.
"Sullen in temperment" Subjective because it denotes mood, and actions.
"having a sardonic..." Subjective because it denotes mood, and actions.
Towering annoys me.
Sanguine is completely legal.
Grim is borderline, but closer to usable than subjective... I've seen people IRL who look grim all the time, even when laughing.
Somber pisses me right off.
Fuck Stalwart... even though I think I may have played one.
Titanic, yep, I played a titanic. I direct you to the dog portion of this thread. He was freakin 'uge for a halfling.
Rich literary history or not, saturnine has no damn place in Armageddon, along with a whole host of other words.
The fact of the matter is that it is up to staff, and staff alone, to determine where that line is. If they say something crosses it, respect them. This game exists because of the time they spend to maintain it, and the money they put into the server maintenance and connection.
And don't get me started on fucking laconic.
That damn word has NO place in a goddamn sdesc. Ever.
Quote from: Malifaxis on December 04, 2010, 02:05:23 PM
Quote from: Clearsighted on December 04, 2010, 01:16:40 PM
Quote from: Anaiah on December 04, 2010, 01:07:19 PM
Quote from: Clearsighted on December 04, 2010, 12:56:03 PM
What annoys me, is the invisible line where double standards for sdescs begin to apply or not. There are tons of 'grims', 'stalwarts' and 'sombers' out there...But get a little creative with tossing in a 'laconic' or 'saturnine' and it gets shut down with a direction to the help file. It seems inconsistent.
RE: Saturnine
Not only is it subjective, but it's mildly anachronistic, highly subjective, and has more to do with lead poisoning than actual 'gloominess'. I would not approve it. I would let it sit in the queue for someone else to look over. Because I -have- seen such pcs, and I feel that it is NOT something I want to help add to the game BECAUSE of the way fact that there's a good reason the help file was given as a reference.
RE: Laconic
I would outright deny that. If you look it up, the reference there is someone terse and of few words. You can't tell that just by looking at a person. Period. That would be like having something in mdesc or sdesc along the lines of 'thoughtful' or 'lazy'.
Still think you're on a slippery slope with a whole lot of other subjective words allowed in all the time. And I assure you saturnine has more ot do with 'gloominess' than lead poisoning. lol.
I'm not denying its subjective, tho. But in the same way that 'towering', 'grim', 'somber', 'stalwart', or 'titanic' is. Hell, I once saw someone described as 'sanguine'.
All the lead comment did was show me the first response was to look it up in some online dictionary.
So here you go:
–adjective
1.
sluggish in temperament; gloomy; taciturn.
2.
suffering from lead poisoning, as a person.
3.
due to absorption of lead, as bodily disorders.
You'll notice that 'gloomy, taciturn' is number one. The lead poisoning example, I don't think, anyone knows. Saturnine has a rich literary history.
EDIT: So you know, in dictionaries, words are numbered based on their prevalence of usage. You don't add them up, and go like, 'well gee, lead is mentioned twice, at 2 and 3, but gloomy is mentioned once at 1, so lead must be more common!'. Cause honestly, that online dictionary, where I'm assuming you found it, cause it's the first one that came up under 'google' is the only time I've seen saturnine mentioned in the context of lead. Other dictionaries put it as thus:
1.
Born under or being under the astrological influence of the planet Saturn.
2.
Gloomy or sullen in disposition.
3.
Having a sardonic or bitter aspect.
Allow me to place this in simple terms. Bite size terms, if you will, for those who are obviously getting something stuck in their craw.
"sluggish in temperment" Subjective because it denotes mood, and actions.
"gloomy" Subjective because it denotes mood, and actions.
"taciturn" Subjective because it denotes mood, and actions.
"Born under..." Saturn doesn't goddamn exist.
"gloomy" Please see above.
"Sullen in temperment" Subjective because it denotes mood, and actions.
"having a sardonic..." Subjective because it denotes mood, and actions.
Towering annoys me.
Sanguine is completely legal.
Grim is borderline, but closer to usable than subjective... I've seen people IRL who look grim all the time, even when laughing.
Somber pisses me right off.
Fuck Stalwart... even though I think I may have played one.
Titanic, yep, I played a titanic. I direct you to the dog portion of this thread. He was freakin 'uge for a halfling.
Rich literary history or not, saturnine has no damn place in Armageddon, along with a whole host of other words.
The fact of the matter is that it is up to staff, and staff alone, to determine where that line is. If they say something crosses it, respect them. This game exists because of the time they spend to maintain it, and the money they put into the server maintenance and connection.
Meh. Point is just that alot of annoying and stupid borderline shit gets past, but /my/ annoying and borderline shit doesn't. :P
I once got rejected on stygian then saw it on another PC two months later, I'm still upset about that one, because since then I've seen it at least 4 more times.
And on HG's, maybe you can tell the difference of the few tenstone difference in HG size, but is it really enough to qualify as making them Gargantuan compared to others? Or for that matter would one that is min actually qualify as petite compared to the others?
