What did they look like?

[Inky]

When ever someone asks me this, I cringe in real life. I know it's easy enough to give away the sdesc of a criminal or something similar enough so that they could easily be recognized. But is that realistic? To be able to point out someone with just a few words like 'the short brown dwarf'? There would a be hundreads of short, brown dwarfs in a city state. How would someone like a templar find the exact dwarf so easily in a crowd?

I thought this was especially weak once when I was on the receiving end to this. I had a character once who was really young (3 hours max of gameplay) and who committed a single petty crime. The next day I walk in to a tavern and get grabbed by a giant by the orders of a Templar. A templar who I am sure had never seen my character before. I could be wrong, but I am 99% positive that this templar was given my sdesc.

Thoughts?

Edit: Wrong forum! Someone wanna put this in general or roleplay discussion? Thanks.

[Marauder Moe]

I agree.  Verbally describing someone by their sdesc is utterly twinkish.

The only exception being when the sdesc contains something especially unique, like two heads or rainbow-dyed hair.

[LauraMars]

What was it?  Hey!  Weird sdescs have their uses!

"The whelp looked like...a dappled...dickens."

SEE?  Even a twink would be ashamed to say those words!

[mansa]

It is solely up to you, the player, to change how interactions with other players happen.  You should never do things that you think are 'twinky' or 'cheap'.  It just strengthens your argument when you don't break your own logic.  Your example will change this game to the better.

Obviously, Templars are in a High Profile position and they are also the Highest on the Karma list.  The Player of that Templar -must of- had other information going on, rather than what you could observe or see.  The players of Templars themselves know of the toils and pains of twinky interaction to the fullest ammount possible.

Perhaps you should make an exaggerment with the next person asking you what they look like, by saying, 'They were tall, and muscular, and a man!'  That usually makes people realize that they are being silly.

[Armaddict]

I got sick of this as well.

I've started getting in the habit of trying to remember things out of the mdesc, as well as armor, clothing, or jewelry.  Tattoos are good, scars only if they're noticeable or described as being prominent.  (I don't know about you guys, but when I first meet people, I don't notice scars that much, unless they're on the face.  Even then, sometimes faint ones are just...damn hard to notice.  And that's when you're -talking- to them, not just looking at them from across the room.)

It's made it a lot harder to describe people well to people, especially after any period of time...and it's a change I like.  It feels more real.

[proxie]

I had a greatly fun and reasonably long lived character that I purposefully made to make people have to read my long description.


The petite young woman


*chortles*

She had gorgeous red hair in a huge thick ponytail down to her butt if I remember correctly, but I'd like to see someone try and describe her without reading her description.

Proxie

[moab]

I love to ask "what did they look like" with my characters.  I kinda view it as a test, a challange to the other character.

Are you going to reveal yourself as a twink by rattling off the sdesc?  Are you going to be creative and real?

Yeah. Helps me figure out who I'm going to spend time with.

[Larrath]

I virtually never use the same words from the sdesc, unless they happen to be the best words my character can come up with to describe them.  If the sdesc is "the woman with the tremendous, opalescent temboeye-hued eyes", my character would probably say she had freakish eyes that looked like temboeye gems, as long as he knew what that stone looked like.
Otherwise he'd say shiny brown eyes.

Some of the times I use clothing, tattoos or scars, and other times accents or anything else that makes sense.

My biggest pet peeve is when people use sdescs instead of names, and I try to avoid doing it myself.
It makes me want to make a character and name him Sinewy McVerytall.

[spawnloser]

I'm not too opposed to using sdesc terms...but ONLY as long as they are paraphrased...like, when talking about 'the obese, muculent man' I'd say, "He was a big fat guy, like orca fat and he looked like he'd been coated in grease!"  I mean, your sdesc is SUPPOSED to be your most defining characteristics...so if that's the things about the person that most stand out, I say use them.  Just don't use the same words...that's just lazy.

[Akaramu]

I have made it a habit to copy mdescs of people my character interacted with into a word doc. If I need to remember what they looked like later on, I'll skim over it and pick a feature or two that would have been realistically easy to remember. For example 'He was big, bald, and had a scar all over his forehead'.

If My PC doesnt see the other character again for awhile, I erase their mdesc from my sacred word document.

[mansa]

Speaking about copying and pasting full main descriptions into a txt file...

I just do it all in my head, like my character would.  I mean, unless my character had a photographic memory and could remember how many fingers and toes the dude had...

[Maybe42or54]

Well personally, I think it is fine to use words from their sdesc as those were picked, hopefully, because they are the most memorable traits.

Sometimes those traits are just normal.

Sometimes those traits glow in the dark.

So yea, normally I use a combination of sdesc, armor, and tattoos/scars to describe someone.

[Bebop]

I love to ask "what did they look like" with my characters.  I kinda view it as a test, a challange to the other character.

Are you going to reveal yourself as a twink by rattling off the sdesc?  Are you going to be creative and real?

Yeah. Helps me figure out who I'm going to spend time with.

Short Description is something I think most people choose as what they want people to notice first whenever they look at you.  What is most prominent and noticable what are people going to see first without really looking you over.  These are features that would standout most, and would most likely be most memorable.  What's wrong with using that?

To get storylines going sometimes you have to kind of be specific and players have to interact with players.  Not to mention I don't see any problem sending a clear image of said person via the way.

As for the above quote I would like to comment my own opinion that I think it's pretty bad if you are purposefully testing someones ooc opinions and deciding whether or not to play with that person based on that, I would think that would make you miss out.  But to each their own.

[Marauder Moe]

What's wrong with using that?

It doesn't actually work in real life.  That's what's wrong.

Try it.  Have someone give you a one-sentance description of someone you've never met, then go find that person.

[Bestatte]

That might not be a bad thing Bebop, but I recall seeing several PCs whose sdescs either didn't match up with their main descs, or had features in their main descs that were FAR more prominent than what their sdesc suggested.

Hypothetical examples:

the lean, tall man

in main desc it states that the man has an uber-thick neck and white eyes.

If I was to describe that man to a templar, I think the fact that he has white eyes and a neck as thick as a tree trunk would be FAR more identifiable than the fact that he's lean and tall.

Another example:

the thin, long-haired girl

whose main desc points out that she has very pale skin, which is unusual enough that most people would notice that LONG before they noticed her thin-ness, which is a typical trait of most Zalanthans.

Then there's another problem, where you have a sdesc that has nothing to do with the main desc.

the red-headed freckled boy

whose main desc doesn't even mention that he HAS skin, let along what kind of markings are on his skin. If his hood is up when a templar looks at him, the templar won't have any reason to identify this boy as being the one with freckles. Not even in broad daylight standing up close and personal.

main desc should include the same information (though not necessarily the exact same keywords) as are mentioned in the sdesc, and vice versa. And if a feature really stands out, more than anything else, then that's the thing that should be included in the sdesc, rather than just the fact that your PC is tall or thin.

If people adhered to that, then it would be almost reasonable to use the sdesc to verbally identify someone to someone else. But it isn't adhered to with any regularity, and as such it makes MORE sense to use the info in the main desc rather than in the sdesc.

[Maybe42or54]

Then maybe it is twinkish not to have your most distinguishing features in your SDesc?

[moab]

I love to ask "what did they look like" with my characters.  I kinda view it as a test, a challange to the other character.

Are you going to reveal yourself as a twink by rattling off the sdesc?  Are you going to be creative and real?

Yeah. Helps me figure out who I'm going to spend time with.

Short Description is something I think most people choose as what they want people to notice first whenever they look at you.  What is most prominent and noticable what are people going to see first without really looking you over.  These are features that would standout most, and would most likely be most memorable.  What's wrong with using that?

To get storylines going sometimes you have to kind of be specific and players have to interact with players.  Not to mention I don't see any problem sending a clear image of said person via the way.

As for the above quote I would like to comment my own opinion that I think it's pretty bad if you are purposefully testing someones ooc opinions and deciding whether or not to play with that person based on that, I would think that would make you miss out.  But to each their own.

True. I was being a bit extreme.  I'm not actually that bad.  
:-D

[Bestatte]

If it's on purpose then yeah I'd think it's twinkish. But I don't know that it's always on purpose. Sometimes you'll just run into someone who made the sdesc right away, and as an afterthought added stuff into the main desc they decided would be nifty. They might forget that they probably should go back and edit the sdesc, or it might just be an oversight on their part. And then it would be an oversight on the staff's part when they approve it. I doubt, very highly, that the staff would intentionally approve a PC where the main desc and sdesc aren't somehow linked to each other. They're all human afterall. Except for Saikun of course

[Folker]

forget it heh.

