AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

Okay. This is something I keep noticing on the server, and I'm not going to name any names, but there's always a basic level of metagaming seeming to be involved when people 'figure out' someone else's diguise. And it's a little bit silly.

Just because you see the name over their head, doesn't mean you get to know who the heck it is if they are disguised well. Either by polymorph or something else.

This creates a problem. We're all really invested into our factions, the temptation to metagame knowing somebody is a spy for one side or another is huge. I'd argue as huge as the desire to just out right kill somebody if they're pissing your character off or getting in the way of your designs. We already have a check and balance system for that.

Inflicting permadeath on another PC requires one of two things. The victim PC's permission OOCly, or GM fiat.

I argue the same measure MUST be taken for SUSPECTING that somebody else is not who they say they are.

Unless they are polymorphed or have an illusion on them and you have a spell that lets you see through it. But otherwise you need a VALID REASON to suspect someone and for example... follow them until they switch out their disguise.

Take a sense motive check (or since I don't think that's a skill in NWN, a flat int or wisdom check). Almost all the players who actually go through the effort of creating a spy character who walks between two factions, rather than creating fresh alts and somehow magically knowing things one way or another, will actually give it to you if you have the common courtesy to admit your character is not some kind of super snooper detective who can souse out disguises like nothing.

This would probably also help abolish the whole worry over faction alting. Since it would give non-alt spy characters a real chance to be spies and clever.

Honestly, the only other way I see this being solved is if we turn off the ability to observe character descriptions and player names hanging over PC heads.

Things would be a great deal easier with a small widget to add a *Disguised* tag to the name. Most people aren't generally dicks about it, I find it's usually just a misunderstanding, especially which characters that change outfits frequently anyway. Even better if you can add in the alias your supposedly using in the tag.

I have the same experiances as NC.

Often disguised people don't emote being disguised and since a lot of people on the server wear coats and hoods that alone doesn't tell others you're disguised. A widget that'd colour the characters name or adds a tag could nicely solve that.

I don't feel seeing through a disguise needs permission as that's turning the world around and assumes every disguise is perfect.

As someone that is playing through this right now I find it both very funny (yes haha funny), and mildly frustrating. So far 99% of the players have been VERY cool about it. I have witnessed some rather far reaches at attempts to prove, but nothing that has been pushed to an extreme yet.

While I personally think it would be wonderful to be able to change my character's floaty name, I'm pretty sure it has been said before by the DMs that, that isn't going to happen. As for a rule, I'm not sure there is a decent way to implement such a thing. It is already covered by the stance on meta-gaming.

Short version: Good idea, but I don't see a practical way to implement it, unless the DMs have changed their mind about name changers.

I fear a name changer would mess up our registration tools to an extend that this isn't worth it. It's not so much not wanting it as it is simply not feasable.

Just out of curiosity, Hudson, isn't that what you were referring to with "coloring or adding a tag" to a name? Can't that only be accomplished by changing the character name? I honestly don't know, which is why I'm asking.

And in my experience it's often the opposite. I've seen more than once where somebody out right ignores the fact somebody was disguised and just knows.

I think having it set up where explicit permission is necessary should be made standard. That way we AVOID the whole problem entirely. Especially given the number of people who go into Tarkuul disguised, and the other number of people who just 'happen' to either be inside tarkuul, or one of the portals, or whatever, and just HAPPEN to see them, and magically know (for various reasons. I've seen or been told about smell, how someone stands, or how someone speaks all being used as excuses) what's going on.

Hell, I'm partially guilty of this. I should have asked Lorna permission before someone told me I had been threatened by her definitely when she was shifted into Rakasha shape, simply because of the way she spoke. That's not damning evidence and I used it as such.

The issue here isn't people doing this consciously. It's just that metagame knowledge like who you are really talking to is REALLY freaking hard to keep out of your IC head. The whole 'asking permission' before even suspecting someone is in disguise should require GM fiat, or permission. Just as permadeath, or me knowing what spell was just cast on me would require.

Making it an actual rule, if you are both right, hurts absolutely no one, and simply creates a barrier between misunderstandings.

At worst, it creates a small loggerhead in the flow of RP as somebody asks permission in a tell or oocly.

