Changes needed to Description guidelines?

[Ceridwel]

Hi all,

Some feedback came in (http://abandonedrealms.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10816) that the Description guidelines might need adjusting. Spinning up this thread to guage interest/need for this. Please post your comments, thoughts, and ideas here so we can flush this out before implementing anything.

The current guidelines helpfile:

[Dogran]

I think for the most part that file is fine. There will be minor exceptions sometimes but as long as they are well thought out/written and not too crazy they should be fine.

[Ceridwel]

How do people feel about an illusionist's desc having illusions in it? Eg you look at an illithid and her desc says you see a beautiful human woman.

[Davairus]

It needs to say that legibility is a requirement (i.e. clean up your grammar, typos). It would be nice to recommend using at least one exotic word - I don't mean fill the whole desc full of them, but just something to make it more interesting to read than the last 3000 of them. I would like to have a reward in the game for above-average descriptions so some description of what's expected to qualify for it would be nice.

[Nycticora]

I'm not a big fan of that Ceridwel but I probably wouldn't make someone change it, it's on that border. I wouldn't think it was weird if it bothered you and I'd make him change it if someone complained.

I don't really like it when players RP long lasting spell effects like that when there are actual in-game spells that do it and don't work that way like doppelganger. That stone giant that used to RP being a gnome in some kind of homonculus suit used to annoy the shit out of me though I wouldn't stand for that a second time I don't think, I'd at least complain to other imms.

[Vevier]

I've always felt that if you would have space for something when all your slots were filled, it was fine to have in your desc. So jewelry is fine since we limit to two for mechanics not for logic. With something like hair sticking out of a helmet, I agree with Ceridwel that it's not always going to be the case that you're wearing a helmet. You could have all your eq and have a hat on your head. However, I think such description is acceptable if you include some conditional language. For example, Her hair is long and wild, tending not to be contained by even the most conservative helmet.

I'm not against overhauling some of the rules, but I think the burden also lies on the immortal to find where we can compromise those rules in favor of creativity.

I also agree with Nycticora. I like the idea of maybe having some stray magic in your desc, baubles of light and color floating around an illusionist but it shouldn't emulate something that can be recreated with the mechanics we have in place already.

[Kornhole]

Ok, so if I am dead, and running for my things....wait.....I have a new body...why can't my shaman's robes come with each new body?

[Stephen2Aus]

I lean very much toward Divsky's rationale... It should be a description of how you expect this character to typically appear, ignoring edge cases etc...

As he says, once you start bringing in the "but you might be naked", where do you stop? "But your helmet might block your face so no describing faces".

I personally think that we should allow it to describe what this character will typically look like, and for anything that's gone too far, use the supreme court's agreement:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it

[ottif]

^

I think you're taking the description helpfile too literally. As long as it is a well written serious description of your character you really don't need to bring it up. Personally I think all you do then is stifle RP.

[divsky]

I had a spark of inspiration making one of my latest characters, which is something I love. When I get a hook in for my roleplay, even if it's a kind of minor hook, I'll enjoy the character way more and be much more dedicated to roleplaying it and playing it in general.

So I wrote a background and a description side by side. And the description tied into the background in ways that I felt were actually very clever. Which is why, even though I was pushing the boundaries a little bit in describing equipment in a description, I felt it was okay. Because there was solid roleplay behind it and I felt like it made my character more interesting.

The whole reason I brought this topic up was because I had to change that description. So I made some basic changes that removed specific descriptions of my character's armor, but still referenced the fact that he was wearing armor. And that wasn't enough. I had to change it more, until there were literally no references to armor of any kind.

So I wanted there to be some discussion, because like other people, I felt if I had put in some legitimate effort and roleplay into my description, I should be fine. But I wasn't.

I don't want to sound like I'm bitching though. Because I know the imm who wanted me to change my description and I have a lot of respect for that imm. If the rules are consistent, I'll follow them. And since then every descriptions I've made (I'm a junkie for rolling new characters) has not referenced armor or equipment at all. So I respect the ruling that was made.

