Previous Thread
Previous
Expand All
Collapse All
Ignore Author
Reply
I posted this on a website in response to questions about necromancer tells and recent changes to looting. I've had this discussion with a few people, but figured since I put together something written about it that it's worth laying out here.
To fill you in on behind-the-scenes debates between roleplayers (this has been on play.net and throughout the community)....
There has been question as to whether seeing someone 'bend over a corpse' is legitimately a necro tell. Mechanically speaking, it is. Noone could do this unless they were a necromancer doing the perform preservation ritual. However, some roleplayers claim that this is NOT a necro tell because everyone bends over corpses - whether they're searching or skinning or whatever. They claim that it only just so happens that this messaging is given and should be disregarded since it is a common action that any adventurer would take.
My stance on this sort of thing has always been that you can discern anything you like from any messaging. Being a text based MUD, there are limitations to how much the game can reasonably tell you, and so it is reasonable to extrapolate any information possible from what is presented to you as a player. To be extreme in this example, consider this:
XXX gazes at you intently.
XXX intently gazes at you.
To me, these two messages given to me would mean two different things. What those two things are might be a mystery to my character, but if my character had figured out what was different between the two, it would be reasonable for me to take the varied messaging and extrapolate the appropriate information from it.
What makes this tricky is that the two things have the same english meaning, so those roleplayers in the camp I described above claim that there is no difference and that it is metagaming (a bad term, but it's the one that stuck to this debate) to claim that your character can tell the difference. For my part, I believe that the two actions would be very similar, but there would be a slightly different demeanor, mannerism, or 'tell' between the two. You could write a paragraph on any action that any character takes, but you don't. This keeps the game managable. Instead, it is much simpler to take differences in syntax to have slight variation in how an action is presented - those differences are merely undefined.
Now back to what this means for this thread - the search mechanics have been changed so that when someone searches, they bend over a corpse. It looks just like the necromancer performing preserve. Now my character can no longer tell the difference by seeing that action (in the void - a necromancer is still bending over a corpse and the corpse isn't decaying as it would in a search). The GMs decided that it should not be obvious when a necromancer is performing this action and so made an adjustment to the 3rd person view to mask this. As with any mechanical change, this can cause confusion, but people should be able to figure out what's going on without undue effort. The above debate will continue, I'm sure, but at least for this particular action the intent of the GMs has been made clear that they don't want for it to be an obvious tell.
<<My stance on this sort of thing has always been that you can discern anything you like from any messaging. Being a text based MUD, there are limitations to how much the game can reasonably tell you, and so it is reasonable to extrapolate any information possible from what is presented to you as a player.>>
You, the player, can discern anything you like from the messaging. Your character, on the other hand, is only seeing what actions the messaging communicates.
You used old perceive messaging compared to another type of messaging in your example. As you said, the two lines have exactly the same meaning, but tell the player two separate things.
Some argued that the messaging didn't outright indicate that someone was perceiving you and should be treated as a gaze while others claimed that after X amount of time of seeing people perceived or being perceived or perceiving others it's reasonable for someone to know what perceiving looks like. These are both correct: someone perceiving another USED to look like an intent gaze and nothing more.
The proper course of RP in these cases is clear enough to me - you either treat BOTH example lines as nothing more than an intent gaze or treat BOTH as a perceive, since your character presumably couldn't tell the difference. Again, someone perceiving you used to look like someone gazing intently.
This specific example went through a drastic change, and now instead looks like different things based on skill checks. Some seem to be interpreting this as proof that before the change there was something inherently different between the two example lines of messaging, and claim that the code was changed to reflect it.
In reality, the code was changed to reflect a change in the way perceiving others is supposed to be handled ICly, as evidenced by the fact that perceiving is now done with a glance rather than an intent gaze.
As with the necromancers-bending-over-a-corpse thing, mechanics and messaging had to be changed to help players avoid using OOC knowledge to extrapolate more than they should from messaging.
"That's how I knew who you were. You were always like "Blah blah blah I'm a Barbarian oh-my-god." -my gf
You, the player, can discern anything you like from the messaging. Your character, on the other hand, is only seeing what actions the messaging communicates.
You used old perceive messaging compared to another type of messaging in your example. As you said, the two lines have exactly the same meaning, but tell the player two separate things.
Some argued that the messaging didn't outright indicate that someone was perceiving you and should be treated as a gaze while others claimed that after X amount of time of seeing people perceived or being perceived or perceiving others it's reasonable for someone to know what perceiving looks like. These are both correct: someone perceiving another USED to look like an intent gaze and nothing more.
The proper course of RP in these cases is clear enough to me - you either treat BOTH example lines as nothing more than an intent gaze or treat BOTH as a perceive, since your character presumably couldn't tell the difference. Again, someone perceiving you used to look like someone gazing intently.
This specific example went through a drastic change, and now instead looks like different things based on skill checks. Some seem to be interpreting this as proof that before the change there was something inherently different between the two example lines of messaging, and claim that the code was changed to reflect it.
In reality, the code was changed to reflect a change in the way perceiving others is supposed to be handled ICly, as evidenced by the fact that perceiving is now done with a glance rather than an intent gaze.
As with the necromancers-bending-over-a-corpse thing, mechanics and messaging had to be changed to help players avoid using OOC knowledge to extrapolate more than they should from messaging.
