PlaneShift
Gameplay => Wish list => Topic started by: Suno_Regin on November 24, 2005, 03:32:19 pm
-
I\'ve read a lot of descriptions, and a few of them are good, and describe what a person looks like. Others say what the person did, does, or is doing. Yet, some describe how strong and powerful a person is.
Now, if you\'d read some descriptions, it would say \"You evaluate that X is immortal\" and right below it, it says \"You evaluate that X is a mere resistance for you...\"
There should be rules against godmoding your character in your description, because fake evaluations do take some of the fun away from RP.
Just like naming rules, before hitting the edit button on your description, it should say rules for what is accepted and what is not.
-
In general, I would agree that several kinds of descriptions are not quite suitable; but about your example:
Originally posted by Suno_Regin
Now, if you\'d read some descriptions, it would say \"You evaluate that X is immortal\" and right below it, it says \"You evaluate that X is a mere resistance for you...\"
Slightly experienced players will soon see that only the very last one is the evaluated strength, and any above is faked.
And to be true... I only read descriptions if I want to know the real race behind the model, or if someone tells me he has important information there. I am not used to read everyone. ;)
-
Well, not only that, but some descriptions say you do something when looking at the character.
Mostly Fenkis, a few say \"She looks up to you, her eyes telling you to come closer\" or something...Which really isn\'t suitable if there is another Fenki reading the description. Too much is faked.
-
Originally posted by Suno_Regin
Well, not only that, but some descriptions say you do something when looking at the character.
Mostly Fenkis, a few say \"She looks up to you, her eyes telling you to come closer\" or something...Which really isn\'t suitable if there is another Fenki reading the description. Too much is faked.
As soon as I met someone (and not only the first time), I read his description because I expect finding there his appearance (for new ones) and his mood (for already known ones). It is a very powerful way to enrich the game and roleplay, especially because devs do not have hundreds fingers to each hand, and hardware is limited too (but words are not).
I have proposed once a system to separate 4 levels of description, one of them being hidden until you win a roll of perception :
http://www.planeshift3d.com/wbboard/thread.php?threadid=15765&boardid=11&sid=de44d27398acc846f7f3e34ff43a712f
I do not think that it would be a good thing if there were 23 descriptions fields : for male klyros, for female klyros, for menki, for fenki, etc... Too heavy. Unpleasant.
I appreciate the description of your dashing fenki acquaintance because it gives me an idea of its personality.
- If I am male, I think it\'s for me.
- If I am female, I think it isn\'t for me and that the oafish xacha over there will be fooled.
- If I am female, but interested in fenki, I think it\'s perhaps for me too.
So, no problem with this description. I prefer this to those empty description, or never varying one, with \"guilty nights on roofs\", and \"born during dark crystal eclipse\" (there two things shouldn\'t be in description form, but in background one !)
-
There should be rules for descriptions indeed ... it is a place where you can write what you want and that makes it very open to abuse. So far I haven\'t really seen anyone abuse theirs yet. Sure some people do things like described in the top post here but that\'s just their idea of a joke.
Another thing I\'d like to see is \'forcing\' everyone to fill in their description when they create a character. The rules and an example could also be shown at the same time. This will at least get rid of the generic or empty descriptions.
-
Originally posted by Zan
1) There should be rules for descriptions indeed ...
2) Another thing I\'d like to see is \'forcing\' everyone to fill in their description when they create a character.
This will at least get rid of the generic or empty descriptions.
As NPC\'s speech recognition don\'t even work, how to you automatically check if one\'s description is valid or not. By giving this task to somebody? Then, I take pity on him and his eyes. Also, it would mean that when you create your character, you must wait the Checker-man gives his agreement before being able to play? Heavy & clumsy.
Also, what prevent a joker to modify its description once he is accepted in the game. Then, you cannot make someone check all the descriptions changes made during the game.
Rules would blame only good players, and would limit the way they feel their character. For example, today, with the \"no adjective for firstname\" rule, no one could be named Felix (which means \"happy\" / \"lucky\" ) ...
What would these rules be for a description?
Moreover, when you play for the first time to PS (or any paper-RPG), the most tiresome thing is always the creation of your character. Also, at this time, most do not have a clear idea of what is their character. If you impose background creation at this time, for sure you will have hollow generic descriptions!
A thing that I do ingame, when I meet someone and chat with him, is to look to its description (often empty) and try to give him hints to fill it according to the personality I feel while speaking with him. Often, the player do not really know how to fill it, or do not know what to write.
So I think that an easy-to-find example of charater creation in the manual would be much more efficient than a coercitive rule. And when you see someone with a hollow description, chat with him to help him flesh it out :)
-
Background : guilty nights on roofs.