[Angela Christine]

Sometimes people just can't figure out a smooth way to mention the "most noticable" features in 30 characters.  Or they are trying to focus on features that would be noticable from accross the room no matter what clothing they are wearing -- some people won't include eyes even if they have really freaky eyes, because eyes are only really noticable close up.  I don't worry about it.

[Gaare]

That's one of two side sharp blade situations. I do not think saying exact short decs is -always- twinking or something bad similar to that.

i) Let's assume your PC had a long chat at bar with another PC. Then one or two days, later someone asked you that person. It looks funny and stupid not to have an answer. Of course either if you copy long desc and items of PCs your PC met, or have an excellent memory...

ii) You had a talk via the Way, and you are asked to describe.. well.. That is a mental image.

iii) Worst case... You see a PC occasionaly but the desc is "the ?,? woman." You do not remember the long desc as well since it was boring to read text full of "?'s" for you. There is the dilemma.

[Jarod550]

"I feel" that if there are folks searching out twinkish behavior by asking questions that will garner a in their opinion, "twinkish" responce, they are just searching for twinks.

Besides, who memorizes someone elses description, I have a character I've had for a bit, and I still am sometimes surprised when I type look figure or something and it defaults to me, takes me a second to realize it's my character.  If you were to ask me that question, I would copy and past the sdesc, no.  But I would probably say something like:

say (shrugging his shoulders slightly) The fellow was a tall guy, and had black-braided hair.

It seems like "in my opinion" I feel some of you are searching for what you consider twinkish behavior so that you can complain or try to mold people into your exact copy or mold that you choose to play.  If they aren't doing something blatently twinkish, who cares?  If my character doesn't -em nocks the arrow in his buff ass bow, aiming at a distant object.- with every shot, who cares.

"I feel" that some of you people -are- well established players, and -do- have great forms of play and emotes ect, however, some of you offer suggestions, some of you act as if it's your way or the highway.

"I feel" more emphasis needs to be spent in enriching the role playing environment and less on "You are a twink because!".  Just play the damn game..

That's my piece.

Jarod

[Larrath]

The problem isn't that people use features described in the sdesc to describe PCs.  This is perfectly fine.

The problem is that people use specific words.  There are thousands of sinewy humans with dark skin in Allanak, but codedly there are only a couple of "sinewy, dark-skinned human"s in Allanak.  Now, if you say that that person had dark skin, brown eyes and had a large triangular scar on his face, the Templar (or whoever) still has enough information to identify the character without hearing a Ding! the first time he sees "the sinewy, dark-skinned human" is standing here.

There is a reason why Arm shows sdescs instead of nicknames for the characters.  If you honestly think about it, going to a police officer and describing the attacker as "being tall, and with deep emerald eyes" is weird and unhelpful.

[moab]

Jarrod,

I feel you have never had anything positive to say about the game.

I also probably shouldn't feed the trolls, but sometimes I'm weak.  It's something I struggle with.

Edit to Add Something to keep the post topical:

I think Larrath hits it on the nose.  Don't use the exact wording of the character.  Be a little vague.  Be a little creative.  Pick out features of the character that stand out but aren't in the short desc. People are deeper than just 80 characters (or whatever the length is).

I love this:

Scene: Busy Tavern in Outpost
Person 1: You see an elf 'round here recently.
Person 2: Yeah, like forty of 'em.  Most of tall, skinny, dirty lookin'.
Person 1: Uh. Yeah. Thanks.

[Maybe42or54]

The problem is that people use specific words.  There are thousands of sinewy humans with dark skin in Allanak, but codedly there are only a couple of "sinewy, dark-skinned human"s in Allanak.  Now, if you say that that person had dark skin, brown eyes and had a large triangular scar on his face, the Templar (or whoever) still has enough information to identify the character without hearing a Ding! the first time he sees "the sinewy, dark-skinned human" is standing here.

And if they blend in so well with the normal population, it should be damned hard to find them. Even with specific tattooes, or special armor. Those had to be sold to someone else too.

[Jarod550]

Jarrod,

I feel you have never had anything positive to say about the game.

Well Moab, anything I respond to this will be considered flaming or whatever they wanna call it, so all I'll say is this, from the pms and aim messages I get every other day I play, you're opinion isn't going to sway me, there are more then enough people who enjoy my comments and agree.

Peace,

Jarod

[marko]

How I describe someone in the game is entirely dependant on the situation and the sdesc of the person being described.

If someone has a truly unique sdesc I will try and use it.  Every single time.

The reason?  Because it is so unique it is clear that someone wants their char to be described like that.  For example, if someone is as atramentous then, by golly, I'll use that to describe them no matter what character I'm playing.  After all, atramentous is the word that best describes the person and immediately comes to mind when looking at them.  Therefore, it would be an injustice not to use the proper adjective.

Of course, when dealing with the more mundane sdescs it is a matter of the situation and how much my char saw and / or cares.

A lot of times I don't bother remembering sdescs or names.  This creates some interesting times especially when asked to describe someone and you have absolutely no idea what they looked like ICly or OOCly.

[BucketheadWendi]

I happened upon this thread and it made me a little nervous. What people are saying is that if I use someone's sdesc to describe them that will be frowned on? I thought that was what sdescs and adjectives were for. I mean, uhm, let's say my char is walking down the street and suddenly a "tall, dark-haired man" jumps out and mugs her, knocking her out before I ever even have the chance to type look tall. So now if I tell someone "A tall, dark-haired man leapt from the shadows and knocked me out" that is twinkish? Or if I said "A tall man with dark hair" would that make some kind of difference? What if my character would sooner say "dark-haired" than "dark hair".  Now true, in RL if you go to the cop shop and tell the ociffer you were just mugged and he asks what the guy looked like and you tell him "He was tall, and he had dark hair." that won't get you too far but that's reality. Sure, maybe it he has a scar or two and it would help to mention that but maybe you just didn't notice. That's reality. You don't instantly take in a person's appearance and devote it to memory. I have a hard time describing life-long friends past "Yeah, he's skinny and tall." or maybe "He's skinny and tall and his hair is brown." MAYBE even his complexion if it's something to be remarked on. It has to be someone I've known for a while or care about alot for me to remember stuff like eye color, or near-exact height or other small details. This makes something like copying and pasting a desc seem twinkish, to me. I mean in RL there is no copy and paste command. You remember what you remember.
Now I'm not saying that including other things about the character wouldn't be great RP and definatley should be encouraged but it seems to me like saying that if you don't do that you're a twink is really extreme. I'm not just talking about extreme situations either. If my character is sitting at the bar drinking with a "pudgy, pug-nosed dwarf"  and someone was like, "who was that sitting beside you?" she would probably say "A pudgy little dwarf with a pug nose." or maybe "A pug-nosed dwarf, a pudgy one." or something to that effect. It sound stupid to go on like, "Well, he had brown eyes and a good tan, probably about four feet tall, bitten off fingernails, blahblahblah and oh yeah he was pudgy and pug-nosed." Now there are all types of variations on the shorter answer, "He was a dwarf, with a lil' pug nose." or "A pudgy dwarven fellow." and I might use those, but is that really too different? Really, I can't be bothered to copy and paste the desc of every char I interact with. That's just too hardcore. Does this make me a bad roleplayer? :/

[ale six]

Wendi, what you're describing is basically fine. It doesn't make a difference if you say "a pudgy dwarf with a little pug nose" or any other variation of that.

The trick is to describe somebody's most distinguishing features, not just their sdesc. These two may be the same thing (pudgy dwarf with a pug nose), or they may not be (tall, dark-haired man).

You can paraphrase a bit, to mix things up, or you can read their mdesc to see if there's anything else you could use. (After all, if the tall, dark-haired man also had purple skin, it might be worth mentioning.)

I'd go on, but I think Larrath basically hit the nail on the head.

[marko]

Does this make me a bad roleplayer? :/

No.  

[Lazloth]

If someone has a truly unique sdesc I will try and use it.  Every single time.

The reason?  Because it is so unique it is clear that someone wants their char to be described like that.  For example, if someone is as atramentous then, by golly, I'll use that to describe them no matter what character I'm playing.  After all, atramentous is the word that best describes the person and immediately comes to mind when looking at them.  Therefore, it would be an injustice not to use the proper adjective.

I'm personally of a different mindset, though I don't really worry with it too much.  I don't much care if someone uses the exact sdesc to describe another character or NPC, or completely rewords everything and peppers in references to their gear, tattooes, whatever.