"That's how I knew who you were. You were always like "Blah blah blah I'm a Barbarian oh-my-god." -my gf
>>The proper course of RP in these cases is clear enough to me - you either treat BOTH example lines as nothing more than an intent gaze or treat BOTH as a perceive, since your character presumably couldn't tell the difference. Again, someone perceiving you used to look like someone gazing intently.<<
They never looked the same. Perceiving someone had its own unique message that was not duplicated by anything else. Treating "so and so gazes at you" as someone perceiving you wouldn't have made any sense.
DR is not a free-form RPG. Its messaging has structure and intended meaning. Things that message differently are VERY CLEARLY not intended to look the same. Because they don't. That is DR the game, before you add the subjective layers of interpretation that may (reasonable people will disagree) be part of DR the RPG.
If the information conveyed by a message is not the information a character is supposed to have, it's the developers' responsibility to change the messaging.
There should never be a situation where the first inference you make from an IC message is both correct and not-usable (according to what we can assume is rp best-practice) as IC information. That breaks immersion. You should never be given information by the system that you're not expected to be able to act on.
As an example, consider what it would be like if we had a slightly different stealth system, where the messaging went like this:
If someone fails a hide, you see: "You notice so and so slip into hiding."
If someone succeeds, you see: "So and so successfully hid."
The second message is calling your attention to something your character probably isn't supposed to notice. How do you RP that? Do you pretend you didn't notice? Do you act wary? Would that be OOC?
The better choice would be not to message people who didn't see a successful hide. Don't give them information they're not supposed to act on, and there won't be any room for internal or external conflict over how to interpret the messages.
- Mazrian
The Flying Company
The Public Stat Data Project
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AkqoUyrmvlKNdGlpeHZacEdldi1Ob2h3M1I5TXpCZVE&hl=en
They never looked the same. Perceiving someone had its own unique message that was not duplicated by anything else. Treating "so and so gazes at you" as someone perceiving you wouldn't have made any sense.
DR is not a free-form RPG. Its messaging has structure and intended meaning. Things that message differently are VERY CLEARLY not intended to look the same. Because they don't. That is DR the game, before you add the subjective layers of interpretation that may (reasonable people will disagree) be part of DR the RPG.
If the information conveyed by a message is not the information a character is supposed to have, it's the developers' responsibility to change the messaging.
There should never be a situation where the first inference you make from an IC message is both correct and not-usable (according to what we can assume is rp best-practice) as IC information. That breaks immersion. You should never be given information by the system that you're not expected to be able to act on.
As an example, consider what it would be like if we had a slightly different stealth system, where the messaging went like this:
If someone fails a hide, you see: "You notice so and so slip into hiding."
If someone succeeds, you see: "So and so successfully hid."
The second message is calling your attention to something your character probably isn't supposed to notice. How do you RP that? Do you pretend you didn't notice? Do you act wary? Would that be OOC?
The better choice would be not to message people who didn't see a successful hide. Don't give them information they're not supposed to act on, and there won't be any room for internal or external conflict over how to interpret the messages.
- Mazrian
The Flying Company
The Public Stat Data Project
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AkqoUyrmvlKNdGlpeHZacEdldi1Ob2h3M1I5TXpCZVE&hl=en
<<The better choice would be not to message people who didn't see a successful hide. Don't give them information they're not supposed to act on, and there won't be any room for internal or external conflict over how to interpret the messages.>>
Read the last part of my post again, please. Here, I'll quote it for you:
"As with the necromancers-bending-over-a-corpse thing, mechanics and messaging had to be changed to help players avoid using OOC knowledge to extrapolate more than they should from messaging."
And as for the two messages never looking the same - the difference in meaning between "XXX gazes at you intently" and "XXX intently gazes at you" when no outside information is taken into account is exactly nothing. Which brings us to...
<<Don't give them information they're not supposed to act on, and there won't be any room for internal or external conflict over how to interpret the messages.>>
Changes in word order are not IC. Messaging is not IC, as evidenced by the purely OOC things such as WARN COMBAT and PROFILE, which exist solely to tell the player behind a character something the character has no business knowing.
Yes, it's probably better to keep that sort of thing to a minimum to avoid having players use OOC knowledge to extrapolate more than they should. The current dev team seems to agree with this, as shown by perceive and loot messaging changes. That doesn't make it GOOD to extrapolate when you can.
"That's how I knew who you were. You were always like "Blah blah blah I'm a Barbarian oh-my-god." -my gf
Read the last part of my post again, please. Here, I'll quote it for you:
"As with the necromancers-bending-over-a-corpse thing, mechanics and messaging had to be changed to help players avoid using OOC knowledge to extrapolate more than they should from messaging."
And as for the two messages never looking the same - the difference in meaning between "XXX gazes at you intently" and "XXX intently gazes at you" when no outside information is taken into account is exactly nothing. Which brings us to...
<<Don't give them information they're not supposed to act on, and there won't be any room for internal or external conflict over how to interpret the messages.>>
Changes in word order are not IC. Messaging is not IC, as evidenced by the purely OOC things such as WARN COMBAT and PROFILE, which exist solely to tell the player behind a character something the character has no business knowing.
Yes, it's probably better to keep that sort of thing to a minimum to avoid having players use OOC knowledge to extrapolate more than they should. The current dev team seems to agree with this, as shown by perceive and loot messaging changes. That doesn't make it GOOD to extrapolate when you can.
