Community Standards Discussion

[Kinaed]

At the OOC Chat yesterday, players raised that they felt they needed rules in tense situations to help each other understand what they should or should not do to play considerately with one another in tense situations.

This thread is to discuss ideas for community agreements, some of which may well become enshrined as enforceable policy. So, what sorts of things do people do in tense RP situations that are impolite/unfair and ought not to be allowed? How do you think those situations should be handled instead?

[Leech]

I'll just spring out the majority of problems I've had in the past:

1. Grappling
2. NPC interaction (to what extent, how, and affects of)
3. Successful temijul hit not providing enough time for an escape emote (having to hash out those rules).

Will think of more as time provides. As a general note, my personal opinion on the matter is and always will be we need these rules to be coded in, not just set in policy, for a few reasons. Mainly to relieve the load of policy complaints down the road when we start to get more and more players and rely only on trust and the idea that everyone wants to have fun. The advantage of 'tabletop rules' is that there is a DM to preside over everything at all times. On a MUD you don't have that luxury - you have code.

That's not to say I am ignoring the fact that Az has a to-do list a thousand miles long, is only one person, and has a life. Really, I'd like to see more coders on board the MUD. It's an investment of time and resources that pays off more than extending the MUDs already extensive play policy.

[Dice]

I'd like to see agreement that it's not appropriate to use 'approach' or 'move' during tense scenes; instead, you use step. But how do we account for different movement speeds, dex and etc?

Also, do you need to emote casting a spell before you use invoke? How do you handle spells with threaded invocations? They happen too fast for somebody to react.

How do you handle when to initiate combat? Do you need to emote trying to attack before you attack the first time?

[Gavin]

I'd like to see agreement that it's not appropriate to use 'approach' or 'move' during tense scenes; instead, you use step. But how do we account for different movement speeds, dex and etc?

Also, do you need to emote casting a spell before you use invoke? How do you handle spells with threaded invocations? They happen too fast for somebody to react.

How do you handle when to initiate combat? Do you need to emote trying to attack before you attack the first time?

I don't quite agree with your contention regarding approach/move, because I don't think scenes (and just imagine some rooms here, huge ones, especially when combat between two parties is mutually agreed upon) that devolve into step, step, step are very compelling; and I don't think you can necessarily equate a step action to an attack action. In other words, to put this in tabletop terms for ease of explanation, do players get a move and attack action each "round?" One of each, or could they double-move?

It quickly gets convoluted.

I think what we can agree on, however, is that there definitely is a time when "TI Time" stops and "Tension Time" (TT) begins-- although people might not precisely agree on when that is.

The biggest issue is that, during TT, certain elements of the code (e.g., combat, threaded commands, temijul, magic) don't operate in TT. They operate in TI Time, and while you can certainly announce some standards to essentially slap a band-aid onto the system, we're really dealing with two entirely different paradigms here. (Oh, and-- maybe three. Combat code has a built-in timer, and also governs what's allowed per round, in and of itself.)

It's a whole lot of gray, and what I judge to be fair (e.g., if someone flees, but they're down to 0 MV because of a prolonged combat scenario, and I walk one room to the east and re-engage them), others might not.

I think we really have to ask when Tension Time even starts, at the outset.

[Dice]

I do agree with that, Gavin. In my mind, tension time starts when one player declares it - i.e., as soon as anybody wants folks to break things down. (Maybe could use 'turns' to signal it.)

But approach/move are systems that just do not WORK in tension time, because they immediately close distance faster than a single pose can be written.

I don't see much of a solution BEYOND writing standards for the differences between normal time and tension time, honestly. Is there a better approach?

[Leech]

There's a certain point where you just have to realize that eventually the story needs to be taken by code to facilitate a conclusion - like with the approach example given. You said there wasn't enough time to write a pose - and I'm fine with that. If I want to flee, I'll just immediately flee without emoting. Does it suck? Eh, a little I guess if you had a really cool leaving emote. Yes, the game is supposed to be about the story - but I don't think flaking on emoting a leave will completely ruin my immersion. You're running, I get it. I don't necessarily need to know how you're running, unless you're limping (in which case, set a diremote yo).

I'd love to see a toggle for automatically following somebody if they try to leave while you're approaching them - that way it flows smoothly into a chase, and we can work out chase code from there (if any).

(In fact, a 'toggle hostile' would be a great addition - maybe similar to the 'mood' code. When one person goes hostile it sets a bright red flag in the room that says something along the lines of 'The tension in the air is palpable.' so that people know some shit is going down.)

[Gavin]

There's a certain point where you just have to realize that eventually the story needs to be taken by code to facilitate a conclusion - like with the approach example given. You said there wasn't enough time to write a pose - and I'm fine with that. If I want to flee, I'll just immediately flee without emoting. Does it suck? Eh, a little I guess if you had a really cool leaving emote. Yes, the game is supposed to be about the story - but I don't think flaking on emoting a leave will completely ruin my immersion. You're running, I get it. I don't necessarily need to know how you're running, unless you're limping (in which case, set a diremote yo).

I'd love to see a toggle for automatically following somebody if they try to leave while you're approaching them - that way it flows smoothly into a chase, and we can work out chase code from there (if any).

(In fact, a 'toggle hostile' would be a great addition - maybe similar to the 'mood' code. When one person goes hostile it sets a bright red flag in the room that says something along the lines of 'The tension in the air is palpable.' so that people know some shit is going down.)

I like this idea. I just wonder if it's essentially just requiring folks to use moods and to respect the "turns" command.

I will throw this out here, though: often, even in tense scenes, sometimes people are sort of in the background and not moving the plot towards resolution. In other words, if two people are arguing, and you've got the peanut gallery in the back, I've never liked it when someone calls "turns" and now we're waiting on (sorry to say, but it's true sometimes) filler emotes, which can sometimes lead to lengthy times between the "focus" of the scene.

Not to completely dump on taking turns, because no, the game absolutely shouldn't reward the fastest typer, but I've never had a scene that involved "turns" that didn't devolve into a metric ton of OOC banter asking whose turn it was, what happens if someone joins/leaves, people wondering if person X is now AFK, and people saying that they can be skipped.

In other words, I'm all for code facilitating a conclusion, and I'm also for reduction in osays to as close to zero as possible. I'd love to see turns actually spit out turns (I don't know, roll initiative to begin!), let us know what the order was, enforce it so that people actually can't emote until it's their turn, and include built-in prophylactic measures so that if someone takes longer than 3-5 minutes, they're skipped (or they request more time, via code, which at least shows they're still at the keyboard). As much as I love lengthy emotes, in tense scenes, there's nothing that's more of a mood-killer than waiting on someone to hero-pose.

Anyway, just some more random thoughts. Bottom line: community standards are great, but they're better when they're enforced by code.

[Applesauce]

I'd love to see turns actually spit out turns (I don't know, roll initiative to begin!), let us know what the order was, enforce it so that people actually can't emote until it's their turn, and include built-in prophylactic measures so that if someone takes longer than 3-5 minutes, they're skipped (or they request more time, via code, which at least shows they're still at the keyboard).

I like this. The preventing emotes thing could basically act like combat ("You've already used your turn this round." for things that occupy a turn, but allowing whatever minor code isn't considered a turn), so hopefully not too hard to add?

Spitting out an order would be great too. I guess it might suck for the last person that emoted before turns to randomly get back to back emotes if randomly picked first, but ultimately I don't think that would be a huge deal in most scenes. Being able to look up and reference the actual order would be very helpful, and then folks that want to be skipped can "emote does nothing of note" or whatever to use their action. Or maybe add a "turns pass" to skip one round without a filler emote.

[Leech]

If it went off of dex, having back to back turns would make sense. Generally, I like borrowing as much as possible from D&D editions. Their tried and true rules make sense, most of the time. However, the only way to really make it fluid is this:

...and include built-in prophylactic measures so that if someone takes longer than 3-5 minutes, they're skipped...