And aside from that, my statement that the use of such words does not tell you anything about how the HG looks, other then it looks like a HG, BIG.
As to the other words that are on the fence, I admit, in the past I've gotten some past staff that very likely should not have made it :)
If I remember correctly, there's something like a 4-foot playable range for half-giant height. So yeah, you should be able to tell the difference between one that's 10ish feet tall vs. one that's 14ish.
Man, if I talk about weight, somebody has to use height to argue against it. Makes for long threads but does make me wonder about some of you. My watermelon is bigger then your Golf ball!
I don't think they should be using extreme spectrum words like: titanic, gargantuan, obese, etc... If their height/weight was higher/lower than the normal range, then I think it would be fine.
I don't see problems with skinny elves, tall half-giants, because then I can say, "Oh hey, yes, it was tall/skinny even for a HG/skinny."
Quote from: X-D on December 04, 2010, 05:43:41 PM
I once got rejected on stygian then saw it on another PC two months later, I'm still upset about that one, because since then I've seen it at least 4 more times.
And on HG's, maybe you can tell the difference of the few tenstone difference in HG size, but is it really enough to qualify as making them Gargantuan compared to others? Or for that matter would one that is min actually qualify as petite compared to the others?
And aside from that, my statement that the use of such words does not tell you anything about how the HG looks, other then it looks like a HG, BIG.
As to the other words that are on the fence, I admit, in the past I've gotten some past staff that very likely should not have made it :)
I've had a stygian.
Quote from: X-D on December 04, 2010, 06:09:00 PM
Man, if I talk about weight, somebody has to use height to argue against it. Makes for long threads but does make me wonder about some of you. My watermelon is bigger then your Golf ball!
Yeah but your watermelon is ugly, and my golf ball can gain weight.
Quote from: X-D on December 04, 2010, 06:09:00 PM
Man, if I talk about weight, somebody has to use height to argue against it. Makes for long threads but does make me wonder about some of you. My watermelon is bigger then your Golf ball!
I mentioned height because you were deliberately leaving it out. It would be exceedingly unusual for someone to roll a "titanic" or "enormous" or "gargantuan" half-giant and not be on the upper end of the height range. Although really, I would suggest that, if you cannot reasonably tell the difference between a heavy and a light half-giant, when it comes to your perception of size, height is therefore the more meaningful dimension...in which case your entire argument about the weight statistic is invalid.
The best thing about this thread is, people vent, staff keep approving those apps with subjective descs. I love the GDB.
Quote from: Zoan on December 04, 2010, 07:22:58 PM
The best thing about this thread is, people vent, staff keep approving those apps with subjective descs. I love the GDB.
I love you.
I also like my 'umbral' character from like 2000.
I'm not sure if I'm proud, or shamed.
I left it out as an arguable point because I don't think I've seen any HG with a sdesc that says they are a big big half-giant that was not max height anyway, Or close to it.
The short ones almost always point it out.
I think I could tell the difference between an unusually fat elephant and an unusally skinny one, same for tall and short.
I'm fine with subjective terms so long as they are related to physical attributes that aren't related to opinion. A 'titanic halfling'? Good. A 'colossal half-giant'? Sure. A' beautiful human'? No. A 'dour/gloomy/grim person'? Not in my book. That's all I have to say.
So, this thread has just been a subjective(hehehe) argument where people hash out between one another what is acceptable and what is not in a sdesc. This doesn't do any good, that I can see, for anyone.
If you've got a problem with it, then you should state the case(this is done), and then state a solution(this is not done).
I'll start with a subjective bit, because why not, I'm a huge person in real life. I walk through a crowd and I've got broader shoulders and stand a head or more above most other people. When I see another person doing the same, I think they are big. When I see someone who comes up to my waist (sorry 5'ers out there :( ) I think they are short. Wider then me: muscular/fat, and I can see a bean pole or wiry person just as well as the next. As a final thought, almost everywhere I go, especially when meeting new people or in idle conversation, the phrase, "Wow you're tall" is repeated often.
Writing my own sdesc, I do not think 'immense' or 'towering' would be inaccurate. 'The towering, blond-haired man' would be a fine written cue to make people think of me.
Now on to the problem of the thread.
I've had PC's with stygian(I generally agreed with how the staff member rejecting it handled the situation. Stygian is an un-zalanthian word) and towering (max height for race character) rejected. I saw a towering PC spawn literally, in the same room as me, as I did, out of chargen. assess -v = he's as tall as you. I felt just a tad miffed, and a tad of hilarity in the event.
So, rather then start a GDB thread that won't go anywhere, unless suggestions on how to handle the issue are offered, I sent a mail asking what's up with that. Moral of the story: different staff, different opinions on what's acceptable, and in a far wider range of topics then sdescs. If you have a problem with something you see in game, send in a request(this is the solution, by the way).
There are other possible solutions, such as developing a DB populated by senior staff-acknowledged unacceptable words to check sdescs against, but really, the cost/benefit in such undertakings seems disheartening, at best, and there will still likely be grandfathering to an extent.
So yeah. See a problem, send word along.