"That's how I knew who you were. You were always like "Blah blah blah I'm a Barbarian oh-my-god." -my gf
Vashir,
I don't think you understand the discussion so far.
- Mazrian
The Flying Company
The Public Stat Data Project
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AkqoUyrmvlKNdGlpeHZacEdldi1Ob2h3M1I5TXpCZVE&hl=en
I don't think you understand the discussion so far.
- Mazrian
The Flying Company
The Public Stat Data Project
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AkqoUyrmvlKNdGlpeHZacEdldi1Ob2h3M1I5TXpCZVE&hl=en
Both sides of the argument believe that messaging often indicates more than the literal meaning of the words. One side believes it's fine to use OOC knowledge to go beyond the messaging, the other does not.
Or rather, one side thinks a character is seeing what the game tells you the character is seeing. The other thinks the character is seeing what you OOCly know is happening.
EDIT: I need to use the preview button more on my posts.
"That's how I knew who you were. You were always like "Blah blah blah I'm a Barbarian oh-my-god." -my gf
Or rather, one side thinks a character is seeing what the game tells you the character is seeing. The other thinks the character is seeing what you OOCly know is happening.
EDIT: I need to use the preview button more on my posts.
"That's how I knew who you were. You were always like "Blah blah blah I'm a Barbarian oh-my-god." -my gf
JULIAN,
<<If the information conveyed by a message is not the information a character is supposed to have, it's the developers' responsibility to change the messaging.
It is the information the PLAYER is supposed to have.
It is the information the PLAYER is supposed to have.
It is the information the PLAYER is supposed to have.
It is the information the PLAYER is supposed to have.
It is the information the PLAYER is supposed to have.
It is the...
Are you just being stubborn in the face of adversity or do you sincerely just not get it?
If a character glances at your character, in any fashion or variation on syntax whatsoever, that glance is the In-Character information. They glanced at your character.
Because it is extremely unlikely that any two characters would glance at your character in the same exact way, regardless of what they were doing with their glances (just being rude or magically peering deep into your character's soul to ravenously feed on the sad parts of his/her childhood), it is metagaming if you have your character just know what they're doing because the clearly different syntax presented to YOU the player in the streaming wall of text that is the game told you so.
Your character knows that someone glanced at them. Your character might be well aware that moon mages can perceive people. A suspicious response from your character makes sense if your character is the type that would be concerned, just like in any other case where someone is rudely staring at you, but there is no way that your character knows 100% that they've just been perceived when all they've seen is someone glancing at them, regardless of the fact that YOU might know otherwise based on syntax variation.
Vote DR as TOP MUD: http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-cemm.html
<<If the information conveyed by a message is not the information a character is supposed to have, it's the developers' responsibility to change the messaging.
It is the information the PLAYER is supposed to have.
It is the information the PLAYER is supposed to have.
It is the information the PLAYER is supposed to have.
It is the information the PLAYER is supposed to have.
It is the information the PLAYER is supposed to have.
It is the...
Are you just being stubborn in the face of adversity or do you sincerely just not get it?
If a character glances at your character, in any fashion or variation on syntax whatsoever, that glance is the In-Character information. They glanced at your character.
Because it is extremely unlikely that any two characters would glance at your character in the same exact way, regardless of what they were doing with their glances (just being rude or magically peering deep into your character's soul to ravenously feed on the sad parts of his/her childhood), it is metagaming if you have your character just know what they're doing because the clearly different syntax presented to YOU the player in the streaming wall of text that is the game told you so.
Your character knows that someone glanced at them. Your character might be well aware that moon mages can perceive people. A suspicious response from your character makes sense if your character is the type that would be concerned, just like in any other case where someone is rudely staring at you, but there is no way that your character knows 100% that they've just been perceived when all they've seen is someone glancing at them, regardless of the fact that YOU might know otherwise based on syntax variation.
Vote DR as TOP MUD: http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-cemm.html
So i'm sure everyone has noticed they changed the messaging. The preserve ritual just looks like any other 'bending over corpse'. The harvest though has been changed to reflect what's actually happening.
*** bends over the goblin's corpse briefly, before plunging her knife cruelly into the body and carving out a chunk of its flesh and blood!
Thoughts?
*** bends over the goblin's corpse briefly, before plunging her knife cruelly into the body and carving out a chunk of its flesh and blood!
Thoughts?
>>Are you just being stubborn in the face of adversity or do you sincerely just not get it?<<
There is no adversity. There are people who want to think they are Better At DR then everyone else (this is you, in case you weren't aware), who embrace a POV that allows them to feel good by feeling they are better than the people around them.
However, that POV ignores what DR is in favor of what they'd like it to be. It requires selectively ignoring differences you pick up on all the time in other contexts IG. And it requires playing a game that is NOT the one being presented to you.
You're welcome to do that, but nobody should feel obligated to take your interpretation as the correct one.
- Mazrian
The Flying Company
The Public Stat Data Project
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AkqoUyrmvlKNdGlpeHZacEdldi1Ob2h3M1I5TXpCZVE&hl=en
There is no adversity. There are people who want to think they are Better At DR then everyone else (this is you, in case you weren't aware), who embrace a POV that allows them to feel good by feeling they are better than the people around them.
However, that POV ignores what DR is in favor of what they'd like it to be. It requires selectively ignoring differences you pick up on all the time in other contexts IG. And it requires playing a game that is NOT the one being presented to you.
