Descriptions in AR

[Ashlyn]

Immortals can commend descriptions which gives you recognition on the site as well as the light of favor IC.

[Mr. Forgotten]

Ah, thanks for clarifying.

[Scrynor]

Maybe I'm in the minority here but I love more descriptions getting commended. It's not a competition y'all. It's not a "best in class" award. It's a "Hey that's cool. Hey everybody, read this one its neat". I really don't like scarcity for this. It hate it when the characters board is stale with 5 I have already read. And scarcity just makes people want it more and feel worse when they don't get it and think they deserve it.

If it's pretty cool, commend it. Feels good for them and I'll get to read it on the web page. If you think you deserve it just, ya know, ask. Maybe they haven't seen it or the reviewer didn't have the authority or they'll point a little thing out you can correct or add and then get your flowers.

More is better here.

[Davairus]

OK I ran all the top rated killers through the desc AI, I think they are fair game since they have been kicking people's asses, they can probably have a thick skin for criticism of their descriptions.

---

Fawneria:
1) The description tells the reader how others feel: "Her presence commands attention, a wicked elegance that beguiles and intimidates all who dare gaze."

Ractor:
1. **Tells the reader how they feel:** "The look of wild and untamed coupled with the excessively harsh breathing give the impression this bull-man might be a loose-cannon."

Ragnvald:
* It states that the Jotun has "an unwavering resolve" and "an air of stoic determination," which are subjective judgments about the character's emotions and thoughts, rather than concrete descriptions of what someone would see.

Lorendil:
2. **Guideline 2:** It directly describes the character's personality: "eyes...are adorned with an otherworldly glow, reflecting both wisdom and an ageless spirit"."

Afales:
1. **Tells the reader how they feel:** "Tension is apparent within the compact creature before you." This line implies that the reader should feel tension upon looking at the creature.
(I think the last one is a 'miss' but it seems to be describing how Afales feels so nearly got it.)


----


Based on the results I am seeing over and over, the bigger picture there is a *general* bad habit of inserting emotions into descriptions. Its not everybody, but its very common. And that is coming up repeatedly in the thread as an immersion breaker.

[Merlandox]

When you say top 5 and kryton and zyron isn't in the list... it isn't a very accurate list of top 5. Just saying....

[Davairus]

Kryton:
- 1) The description tells the reader how the character feels (e.g. 'it is easy to overlook the fact he is completely void of hair') by using the word 'easy'.

Zyron
1. It tells the reader how the character feels ("bearing a brooding disposition") and how they are perceived ("appears to have endured a lifetime of hardship").


Obviously they have to login to get on the rating list.

Also I just want to point out that they are AI generated responses. The machine doesn't have any bias one way or the other. It seems pretty obvious to avoid the phrase "makes you think" in descriptions, when you have guidelines that say don't tell people what to think, but that's exactly what people are doing.. and the AI does catch that.

[ivindel]

Just saying that I would prefer to be reading "it is easy to overlook the fact he is completely void of hair", instead of simply "he is completely void of hair". The latter is just too boring.

[Davairus]

Ivindel, f you re-read the thread, you can see that the most annoying pet peeve is "do not tell anyone how to feel or what to think".. it breaks their immersion. By now everybodys made themselves clear that is a real turnoff. So I'd suggest take boring over commiting that faux pas. Show, don't tell. Also, there is another guideline that pretty much says don't be boring anyway. (Write in as much detail as possible).

There is an easy way to check this requirement. You simply imagine there is a camera in the room , and ask the question, can the camera see it?

So here is that exercise with Krytons desc:

A very large giant is here. His presence is known in many regards, one
being the shadow he casts that covers more ground that most creatures you've
seen, and can easily shade you from the sun if so desired. A unique feature
is his skin. It is multi in colour, burnt orange areas that blends and
melds into charcoal grey patches. Where these colours conjoin and mesh into
together, they form a different hue, completing the the complexion trifecta
on this giant. This feature is most dominant and noticeable since it covers
his face as well. It's hard not to stare. Due to the mesmerizing
pigmentation, it is easy to over look the fact he is completely void of
hair. Not one follicle is seen. At this point, it's more of a side note
that he looks of great, intense strength. Every muscle in sight is
extraordinarily large with veins pulsating, stretching the flesh to the
brink of ripping open, trying to contain the power within.