At best, it prevents metagamers who 'just happen to follow the person', which is not explicitly, nor provably, a sign of metagaming, from exploiting the system, and helps allow us to revitalize the espionage type players.

Anatida wrote:

As someone that is playing through this right now I find it both very funny (yes haha funny), and mildly frustrating. So far 99% of the players have been VERY cool about it. I have witnessed some rather far reaches at attempts to prove, but nothing that has been pushed to an extreme yet.

While I personally think it would be wonderful to be able to change my character's floaty name, I'm pretty sure it has been said before by the DMs that, that isn't going to happen. As for a rule, I'm not sure there is a decent way to implement such a thing. It is already covered by the stance on meta-gaming.

Short version: Good idea, but I don't see a practical way to implement it, unless the DMs have changed their mind about name changers.

the practical way to implement it is this. "If I didn't give you permission to suspect I'm in disguise, and a DM didn't say it either. Then you just 'following me around' even invisible or shifted, is metagaming. If I ask you politely to stop following me when I'm disguised and you can't give me a reason, to my satisfaction, why you are following me, then you break off."

It's creating a system where the agreements of players create walls of knowledge. Just as I can't be imprisoned for more than a day, nor can I be permakilled without permission, my ability to remain disguised and free of suspicion against someone who cannot make a check or can't provide me with a logical reason for why they suddenly are following me around, should likewise be protected.

To clarify. Name changing isn't an option in my opinion, because then people won't even know to roll the dice if they want too, which is too far in the opposite direction. The whole 'disguised' tag would work, but again, needs protection from even unintentional metagaming.

A slight change in the name doesn't matter but a full name change does.

We're always very hesistant when someone wants a full name change as opposed to a partial name change (which we do almost freely) for that reason.

And no, still against DM permission needed for seeing through disguises.

First off I think 99% of the players are cool with it as soon as they realise someone is actively disguised and second off, it will be quite akward if we suddenly get 'I want to follow X and Y because I think they are disguised, can I?' in the DM channel while we werent even watching there and have no clue what's going on followed by 'He is following me and said you said it was okay! I Protest!'

Disguises are one of the biggest victims of the whole "unintentional metagaming" topic that was mentioned in the other thread. Let's be honest, the first thing we see is a floating name and may immediately be aware of the character's player as well as their character's true allegiances. I have never seen "undercover" characters last very long for these reasons alone and they often end up in OOC drama. Either that or the "undercover" characters, conventiantly for the faction leaders, never get access to any sensitive information.

I don't think the answer is DM permission either, it just puts more on their plates that I feel they shouldn't have to do. Not to mention the accusations of favoritism.

The best solution is as you mentoned to restrict the OOC information provided via names and descriptions, but I don't think it's possible as was already mentioned.

Shadowclasper: As Hudson said, it is virtually impossible for us to tell most of the time that another PC is intentionally wearing a disguise. Therefore, requiring someone "ask permission" doesn't help the situation in my view. I admit I"m guilty of this also (glancing at the floating name); especially with people I roleplay with often. And I can't think of a single person I've interacted with in the last year who isn't.

As for people following you around... I'm not sure I even know what to say about that. Maybe they are using the name over your head as an excuse, or maybe they find it suspicious that someone is completely covered and not being forthcoming about who they are? Why do you have any more right to "not be followed" than they have to "follow you"?

Could we do something like... Having a 'disguised' VFX widget passed around?

well i NEVER see someone use the 'bluff' skill even though it would make sense for it to be the skill used for disguises. perhaps you can have a little midget with a small floaty 'invisible' useless summon widget that says 'Diguised' for the name? that way the invisible thing can show people are disguised without causing issues and no real draw backs past making it..

maybe you can have a 'you need rank x of bluff for this widget'? that way it makes sense they paid time to learn how to hide yourself properly using clothing and such.

My issue is this.

Addressing it by permission is simple. "Is the person wearing a hood and clothing I'm not used to seeing? Are they polymorphed? Then they are disguised. If they act to me familiarly, or state who they are, then chances are they're not being sneaky so it's okay. Otherwise? Ask to be sure." It's kinda common sense from where I'm standing.

DM Fiat is a last resort sorta thing in my mind.