You're welcome to do that, but nobody should feel obligated to take your interpretation as the correct one.
- Mazrian
The Flying Company
The Public Stat Data Project
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AkqoUyrmvlKNdGlpeHZacEdldi1Ob2h3M1I5TXpCZVE&hl=en
>glances (just being rude
Unrelated to the topic at hand, how is glancing at someone rude? I glance at people in real life all the time, and glance is useful IG, too, giving gender and species on one line.
Elemental Lord Opieus, Expert Warrior Mage of Elanthia
"I've always held Elanthia's ultimate end will shortly follow after either an "Oops." or a "Hey, that's neat." from within a Moon Mage guild." ~Z
Unrelated to the topic at hand, how is glancing at someone rude? I glance at people in real life all the time, and glance is useful IG, too, giving gender and species on one line.
Elemental Lord Opieus, Expert Warrior Mage of Elanthia
"I've always held Elanthia's ultimate end will shortly follow after either an "Oops." or a "Hey, that's neat." from within a Moon Mage guild." ~Z
<<There is no adversity. There are people who want to think they are Better At DR then everyone else (this is you, in case you weren't aware), who embrace a POV that allows them to feel good by feeling they are better than the people around them.
<<However, that POV ignores what DR is in favor of what they'd like it to be. It requires selectively ignoring differences you pick up on all the time in other contexts IG. And it requires playing a game that is NOT the one being presented to you.
<<You're welcome to do that, but nobody should feel obligated to take your interpretation as the correct one.
In other words, you don't get it. I'm cool with that and the idea that everyone is welcome to do their own thing in DragonRealms within reason and the boundaries of a very hand's off policy. I totally understand you're a numbers guy first and foremost with little understanding of or interest in roleplay, but why bother getting involved in discussions of roleplay issues when you don't bother with it yourself in the first place?
Vote DR as TOP MUD: http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-cemm.html
<<However, that POV ignores what DR is in favor of what they'd like it to be. It requires selectively ignoring differences you pick up on all the time in other contexts IG. And it requires playing a game that is NOT the one being presented to you.
<<You're welcome to do that, but nobody should feel obligated to take your interpretation as the correct one.
In other words, you don't get it. I'm cool with that and the idea that everyone is welcome to do their own thing in DragonRealms within reason and the boundaries of a very hand's off policy. I totally understand you're a numbers guy first and foremost with little understanding of or interest in roleplay, but why bother getting involved in discussions of roleplay issues when you don't bother with it yourself in the first place?
Vote DR as TOP MUD: http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-cemm.html
>>I totally understand you're a numbers guy first and foremost with little understanding of or interest in roleplay, but why bother getting involved in discussions of roleplay issues when you don't bother with it yourself in the first place?<<
I understand the issues presented here, and RP in general, as well as you do. But I disagree with you.
- Mazrian
The Flying Company
The Public Stat Data Project
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AkqoUyrmvlKNdGlpeHZacEdldi1Ob2h3M1I5TXpCZVE&hl=en
I understand the issues presented here, and RP in general, as well as you do. But I disagree with you.
- Mazrian
The Flying Company
The Public Stat Data Project
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AkqoUyrmvlKNdGlpeHZacEdldi1Ob2h3M1I5TXpCZVE&hl=en
<<Thoughts?>>
I like the changes.
Maz,
<<who embrace a POV that allows them to feel good by feeling they are better than the people around them.>>
<<ignores what DR is in favor of what they'd like it to be>>
<<And it requires playing a game that is NOT the one being presented to you.>>
And here you are arguing that we should go beyond the messaging as it's presented to us while accusing everyone who disagrees of playing the game incorrectly.
<<It requires selectively ignoring differences you pick up on all the time in other contexts IG.>>
Okay, I'm stumped. What?
"That's how I knew who you were. You were always like "Blah blah blah I'm a Barbarian oh-my-god." -my gf
I like the changes.
Maz,
<<who embrace a POV that allows them to feel good by feeling they are better than the people around them.>>
<<ignores what DR is in favor of what they'd like it to be>>
<<And it requires playing a game that is NOT the one being presented to you.>>
And here you are arguing that we should go beyond the messaging as it's presented to us while accusing everyone who disagrees of playing the game incorrectly.
<<It requires selectively ignoring differences you pick up on all the time in other contexts IG.>>
Okay, I'm stumped. What?
"That's how I knew who you were. You were always like "Blah blah blah I'm a Barbarian oh-my-god." -my gf
I have much love for everyone involved in the discussion, and I too fall into this catagory:
<<I understand the issues presented here, and RP in general, as well as you do. But I disagree with you.
It really is a moot point at this stage. GM's decided that they would take that unique necromancer message and make it not unique anymore. That puts the issue to bed from my point of view.
Madigan
"le rage du paladine" Korsik
<<I understand the issues presented here, and RP in general, as well as you do. But I disagree with you.
It really is a moot point at this stage. GM's decided that they would take that unique necromancer message and make it not unique anymore. That puts the issue to bed from my point of view.
Madigan
"le rage du paladine" Korsik
Obviously, roleplay is not necessary to success in the text-based game that is DragonRealms. Enter the proper syntax commands and read the feedback on the screen and continue to respond accordingly. That's the game.
Part of roleplaying your character is realizing that some parts of the mechanical design of the game are limitations of the text format.