Description : walks with a limp.
Background: very keen on reading books.
Description: wear glasses, bent back and has a book in his pocket.
Background: blacksmith apprentice, and 7 siblings.
Description: Small burns on his hands.
Background: run with a gang.
Description: wear glasses, bent back and has a book in his pocket. (do you have an objection? Description is not directly linked with background, as in the three first simple samples!)
In a nutshell:
- background is for the player (and must not be seen by other players). It is to flesh out his character.
- description is for others, and is the way the character appears to others.
If an extra-field was created in the database for description (as current one is more a background field), it would be interesting to have at the same time two more fields:
- immediate description (short, to show current mood and apperance)
- hidden description (displayed only if a perception test succeeds)
The regular \'description\' field would be a \"full description\", deeper and more exhaustive than \"immediate description\" (which would be 2 or 3 short sentences at most)
cf. http://www.planeshift3d.com/wbboard/thread.php?threadid=15765&boardid=11&sid=de44d27398acc846f7f3e34ff43a712f
\"Short description\" could replace name and guild name over the head of the characters when mouse is pointing them ... Then, a character could recongnize someone else. Besides, it would prevent to know someone\'s guild and name before speaking to him. (Guild could be guessed through brooch, cape or other tiny thing described in \"short description\")
-
I\'ve seen a description *stares at Slupor* that fully offended and insulted a guild, it was totally inappropiate and almost made me withdraw my application to DC.. anything like this should have a severe warning to it because the guild they insulted i had a great time with, so this should definetly be disallowed
-
And what\'s with the opponent evaluation in the end of the description anyway? It doesn\'t do any good for the RP. How can one evaluate one\'s experience and combat readiness just by giving a brief look? I don\'t know surely what this is based on, but I think it\'s just the experience one has gained. Age can give some hint of experience but that isn\'t enough.
Evaluation could be done by looking the persons weapons, armors or muscles. There could also be a skill with you could watch the targets movements. If you were very skillful, you could tell that someone is actually quite an opponent even if he acts to be clumsy and inexperienced. There\'s no way to measure a magicians skills though.
I think they should get rid of the whole description system for good. At least when you will be able to equip your character with detailed equipment (heavy armors, rock pick in your bag, guild cape and such) and hopefully make some day expressions too (smiling, grinning, sobbing etc).
-
As long as the description isn\'t racist or abusive in any way then people can do what they like. If you don\'t like it then don\'t read it :)
-
Long live the boundless wisedom of Xordan.
I agree a discription should be just that, a discription.
But, if the person has a bad one then just ignore it completely, after a while the roleplaying atmosphere will influence him or her to change it.
-
Yet that doesn\'t solve that you can see one\'s experience in the description.
Monster\'s evaluation is pointless too. Surely everyone can see that a rat is harder to kill than a tefusang, although small size can sometimes be misleading. And if your character is a dumb one, he can always give it a try and jump into the mouth of a consumer.
This isn\'t quite what the thread is originally about, but close enough.
-
Originally posted by Xordan
As long as the description isn\'t racist or abusive in any way then people can do what they like. If you don\'t like it then don\'t read it :)
Well people could put there all the junk they wanted. And others eventually stop reading the descriptions. But what\'s the point in implementing those then?
There\'s no way to measure a magicians skills though.
A feeling of magic radiating from a character?
Wisdom shown just by the expression of their face and look of their eyes?
Changes in physical look caused by influence of magic?
Unusual moves and general behaviour?
-
I personally dislike the description at the bottom about how powerful a person is compared to you.
Yes, it does help decide if that character would make a formidable opponent or ally, but what about those who wish to hide how skilled they are...?
Even more so, how can you judge that a person would be better than you in combat, crafting, magic, etc... unless you actually witness that happening, or an example of their work?
I understand that just by looking at someone, you can guess how strong they are, or charming, but other than that, you have no base to judge their skills.
Even a magician\'s skills would be hard to judge.
Consider this: A character would have to be able to either feel the magic about the mage and even then, it may just be a general feeling, not a specific thing you can mesure unless you\'ve been around the person for a long time.
-
Originally posted by Darkblade
Even a magician\'s skills would be hard to judge.
Consider this: A character would have to be able to either feel the magic about the mage and even then, it may just be a general feeling, not a specific thing you can mesure unless you\'ve been around the person for a long time.
Keep in mind dumb characters aren\'t able to evaluate power of observed ones...
It\'s logical that highly intelligent being would be able to evaluate such things.
-
Highly intelligent, perhaps, but do they not need to be sensitive to magic, enough to be able to sense the aura of magic?