But if we don't find a way to address this. Even if it's a widget that basically modifies the name to clarify 'is someone disguised' even if it doesn't erase their name. Then the unintentional, and fully intentional, metagaming will continue. And that prevents an entire area of roleplay and character niche from forming properly. No one can be the super spy, because no matter what, without a system that basically says "you have to ask permission to know who I am if I am obviously disguised", then that niche is basically useless, unprotected, and we'll actively drive off players who WANT to fill that role, but cannot.

kalcibone wrote:

well i NEVER see someone use the 'bluff' skill even though it would make sense for it to be the skill used for disguises. perhaps you can have a little midget with a small floaty 'invisible' useless summon widget that says 'Diguised'? that way the invisible think can show you are disguised without causing issues and no real draw backs past making it..

maybe you can have a 'you need rank x of bluff for this widget'? that way it makes sense tyou paid time to learn how to hide yourself properly using clothing and such.

this I actually like. It would make sense and work well. Could even have a little tag that says 'disguised #' for the roll, so other players know what they have to beat in order to get it. Bonuses to bluff applied for shape shifters.

but even then, we need some sort of protection against the players who go 'well I'm just going to follow this person until they stop being disguised because I JUST SUSPECT THEM!'

Yeah, I have some actual names in mind for this one, but I'm avoiding pointing fingers since it's impolite.

Social skills aren't something that should really be used against PC's (unless all are consenting and want too) as they are designed to be used against NPC's, as how can tell how the PC in question may react? You could have high bluff, but perhaps they are a suspicious person? Perhaps you're untrustworthy, from a nation they dislike, etc. etc.

Rigela wrote:

Social skills aren't something that should really be used against PC's (unless all are consenting and want too) as they are designed to be used against NPC's, as how can tell how the PC in question may react? You could have high bluff, but perhaps they are a suspicious person? Perhaps you're untrustworthy, from a nation they dislike, etc. etc.

See. The issue with that is "if we use that kind of justification, then the entire role of disguises becomes USELESS."

it really needs some sort of rules protection.

Interfaction spies become impossible unless everyone consents or you make a freaking alt who no one realizes is actually playing for the other team.

Espionage will be impossible against anyone but NPCs, and that puts even more burden upon the DMs, and frankly. It's boring.

What you're asking for, in the form you're asking for it in, isn't going to happen Shadowclasper.

The tag on the name however is a possibility, one I'll look into.

This will never work:

How about making it a thing that when you want to be disguised, you hit the DMsignal and roll up an alt with the same race, headmodel and body type and use that? If you get busted, you're expected and allowed to relog to the (presumably much better equipped and epic levelled) original character?

Using bluff is unfair.

It hugely favours classes who have the skill points to burn (wizards for one) and denies the option to those with classes with a base of 2 skillpoints/ level (without a huge int bonus) as they need other skills to compete in pve (tumble/displ/conc etc.)

It'd also make classes with the stat modifier by default the best in this which would be either cha or int (dont recall which) while disguise is primarily a rogues thing so it doesn't add up.

asking for a set of rules that mimic how we deal with permadeath pvp and jailing in order to provide a modicum of protection against unprovable metagaming is completely out of the question? I'm not asking for anything mechanical here (the roll next to the name aside...) if I was I'd have put it in the improving amia forum, not here. This is about instituting a rule of conduct for the player base.

That said, I'll leave off for the moment. Thank you for looking into the tagging system Glim. It's a step in the right direction.

Uberuce wrote:

This will never work:

How about making it a thing that when you want to be disguised, you hit the DMsignal and roll up an alt with the same race, headmodel and body type and use that? If you get busted, you're expected and allowed to relog to the (presumably much better equipped and epic levelled) original character?

Because that would require making the party who busted you wait for god knows how long while you navigate your character over to the correct location? Also getting the spy Alt into certain places would be all but impossible without breaking the rules for giving said character money and equipment?

Hudson wrote:

Using bluff is unfair.

It hugely favours classes who have the skill points to burn (wizards for one) and denies the option to those with classes with a base of 2 skillpoints/ level as they need other skills to compete in pve (tumble/displ/conc etc.)