For example, it would have been a lot more complicated in numerous ways to have every character (PCs and NPCs alike) initially appear as nameless as the wandering minstrel and old war veteran of the Crossing. So the simple thing to do is have every player-character and important non-player-characters identified by their character name as they wander around.
That this is part of the game design does not also mean that every character within the fantasy world of Elanthia just inherently knows every other character's name anymore than all of us would just know everyone else's name at Simucon if we hadn't met each other before.
The same principle applies to this glance debate and the skinning debate. If you're roleplaying, then you realize there are limitations to the text format of the game that we have to work with and around as players to suspend disbelief of the fantasy of the ongoing story of DragonRealms.
Vote DR as TOP MUD: http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-cemm.html
Part of roleplaying your character is realizing that some parts of the mechanical design of the game are limitations of the text format.
For example, it would have been a lot more complicated in numerous ways to have every character (PCs and NPCs alike) initially appear as nameless as the wandering minstrel and old war veteran of the Crossing. So the simple thing to do is have every player-character and important non-player-characters identified by their character name as they wander around.
That this is part of the game design does not also mean that every character within the fantasy world of Elanthia just inherently knows every other character's name anymore than all of us would just know everyone else's name at Simucon if we hadn't met each other before.
The same principle applies to this glance debate and the skinning debate. If you're roleplaying, then you realize there are limitations to the text format of the game that we have to work with and around as players to suspend disbelief of the fantasy of the ongoing story of DragonRealms.
Vote DR as TOP MUD: http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-cemm.html
>>Okay, I'm stumped. What?
You can easily interpret the difference between a dozen different variations of frown, but you can't tell the difference between Perceive and glance, which had different messaging?
- Mazrian
The Flying Company
The Public Stat Data Project
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AkqoUyrmvlKNdGlpeHZacEdldi1Ob2h3M1I5TXpCZVE&hl=en
You can easily interpret the difference between a dozen different variations of frown, but you can't tell the difference between Perceive and glance, which had different messaging?
- Mazrian
The Flying Company
The Public Stat Data Project
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AkqoUyrmvlKNdGlpeHZacEdldi1Ob2h3M1I5TXpCZVE&hl=en
<<I understand the issues presented here, and RP in general, as well as you do. But I disagree with you.
I'm good with agreeing to disagree. As Madigan noted, the developers saw that change was necessary to resolve the interpretation situation regardless. I think discussion is still worthwhile but I can see we're at an impasse.
Also, I apologize for my sarcastic/snide insinuations that you're not a roleplayer or well-versed in the same. That was wholly unnecessary to my argument and obviously untrue.
I have tried to step back and see it from your point of view in terms of interpreting the game messaging to the letter and making in-character recognition of the differences in system messaging but it just doesn't work for me as far as how I want to portray my characters within the fantasy of the game. It just feels disingenuous to what I believe my characters would reasonably genuinely know in a lot of cases.
It's worth noting in my own defense, whether I'm accused of being a purist or no, that my stance on these subjects is only so stringent on the forums here and in how I conduct my own characters in gameplay. If I come off as snobbish on the forums at times, as suggested, I don't think anyone could claim the same of me as a player ingame. I just attempt to weave my characters into the fantasy to the best of my ability and play inclusively with all-comers of any level of interest all the time, and always have.
Vote DR as TOP MUD: http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-cemm.html
I'm good with agreeing to disagree. As Madigan noted, the developers saw that change was necessary to resolve the interpretation situation regardless. I think discussion is still worthwhile but I can see we're at an impasse.
Also, I apologize for my sarcastic/snide insinuations that you're not a roleplayer or well-versed in the same. That was wholly unnecessary to my argument and obviously untrue.
I have tried to step back and see it from your point of view in terms of interpreting the game messaging to the letter and making in-character recognition of the differences in system messaging but it just doesn't work for me as far as how I want to portray my characters within the fantasy of the game. It just feels disingenuous to what I believe my characters would reasonably genuinely know in a lot of cases.
It's worth noting in my own defense, whether I'm accused of being a purist or no, that my stance on these subjects is only so stringent on the forums here and in how I conduct my own characters in gameplay. If I come off as snobbish on the forums at times, as suggested, I don't think anyone could claim the same of me as a player ingame. I just attempt to weave my characters into the fantasy to the best of my ability and play inclusively with all-comers of any level of interest all the time, and always have.
Vote DR as TOP MUD: http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-cemm.html
<<I just attempt to weave my characters into the fantasy to the best of my ability and play inclusively with all-comers of any level of interest all the time, and always have.
All good my friend, no worries from me. The good thing about this type of discussion is that it makes us think. If we are thinking about Roleplay, then that is going to have a positive outcome regardless of the discussion.
Like I said, much love for everyone that participated in the discussion.
Madigan
"le rage du paladine" Korsik
All good my friend, no worries from me. The good thing about this type of discussion is that it makes us think. If we are thinking about Roleplay, then that is going to have a positive outcome regardless of the discussion.
Like I said, much love for everyone that participated in the discussion.
Madigan
"le rage du paladine" Korsik
<<You can easily interpret the difference between a dozen different variations of frown, but you can't tell the difference between Perceive and glance, which had different messaging?>>
I don't personally treat similar variations any differently, though I do treat an angry frown differently than a sad one. It's easy to see a difference there - not so with an intent gaze versus an intent gaze.
But all that is beside the point. Two changes have gone in to STOP you from doing this while simultaneously making formerly ambiguous messaging much clearer. It's pretty obvious what the GM stance is, don't you think?
