ti-legacy.com

This one might be controversial, but I think it would provide some benefits for the game as a whole.

Overview: Add an option to the courier that requests the courier report with the location where the message was accepted.

Restrictions:

1. It should only be possible to use if you have only a single target for the message (likely with a 'courier spy' toggle that defaults to off)
2. It needs, obviously, to be more expensive than the default option.
3. Obviously again, it should only return anything if the message is accepted, and it should only return the room where it was accepted.

Here are some thoughts on the cost:

1. At bare minimum, it should cost double the base messaging cost. I believe that would price it at a minimum of ten silver. This covers the courier coming back to you.
2. I believe that the above minimum is too cheap for what it does. I recommend an additional cost in either:
2.1 5 Quest points (making it basically automated RPA)
2.2 1 to 5 IP to socially pressure the courier (It makes sense, but I really don't like how this makes it semi-class restricted)
2.3 An additional surcharge of 5 to 10 silver to act as a bribe (This is probably my favorite, since it puts people on mostly even footing)
2.4 Some combination of the above (bribe + QP for instance), or let the player choose which method when toggling the option.

Here are some thoughts on what, specifically, it could do:

1. Return the room name (bare minimum to be worth anything)
2. Return the room name and everyone in the room as well (this has some interesting implications I'll get into soon)
3. Basically return a 'look' of the room as if the courier had 0 Wis (that is, don't reveal anything or anyone who was hidden successfully, but everything else; this is probably too spammy to be worthwhile, and also maybe overpowered)

And finally, some thoughts on why I think this would be beneficial:

People are supposed to treat messengers ICly. Beyond the benefit to intrigue this option could provide, this would also provide some risk to accepting messengers. If you accept a messenger in the middle of a witch meeting in a room that's been enchanted, option #3 above would out you if the messenger was asked to spy, as you'd expect if an NPC wandered in to such a heretical display. If you're in the middle of an affair or other liaison that might provide scandal, #2 will out that, as well, if you aren't careful. Potentially even #1 would do it. I think making people think twice before they accept messengers in any given situation is beneficial in helping to encourage this aspect of the game that's been largely ignored for the sake of convenience. Plus, you know. Intrigue.

I do like the idea, and quite frankly it should just be extra silver, but I disagree at just 10, way more in line of 30 so it will be used sparsely, not with every single message sent.

There are some things here that I would have some reservations about. It sounds like it would potentially greatly complicate the system. And there is the issue that it comes out pretty much one hundred percent successful. Most RPA's, as I understand it aren't designed to be one hundred percent successful or always 100% useful and perfect. There are rolls that go on in the background on a number of them to check how you did or against random chance that are handled by staff based upon circumstances. This system would not have the nuance that most RPA needs. While you could implement a chance of failure, what of the chance of someone turning on the person who spied upon them? I am sure there are other permutations based upon the method you use to try to get them to spy. I mean I understand the principal here, but I think much of it is accomplished with normal RPA at the moment.

It also doesn't take into consideration those wealthy nobles and gentry who maybe don't accept the messages themselves. If I receive a message while I am in my home, for instance, I always rp that the messenger was asked to leave the message with a NPC household member of staff. I wouldn't be just inviting messengers deep into my house, but I'm not going to walk out several rooms just to get to the door everytime I get a messenger when I get as many messengers as I do. It's what the NPC's are for, to pass those along.

Just want to ask for some clarity in which system you're referring to here. You start out talking about couriers, but then talk about messengers, do you mean both or just one or the other? OOCly the word "courier" could mean either, but in-game the Courier is the equivalent of the post office.

I am pretty much totally against the concept of a Courier Spy with regard to written mail unless there would be some way for careful peeps to detect and/or misinfom such a system with some amount of preparation or monetary cost.

However, if this is only referring to messengers that seems a bit better.

The one thing I would suggest is a change that tells the person receiving the messenger something about what's coming, without of course relaying the whole message. For example, if the Regent is sending me a royal messenger with a writ of meritorious conduct, to me as a player it looks identical as some jerk sending a street rat to kick me in the shins. I don't know until I actually hit "message receive" what TYPE of messenger is coming, so I don't know whether it's even something I would want to accept in a public place vs a private one.

Realistically I would see a messenger coming and the act of "accepting" is just saying yeah, I acknowledge that I see them and allow them to deliver the message. As a player there should be some indication of whether this person I'm ICly seeing is a liveried palace courier or a bard or a drug-riddled thug or whatever. Then I might choose to accept, refuse, or end a scene before accepting in private.

If we get that then I am fully supportive of the potential to do spy stuff with messengers =)

Sorry, I mean messengers. Someone sent me a 'courier's messenger' earlier that day and I suppose it mixed me up.

I'd also be cool with letting people configure the messenger waiting message. It should probably default to the current one like the sending message does.

Messengers acting as spies, huh? Suddenly the messenger market became more lucrative. However, I don't really agree with this. And this is from someone who thinks the odds are stacked too high against subterfuge/nefarious actions. To me messengers are serving an OOC purpose and are IC because they need to be. It's a way to communicate with players across the grid without having to find them.

And this is going to create a lot of OOC paranoia whether we want to believe it or not. How many messengers now use notes, speak to players privately, or do some other trick to ensure that the recipient, and only the recipient, receives the message? It's going to get ridiculous if something like this were added. And I don't sit comfy knowing anyone can conscript a messenger to essentially spy on someone. These schmucks are suddenly better than what my character was built to do! Plus, won't this clog up messengers?

Look, I'd love to see more power given to subterfuge. Currently there's just so much risk involved. Yes, there should be risk, but it shouldn't be to the point of being a deterrent. Personally, I'd like to see us be able to RPA investigate said messenger and try to bribe or charm them into telling us what they saw. That or maybe give Troubadours/Brotherhood/General a skill that gives them a chance to 'overhear/see' the 'message' part of a message. I think that would be cool.

One problem I see with this is that not all messengers are received icly. By this I mean that (and I have done this) I'll be in a room where I wouldn't actually receive a messenger, but I do receive it so that I can let the sender know I won't be able to respond and things like that. I consider it a courtesy so that the sender isn't waiting around for a reply. If I'm in the 3rd ring of the Abyss, I wouldn't actually receive it icly, but will oocly to pass on the response.

Onyxsoulle wrote:One problem I see with this is that not all messengers are received icly. By this I mean that (and I have done this) I'll be in a room where I wouldn't actually receive a messenger, but I do receive it so that I can let the sender know I won't be able to respond and things like that. I consider it a courtesy so that the sender isn't waiting around for a reply. If I'm in the 3rd ring of the Abyss, I wouldn't actually receive it icly, but will oocly to pass on the response.

To note, if you receive a message, we are considering you ICly receiving it. If you can't receive it for reasons, you can still let the person know! We added a reject option: