Whoinvis Discussion General /WDG/

[Puciek]

The flipside of allowance means "that much I can be whoinvis" which will easily translate into "that much I should be on whoinvis" because it's there, it's free and it only benefits you while taking away from the game as a whole. And no, no one came with a specific example where that whoinvis is a MUST to drive the RP, just that they prefer it as it prevents potential ooc connections (it really doesn't stop actual metagaming but that's something I won't explain publicly to not encourage it), which is quite different, or how that goes around the need for CNOTES. You as a player are not expected to prove that metagaming is at play, just drop staff a note why you are suspicious and let them figure out the rest.

I may be more warm towards the allowance after this sets in for few weeks and people get out of the mindset that "doing something shady == whoinvis" that seems to currently prevail. Because allowance will only solidify that view.

[Andruid]

Preventing potential OOC connections is the easiest means of preventing metagaming of this kind, and if a tax deincentivizes certain types of IC behavior, then that's the opposite of "driving" that RP, which is what's at stake here. Not whether whoinvis is absolutely necessary. We already know it's staying. The argument is at what cost.

An allowance would make people more mindful about how they use whoinvis, for sure. 1-3 uses per week seems reasonable to me, especially if they're on a 6 hour timer.

[Puciek]

Preventing potential OOC connections is the easiest means of preventing metagaming of this kind, and if a tax deincentivizes certain types of IC behavior, then that's the opposite of "driving" RP, which is what's at stake here. Not whether whoinvis is absolutely necessary. We already know it's staying. The argument is at what cost.

An allowance would make people more mindful about how they use whoinvis, for sure. 1-3 uses per week seems reasonable to me, especially if they're on a 6 hour timer.

Given that average person plays for 7rp hours a week it means you can, on an allowance of ~2 uses alone you live most of your RP time whoinvis. And the rest for 250-500 exp if you are on the slightly higher end of median playtime.

And really if we think that metagaming of who is that bad and really affects such wide amount of player base then we should simply remove who. This way at least it's fair to both victims and criminals alike, not like a selective system which will always favour the attacking party. And there is a lot more meta to who (if someone feels that way) than just the obvious crimes.

[Andruid]

I confess, I don't really see a problem with those numbers. 7 hours can happen in single session or it can happen across 7 one-hour sessions, or anything in-between. Offering a couple of freebies a week sounds entirely reasonable to me, regardless of how a player is getting in their active playtime. What the changes will probably most affect is how people use whoinvis when they're NOT actively RPing -- and either way, allowance or not, I'm guessing the changes are going to greatly reduce the amount of casual whoinvis use that occurs. Which seems to be the point.

I agree with Azarial that removing the wholist would make the game seem like a desolate and unpopulated wasteland, but I do think there would be some benefits (and some drawbacks) to using a purely OOC list as some other games do -- though, I also think that might be a topic better left for a separate thread.

[Rabek]

Plenty of RPE and almost all RPI games do not have a 'who' command.

This issue is very simple: If people being whoinvis affects your RP, then you are metagaming. "Who" is OOC information. If "who" affects your RP, you are metagaming. If "who" does not affect your RP, then "whoinvis" should not be causing you problems.

This punishes people who are opting out of a system of metagaming, much like people who turn 'where' off.

Call me oldschool, but I think we should be punishing metagamers, not people who decide to opt out of metagaming.

As others have said, it's too easy to accidentally metagame with "who," so the answer is to either remove who entirely or allow people to freely opt out of the metagaming system, since you can't really detect or punish accidental metagaming.

EDIT: Rewrote the entire post for clarity.

[Kinaed]

I don't view this as a "crime" tax, though I acknowledge a downswing in criminal behaviour is a potential side effect of the solution we've proposed. Our goal is not to reduce this type of play, but to encourage players to only use whoinvis when engaging in that sort of RP.

So far, asking people to stop living in whoinvis has had no effect.

To me, it seems as if not being willing to do anything nefarious without whoinvis on is a perception issue. People with whoinvis on overwhelmingly are people who view themselves as baddies. Therefore, it's a key way of actually tagging yourself as suspicious.

In my mind, other solutions haven't worked. This one probably will. The XP costs are absolutely a token and designed to simply make someone think, "Do I really need whoinvis for RP, or am I idling in my house, unreachable by anyone who might want to reach out to me?"

[Andruid]

Not that it makes any difference at this point, but I actually have no problem with people living on the wholist permanently, for all the reasons mentioned by Rabek and others, and I was never one of the folks clamoring for change. I don't feel entitled to anyone's character names or OOC status. I prefer not to learn baddies' coded names, and if someone is trying to pretend to be dead or missing, I don't want to be OOCly influenced by the knowledge they're still around. Whoinvis away, I say. Preserve the mystery. Have at it.