---


A very large giant is here. -- can the camera see it? yes

His presence is known in many regards, one being the shadow he casts that covers more ground that most creatures you've seen,
-- can the camera see it? no, this is telling your OWN personal history of what you've seen, and besides that, might be in a small chamber with no space or cave with no light, so it reads like a complete bullshit sentence. Its laughably silly.

and can easily shade you from the sun if so desired.
-- can the camera see it? no, and think about it.. you might be a fire giant too. this is a textbook example of over-exaggerating features without considering different viewers.

A unique feature is his skin. It is multi in colour, burnt orange areas that blends and melds into charcoal grey patches. Where these colours conjoin and mesh into together, they form a different hue, completing the the complexion trifecta on this giant. This feature is most dominant and noticeable since it covers his face as well.
-- can the camera see it? yes. these seem like pretty good (original, nice verbage) lines of description, and we hope for a meaningful relationship to the character's background or personality.

It's hard not to stare.
-- can the camera see that? in fact absolutely no, how could a camera see these feelings of having to gawk at stuff?

Due to the mesmerizing pigmentation, it is easy to over look the fact he is <insert physical characteristic>.
-- can the camera see it? again no, the camera is not being mesmerized, and probably neither is your character, as you are looking at a fire giant not an illithid. this looks completely out of place on a fire giant and is very questionable on anything else.

completely void of hair. Not one follicle is seen.
-- can the camera see it? yes.

At this point, it's more of a side note that he looks of great, intense strength.
-- can the camera see it? no.. the camera does not make "side notes", this is a good example of telling, not showing.

Every muscle in sight is extraordinarily large with veins pulsating, stretching the flesh to the brink of ripping open,
-- can the camera see it? yes

trying to contain the power within.
-- can the camera see it? no, but that's a cool line to end on, so that one could be let go in the interest of "rule of cool". You probably dont want to commit this mistake at all in the first five lines of your desc though, as that is going to make people stop reading.

There are ways to rewrite all that stuff into a "before the camera's lens" perspective, as well the whole thing should be reigned in a bit so the character isnt the size of a volcano, which considering the profile of this character seems honestly just super duper cringe.

--

Try this exercise with your own descriptions and amaze yourself as you easily write a much better description -- P.S. I have added this info to "help description2" for you guys to find later incase you lose it.

[Scrynor]

I really feel like we are saving the nose to spite the face here. Can we do a poll or something to make sure this isn't a vocal minority?

Maybe people should just relax on the "immersion" topic? Imagine if you tried to apply this room descriptions. That altar isn't foreboding! Don't tell me how to feel! Don't tell me I notice that statue! I'm speed running through an area I've been through 1000 times I didn't look over there!

Those descriptions are largely fine. Do we really want to force wordsmithing here? There is a difference between the sentences "has intimidating tattoos" and "you are intimidating by his tattoos". Jumping their hoops to say the same thing doesn't sound better to me.

Also, muds are a striped down world. We know Seringale is full of people that aren't in game as NPCs. Are we sure we don't want a character like Kryton to to say something about townsfolk parting to make way for him? There aren't many places in game to add that kind of style.

Maybe at very least we could we keep some greater freedom for those who want it and it just disqualifies you from getting commended rather than a trip to the description room? I'm telling you, going to that room after putting in effort and not getting to deliver your mental image of your character is a far worse player experience than what is felt the one time other players maybe actually read your description.

[voidwitch]

I agree with Scrynor that this debate, while well-intentioned, may have the unfortunate and inadvertent consequence of flattening player creativity.