<<I probably should of been clearer... I was wondering if people are considering it a necromancer 'out' now?>>
Someone's ripping a chunk out of a dead critter. Depending on the critter, it might be a disturbing and/or suspicious act, or on the other hand it might be lunch. It's not an IC necromancer out all by itself IMO, but could be a reason to investigate further.
"That's how I knew who you were. You were always like "Blah blah blah I'm a Barbarian oh-my-god." -my gf
I don't personally treat similar variations any differently, though I do treat an angry frown differently than a sad one. It's easy to see a difference there - not so with an intent gaze versus an intent gaze.
But all that is beside the point. Two changes have gone in to STOP you from doing this while simultaneously making formerly ambiguous messaging much clearer. It's pretty obvious what the GM stance is, don't you think?
<<I probably should of been clearer... I was wondering if people are considering it a necromancer 'out' now?>>
Someone's ripping a chunk out of a dead critter. Depending on the critter, it might be a disturbing and/or suspicious act, or on the other hand it might be lunch. It's not an IC necromancer out all by itself IMO, but could be a reason to investigate further.
"That's how I knew who you were. You were always like "Blah blah blah I'm a Barbarian oh-my-god." -my gf
>it might be a disturbing and/or suspicious act, or on the other hand it might be lunch
Isn't harvesting lunch the carve command? Which removes some meat. So, they may have changed the command from looking like one thing to looking similar to another, though I'm not sure what the carve command actually looks like to a third party.
Elemental Lord Opieus, Expert Warrior Mage of Elanthia
"I've always held Elanthia's ultimate end will shortly follow after either an "Oops." or a "Hey, that's neat." from within a Moon Mage guild." ~Z
Isn't harvesting lunch the carve command? Which removes some meat. So, they may have changed the command from looking like one thing to looking similar to another, though I'm not sure what the carve command actually looks like to a third party.
Elemental Lord Opieus, Expert Warrior Mage of Elanthia
"I've always held Elanthia's ultimate end will shortly follow after either an "Oops." or a "Hey, that's neat." from within a Moon Mage guild." ~Z
I don't design games, I play them. Someone else designs and implements. They play dungeon master and say or do things for my character to recognize and react to. In the case of DR, the dungeon master is saying and doing things with messaging. As such, I see no reason to guess, extrapolate, or put my own spin on it.
As a player, I don't have the option to put my own spin on the ">DEAD" prompt, any more than I have the option to not interpret other messages as they are. If the dungeon master wishes to change what they are trying to say by the way things are interpreted, that's their option.
It's really very binary. Either the intent and effects are getting across, or they are not.
Let Lyras win.
As a player, I don't have the option to put my own spin on the ">DEAD" prompt, any more than I have the option to not interpret other messages as they are. If the dungeon master wishes to change what they are trying to say by the way things are interpreted, that's their option.
It's really very binary. Either the intent and effects are getting across, or they are not.
Let Lyras win.
<<Isn't harvesting lunch the carve command? Which removes some meat. So, they may have changed the command from looking like one thing to looking similar to another, though I'm not sure what the carve command actually looks like to a third party.>>
I don't know the carve messaging either, but I assume it's a bit less vicious/crude than the necromancer harvest. The necromancer harvest looks to me like someone trying to get some meat, just without any finesse whatsoever.
And of course there's a big difference between someone getting meat from, say, a boar versus an orc, human, rotting undead creature, etc.
"That's how I knew who you were. You were always like "Blah blah blah I'm a Barbarian oh-my-god." -my gf
I don't know the carve messaging either, but I assume it's a bit less vicious/crude than the necromancer harvest. The necromancer harvest looks to me like someone trying to get some meat, just without any finesse whatsoever.
And of course there's a big difference between someone getting meat from, say, a boar versus an orc, human, rotting undead creature, etc.
"That's how I knew who you were. You were always like "Blah blah blah I'm a Barbarian oh-my-god." -my gf
>>And of course there's a big difference between someone getting meat from, say, a boar versus an orc, human, rotting undead creature, etc.>>
necromancers cannot perform harvest on rotting undead creatures.
on the uther hand, you don't know that the person isn't just getting lunch...
..you put a piece of snowbeast material on a slab of rye bread and pour some ketchup on it. yum!
If you are going to damn yourself, my child, you might as well do it all the way.
Didn't we just have this discussion in conflicts?
Kindly cool it with the bickering, because someone doesn't agree with you. It does not mean they're wrong. It's just a difference of opinion.
If you are going to conflict, take it back up to the correct folder.
Thanks!
Annwyl
Message Board Supervisor
If you've questions or comments, take it to e-mail by writing me at DR-Annwyl@play.net.
>>*** bends over the goblin's corpse briefly, before plunging her knife cruelly into the body and carving out a chunk of its flesh and blood!
If it's not an out, it's certainly grounds for some serious questioning. In which case may result in an out. Rangers respect their kills. Apparently Necromancers do not.
If it's not an out, it's certainly grounds for some serious questioning. In which case may result in an out. Rangers respect their kills. Apparently Necromancers do not.
I still side with Armifer on this one:
>> Well, no. If you are strictly speaking about roleplaying, this is a pretty black and white issue: one way is doing it better than the other way. Trying to continue defending identifying Necromancers this way "is IC" is either unreflective or obstinate.