Well, have at it if you have the XP to burn.

[wimple]

I'm not really seeing a problem here. Have your pick pocket whoinvis when you are thieving and then don't whoinvis when they aren't on a crime spree. Surely even crime character have RP outside of actively engaging in thievery? There was a time when Southside RP did not involve permanent whoinvis and everyone in cloaks/masks 24/7. A token cost is the same token cost that lawful types need to use if they want to whoinvis before doing something covert themselves, which lawful types absolutely do on occasion, just like pick pockets... pick people's pockets on occasion.

Characters that are kidnapped or on the run are outliers. I don't think we should be making decisions based on those outliers. If someone is kidnapped, their captors should be required to make sure they are getting XP. That XP should more than cover them staying on whoinvis. If they aren't getting that RP/XP, then they need to contact staff, just like folks in jail that aren't being taken care of do. You decide to go on the run? Then you're responsible for getting your RP on the run to pay for whoinvis. Not everyone on the run wants to be whoinvis.

I'm not a fan of living on whoinvis. That doesn't mean I support meta gaming. And I don't think it is helpful to the conversation to just accuse people that are in support of a certain policy as meta gamers. I find it completely reasonable to want to be covert when you are doing a crime and there is a small who list. You can still do this with an XP cost. I don't think whoinvis really impedes investigations. But I don't find it welcoming to newbs to login to a game and have half the players invisible and no WhereRP on. I have found myself doing tavern RP, not because I am particularly interested in it, but because either people are all whoinvis, AFK/IAW, or no one has whereRP on except a random cyan and I feel bad about it.

I am not sure why the level of fear on meta gaming has hit such a high, but it feels like just about every major post on here or OOC meeting winds up with metagaming being brought up. Frankly, just like putting a 'covert tax' on whoinvis might upset people and drive them away, all these accusations of meta gaming can and will do the same.

[Helena]

Like Wimple, I am a bit surprised byt the fear of "metagaming". I have the feeling that the player base is, at an OOC level, very attentive with the baddies, and willing to help them do their things.

I also find useful to remind that, a month ago, when the subject of whoinvis was raised for what was for me the first time, it was not concerning baddies, but... guild leaders. Players were complaining that they were becoming unreachable outside of their own consent. The discussion was enough to solve that problem, but that's how the related problem of living permanently in whoinvis was raised.

As far as I understand, OOC invisibility gives the player all freedom on where, when, and with who, he roleplays: no messengers, no tells, not even people waiting in front of his home, nor, I believe, magery (It may be possible to cast, but I believe it's painful to cast a spell on someone who might not be online). So, guildleader or not, I find it normal that someone willing to benefit these OOC bonuses, accepts an OOC cost, which is only here to remind that whoinvis is not supposed to be permanent.

[Andruid]

But I don't find it welcoming to newbs to login to a game and have half the players invisible and no WhereRP on.

I think this is largely an overstatement or must be more typical during off-hours, because I haven't encountered this problem anytime recently. Certainly not since the change to whoinvis toggling on login.

As for the rest: mostly fair points, but I don't agree that the so-called "fear of metagaming" has reached some sort of all-time high. There's always been a contingent of current or former coverts here (myself, for certain) wanting to ensure that criminal types have adequate protections to feel like they can do their thing, particularly when the wholist is short. Staff have made several changes over the years to improve those protections and to enable covert RP, and for that I am grateful. Except for the @desc_cloak thing, because I actually WANT character-specific info in my cloak desc, in addition to the cloak desc. But otherwise, it's been a good trend.

I also don't think it's fair to characterize coverts' desire to prevent accidental use of OOC knowledge as some kind of irrational fear of rampant metagaming -- especially when the main point is, and has been, that metagaming can happen unintentionally and unconsciously and is very easy to do without realizing you're doing it. It's also difficult to track and to report when someone is encouraged to follow a thread due to OOC knowledge and is writing all the correct cnotes. Clever people like myself especially understand this problem -- we're always connecting the dots whether we want to or not. It takes vigilance and self-awareness not to follow certain threads or to allow OOC knowledge to seep into our play, and it takes effort to preserve the mystery and thrill.

In any case, like I said, these whoinvis fees are probably not the end of the world and don't really affect me personally, but if they do hamper or discourage covert characters in a noticeable way, I hope the topic of an allowance can be revisited.