Intelligence does not automatically mean that they are magical, or a mage, and thus I think that sensing auras of magic should be limited to those who deal with mages often, or those who study magic.
-
Originally posted by Darkblade
Highly intelligent, perhaps, but do they not need to be sensitive to magic, enough to be able to sense the aura of magic?
Intelligence --> better interpretation of the aura.
Originally posted by Darkblade
Intelligence does not automatically mean that they are magical, or a mage, and thus I think that sensing auras of magic should be limited to those who deal with mages often, or those who study magic.
There\'s actually paradox here. If you aren\'t experienced in the field of observed character, you shouldn\'t be able to evaluate if it\'s better than you, right? Wrong.
Given you are intelligent;
If you don\'t deal with physical professions, seeing someone of above-normal strength, covered by many scars, with fierce expression on his face, will give you the impression you\'re much weaker.
If you don\'t deal with mental professions, being intelligent, you\'ll still be able to interpret the aura. And if you can sense aura of magic from other person, while you have nothing to do with the craft, then it\'s easy to assume you\'re weaker.
-
Originally posted by Draklar
Intelligence --> better interpretation of the aura.
Not always, intelligence is not being sensitive to magic, and thus being able to sense the aura. For example, a sage would be highly intelligent, but they often are not able to sense magical auras, at least in my experience.
In fact, I think that is what is important about mage characters, and what makes them so dangerous. You shouldn\'t be able to notice anything out of the ordinary, at least until they use their craft. And if they are walking down the street, you shouldn\'t be able to even know that they\'re a mage, unless they show off, of course.
To go on further, just because they use magic, we must understand the principals of magic... Which we don\'t. Or we\'re not being told. :)
I know two different types of magical systems:
For sensing an aura, you\'d have to assume that some sort of resevoir of magic is within them, something dectectable/ within them if you want to be able to sense an aura.
Or, it could be a channelling type of magic, where mages just manipulate energy, not really storing any of it in their body. And, you can reason, the greater the skill, the more energy you can channel within a time period.
This system would leave no aura, since there is no extra magic in their bodies.
Originally posted by Draklar
There\'s actually paradox here. If you aren\'t experienced in the field of observed character, you shouldn\'t be able to evaluate if it\'s better than you, right? Wrong.
Given you are intelligent;
If you don\'t deal with physical professions, seeing someone of above-normal strength, covered by many scars, with fierce expression on his face, will give you the impression you\'re much weaker.
If you don\'t deal with mental professions, being intelligent, you\'ll still be able to interpret the aura. And if you can sense aura of magic from other person, while you have nothing to do with the craft, then it\'s easy to assume you\'re weaker.
This is true, that if you know nothing of a profession, that if someone has a hint of being able to perform it, then they must be better than you at that profession.
However, the little message at the bottom is the power of the character in relation to yours (Meaing overal).
Surely a fighter will dominate the physical playing field, but a mage will dominate the mystical field. But the question is, how can we define if a character is better than another one, with such different skills, especially at first glance?
If you have similar skills, like two fighters who use melee weapons, or two mages, it could become readily apparent, if they\'re in a combat situation, or whatever situation that they work in.
But, if you walk up to them in the street, how could you tell which one is better? More importantly, how could you tell if they would be able to best you?
Even more confusing are skills that are entirely opposite, like magic and physical. A powerful mage could be a complete moron in hand to hand, but could kill someone without even batting an eye. A powerful fighter could be unable to even use magic, but be able to swipe off an enemy\'s head quite easily. But if you walk up to them in the street, how would you be able to tell which one would be able to beat the other? How can you size them up and decide which one would win all the time, or most of the time?
Surely scars and whatnot can tell you that a person has seen combat, but you still do not know if they survived it by running away, or if they did duke it out. You don\'t even know if they won or lost!
Also, abnormal strength can mean little. After all, there are professions of swordplay that rely on speed and grace, not clumsy and strong blows (Fencing, for example). Furthermore, just because someone is strong does not mean that they know how to wield a sword or axe properly.
As for magical auras, I\'m mostly against them. I refer you to the first part of this post :)
Intelligence can help second-guess, but it still is limited. A first glance, (for lo, that is what this description is.) will not allow people, especially in this world full of magic, to determine who is better or not.
-
Ah, that little description; it can be deceiving. I once beat someone in three back to back duels, because he thought I was evaluated as much much weaker than him. It\'s funny because his description read to me that I should not disturb him. Alas, the dagger can be quicker than the eye it seems. Although, I was only using daggers; {30 slash} they where much quicker than his short swords (that mind you would and did in the fourth duel killed me in one hit) of which he had a much higher mastery of sword, than I my daggers.