However, if I'm playing a character who would never utter "atramentous" in any context, I wouldn't break his lexicon when singling out someone else.

Somewhere in the slums..
> "His hands were, well, atramentous."
> "What the hell does that mean?"
> "Uh, you know, atramentous."

[marko]

See, the way I see it, the adjective used is what the player considers to be the best descriptor of the character and would be used by everyone who sees that character.  If there was an issue with using the term in the game it wouldn't have been allowed in the first place.

Therefore, to describe someone using their most prominent traits and the words that come to mind, you need to make use of the adjective.  So as to make the point that I'm not trying to pick on atramentous  (which, for those who may not know, means "darkish" - I randomly picked a good one from a thesaurus) let's go with oleaginous this time.

If there was a character who was the oleaginous, chocolate-haired man - and I needed to describe them with any character I had, I would use each of those adjectives.  I'd probably use some other terms as well to give it some context but I'd definitely make use of the impressive adjectives.

I wouldn't be breaking lexicon because, clearly, these are the adjectives that best define the character and are the ones that come immediately to the tip of your tongue when you see the character.  That means if I had a half-giant - yup, first thing outta his mouth would be oleaginous.  Again, the wonders of the thesaurus have provided me with that gem - it means, roughly, "oily."

Yes, I'm a bit weird when it comes to using the more creative and extreme adjectives in sdescs - I can't help but use them.  If someone spends a long time seeking out the perfect word to describe their character in an sdesc then I'm going to honor them and use that word when describing their character.  

I don't see it so much as breaking vocabulary but honoring the creative abilities of the player behind the character.  If they felt the terms were the best ones to describe their characters who am I to argue with that?  Therefore, I'll describe their character as they meant them to be described.  

I had the experience of having to describe a chocolate person once in the game.  That was interesting.  

After going on about how the person was brown and kinda sweet looking my char ended up shrugging and saying,
   "Well, I guess I'd say he was chocolate... but don't ask me what that really means.  That's just the word that comes to mind."

I don't mind if someone doesn't use exact sdesc adjectives nor do I mind if someone does.  It's entirely up to the player to decide that.  If the sdesc was allowed then it the terms are acceptable to be used in the game.  I like embedding the actual adjectives in an overall description of someone but that's a personal preference.

[Larrath]

After going on about how the person was brown and kinda sweet looking my char ended up shrugging and saying,
   "Well, I guess I'd say he was chocolate... but don't ask me what that really means.  That's just the word that comes to mind."

I would throw my hands up in disgust if I ever encountered such a statement in-game.  I'm not saying this to be rude or mean, I just feel a little strongly about it.  There's no such thing as Chocolate in the Known World, and at least the vast majority of people won't know what Coffee is, either.

I don't think that repeating the exact same word in a PC's sdesc is a compliment to that player's writing abilities; in fact, I think this actively discourages using colorful words in sdescs.

If your sdesc is "the tall, muscular man", or "the brown-eyed, dark-haired man", you still have a fighting chance of escape after your exact sdesc was passed to a templar.  If your sdesc is "the sun-kissed, sienna-maned fellow", people will be all over you in two seconds.
This means that anyone who wants to be a high-profile criminal will be forced to pick the most boring, generic sdesc out there, simply to allow themselves the 'advantage'--which nearly anyone should have--of being able to melt into the crowd.

[Agent_137]

I try to take one word from their sdesc and draw the rest from synonyms of their sdesc and mdesc. For the first time I've ever seen, I think marko might be a bit off, and might be taking things too far.

[Jherlen]

Yeah, I normally agree with marko, but I can't here. Just because someone chooses an obscure word as an sdesc, it automatically becomes a word in your PC's vocabulary for describing them? I don't follow.

Sdesc keywords exist mainly so we can have unique ways to target different PCs, IMO. If we wanted PCs to be instantly identifiable, then rather than using sdescs at all we should just have people's names show up as on other MUDs. If someone has a unique sdesc keyword and everyone starts referring to him as "the chocolate skinned man", you may as well just let everyone know his name is Jimbob right from looking at him.

As Larrath said, it'll discourage unique writing if everyone is going to be tagged based exactly on what adjectives they pick in their sdesc. I'd rather people read the mdesc, pick out outstanding features, or use synonyms rather than just say "Oh, Amos? Yeah, I know him, he's the caramel-haired cerulean-eyed man."

[Inky (not logged)]

I want to clarify, my problem is not that that PC's are trying to describe anyone with their sdesc. My problem is that PC's often spot other PC's in a virtual crowd just becuase they know their sdesc.

Allow me to illustrate again using an example of law enforcement. Suppose the local authority is told that a blue eyed, baobab skinned elf is causing michief and what not. And suppose that milita is given extra information from the mdesc: such as it's gender, braided hair and one or more tattoos.

In the above situation there are several questions that might be considered, if only to maintain a bit of realism. Should the militia  recognize the elf (essentially 'knowing him by face') immediatly as the culprit once he/she just happens to be seen walking down the street/pub? Even knowing that there might be hundreads of elves (vnpcs) milling in and about the road/tavern every day? Should the militia even bother watching for an elf with such a vague description and such common traits?

Considering all of the above I would probably let the elf walk. That said, I wouldn't call it twinkish someone did pick out the elf for questioning; as long as the anonymity of a large city was considered at one point.

[Anonymous]

The problem lies in the difference in effectiveness between what the eye perceives and presenting a verbal description of the person perceived.

If you look at a person, generally you'll have an easy time recognizing that person if you see him or her anytime soon afterwards. To this extent, the sdesc system works well.

But you'd be hard put to describe that person adequately unless you specifically took notes. It's where the system breaks down; telling someone else the precise sdesc is like handing that someone a photograph of the person you're trying to describe.

All you really should be able to do verbally is describe a set of characteristics belonging to that person (at least without a police sketch artist). What I suggest here is that people give out partial sdescs. Most sdescs mention two characteristics; just recall one of them, and augment that with what you noticed in the ldesc and clothing. That way identification is a fuzzy business again. If someone has used a fancy word like "chocolate" that only one sdesc will have, replace it with a verbal equivalent like "really rich brown skin".

However, it's not so clear whether this would be true using the Way? Could you transmit an image of someone using the Way? Especially if you're looking at that person right then?

[Marauder Moe]

Here's my take on how to non-twinkishly describe someone: first, don't use obvious and obscure words from their sdesc.  People don't describe others as having emerald, cerulean, or chestnut eyes.  They say green, blue, or brown, maybe with a dark or light qualifier.  People don't describe others as barrel-chested, corpulent, sinewy, or petite either.  They say big, fat, slim, or small.  Basically, use simple words!  Don't pull out flowery adjectives you (OOCly) read in their (OOC) s/description.  Secondly, physical description is not enough.  In any given part of the city there are probably several dozen big, blue-eyed human men.  You need context to narrow it down.  Perhaps your target has a job, and thus may wear the uniform of a house.  Even so, though, each house probably also has many employees that could be the big, blue-eyed human man.  If your informant could tell you that he likes to hang out at the Bard's Barrel, then I'd say you would have enough information to justify walking up to the barrel-chested, cerulean-eyed man in the Bard's Barrel who's wearing a Salarr cloak and asking if his name is Amos.

As for the Way, I've always been under the impression that communication is verbal with occaisional emotional undertones being felt.  The only image you see is the image of the person you're talking to.  No pictures.

[BucketheadWendi]

Well, I'm just going to continue to use sdescs at least as a guideline for describing someone IC. I hope no one looks down on, but I feel like there's a pretty compelling argument for it.
What if we never see the person's mdesc or what they're wearing? Are we just supposed to pretend there was no shortdesc? The only exceptions I can find are if the sdesc uses words that your character wouldn't ICly know or understand. But if their desc is "the sinewy young man" or the "tow-headed girl" then it's totally reasonable to say that the young man was thin and muscular, or that the girl had blonde hair, doesn't it? If you don't recognize the word: dictionary.com is right there. It's alot easier than copy and pasting their whole desc. I'm not trying to say that we should never go the extra mile and include some of their other attributes, or their clothes, but that doesn't *always* seem appropriate to me. It makes sense to tell people what my character would remember about the other person. So it seems to me that it should be the player's responsibility to include their most prominent features in their sdesc. If you are a ripped male dwarf, with muddy skin and HOT PINK eyes your sdesc should not be the dwarf with muddy skin. It should probably be the ripped, pink-eyed dwarf. And it's definatley the fault of the person who runs and identifies the first tow-headed girl they see as Bambi, that person is the twink. Not the person who told them that Bambi "was a tow-headed girl". I hope this doesn't keep people from RPing with me.