So are those of you that were using that messaging as a means of outing Necromancers still doing so, or have you magically changed your minds?
Rev. Reene
Kssarh laughs manically. "It's too late for you! You've already advanced too far in your own bloody guild," he cackles, pointing a bony finger at you. "You will be a Necromancer forever!"
>> Well, no. If you are strictly speaking about roleplaying, this is a pretty black and white issue: one way is doing it better than the other way. Trying to continue defending identifying Necromancers this way "is IC" is either unreflective or obstinate.
So are those of you that were using that messaging as a means of outing Necromancers still doing so, or have you magically changed your minds?
Rev. Reene
Kssarh laughs manically. "It's too late for you! You've already advanced too far in your own bloody guild," he cackles, pointing a bony finger at you. "You will be a Necromancer forever!"
>>*** bends over the goblin's corpse briefly, before plunging her knife cruelly into the body and carving out a chunk of its flesh and blood!>>
that is the 3rd persepective . the necromancer themself does not see the harvest message as being cruel.
>perform harvest on wolf
You bend over the wolf's corpse to make a few quick, precise motions with your ritual knife, focusing your thanatological insight intently in order to prepare it for harvesting. You then plunge your knife efficiently into the corpse and carve out a excellent piece of fetish material.
Roundtime: 4 sec.
it is simply a matter of perspective.
If you are going to damn yourself, my child, you might as well do it all the way.
that is the 3rd persepective . the necromancer themself does not see the harvest message as being cruel.
>perform harvest on wolf
You bend over the wolf's corpse to make a few quick, precise motions with your ritual knife, focusing your thanatological insight intently in order to prepare it for harvesting. You then plunge your knife efficiently into the corpse and carve out a excellent piece of fetish material.
Roundtime: 4 sec.
it is simply a matter of perspective.
If you are going to damn yourself, my child, you might as well do it all the way.
>>it is simply a matter of perspective.
Yes...and from my character's perspective it was cruel. It would definitely lead to questioning why the heck they were doing that.
It is a personal choice in how you interpret the messaging. If you wish to ignore the "cruelness" because your character wouldn't think it's cruel you can. =\
>>That's kind of a narrow interpretation. What about followers of Trothfang? Or barbarians? Or, well, anybody that was really angry, or prejudiced against that particular type of foe?
Barring personal RP choices or specific instances and as a general rule?
Yes...and from my character's perspective it was cruel. It would definitely lead to questioning why the heck they were doing that.
It is a personal choice in how you interpret the messaging. If you wish to ignore the "cruelness" because your character wouldn't think it's cruel you can. =\
>>That's kind of a narrow interpretation. What about followers of Trothfang? Or barbarians? Or, well, anybody that was really angry, or prejudiced against that particular type of foe?
Barring personal RP choices or specific instances and as a general rule?
>>Caelumia eats people.
If...my character didn't already know her as not. It'd be grounds for questioning, too.
>>If Vashir was getting meat from corpses, it would be using the necro messaging. Violent Barbarian and all that.
Probably so. I think it's fair to say that if you're sitting there butchering an animal like a mad scientist or Barbarian [or eating people] someone MAY stop to ask what you're doing if they felt it was gross, cruel, or otherwise.
If...my character didn't already know her as not. It'd be grounds for questioning, too.
>>If Vashir was getting meat from corpses, it would be using the necro messaging. Violent Barbarian and all that.
Probably so. I think it's fair to say that if you're sitting there butchering an animal like a mad scientist or Barbarian [or eating people] someone MAY stop to ask what you're doing if they felt it was gross, cruel, or otherwise.
>> Caelumia eats people.
>>Necro or no?
Necro. It's far more fun accusing people of necromancy then not. It tends to be even MORE fun if they are not actually necromancers.
ps. this folder sucks, why did we move here?
Gonif,
Are you suggesting that a spell be written specifically to allow necromancers to move into an area protected by holy magic for the purpose of constructing a vulture heart candy trail for Khurek to follow?
-Totenus
>>Necro or no?
Necro. It's far more fun accusing people of necromancy then not. It tends to be even MORE fun if they are not actually necromancers.
ps. this folder sucks, why did we move here?
Gonif,
Are you suggesting that a spell be written specifically to allow necromancers to move into an area protected by holy magic for the purpose of constructing a vulture heart candy trail for Khurek to follow?
-Totenus
<<MAY stop to ask what you're doing if they felt it was gross, cruel, or otherwise.>>
Oh I don't think anyone believes otherwise, it's a great reason to stop and stare or ask questions, even non-necro-related ones.
"That's how I knew who you were. You were always like "Blah blah blah I'm a Barbarian oh-my-god." -my gf
Oh I don't think anyone believes otherwise, it's a great reason to stop and stare or ask questions, even non-necro-related ones.
"That's how I knew who you were. You were always like "Blah blah blah I'm a Barbarian oh-my-god." -my gf
Really, I think people forget about how disgusting and morally reprehensible most of our characters are in the first place.
Most of us play mass murderers after all - yes, even if you don't PvP. Think about how morally repugnant a statement like "I'm going to go hunt louts/swains/thugs/marauders/pirates" is when you remember that those are people.
Yet we don't bat an eye at it.
Partial Displacement? Unethical. Cruel. Disgusting. Will you find many Moon Mages post 40th without it? Probably not.
Tournaments, spars. Taking both our lives and deaths as well as what must be horrific agony for granted, and laughing at it.