As he also pointed out, the MUD itself does not pass this stress test, so the entire game would need to be re-evaluated to ensure it doesn't break someone's immersion.

e.g.: A member of the clan known as Talamaur is here.
A member of a long forgotten clan of vampires, the Talamaur, this being
stares at you intently. Never forcing himself on others, he awaits your
decision on whether or not to attack. With an evil grin he lets you
know that he can read your every thought.

e.g.: There is a beautiful girl here dancing about the room.
This is one of the most beautiful creatures you have ever seen. She is dancing around you with not a care in the world. She is wearing a long flowing gown, like she was going to a ball. She is very content just dancing. She is otherwise perfect, except for those strange two holes in her neck.
Bella is in excellent condition.

These are the first two mobs I looked at after logging in, and both would be considered immersion-breaking based on the above thread.

I think we should encourage players to write interesting and engaging descriptions. Intervention should be required to address grammatical, spelling, and typopgrahical errors.

[Davairus]

it isn't a good faith argument to introduce mobs and room descs into the conversation and then use that to strawman argument that the guidelines should not be followed for players since the same guidelines are not followed for mobs. We expect a higher standard from the player desc.

This thread has repeated a pet peeve / immersion breaker specifically (telling people what to feel or think), and an effective solution for that has been found and offered. As far as the creativity goes, I am have the opinion that the work will be more engaging for the viewer if you allow them to interpret what they are seeing and make their own conclusions about it. As opposed to snickering or complaining that it sucks on the forums.

[lionSpyre]

I think this conversation is walking a fine-line between splitting hairs and throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I could be wrong in assuming this, but I think the line is pretty clear. There's a difference between saying, "You see a terrifying visage" and "The visage you see terrifies you." One can describe something as beautiful, even 'one of the most beautiful things you've ever seen', without imposing too much on another player's RP autonomy. The difference here is really whether you've described something using an emotion (such as terrifying or beautiful), or whether you're telling the other player that they SPECIFICALLY feel terrified or perceive the creature as beautiful.

Here's an example from a recent description:

"As you gaze to the heavens the sounds of thunderous sonic booms
reverberate through every fiber of your being. Expecting a thunderstorm you
quickly realize you are in the presence of a mountainous giant."

Here, I am being told that I gaze into the heavens. I am being told that I was expecting a thunderstorm. This is the violation I (and I think others) are referring to. Here is how I would rewrite this:

"The sounds of thunderous sonic booms mark the approach of a mountainous giant."

Yes, you wouldn't hear this if they were sleeping. But I think that's a silly line to draw. This shows most of the same creativity as the original description, but now I've removed the imposition on someone else's RP.

[voidwitch]

If this conversation is truly about breaking immersion, then I strongly disagree that pointing to other aspects of the role-playing environment such as NPC and room descriptions is somehow a strawman argument.

I'm removing myself from continuing debate, however, as I realize that participating in these conversations always leaves me enjoying the game less.

[Davairus]

The very first post on the thread draws attention to PLAYER descriptions breaking immersion, so that's the topic we're discussing here. If the discussion uncovers that mansion mob descs also needs a bit of attention, then we should just queue it up and do it. I promise you I don't mind spending the 45 mins that will take. I already did a lot of work on that area. I enjoyed it. If anyone wants to volunteer too, be my guest.

[Scrynor]

It's not a strawman. It is a legitimate discussion about whether or not the original complaint is worth servicing. It's questioning whether addressing descriptions alone can even meet the original complaint of immersion breaking in this manner.

Because servicing this complaint is not free. If only complaints are heard then this is mine. Description constraints and being forced to change them are actively player hostile. When I first came back enforcement of background guidelines made me question is this was a place I could have fun. If not for people encouraging me to play, going through that room and process would have lost me as a player. Is the original complaint worth risking new player retention?

I don't disagree with what Lion wrote. It is a fine line. I want Ractor to be able to tell me his mannerisms make him seem a loose cannon. I want Afelas to be able to tell me there is always tension in his compact muscles. I want Fawn to be elegant and dangerous (but agree that can't make me scared of her).