[Marauder Moe]

What if we never see the person's mdesc or what they're wearing? Are we just supposed to pretend there was no shortdesc?

You're supposed to pretend your character didn't get a good look at said person.


As I said before, in real life you can't accurately identify someone after being  given only two physical characteristics (an sdesc).  In Armageddon you can, but you shouldn't.  

Unusual characteristics are the exception.  Obscurely-named colors don't count.

[BucketheadWendi]

How accurate do you get in RL? When someone asks you what your friend looks like do you start telling them "Well, he's about 6'2" with blue eyes and medium blonde to brown hair. He has a fair complexion with some redness and a light beard. blahblahblah etc." I don't know about you but when someone asks me what someone looks like I can usually just say 'Well, he's brown-haired and tall." That's an accurate enough description for off-handish conversation. Which should be suffecient for the casual inquiry.
Like I said, it's the fault of the person doing the identifying with little forethought as to RP. I shouldn't be expected to pretend I didn't get a look, when I obviously saw that he was "a tall, dark-haired man". It should be the fault of the person who makes the OOC conclusion that the "tall, dark-haired " PC is the guy that I'm talking about. I can RP not getting a good look, seeing as tall and dark-haired is pretty vague, but there's no reason that I can see why a vague description is bad RP.

[Moofassa]

This is exactly why I always use fairly simple words to describe my characters.

If someone sees a tall, dark-haired man. That's what they saw, and I'll have no complaints if someone describes me as just that. Up to the indentifier now to decide if they can pick me out of a crowd.

I think people who use ridiculously obscure adjectives SHOULD stand out in a crowd.

[flurry]

I wasn't planning to reply to this thread, but I'm seeing some opinions that really surprise me.

First of all, I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask IC what someone looks like.  People ask that all the time in RL.   Asking IC with the expectation of getting an sdesc word-for-word as an answer isn't right, IMHO.  

My first impression on reading this thread was that people are entirely too focussed on what makes someone a twink.  I think most of the time, if someone rattles off an sdesc verbatim IC, it's an inexperienced player.    Not bad.  Not twinky.   Inexperienced.   That what it seems like to me, most of the time.

I think people need to remember that an sdesc is an OOC thing.  It's a brief description of a PC by one player for other players.  It's not something PCs have any awareness of at all.  It may contain words that wouldn't make sense for most Zalanthans to use.  In some cases, it may contain words that wouldn't make sense in Zalanthas at all.

I really think that paraphrasing is a very good way to handle it.  Sometime you don't know, or don't remember, details of clothing or mdescs.  But all of us are creative people, and I don't think it's too much to ask to paraphrase the sdesc (with added and/or omitted details according to what seems reasonable).   That doesn't mean never to use the same word(s) as the sdesc.  Brown hair is brown hair.   But try as I might, I can't see the justification for using the same adjectives time after time as a rule.

And for goodness sake, if your character wouldn't know what the word means, don't have them just say the word just came to them but they don't know what it means.   :shock:   I'd hope people were joking, but I've actually seen that happen in game.  

I guess to sum up I'll just say that while the sdesc is a nice handly quick description, it's not a fingerprint.

Paraphrase, paraphrase, paraphrase.   IMHO.

[ibusoe]

Totally agree with original post.  I consider telling one player another player's straight sdesc to be twinkish.  Too busy to read rest of the posts, but I hope the discussion is going well.

[Folker]

I think people need to remember that an sdesc is an OOC thing.  It's a brief description of a PC by one player for other players.  It's not something PCs have any awareness of at all.  It may contain words that wouldn't make sense for most Zalanthans to use.  In some cases, it may contain words that wouldn't make sense in Zalanthas at all.

While most of your post is fairly reasonable. I find this portion to be at odds. If you were right, then there would be less pressure on validity of the keywords mentioned in that mdesc. There wouldnt be such any rules against ... steel-coloured hair, or the eyes of pure sea green/blue colour. etc

[flurry]

I agree with what you're saying Folker.

All I'm saying is that on rare occasions there are sdescs with terms that only make sense OOC.   Things like icy-blue or sky-blue or ocean-eyed or chocolate-haired, etc.  It's rare, but it happens.  

I'm not saying that's a good or bad thing.  All I'm saying is that those sdescs, good or bad, don't justify using those terms in game.  You might see some OOC terms in them that probably shouldn't be used IC.

[sarahjc]

Here are my two sid.

I use both if I can.  But I am also fine with using just the short desc. Lets say we are looking for bony, black haired man. Well.. you are looking for half the known world.

But.. In a conversation, if I said.. Well, he was bony, real thin like and I'm pretty sure his hair was black... Dunno remember what color his eyes were. Then I have given a few points to identify that person.  They just happen to be the short desc ones.

I don't always read a person's main desc. I most likely won't read it unless I interact with them, or they seem like someone my PC would take note of. If twenty people walk into a bar, you are just one out of twenty blended faces. I may glance at you, pick up a few key points of what you look like, and that's about it.  

I look at short descs as the quick imprint of you on my mind. We are playing a text game, so I can't pick up on other things in a short glance like I could if we were playing real life.

So if I see you walk in, then watch you run out of the bar carrying my ubersword of death, yeah, I'm gonna tag you with your short desc.

And if a Templar drags you in, and asks me to identify you, I'm going to do it by your short desc, and then take a look at you and nod and say, yeah.. that's the guy.  Because your short description does in fact identify you.

That is why you are to take a couple of key features from your main desc and put them in your short desc. Short descriptions aren't designed to "trick" people, they give a quick and dirty version of who you are. They are there as a means of quickly identifying who you are to the rest of the room.  So, as such, I think they are a perfectly fine means of describing you.

I think it's better if you can give other words that are in the main desc as well. But when you identify someone, you should be at the least using the words in thier short description or something that makes it easy to identify them by those words.

[amoeba]

RL is filled with people giving really crappy descriptions, why should it be any different IG.  So what if it describes half the people in the world?  If all you saw the was sdesc of "the  tall dark man", describe him as a tall man with dark skin, duh.  For some reason what keeps running through my mind is an ongoing skit on madtv, "He looka like a man."

[Rindan]

Personally, I think it should be a challenge to identify someone for sure.  I dislike it when a Templar shows up at a bar and snags the first blue eyed, dark skinned elf he sees with a pair of half-giants as soon as the movement lag is over based upon a description given to him by the militia.  The game is hard enough in the regards that there are only ever 20 or so people in a single area.  Specify "elf" and you have narrowed it down to less then 5 people.  Throw in the fact that there is no real way to conceal your identity and this makes it pretty trivial to find the person you want.

I use the sdesc to identify people I know.  I figure my character has a human like ability to recognize people that he has seen, and so if I have seen your sdesc, I have no problem recognizing you.  As for describing someone to other people, I do not like just giving sdescs, and I don't like other people recognizing people they don't know just by sdesc alone.

When describing someone, I think you really need more then just their physical features.  Rarely is someone so unique looking in the real world or Zalanthas that you could describe them in such a manner as to be able to pick them out from the other half a million people living in the same city as you.  The way you describe people is not only by features, but who they hang out with, where they hang out, and what their personality is.  

So, if I am going describe an elf that has been ripping people off, saying that he is the lanky, long haired elf is not enough.  I would probably say his name is Bobby.  He is a 'rinther judging from his clothing and his scrawny and lanky build.  He tends to hang out with an elf named Freddy.  He is always spiced up and always willing to sell spice.  

If your goal is to kill Bobby the elf and you then saw a 'rinther hanging out with Freddy the elf, you might be suspicious that he is Bobby.  If you saw the elf hanging out with Freddy snort some spice, you might become even more suspicious that it is Bobby.  I still wouldn't try and kill him though at this point because the description is still a little too vague to really act on.  If I walked up to the suspected Bobby the elf, and told him that I was looking for a fellow named Bobby because he might have some spice to sell me, and this elf turned around and said that he was Bobby and that he would sell me some spice, THEN I would feel okay stabbing him in the face.

Honestly, I think that people should hold a pretty high standard before taking hostile action against someone.  Sdescs like descriptions along with some other qualifiers might make you suspicious, but unless you know the person you are looking at, I would refrain from assuming that you have the right person.

If nothing else, it makes the game a little more of a challenge.  Picking out one person in twenty is trivial.  If you are talking about an elf, you are probably down to picking out just one person out of three or four.  If someone gives you a vague description that is just a list of a few physical features, I would probably consider it less then useful information in a city of a half of a million and take no action on it.