It'd also make classes with the stat modifier by default the best in this which would be either cha or int (dont recall which) while disguise is primarily a rogues thing so it doesn't add up.

I don't see the problem there. It requires sinking points into skills that are suboptimal outside of RP. It also simulates the fact that a freaking fighter isn't going to be that much of a spy hunter compared to a rogue.

edit:
And I'm done.

Quote:

I don't see the problem there. It requires sinking points into skills that are suboptimal outside of RP. It also simulates the fact that a freaking fighter isn't going to be that much of a spy hunter compared to a rogue.

And your wizard is?

No, but I hardly have so many skill points that I can afford to invest heavily into bluff or sense motive (or whatever the equivalent is on the server, not sure if there is one?), both of which are cross class skills.

My character goes disguised at times sure. But he's not very good at it at all. Which is why he stuffs a mask with cloth to muffle his voice and covers his face entirely. And even then somebody could probably guess who he was if they bothered to make a sense motive or even a basic int or wisdom check.

Bluff, further, is charisma based, which means that charisma type players can circumvent it partially too.

Not to mention the vast amounts of skill buff gear also means that when somebody wants to go sherlock holmes, they can just put on their detectiving outfit. Or enchant clothing with mythals to make it work better as a disguise. Etc. It's not like people don't ALREADY do this with Lore and Craft Armor/Weapons, etc.

Direct questioning in a zone of truth, something which I believe is used regularly by the more distrusting factions, once again, circumvents the whole bluff check thing.

There are plenty of ways to counter balance this, while remaining class appropriate.

Or are you suggesting that somehow classes with more ability to dump points into say, concentrate, than other classes are 'unfair' because their spells don't get interrupted as much?

that is kind of the point though hudson, the classes with skillpoints usually are taken for the things useful yes? well bno one takes bluff because it is COMPLETELY USELESS in every reguard! No one uses it, no one cares about it because it has no use against absolutely anything currently past the one npc i even know of in Khem, and even then thats only for 25 gold...

I see plenty of people who 'duisguise' themselves using clothing, but you can't call them out, look at them, or ANYTHING to prove they are or are not who they say they are.

subject A: wanted by many people chooses to hide himself with make up and fresh new clothing and spends time figuring out how not to act like himself, Using bluff he can then convince people he is not subject A but instead B.

That is kind of the point of bluffing someone, why even have players if you can't use the skills in the game against other players? I mean.. they already made something for pickpocketing, made chages to a few other things to make it fair.

My point: bluff needs a use, and this is the most obvious one. IF someone wants to disguise themselves, they why not have gear MADE for hiding like that? such as heavy bluffskill clothing, heck it could be part of a shop by the Spy job.

But in all seriousness, as the thing with diguises currently only causes drama, claims of metagaming, and issues that lead to DM's being called in. Of course there is other ways to go against that. Someone is hiding their voice? listen check. acting odd in clothing? spot check. Can be anything.

Gotta agree on the current disguise system causing drama, and putting an actual system in place where it can be said "no, sorry, you didn't see through it" would help this while issue by having a very clear delineation between what is and isn't metagaming in place.

Wisards: spend YEARS honing their abilities, studying nearly hundreds of things. if they have bluff as a skill, then FINE. same with rogues and bards!

if you have an issue with wizards having the smarts to learn things, then you should also make it so you can't carry skillpoints to another class, such as a level 29 fighter suddenly spamming into rogue or bard with all the skillpoints they gathered to suddenly gain the ability to use every magic item in the game, every peice of gear, AND suddenly go up 10 ac for no reason.

plenty of things have issues, this is simply something easy to fix.

also this allows spies in the game.. i mean ACTUAL spies, not the super sneaker Shadow dancers.

edit: besides.. what is the bloody point in skills like bluff, persuade, listen, or anything else if no one bothers using it for something? Listen is ONLY used by people who decide to be an anti-sneaker. persuade? only used for pre-reqs then never touched again (unless you are me, but people ignore me if i roll a persuade anyway so i stopped bothering using it.) bluff? never used. In anything.

kalcibone wrote:

Wisards: spend YEARS honing their abilities, studying nearly hundreds of things. if they have bluff as a skill, then FINE. same with rogues and bards!

