Thoughts on shorter induced sdescs

[CodeMaster]

During character creation short descriptions have to be less than 35 characters, including spaces.  My guess is this limit is to (a) reduce linewrap with (b) the side effect of forcing all sdescs to include about two adjectives (e.g., stubby, green-eyed).  But there are a number of items in the game that give you what I'll call an "induced" sdesc that will take you well beyond this limit:

• the female wearing a dusty thin, brown-sandcloth facewrap
  (more than 58 characters)
  
• the extremely short female wearing a dusty thin, brown-sandcloth facewrap
  (74 characters!)
  

I've been tempted to make a trigger to shorten some of the worse offenders, but I wanted to ask other players and imms whether shortening these induced sdescs strikes them as something worth doing?

To me, the fabric (unless it's a rare material) seems unimportant.  The fact that a cloak is hooded also seems less important (and the presence of a hood is implied as soon as you become "the figure").  Small details like a bit of embroidery or reinforced stitching also seem less important than other macro features like color and cut:

• a hooded, sandy-brown reinforced sandcloth duster -- a hooded, sandy-brown duster
• a thin, brown-sandcloth facewrap -- a thin brown facewrap
• a hooded, hawk-embroidered sandcloth dustcloak -- a black, embroidered dustcloak
• a long, featureless bone mask -- a smooth bone mask
• a finely-stitched, black silk facewrap -- a black silk facewrap

If imms figure this might be worth doing, maybe players could be encouraged to report certain items and offer suggestions via the typo command.

[RogueGunslinger]

God yessss please.

[valeria]

I wouldn't like it.  I tend to prefer my descriptions more descriptive.  It is how I visualize everything in the game.  I very rarely look at the long desc of something, unless I'm putting it on my own character.

[RogueGunslinger]

Line-wrapping sdescs make combat so fucking annoying to follow for some reason.

[MeTekillot]

wear facewrap

kill gunslinger

[CodeMaster]

I wouldn't like it.  I tend to prefer my descriptions more descriptive.  It is how I visualize everything in the game.  I very rarely look at the long desc of something, unless I'm putting it on my own character.

The figure in the dusty earthy-smelling heavy, moderately skillfully-tailored and heavily-dyed red sandcloth dustcloak with a deep face-hiding hood and stylish black embroidery says:
  "Reductio ad absurdum"

Edited to add:
I'm not trying to be a dink (much) and appreciate your input.  If you think it's "about right" where it is now, that's totally the kind of feedback I was hoping to hear back.

[Barsook]

I dig this idea.

[QuillDipper]

I'm not a fan. Sometimes it's that one word that decides why I wear something. I don't buy a black cloak, I buy a white-hemmed black cloak, because its more than just a hooded sheet.

Not to mention how it may affect some livery.

[slvrmoontiger]

There are some patterned cloaks that have great meaning IG. Want to know which ones and how? Find out IG.

[valeria]

I wouldn't like it.  I tend to prefer my descriptions more descriptive.  It is how I visualize everything in the game.  I very rarely look at the long desc of something, unless I'm putting it on my own character.

The figure in the dusty earthy-smelling heavy, moderately skillfully-tailored and heavily-dyed red sandcloth dustcloak with a deep face-hiding hood and stylish black embroidery says:
  "Reductio ad absurdum"

Edited to add:
I'm not trying to be a dink (much) and appreciate your input.  If you think it's "about right" where it is now, that's totally the kind of feedback I was hoping to hear back.

You're creating your own fallacy  .  I didn't say that descriptions should be changed in the other direction.  I was answering your question about whether shortening descriptions was worth doing.  Since I have a little more time, I'll spell my reasoning out better.

I'm a writer, I like vivid descriptions.  Changing something like "ragged, brown sandcloth facewrap" to "thin brown facewrap" just isn't very vivid.  As I said, I prefer my descriptions to be more descriptive.  Which isn't the same as your example above.

I didn't find your examples persuasive.  When someone is "the very short figure in a dusty X" the are always going to be over 35 characters because the code adds situational modifiers that are themselves 34 characters long.  It doesn't matter whether you cut one or two words out of an item's short description, any very short figure in a dusty/bloody whatever is going to have a long description.

In some of your examples, the descriptions are already short.  For instance, neither a thin, brown-sandcloth facewrap nor a long, featureless bone mask have descriptions that are over 35 characters long.  Which seemed to be your base line, based around PC sdesc limits.  So it didn't really seem to me that you were arguing changes solely based on length, but rather want to change items to have simpler descriptions.  Again, I'm opposed on vividness grounds.

I didn't see any problem presented in the OP except that the descriptions are long.  I don't agree that longer descriptions are problematic just because they're longer.  (I did see RGS say the long descriptions bother him in combat.  They don't bother me in combat, but this isn't a debate, so I didn't feel the need to address that point).  The only thing about longer cloak descriptions that bother me is when they get dusty/bloody and line wrap my equ list.  But that's really only a minor annoyance, and it happens with more things than cloaks.

Hope that helps!

[MeTekillot]

You swiftly dodge the very tall male wearing a thin, white sandcloth
facewrap's slashes.
You swiftly dodge the very tall male wearing a thin, white sandcloth
facewrap's slashes.

You swiftly dodge the very tall male wearing a thin, white sandcloth
facewrap's slashes.
You swiftly dodge the very tall male wearing a thin, white sandcloth
facewrap's slashes.

[CodeMaster]

I'm a writer, I like vivid descriptions.  Changing something like "ragged, brown sandcloth facewrap" to "thin brown facewrap" just isn't very vivid.  As I said, I prefer my descriptions to be more descriptive.  Which isn't the same as your example above.

I see your point.  Very well said.

I didn't find your examples persuasive.  When someone is "the very short figure in a dusty X" the are always going to be over 35 characters because the code adds situational modifiers that are themselves 34 characters long.  It doesn't matter whether you cut one or two words out of an item's short description, any very short figure in a dusty/bloody whatever is going to have a long description.

In some of your examples, the descriptions are already short.  For instance, neither a thin, brown-sandcloth facewrap nor a long, featureless bone mask have descriptions that are over 35 characters long.  Which seemed to be your base line, based around PC sdesc limits.  So it didn't really seem to me that you were arguing changes solely based on length, but rather want to change items to have simpler descriptions.  Again, I'm opposed on vividness grounds.

To clarify, I didn't intend to suggest "induced" sdescs be limited to 35 characters in length.  And I admit my examples weren't the best.  But you can see the spirit of what I'm getting at

The only thing about longer cloak descriptions that bother me is when they get dusty/bloody and line wrap my equ list.  But that's really only a minor annoyance [...]

It is a minor annoyance at best, you're absolutely right.  Thought I'd bang it around the forum.