In 99% of all cases,  a physical description, regardless of whether it comes from the sdesc or mdesc simply isn't enough.  I personally would prefer people to not instantly recognize people they have never met.  If you really want to know if someone who looks like someone you might be after is your guy... go talk to him or pay someone else to do.  The game already errors massivly on the side of making it far too easy to find and reconize people.

[Lazloth]

For some reason what keeps running through my mind is an ongoing skit on madtv, "He looka like a man."

You made my day, amoeba.  Ms. Swan is the best.

[EvilRoeSlade]

I use both if I can.  But I am also fine with using just the short desc. Lets say we are looking for bony, black haired man. Well.. you are looking for half the known world.

But.. In a conversation, if I said.. Well, he was bony, real thin like and I'm pretty sure his hair was black... Dunno remember what color his eyes were. Then I have given a few points to identify that person.  They just happen to be the short desc ones.

How do three indistinct, common features give you the ability to identify someone?

The look command is used to get a good look at someone.  If you don't have time to use the look command then the game is probably simulating real life fairly well when it tells you that you don't really have a good idea of what the someone in question looks like.

To me, it doesn't seem that this attitude is compensating for the limitations of a text-based environment in order to give you a reasonable ability to identify people.  It seems that it is abusing the limitations of a text-based environment to give you an unreasonable ability to identify people.

[spawnloser]

I look at short descs as the quick imprint of you on my mind. We are playing a text game, so I can't pick up on other things in a short glance like I could if we were playing real life.

This, I think, is the important part of sarahjc's post.

You glanced at the character's sdesc, but the person ran past.  You didn't get the time to type 'l hirsute' to get anything else.  In walks someone and asks if someone just ran past, you say, "Some hairy guy with one eye?" (For the sdesc of 'the hirsute, one-eyed man')  I have no problem with this.

[Folker]

plus, look at it this way.

You can either do A and look at every single character you know to be a PC to get their full description and be a twink.

Or you can do B, and identify the people by the characteristics you got by a mere glanace, Aka ... their mdesc and be a twink.

[Rindan]

plus, look at it this way.

You can either do A and look at every single character you know to be a PC to get their full description and be a twink.

Or you can do B, and identify the people by the characteristics you got by a mere glanace, Aka ... their mdesc and be a twink.

If you lived in a small town of say 5000, you would be dealing with a population 1% of Allanak.  If someone told you that they saw a blue eyed man with black hair, a large build, and bushy eyebrows, then gathered the entire town into a single location, you still would not be able to find that person.  It is damn near impossible to give any physical description that another person could use to find another person.  Now, put yourself in Allanak with 500,000 people and consider the possibility of someone being identified by physical description alone.  Short of drawing a picture, unless that person has very very unique features, they are pretty much lost.

This isn't a bad thing.

This doesn't mean that you can't find people.  It just means that you might have to expand a little beyond throwing out the sdesc and then listing off a few details from the mdesc.  If someone told you that they saw a blue eyed man with black hair, a large build, and bushy eyebrows, and he was wearing a cops uniform in a local bar, you would probably be much better equipped to find said person.  Even then, you might engage them in conversation before deciding that this is your man.

As to how you personally identify people; a sdesc is plenty fine.  The human mind (and I assume elven, dwarf, exc) has an entire rather large section of the brain devoted to recognizing faces based upon things that you don't consciously take note of.  It is pretty safe to assume that once you have met a person, chances are you will recognize them again.

This how I play and it really isn't a big deal and is how I play.  The only thing I do differently is instead of jumping to the conclusion that I have found someone that I was told about, I engage them in conversation or observe them for a little while.

[EvilRoeSlade]

I look at short descs as the quick imprint of you on my mind. We are playing a text game, so I can't pick up on other things in a short glance like I could if we were playing real life.

This, I think, is the important part of sarahjc's post.

You glanced at the character's sdesc, but the person ran past.  You didn't get the time to type 'l hirsute' to get anything else.  In walks someone and asks if someone just ran past, you say, "Some hairy guy with one eye?" (For the sdesc of 'the hirsute, one-eyed man')  I have no problem with this.

Is there still no problem when the person who is looking for the hirsute, one-eyed man immediately grabs him out of a bar three days later?

I would say that a good place to start taking responsibility is at the beginning.

[Folker]

I'm puzzled why Rindan quoted my post. His reply was mostly on the point, but as far as I understood it, completely unrelated to the quote he used.

I mean I understand your point, I even agree with it, and you're not the first one to mention it here. But the point doesnt disagree or agree with the text you quoted in the beginning.

[Malifaxis]

Personally, I think it's kinda ridiculous when you can't get some sort of better factor for identification because some player decided his character was going to remain 'anonymous' and took the tall, blonde man or some bullshit.

To support my case, I'll use spawnloser, who always references me and never gives credit (like for the sandwich thing, bastard!)  Anyway.

SL looks pretty normal IRL.  Pretty freakishly normal except for his ferret chin.  There are a number of ways to describe him.  Here's three examples:

The blonde-haired, lanky man
The pierced, sinewy man
The ferret-chinned frenchman

ALL of these describe, accurately, spawnloser.  The first time I met him I can remember vividly.  Because he stood out?  No.  Because he, while still looking normal, isn't somehow a faceless mass.  I use these as an example because one of them is CLEARLY more memorable from a short desc standpoint.  Yet they're all the same person.

I swear I get murderous when I see 'tall, muscular men' and 'brown-eyed, dark-skinned women.'  All I want to do is make those screens go 'beep' after beating the PC repeatedly with a sword made of common fucking sense.

Your short desc is here to provide *SOME* measure of rapid identification from a distance.  That is what it is supposed to do.  I consider the anonymous desc bullshit to be borderline twinking.  Sure, great, you're normal looking... know what, that limp of yours is rememerable.  There are a hundred thousand factors that can not be transmitted by a short desc that still make your 'every day anonymous joe' into a perfectly recognizable person.

[sarahjc]

I use both if I can.  But I am also fine with using just the short desc. Lets say we are looking for bony, black haired man. Well.. you are looking for half the known world.

But.. In a conversation, if I said.. Well, he was bony, real thin like and I'm pretty sure his hair was black... Dunno remember what color his eyes were. Then I have given a few points to identify that person.  They just happen to be the short desc ones.

How do three indistinct, common features give you the ability to identify someone?

They don't, but I would have picked up more than that just by noticing him come into the bar. I may emote glancing down the bar to someone and not do a Look <person>. Does this mean that I have missed every other feature they have on them? Does that mean that if I see them suddenly go up in a puff of smoke and disappear, that I wouldn't be able to identify them again, should I see them?

The point is that the short desc identifies you. To me, it is a quick glance at your face and me picking up your most notable features/attributes.

I look at short descs as the quick imprint of you on my mind. We are playing a text game, so I can't pick up on other things in a short glance like I could if we were playing real life.

This, I think, is the important part of sarahjc's post.

Yes. That –I- could identify you if I saw you again. Now for an example, lets say I see  the tall, bland described man floating into a bar.  I call a templars head and say, There is this bland described guy floating around in the bar.  By the time the templar gets there Mr. Bland has left and the templar asks me what he looked like.

I say well, I don't really know all to well, he was sort of bland and tall, real plain looking, I didn't get that good a look. Templar says Ok, goes out and then finds a tall, bland described guy sitting at a bar down the street and arrests him.

I don't think that is wrong at all, but I would expect the templar to at least call me in to identify him, because my description of that fella was so vague.  

So in short, I think that a short desc is enough for me to point a finger at you, but unless it's a really extraordinary one, I don't think it's enough to identify a person second hand.

[Agent_137]

I like this train of thought. I'll sum it up for my own uses, and anyone else can take or comment as they like.

1. If you see some one's sdesc, you are allowed to recognize them in the future if you see their sdesc again, regardless if you saw the mdesc or if they have no distuingishing features. This is due to the innate human ability to recognize faces.

2. Unless they have wildly distuingishable features, one should not finger somebody out of a crowd based purely on a second-hand description. Bring in the original person to identify the guy (like a line up) or have better information. So if some one tells you there's a tall man with green eye's who's a magicker, and then that person dies, you might be suspiscious of every tall man with green eyes, but you sure as fuck won't be arresting and killing every tall man with green eyes. There are too many virtually.

3. Thus, in the future when asked to describe somebody, if all you have is an sdesc, you'll be the only one who can actually finger the person.

I like it! Very realistic and appropriate. Gives criminals a fair shake, and realistic, and doesn't hurt playability overall. Fantastic.