And not a whole lot of people are going to like that. Hell, I don't even know if I like it, though I definitely see the appeal and would love to see something push along Tension Time like a hard rule such as that. But again, you're rewarding fast typers and fast thinkers. Which, really, maybe we should? It's combat, you have to think fast and sometimes creatively, or die. My problem is that I usually end up using a lot of creative measures in combat because my characters can't hold a flame to some of the people they end up in combat with (go figure, Gavin and Ariel), so I end up setting things on fire or dropping traps to cover my escape. Usually that involves talking to somebody.

I don't want to see those creative options go away, and I know it'd take forever to code in something like that, but at the same time I'd like tension time to be pushed along. Just... racking my brain for another way to do it.

Speaking of which, how do people feel about actions like that? One scene in particular that stands out to me was when I met with Gavin at Paarin Park, as the Tenebrae. Before-hand I emoted drawing a line of greasy fat, rum, tinder, and other highly flammable substances across the park. In the scene, to facilitate my escape, I lit this - to in essence cut them off from me and make them have to go -around- the park, or risk getting burnt.

I forget how we decided, but I think the general consensus was to cut me a break. What do people think about actions like that? Should they not be accessible unless facilitated with code? Do we need a whole Dungeon Masters guide to describe the damage Gavin would have taken from fire if he tried to jump over, after rolling X, adding riding level and strength of his mount? Right now it's handled OOCly, and that's fine, when it's a small scene and you're familiar with the player. There are a few people that if I would have pulled that they would have been like 'Nope, frak you, you're dead.'

And I would have cried. =\

[Applesauce]

If it went off of dex, having back to back turns would make sense.

So long as it's not ONLY dex, of course.. Still need some randomness to avoid the min/maxing. I think you are in agreement there, just wanted to call it out explicitly.

...and include built-in prophylactic measures so that if someone takes longer than 3-5 minutes, they're skipped...

Combat turns already works this way, so the new "tense turns" probably could too. If nothing happens for ~5min, combat moves on. I recall some bugs around when that timer actually goes off, but at least the idea is there already.

What do people think about actions like [setting IC traps]? Should they not be accessible unless facilitated with code? Do we need a whole Dungeon Masters guide to describe the damage Gavin would have taken from fire if he tried to jump over, after rolling X, adding riding level and strength of his mount? Right now it's handled OOCly, and that's fine, when it's a small scene and you're familiar with the player. There are a few people that if I would have pulled that they would have been like 'Nope, frak you, you're dead.'

And I would have cried. =\

I think this thread is specifically to determine how to handle those outside-the-code scenarios where we DON'T have established "DM's Guide" rules. There's always going to be something someone comes up with that hasn't been coded for, so what do we do?

In the above example, if the players don't agree how to resolve it, what do we do without asking Az to whip up coded fat-based fire traps? Tenebrae could contest Wis (or whatever) against Gavin to determine how cleverly the thief covered potential avenues of pursuit, and Gavin could contest back with Dex (or whatever) to determine how deftly he maneuvers through the dangerous area. Someone wins the code roll, and RP proceeds. I think the fact that we can already contest stats vs different stats is enough to cover a lot of ground.

Maybe the game could provide a way to contest ability vs ability, similar to stats? Direct combat is its own beast, but maybe a merchant and a customer want to contest Haggle ability while ICly actually haggling, or someone wants to contest Peek against the other char's Hide ability to glimpse the EQ under their closed cloak (not "cloak conceal" where it hides your whole identity, just the regular "cloak").

Not that those checks would necessarily policy force a particular outcome, because that would be twinky, but giving the players a general idea of how good character X is vs character Y in some field could help two players compromise where they might otherwise hit a wall.

EDIT: Brainfart, the above already exists. You can "roll <name> <ability>" which could help resolve certain situations without coded combat. Since you can also use roll for stats, I'm not sure what the difference is between roll and contest, other than contest only works for stats, but roll works for stats AND abilities.