[Stiehl26]

To be clear, asking everyone to follow the rules as written shouldn’t be considered a complaint.

A complaint would be that people aren’t following the rules.

[Merlandox]

I think this is a game. Some people enjoy writing flowery descriptions some people dont. Everyone enjoys a different aspect of the game. I hate writing description so i only put in that effort when i wish to spend the time and effort on a particular character that gives me inspiration while having 45 trash descriptions. If u guys are going to make so much rules my description is going to be

You see a man. He has 2 eyes 2 ears 1 nose 1 mouth 2 hands 2 legs. Done. Then the immortal can write the desc for me and I'll just paste it in. If it breaks your immersion honestly, i dont really care. You can go gather the 10 literate people and write your 2000 lines description and talk about it among yourself.

[Davairus]

So... lets get one thing clear, first. We havent introduced ANY new rule. Like Dogran reminded you already in his first reply, on page 1, he consistently asks people to remove these actions, thoughts and feelings references. There's nothing fresh to debate about that. Its been like that since 1999, and is a settled issue. 25 years have passed and there's at least four people on the thread still saying that this particularly bothers them, which isn't something we can just ignore. The writing is on the wall here and its clear that it isn't really being viewed as somehow more "creative" to include this sort of language in character description.

I can see that it bothers other players too having to follow that description guideline, and that's why I went to the trouble to find a way to make it easier to self-check (camera test). The point is not lost on me that players do get upset about having to change something about the character they planned for, and their default go-to is to give up on the character and not play it. However, having this rule enforced means the immersion takes preference over the number of active connections here. I think that's a good thing personally. If it goes in the other direction, maybe we would get more connections in the long run, but then quality is down and current players are alienated and/or just unhappy about it. From what I have heard this has seemed overwhelmingly a turn-off and therefore change seems unlikely to produce a positive result.

Then as for consistency of its enforcement, per this thread popping into existence, that's an identified area of needed improvement. Our staff may have our own subjective views of descs they rate as "good", and that's something we can have more discussion about (including heralds as curators might be nice), but the basic principles of screening are agreed on and available for everybody to read. Checking descriptions of low level players is a low-level imm task, just like checking names is low-level task. Beyond that, enforcement is and will remain REACTIVE. If you managed to already fly under the radar and get an approved description which shouldn't have been, then so be it, nobody will bother you about it now, as we only check descriptions once, an imms judgement is trusted thereafter. The exception to that is when it turns out a player reported it as something another player is doing that breaks immersion, which is a part of enforcing the game rules (stay in-character). Let me remind you though, its not like we are offering bounty rewards for players to snitch on each other.

The only thing that changed here is I provided a simple way for you guys to check and self-resolve it (making it easier for you also makes it easier for the staff), and leveraged AI's to make up for some of our human short-comings in screening that. The game staff includes people with jobs and kids who don't have that much free time to spend on AR, so it would be nice if we could not burden them with making description checks into a high effort task.

TLDR; Just fix whatever two lines of your desc failed the camera test (only relevant if anyone has actually even noticed). Expect PK'ers to get razzed more about it since they bother people while making themselves ironically easy targets.

[Xenyar]

Sure same rules since 99', and taken 25 years for somebody to claim it breaks their immersion.

My next desc...

A mass of size is here in the form of a living being. Its size takes up a quantity of space. The color of his skin can be dark, or perhaps grey or blue, depending on lighting and if color blindness is not a factor. Freckles are strewn across his face, noticeable or not depending on time of day and consciousness. His arms span a distance. His legs extend a length. There is nose on his face.

(yeah yeah I'm sure there's some claimed "immersion breakers" in that one too.)



I'm screwed.

[Merlandox]

There is nose is on his face.


Right there! Immersion breaker. Is that a face on a nose or a nose on a face. What are you trying to describe xenyar!!!