[Rindan]

They don't, but I would have picked up more than that just by noticing him come into the bar. I may emote glancing down the bar to someone and not do a Look <person>. Does this mean that I have missed every other feature they have on them? Does that mean that if I see them suddenly go up in a puff of smoke and disappear, that I wouldn't be able to identify them again, should I see them?

The point is that the short desc identifies you. To me, it is a quick glance at your face and me picking up your most notable features/attributes.

I think people are arguing in parallel.  I don't think anyone is really suggesting that if you see a person's sdesc, you can't recognize them again by their sdesc.  

Humans are simply good at recognizing faces they have seen before.  There is an entire section of the brain devoted entirely to recognizing people you have seen before.  There is a reason why you can utterly forget what someone looks like and be completely unable to describe them, but still instantly recognize them if see them.  Recognize people you know however you want, sdesc, mdesc, whatever.  For this reason, it is nice when people have something distinct about their key words so that you can recognize them from the other tall dark, haired men.

Yes. That –I- could identify you if I saw you again. Now for an example, lets say I see  the tall, bland described man floating into a bar.  I call a templars head and say, There is this bland described guy floating around in the bar.  By the time the templar gets there Mr. Bland has left and the templar asks me what he looked like.

I say well, I don't really know all to well, he was sort of bland and tall, real plain looking, I didn't get that good a look. Templar says Ok, goes out and then finds a tall, bland described guy sitting at a bar down the street and arrests him.

I don't think that is wrong at all, but I would expect the templar to at least call me in to identify him, because my description of that fella was so vague.

I personally find this a little irritating.  Having a Templar pile into a tavern with a dozen half-giants and subduing the one poor bastard non-descript elf is overkill.  It is one thing if the victim is with the Templar and can point the poor bastard out.  It is another to simply spam walk between the only two places in a city where PCs can expect interaction and doing a key word search.

Honestly people, it really and truly is okay to ignore someone you know OOCly is the man you want.  RPing a little bit of investigative skills isn't going to result in the end of the world.  You live in a city of a few hundred thousand.  The Gaj probably has over a hundred people in it at any one time.  If you really want to find someone, do more then enter the room, do an sdesc check, and then spam subdue.

So in short, I think that a short desc is enough for me to point a finger at you, but unless it's a really extraordinary one, I don't think it's enough to identify a person second hand.

Amen.

[marko]

All of this is fine and dandy but we're still stuck within the confines of a text-based game.  An sdesc is more than just a three word description of someone it is the encompassing description of someone as best we can decide within the limitations of a text environment.

An sdesc covers all aspects of the prominent features of a character including those not necessarily stated.  We play within the limitations of text and thus we make allowances.

Some people may not want to use sdescs to identify people.  That's fine.  That's your call.  But, please, do not start thinking that this is the only "right" way to play.

If you want a templar to verify that so and so is the right mark - that's great.  Kudos to the templars that do that.  And, conversely, kudos to the templars that don't bother and indiscriminately pick anyone that resembles the description - that is a templar's prerogative.

For whatever reasons and purposes of my own characters there will always be a chance of being able to point someone out in a crowd based on a second-hand description.  This is not a bad thing, this is not improper play, this is not wrong.  This is working within the limitations of a text based environment and making acceptable allowances without going to an extreme.

If someone is said to be the green-eyed man that means this person's green eyes are the major feature.  There may be thousands of green-eyed men but there aren't thousands of them who's eyes are their most distinguishing feature.

There may be thousands of tanned individuals but, again, there are not thousands of individuals who's tanned skinned in the _prominent_ and distinguishing feature.

I commend those who wish to introduce uncertainties to describing people.  That's great.  That's fine.  That's wonderful... when it makes sense.  But do not begin to look down or fault others who include the adjectives in their retelling of a description or those who act on such information.

Let's not move to an extreme when the middle ground is so much nicer and enjoyable.  Live and let live.

[spawnloser]

Everything marko said is good.

Also, to expound on the point I was trying to make that didn't seem to get across...

If I saw you, I'd notice a LOT more about you than just that you are a 'tall, blue-eyed man' or whatnot.  There's so much more I would see, but when playing this game, things can move by fast enough that you don't get the chance to look at someone's mdesc...which still won't mention all that there is to notice about that character, just what was included by the player of that character.

Since we work within the confines of limited information, we must use the information given to us by the players around us.

[Angela Christine]

If you lived in a small town of say 5000, you would be dealing with a population 1% of Allanak.  If someone told you that they saw a blue eyed man with black hair, a large build, and bushy eyebrows, then gathered the entire town into a single location, you still would not be able to find that person.  It is damn near impossible to give any physical description that another person could use to find another person.  Now, put yourself in Allanak with 500,000 people and consider the possibility of someone being identified by physical description alone.  Short of drawing a picture, unless that person has very very unique features, they are pretty much lost.

You have a good point, but the 500,000 figure is misleading though.  

According to the documentation about half of the population is slaves, and most slaves are clearly marked as slaves.  Sure, a slave could be dressed as a freeman or vice versa, but that doesn't happen much.  So just on the slave or nonslave axis you've reduced your suspect pool to 250,000.

According to general wisdom (I can't find the population doc at the moment) aproximately half of the population is human, with elves, dwarves, half-giants, half-elves, and muls filling out the other half.  So if can tell the race of the suspect, which is usually obvious except in the case of some half-elves, then you have reduced the suspect pool by at least half.  Assuming it was a non-slave human, then the suspect pool drops to about 125,000.  If it was a non-slave dwarf the pool might be less than 30,000.

You can usually tell if it was male or female, despite the fact that males and females are statistically identical.  Even from an obscured figure you usually get the information that the voice was male or female.  So it is probably safe to assume that you can tell if your suspect was a man, a woman, or a child.  If it was a non-slave adult male human the suspect pool is down to about 50,000 (even smaller for other races).

The crime is most likely to have taken place in the public part commoner's quarter or merchant's quarter.  Many non-slaves (and probably even more slaves) never leave the noble's quarter, never leave the templar's quarter, never leave the 'rinth, never leave the farming communities, or never leave private estates -- they are part of the total population of Allanak, but they aren't going to be in the commoner's quarter commiting crimes.  How many exactly?  I don't know, some thousands at least.

He either was, or was not a person with an obvious mutation, disfigurement, or disability.

His eithnic/cultural background will further narrow down the pool, and is fairly difficult to completely disguise.  Most nobles will stand out even when dressed as commoners, because they have a tendency to stand and move confidently, completely unafraid of attracting attention or inadvertantly catching the attention of a soldier, templar or noble.  A 'rinther is going to have to work long and hard to act like a normal commoner, even if he is wearing a normal commoner's clothes.  A person from Red Storm (quite close to Allanak) has different habits and preferences in clothing from a born and bred 'nakki.  These are difference that the code doesn't impose (except for the accent code) but they nevertheless exist.

Was he relatively prosperous for a commoner, or not.  This would show up in build, weight, apparent health and so on.  It would also show up in clothing, both in the quality of cloathing and the total amount of cloathing.  Was he wearing armor, clothing, or a combination of both?  Most commoners just wear clothing, not armor.   How many layers and accessories was he wearing?  Was he wearing a cloak, and a backpack, and a sash, and a belt, and a quiver, and pants, and sleeves, and bangles on his forearms, and wristwraps on his wrists, and gloves, and anklewraps, and boots, etc.?  Most commoners wear a few items, an aba, some leggings, sandals, maybe a belt with a knife (as much a tool as a weapon), perhaps a headwrap -- possibly a few cheap adornments in the form of bone jewelry or tattoos.  They don't need more than that, and they can't afford more than that, anything more is just unnecessary weight and expense.  A guy that is wearing enough crap to open a small clothing booth is obviously prosperous, even if he happens to be down on his luck today.  Likewise a guy that is wearing much less than usually, perhaps just a loincloth and some thin sandals, is going to stand out from the average.  A person who has recently switched from barely an inch of skin visible to practicly nothing but a loincloth will stand out more than either, because of the visible tan lines or sunburn on his newly exposed skin.

Most of these factors will be visible even if you didn't have time to closely examine him.  You may not have gotten a good enough look to tell if he had two eyebrows or a unibrow, but you could probably tell if he was naked or not.  So if you were the most common type of PC, an average male human commoner, there are going to be thousands other people like you but not hundreds of thousands.  If you were a truely unusual kind of PC, perhaps a female half-giant with an obvious tentical-related mutation, then there are probably less than ten people in the entire city like you.  It is like a huge game of Guess Who?  With just a few facts you can narrow down your suspect list immensely.  

It should not be easy to track down your suspect, but it shouldn't be virtually impossible either.