But my personal opinion? Basic descriptions of armor and equipment should be fine. We shouldn't punish descriptions where people are actually trying, we should be focusing our attention on people with shitty descriptions who just don't give a fuck. But, in the words of the dude, that's just like, my opinion, man.

[beia]

I would say something that you can wear under your equipment would be fine, like a white shirt, a wife beater, ect.. Tank top, panties yah yeah.

[Vanisse]

you mean the guy who's wearing panties under his platinum armor will be revealed for all to see... dammit

i do tend to agree that a minor mention of clothing can be acceptable, like belt with stuff dangling on it, a necklace, a ring, stuff like that. and i've written plenty of "wearing a simple robe" descs in my day. it is pretty easy to be vague on the clothing and stick to your physical features though. and if an imm is red-flagging the word 'armor' just don't use the word armor and describe the general gist (he clearly takes good care of himself, she is utterly caked in mud, etc.)

[Nycticora]

Equipment (and, by the way, spell effects too) is part of the game mechanics. You aren't wearing sparkling polished armor or whatever you said, you were wearing worn steel and some spiked steel vambraces and a cloak of dreamseeking or whatever you were wearing at the time. Sure, you can make sure your character is always wearing plate armor all the time as part of your RP. If you want to do that go actually find some plate armor and wear it all the time.

Game mechanics exist to make the game feel more real. You have a shared experience in these mechanics that are part of the immutable game world that isn't under your control. It's not just YOUR imagination, it's yours and someone elses and there's a little bit of real in it too in the game code that you can't control. It's for IMMERSION. When you fuck up the game's mechanics you RUIN PEOPLE'S IMMERSION.

It cheeses people off and ruins their immersion when they kill you and full loot you and look at you naked and in awful condition and your fucking description says you have armor on (or that you look like a werewolf when you're NOT affected by beast form, or that you're flying when you're not, etc. etc.).

This is fundamentally the same problem I have with people outing their characters. It ruins other people's immersion and pulls them out of the game world and fucks up all roleplay and makes people not want to fucking interact with your piece of shit character

[Kornhole]

Yeah, immersion is everything, imagine logging on and seeing someone named mercielago! Would make me quit playing

[Nycticora]

you complained and got it renamed because you said it broke your immersion

[Kornhole]

It was changed before I saw it or had a chance to complain, but the point of this thread was descriptions. There has to be a line drawn.....what if you look at me sleeping...should I not describe eye color?

[Nycticora]

well you still have green eyes when you're sleeping, unless you have grey eyes

[Ceridwel]

Good discussion folks, keep it coming. My goal here is that we land with something that 1) is consistent, 2) makes sense from an RP and immersion standpoint, 3) Cheeses off as few people as possible, and 4) gets precisely documented in the helpfile so there is no room for confusion.

[divsky]

It ruins your immersion when you look at someone's naked corpse and their description mentions armor, but it doesn't ruin your immersion when that same person sends you a tell from their temple then walks up and starts collecting the armor you didn't sacrifice from their corpse? It doesn't ruin your immersion that you know everyone's name without them ever introducing themselves? It doesn't bother you that you can kill Farmer Griff with a 2-handed hammer, eat his brains and sacrifice his corpse to your god, and 4 hours later he'll be back smiling happily at you and asking what you want to buy?

AR is a roleplay MUD. But it's not a hardcore roleplay MUD. It's just about creating and roleplaying a persona and seeing how that persona interacts with others. It's not about meticulously making sure every single thing is done as realistically as possible. Gameplay has always trumped realism. Nobody wants to change that.

I like roleplay, but trust me, we don't need roleplay nazis enforcing realism because of "muh immersion". If you can't practice a reasonable amount of suspension of disbelief, then AR probably isn't the roleplay game for you.

[Nycticora]

If someone sends me a tell from the temple after I kill them I ignore them or reply that dead men don't speak. I ignore their ghost.

I don't know everyone's name without them introducing themselves unless they're famous. Maybe you should try roleplaying divsky.

I'm not even going to grace your repop retardation with a response