So, we became friends as he could not understand why it was some one so much weaker than he could so manifest such a feat. At this point I have little funny things written as such in my description; you evaluate that___ is a mear resistance to you and feel like fighting him and so on, and so forth. I and the few that have read it have found it somewhat funny. Besides it is a game of fun and role play. Sometimes misleading others can be part of the char. :O
-
Originally posted by Darkblade
Not always, intelligence is not being sensitive to magic, and thus being able to sense the aura. For example, a sage would be highly intelligent, but they often are not able to sense magical auras, at least in my experience.
Well I assumed before the characters would sense the aura anyway. Intelligence would be used only as a way of understanding surroundings.
Originally posted by Darkblade
In fact, I think that is what is important about mage characters, and what makes them so dangerous. You shouldn\'t be able to notice anything out of the ordinary, at least until they use their craft. And if they are walking down the street, you shouldn\'t be able to even know that they\'re a mage, unless they show off, of course.
In a really realistic tabletop I played, there was the best magic system I\'ve ever seen. the mages would be changing more and more as they grew in power. Besides the usual rotting flesh for necromancers, there were new ways of showing it: Fire mages were acting agressive, their moves rapid. Their voices were getting really loud and their hair were turning red. I think their faces were showing signs of insanity too. Likewise, wind mages moved with grace, seemed unnaturally absent and so on.
Originally posted by Darkblade
This is true, that if you know nothing of a profession, that if someone has a hint of being able to perform it, then they must be better than you at that profession.
However, the little message at the bottom is the power of the character in relation to yours (Meaing overal).
Surely a fighter will dominate the physical playing field, but a mage will dominate the mystical field. But the question is, how can we define if a character is better than another one, with such different skills, especially at first glance?
First of all, I don\'t think first glance. Keep in mind it\'s at the end of description. A full one would contain characteristics seen on first glance, on closer observation and on longer observation. And just then the evaluation.
Second, if I think of tabletop situation, playing a mage of certain power, when Game Master would describe me physical look of some thug, I\'d be evaluating his strength in same way. Should I run or stand and fight? Again, low-intelligence characters aren\'t able to evaluate it.
Also, I used auras as only one of examples how this could be done. Physical look and personality of mages changing are my favorites \\o/
-
Originally posted by Draklar
In a really realistic tabletop I played, there was the best magic system I\'ve ever seen. the mages would be changing more and more as they grew in power. Besides the usual rotting flesh for necromancers, there were new ways of showing it: Fire mages were acting agressive, their moves rapid. Their voices were getting really loud and their hair were turning red. I think their faces were showing signs of insanity too. Likewise, wind mages moved with grace, seemed unnaturally absent and so on.
True, however I doubt that within this realm these traits are applied to the ways of magic. I\'m not saying that it\'s not a good way of doing it, but I don\'t think it belongs in the Planeshift realm.
Originally posted by Draklar
First of all, I don\'t think first glance. Keep in mind it\'s at the end of description. A full one would contain characteristics seen on first glance, on closer observation and on longer observation. And just then the evaluation.
Second, if I think of tabletop situation, playing a mage of certain power, when Game Master would describe me physical look of some thug, I\'d be evaluating his strength in same way. Should I run or stand and fight? Again, low-intelligence characters aren\'t able to evaluate it.
The reason I\'m saying first glance is that you have not had a chance to observe your opponent\'s skills in combat, ie. you can\'t truely compare their abillities to yours. It\'s still an impression, and impression oft turns out to be wrong :)
After all, a master swordsman can look exactly the same as a regular peasant and you\'d only know when he lops off a few heads or somesuch thing.
It just gives me a funny idea, wheras the players turn and run, simply because the creature gives them a nasty look xD
Also, it\'s my personal opinion that low-intelligence characters are able, to some degree, evaluate his opponent. You\'ll still notice that the other character is bigger than you, maybe has more grace, etc.
The difference is whether you stand and fight or not ;)
I also point you to the fact that this evaluation is in relation to your character, and therein lies the difficulty.
Originally posted by Draklar
Also, I used auras as only one of examples how this could be done. Physical look of mages changing together with their personality are my favorites \\o/
That is one way mages could be illustrated, but it is my personal opinion to have slightly less obvious mages would make the game a bit more surprising :D
-
Originally posted by Darkblade
True, however I doubt that within this realm these traits are applied to the ways of magic. I\'m not saying that it\'s not a good way of doing it, but I don\'t think it belongs in the Planeshift realm.
Well we do know Red way is connected with rage and so on (at least looking at spell examples on the website), but other than that not really.
To your other points I\'d mostly agree.