Angela Christine

[flurry]

I commend those who wish to introduce uncertainties to describing people. That's great. That's fine. That's wonderful... when it makes sense. But do not begin to look down or fault others who include the adjectives in their retelling of a description or those who act on such information.

Let's not move to an extreme when the middle ground is so much nicer and enjoyable. Live and let live.

Okay, I can definitely agree with this.   Although I personally don't like people repeating sdescs verbatim in-game, I'm not going to think less of them as a roleplayer or be less inclined to interact with them.  

However, one example you used before really does strike me as carrying things to the extreme.

I had the experience of having to describe a chocolate person once in the game.  That was interesting.  

After going on about how the person was brown and kinda sweet looking my char ended up shrugging and saying,
   "Well, I guess I'd say he was chocolate... but don't ask me what that really means.  That's just the word that comes to mind."

If this wasn't a real example and was written in jest, nevermind.  But I really think this isn't a reasonable way of roleplaying at all, and is taking things to a ridiculous extreme in a way that breaks the roleplay environment.   If I saw that in game, I would think the other person was breaking character to try to make some point, because how could that possibly be a realistic thing to say?  

Again if it was a joke and I misunderstood, my bad.  It didn't look that way, though.   Not to pick on you, marko, because usually I think you make a lot of good points, but that example really didn't sit well with me.

[Angela Christine]

Personally, I think it's kinda ridiculous when you can't get some sort of better factor for identification because some player decided his character was going to remain 'anonymous' and took the tall, blonde man or some bullshit.

To support my case, I'll use spawnloser, who always references me and never gives credit (like for the sandwich thing, bastard!)  Anyway.

SL looks pretty normal IRL.  Pretty freakishly normal except for his ferret chin.  There are a number of ways to describe him.  Here's three examples:

The blonde-haired, lanky man
The pierced, sinewy man
The ferret-chinned frenchman

ALL of these describe, accurately, spawnloser.  The first time I met him I can remember vividly.  Because he stood out?  No.  Because he, while still looking normal, isn't somehow a faceless mass.  I use these as an example because one of them is CLEARLY more memorable from a short desc standpoint.  Yet they're all the same person.

I swear I get murderous when I see 'tall, muscular men' and 'brown-eyed, dark-skinned women.'  All I want to do is make those screens go 'beep' after beating the PC repeatedly with a sword made of common fucking sense.

I don't think "the ferret-chinned frenchman" would make it through the application process.  

Frenchman:  How can you tell he's a frenchman just from looking at him?  Does he wear a berret, have a cigarette dangling from his lips, a glass of wine in one hand and a baguette in the other all the time?

Ferret-chinned:  The apparent lack of ferrets in the known world is the least of the trouble.  What does this even mean?  Does he have a chin like a ferret's chin, a chin like an entire ferret (soft, furry, cute, and smelly?), or has his jaw been removed and surgically replaced with a ferret?

"The ferret-chinned frenchman" may be descriptive and memorable from an OOC viewpoint, but it isn't very useful for your character.  If you saw him doing something, but only saw his sdesc, how would you describe him to anyone?  "Uh, well he had a sort of smallish chin, and I think he might have been, er . . . pale, I guess."

The sdesc standards discourage really unique or descriptive decriptions.  All those tall, muscular men are practically unavoidable.


Angela Christine

[spawnloser]

No, really, I do look French.  Not like I'm carrying around french stuff.  I just am...French.

[Lazloth]

No, really, I do look French.  Not like I'm carrying around french stuff.  I just am...French.

Don't mean to derail, but the line is too cute:  spawn resembles a cheese-eating surrender monkey.

[spawnloser]

A cheese-eating surrender monkey?  I rather thought I resembled a spider monkey more.

[Akaramu]

If someone is said to be the green-eyed man that means this person's green eyes are the major feature.  There may be thousands of green-eyed men but there aren't thousands of them who's eyes are their most distinguishing feature.

What about those people who look so plain and common that they really dont have a distinguishing feature at all? Say, a thin Allanaki human of average height, brown eyes, tanned skin, matted dark hair. There ARE thousands who look extremely similar. Maybe scars could be used as a distinguishing feature, but not all scars are openly visible.

[spawnloser]

As someone already said, in all seriousness now, we are creating a story...playing the main characters, all few hundred or so.  We are the main characters...the ones that get noticed.  This person you're talking about, Akaramu, would be so plain as to be remarkably plain...remarkable...noticeably plain.

[Larrath]

We are the main characters...the ones that get noticed.  This person you're talking about, Akaramu, would be so plain as to be remarkably plain...remarkable...noticeably plain.

What?
Sorry, but no.  If you can justify someone going to a templar and saying that the killer was 'very plain-looking', I think that there is a problem with your perception.  There's no such thing as 'remarkably unremarkable' - if you're plain, you look like at least ten thousand others.

We are the main characters, not the only characters.  A main character can blend into the crowd.  These people aren't followed by giant spotlights - this is part of the reason why so many NPC sdescs are identical to PC sdescs.  There should be a blur between which real, live Zalanthan is played by a player and which one isn't.

[spawnloser]

Larrath, the point is that saying, "MY character is so bland that you wouldn't notice him," is a cop out.

Picking common keywords for your sdesc is seeking a coded advantage where none should be (the opposite of taking gortok-faced, scrab tattooed) is twinky...not the reverse of using the information.  Your sdesc is the most noticeable things about your character...the things that make your character unique.  If you tell me your character's only outstanding feature is that s/he's plain, don't yell at me for using that information.

[Larrath]

Larrath, the point is that saying, "MY character is so bland that you wouldn't notice him," is a cop out.

This isn't a cop out.  Allanak has maybe ten commoners with ivory skin and long, rich sable manes and kank tattoos.  Allanak has perhaps four thousand commoners with dark sunburnt skin and short, tangled black hair and dark brown eyes.
Some people's faces are simply not memorable and not special.

Picking common keywords for your sdesc is seeking a coded advantage where none should be (the opposite of taking gortok-faced, scrab tattooed) is twinky...not the reverse of using the information.

Picking a character whose looks are plain (and by that, probably very realistic) isn't twinky at all.  How can it even be twinky?  Twinky means taking advantage of the code or relying on very cheap and obvious 'IC' justifications in order to accomplish an OOC goal, or using IC information.  It's twinky to copy a notable PC's sdesc verbatim and start making demands over the Way.  It's twinky to purposely plant keywords in your PC to fool people into giving you objects.
Picking a plain sdesc isn't twinky nor is it seeking an advantage.  Picking a plain sdesc makes it harder on some players to seek an advantage by manipulating the sdesc and pretending it is a name - some people are actually capable of getting overlooked in a crowd, and this attitude takes away this natural and realistic ability.  That is a cop-out.

Your sdesc is the most noticeable things about your character...the things that make your character unique.  If you tell me your character's only outstanding feature is that s/he's plain, don't yell at me for using that information.

Your sdesc isn't really the most noticeable thing about your character.  Your sdesc is a couple of adjectives that gives a rough idea of what your character looks like - your sdesc could be, for example, "the gaunt, six-fingered man".  This same gaunt man can have ankle-long hair and a burnt face, and the sdesc would still be good.
I will yell at you for using a character's sdesc in order to identify him in a sea of tens of thousands, because that is simply twinkery.

"I didn't really get a good look, but he was sort of plain-featured and had a mop of brown hair" is absolutely ridiculous and if someone actually takes this 'description' and uses it to find a single suspect in a city where half of the populace fits the description, then they are beinig twinky by completely neglecting the VNPC populace to avoid being hindered by the worthless description given to them by the informant.

Sdescs are not names - this is why we have sdescs instead of a system that lets us pick which alias of ours will be shown to everyone.

[Seeker]

Larrath, the point is that saying, "MY character is so bland that you wouldn't notice him," is a cop out.

This isn't a cop out.  Allanak has maybe ten commoners with ivory skin and long, rich sable manes and kank tattoos.

Bullshit.

"I didn't really get a good look, but he was sort of plain-featured and had a mop of brown hair" is absolutely ridiculous....

Bullshit again.  If a PC has designed his mdesc and sdesc to give only that carefully calibrated decription to the world, then to use those general terms to try to define him is absolutely legit.  It's all you have.

...if someone actually takes this 'description' and uses it to find a single suspect in a city where half of the populace fits the description, then they are beinig twinky by completely neglecting the VNPC populace to avoid being hindered by the worthless description given to them by the informant.

Spawnloser was not speaking about a second-hand identification by a third person from such a description, and to use that as a support argument for your claim is disingenuous.  