People who ask for invasions because they're bored, ignoring the unspoken collateral damage and civilians that die during them (wish we could get some more explicit atmospherics to this effect, incidentally). People who laughed at the Hobglup dolls mutilating people, ignoring the extremely obvious implications that innocent children are being butchered by these things.
The bright side? Many of you have inadvertently given my Necromancer character a reason for her actions. People who so clearly do not appreciate the gifts they are being given frankly do not deserve to live, and the gods that keep giving those gifts clearly do not deserve deference.
It's a funny old world.
Rev. Reene
Kssarh laughs manically. "It's too late for you! You've already advanced too far in your own bloody guild," he cackles, pointing a bony finger at you. "You will be a Necromancer forever!"
Most of us play mass murderers after all - yes, even if you don't PvP. Think about how morally repugnant a statement like "I'm going to go hunt louts/swains/thugs/marauders/pirates" is when you remember that those are people.
Yet we don't bat an eye at it.
Partial Displacement? Unethical. Cruel. Disgusting. Will you find many Moon Mages post 40th without it? Probably not.
Tournaments, spars. Taking both our lives and deaths as well as what must be horrific agony for granted, and laughing at it.
People who ask for invasions because they're bored, ignoring the unspoken collateral damage and civilians that die during them (wish we could get some more explicit atmospherics to this effect, incidentally). People who laughed at the Hobglup dolls mutilating people, ignoring the extremely obvious implications that innocent children are being butchered by these things.
The bright side? Many of you have inadvertently given my Necromancer character a reason for her actions. People who so clearly do not appreciate the gifts they are being given frankly do not deserve to live, and the gods that keep giving those gifts clearly do not deserve deference.
It's a funny old world.
Rev. Reene
Kssarh laughs manically. "It's too late for you! You've already advanced too far in your own bloody guild," he cackles, pointing a bony finger at you. "You will be a Necromancer forever!"
I don't really think any of our characters are "innocents" in that regard, with the possible exception of those few non-combat empaths out there.
If you ever really read some of the "crits" that apply when you hunt, its pretty gruesome and gorey. Backstab anyone? <thieves> Tear them apart with lightning bolts? <wm> Sing songs while they are dying? <bards> tear them apart piece by piece while blasting their mind into a numb piece of jello <MM> Smite their heart from their chest <paladin> kill them by throwing money at them? <trader> and other guilds all have their own ways of inducing "cruel and unusual" punishment to beings who are at least partially sentient if not altogether. There are many critters that "look like me" out there - s'kra killing dragonpriests are called traitor for killing their "own kind" by the DPs, raiders/ reivers / ogres aren't that different from humanoids, merauders, pirates, thugs, etc are all sentients.
Additionally, cruelty is in the eye of the beholder. I don't think the necromancer sees themself as doing something wrong by healing oneself from a corpse - "the thing is dead anyway, why not use it for my own advantage" is sort of the viewpoint there - or even to "experiment for the benefit of humanity" - much as rl physicians during the middle ages learned anatomy by studying cadavers <and medical schools still utilize those who have "left their bodies to science" by training utilizing autopsies, etc." < How do you think the CSI and mortician-type folks learn their craft? > The study of death with the idea of somehow "benefiting" the living is the idea behind the "great work" - although it is the "benefit" that would ensue when death is studied to the extent that one can defeat death altogether. <which is what offends the divine - because one "brings back" the deceased without divine providence or aid.
If you are going to damn yourself, my child, you might as well do it all the way.
If you ever really read some of the "crits" that apply when you hunt, its pretty gruesome and gorey. Backstab anyone? <thieves> Tear them apart with lightning bolts? <wm> Sing songs while they are dying? <bards> tear them apart piece by piece while blasting their mind into a numb piece of jello <MM> Smite their heart from their chest <paladin> kill them by throwing money at them? <trader> and other guilds all have their own ways of inducing "cruel and unusual" punishment to beings who are at least partially sentient if not altogether. There are many critters that "look like me" out there - s'kra killing dragonpriests are called traitor for killing their "own kind" by the DPs, raiders/ reivers / ogres aren't that different from humanoids, merauders, pirates, thugs, etc are all sentients.
Additionally, cruelty is in the eye of the beholder. I don't think the necromancer sees themself as doing something wrong by healing oneself from a corpse - "the thing is dead anyway, why not use it for my own advantage" is sort of the viewpoint there - or even to "experiment for the benefit of humanity" - much as rl physicians during the middle ages learned anatomy by studying cadavers <and medical schools still utilize those who have "left their bodies to science" by training utilizing autopsies, etc." < How do you think the CSI and mortician-type folks learn their craft? > The study of death with the idea of somehow "benefiting" the living is the idea behind the "great work" - although it is the "benefit" that would ensue when death is studied to the extent that one can defeat death altogether. <which is what offends the divine - because one "brings back" the deceased without divine providence or aid.
If you are going to damn yourself, my child, you might as well do it all the way.
>>Really, I think people forget about how disgusting and morally reprehensible most of our characters are in the first place.
Terribly so. Which does admittedly give ammunition to some of the 'Necromancers aren't that bad!' crowd. Unless of course you consider moral values as being a bit different in the gameworld.
Terribly so. Which does admittedly give ammunition to some of the 'Necromancers aren't that bad!' crowd. Unless of course you consider moral values as being a bit different in the gameworld.