I don't care if he is of average height, average weight, average hair-color, average sex, the average race for his city and only wearing the average type of regional clothing for his ethno-centric class.  He is an individual of a -particular- race, sex, height, weight, facial structure, hair color, and either was or was NOT wearing certain items of clothing.

I'm surprised, Larrath, that you seem to be claiming that a player can deliberately design their character's appearance, through careful blandness in their ldesc and sdesc, to be nondescript, and yet, when anyone else uses these plain, average, general, bland adjectives in their attempt to convey this self-same image of that character that they are somehow out of line.


Seeker
(one edit... misread one of Larrath's statements.)

[Akaramu]

I am starting to understand why many PCs always have their hoods up. It sounds like a good idea.

[LauraMars]

I am starting to understand why many PCs always have their hoods up. It sounds like a good idea.

Agreeed!  

>raise hood - FOREVER.

[bloodfromstone]

I have to say that the idea of describing someone with words that your character doesn't know just because they are in a PC's sdesc is ridiculous. I also would like to say that calling twink on any PC who's sdesc doesn't make it easy to describe them in full, arrestable detail is silly as well. So someone wants to play the tall, dark-haired man. Or they want to play the height-gifted, midnight-no-moon-tressed man... Fine. That's why you get to create your own character. Would we rather just have everyone's sdesc be their names?

At the same time, there has to be a level of understanding regarding the mass of vNPCs and the PC population. I have been subdued and arrested (to a very unpleasant end) while wearing a cloak that notes its ability to conceal the wearer's appearance and while facing away from the subduer. Did it irk me? At the time, yes, but the more I think about it, the more I would rather have this happen than people take the virtual population too seriously. Otherwise I'm going to get a job in a virtual clan, because what are the odds of me ending up in a tangible one? I also drink in virtual bars, with my virtual clanmates of course. I'm not joking, though. I've done this a number of times, except it was in notepad and I was writing a story. When I play a mud, I want to play with other people. Pure and simple. If the vNPC population was really taken into full consideration, this would never happen.

[Anonymous]

(on describing the muscular, oleaginous man)

PC 1: Yeah, he was a real strong-looking fella. Kinda greasy, though. Also, I once heard someone say he was real oleaginous.

PC 2: Th' fuck does 'oleaginous' mean?

PC 1: Fuck if I know.

[Larrath]

Larrath, the point is that saying, "MY character is so bland that you wouldn't notice him," is a cop out.

This isn't a cop out.  Allanak has maybe ten commoners with ivory skin and long, rich sable manes and kank tattoos.

Bullshit.

"I didn't really get a good look, but he was sort of plain-featured and had a mop of brown hair" is absolutely ridiculous....

Bullshit again.  If a PC has designed his mdesc and sdesc to give only that carefully calibrated decription to the world, then to use those general terms to try to define him is absolutely legit.  It's all you have.

First of all, I was only talking about the sdesc, not mdesc.  Second, why is this bullshit?  Try going to a poor, violent slum neighbourhood, and then walk up a street.  You're going to have a far easier time finding a supermodel in that alley than a particular bum.  This is because that street is likely to only have one supermodel in it and at least two dozen bums.
If you had to report a crime to the police in this setting, saying "the attacker looked like a bum" is very unhelpful.  But if you say the attacker looked like a supermodel, they have a good shot at finding her.

I'm surprised, Larrath, that you seem to be claiming that a player can deliberately design their character's appearance, through careful blandness in their ldesc and sdesc, to be nondescript, and yet, when anyone else uses these plain, average, general, bland adjectives in their attempt to convey this self-same image of that character that they are somehow out of line.

I think that some people are relatively nondescript, and I don't see anything not legitimate in using the adjective "plain" in an sdesc.  I am not saying that I believe it's fine to engineer the mdesc in order to have no features that can be described.  I do think that some people look bland enough, though, to be very difficult to describe if someone didn't get a good look at them.
What I am against is that people using sdescs verbatim, and I do believe this has been touched on, several times, in this thread.

I also don't like the concept that all PCs must always be the ones targetted.  If my character is a more or less average elf and a templar is told that An Elf has been seen consorting with a defiler, I would be upset if this templar went into the Barrel (where there are at least a dozen elves at nearly all times) and immediately zoom in on me because I am the only PC elf.
Why is my elf, who is sitting in the back and enjoying an ale, more suspicious than the ten other elves in the tavern?

Or let's say it's an Elkran gemmer.  The second the Templarate is told that some gemmed Elkran was causing trouble somewhere, no matter who, where or why, and even if the trouble was in the 'rinth and the single PC Elkran gemmer is a bigtime Oash aide that shits 'sids, this Elkran is going to be called for questioning and probably suffer torture.

Why?  There are dozens of Elkran gemmers, and many of those are probably much more frightening than my mild-mannered rich-boy mage.

The obvious answer is, "because you're a PC and they're not".  I don't think that this is a legitimate answer, however.  If you want to pick someone out of the crowd, that's fine.  But if you're going to use your OOC knowledge that there are very few PC elves that hang around the Barrel in order to unfailingly determine that the PC elf in the Barrel right now is without doubt the defiler's friend, and then use this OOC certainty in order to justify torturing/questioning/killing that elf...  That's simply not good.

[Cale_Knight]

Why?  There are dozens of Elkran gemmers, and many of those are probably much more frightening than my mild-mannered rich-boy mage.

The obvious answer is, "because you're a PC and they're not".  I don't think that this is a legitimate answer, however.  

Sure it's legitimate. You see, all the dozens of vNPC Elkrans are being questioned and tortured by all the vNPC templars. Probably in the cell right next to yours, no less!

[Akaramu]

Sure it's legitimate. You see, all the dozens of vNPC Elkrans are being questioned and tortured by all the vNPC templars. Probably in the cell right next to yours, no less!

If it is possible to be recognized through a third-hand description based on a quick glance in passing, x-rayed through a hood and facewrap, one month after the actual event, then we will simply have more paranoid PCs who stick to themselves and are hardly seen in public at all, and instead live a loner life.

That improves the MUD how?

You made no such example, but others seem to think its fine to pass down exact sdescs with words their characters dont even know. If that is fine for the sake of targeting a PC, it is a small step to having x-ray-vision through facewraps as well as having perfect super memories that never forget anything even after one ingame month of never seeing said person again.

[Rindan]

Sure it's legitimate. You see, all the dozens of vNPC Elkrans are being questioned and tortured by all the vNPC templars. Probably in the cell right next to yours, no less!

I find it pretty doubtful that they grab every single gemmed of a certain temple off of the street and torture them.  I would call that seriously shitty role play to go snag the one PC.  If every single person of a single temple is dragged off the streets, it better be because a black robed Templar ordered it and old Tekkie thinks it is absolutely vital for the city, otherwise it would never happen.

[Agent_137]

I've never seen this happen, this passing of an exact sdesc, ICly. I've seen a couple of advertisements on the OOC boards saying, "i'm a crafter! come to me! I look like this!" but that's about it.

Am I just missing this huge well of twinkdom, or what? I mean, sure, my play experience is mostly limited to the Byn and Kurac, but still.

[Larrath]

I've never seen this happen, this passing of an exact sdesc, ICly. I've seen a couple of advertisements on the OOC boards saying, "i'm a crafter! come to me! I look like this!" but that's about it.

Am I just missing this huge well of twinkdom, or what? I mean, sure, my play experience is mostly limited to the Byn and Kurac, but still.

You're missing it.  It happens most commonly around the Militia clans - people report a crime and say that "a green-eyed, squat young man" did it.
It's pretty common.  Sometimes it's abused, sometimes it's disregarded.

[Marauder Moe]

I see it happen all the time.  Well, very seldom with an exact copy of the sdesc.  Something like you're told about the sapphire-eyed, barrel-chested man and someone well say "Well, he's got a barrel-shaped chest, and he's got eyes that look like sapphires".

[joyofdiscord]

There's lots of sdesc shenanigans going on.  I once saw a PC elf described and subsequently captured by mentioning two traits (their sdesc traits) that should be common to virtually -all- elves.  The player doing the describing was something of a PC superior, but I still reported him to MUD.

[Lazloth]

I've never seen this happen, this passing of an exact sdesc, ICly.

It's extremely common.

All that aside, we as players can behave according to whatever principles we've adopted and feel like championing.  If I as a militia grunt have been told that "a tall, lanky elf" just threw dung at a noble and I was to treat this as a high priority to mitigate, if in the course of some investigation I run across three elves together - the green-eyed ugly elf, the toothless elven woman, the tall, lanky elf - I'm going to probably cart off the bunch and not zero on the obvious.