if you have an issue with wizards having the smarts to learn things, then you should also make it so you can't carry skillpoints to another class, such as a level 29 fighter suddenly spamming into rogue or bard with all the skillpoints they gathered to suddenly gain the ability to use every magic item in the game, every peice of gear, AND suddenly go up 10 ac for no reason.

plenty of things have issues, this is simply something easy to fix.

also this allows spies in the game.. i mean ACTUAL spies, not the super sneaker Shadow dancers.

edit: besides.. what is the bloody point in skills like bluff, persuade, listen, or anything else if no one bothers using it for something? Listen is ONLY used by people who decide to be an anti-sneaker. persuade? only used for pre-reqs then never touched again (unless you are me, but people ignore me if i roll a persuade anyway so i stopped bothering using it.) bluff? never used. In anything.

Exactly. On all points.

And the widget for disguised? Make it dual use. If used on the self. It makes a bluff check, and applies some kind of visual effect to the user, designating them obviously as disguised or something. If used on someone else, it rolls something like sense motive or wisdom or whatever, and then the visual effect is dispelled if it exceeds the bluff roll made when the disguise was put on. It provides the player with a message saying "YOU SEE THROUGH THEIR DISGUISE!" if you exceed their bluff roll, or "they seem suspicious" if you get within say, 5 of their bluff check without surpassing it.

Also, the argument for 'we don't know when people are in disguise' is kinda bull. If you can't see their natural face, they're disguised. There's a reason, in the words of a good friend of mine, why knights went around painted up like clowns in the middle ages.

Sorry I just remember something i saw once that ended up causing issues due to 'disguises'.

'A' get banned from area due to IC means, leaves. Comes back in new clothing, does not talk or anything. People have no way of calling him out of it due to no rules on the matter, so end up making every skillcheck known to the game they have to 'claim they know he is 'A' and not 'B'. 'A' then calls metagaming, causing Dm's to come.

i've seen this sooooooo many times it isn't funny.

So obviously we need a system, PLEASE.

It will take more than the single hour since my last post, for a system to be developed.

Chill.

Sorry Glim if I seem to be rushing you. Totally not my intent. I'm just bouncing ideas out there on how such a system, were it to be implemented, might work. Obviously implementing this this month, let alone this week (god forbid tonight), is out of the question give your busy schedual with everything going on with the server.

sorry glim! All that was pointed to hudson more then anyone else.

That's alright. I understand that you're both quite passionate about seeing the status quo change and it's good to see enthusiasm from out players geared towards improving the server. From my own personal experience though I've found that thinking things out one's self often helps more than rapid fire ideas on forums like this though.

For example I thought about replying fairly quickly that, "Oh wait, we couldn't even do the *disguised* tag because in order to change the name of a PC it requires a relog and that could be abused in combat to escape boss abilities or death." But when I thought it about it for even just five minutes more, I realized that it would be a snap to put in a combat status check / hostile presence check. Hell, just typing this I realized that one better would be to make it a function of the rest menu rather than a widget.

It also keeps the thread from ballooning too quickly, and keeps it from becoming too much of a back and forth argument, both of which can affect how seriously a thread is taken by the team / how thoroughly it is examined in the limited time we have for each thing we do.

So when I say I understand the enthusiasm, also understand that when I say to "chill" in threads like these, it's to get you to stop and think, for the reasons above. Hope that gives everyone a bit of insight.

You make a good point Glim. And the rest menu option's well thought out too. Though personally the widget method would give people a definitive thing with which to check against someone else's disguise... but I haven't learned enough about NWNscript to even know if it's possible to set up something like that... so yeah, I should drop it, my apologies.

kalcibone wrote:

Sorry I just remember something i saw once that ended up causing issues due to 'disguises'.

'A' get banned from area due to IC means, leaves. Comes back in new clothing, does not talk or anything. People have no way of calling him out of it due to no rules on the matter, so end up making every skillcheck known to the game they have to 'claim they know he is 'A' and not 'B'. 'A' then calls metagaming, causing Dm's to come.

i've seen this sooooooo many times it isn't funny.

So obviously we need a system, PLEASE.

You are actually meant to have a DM in that scenario anyway. As in your PC is specifically banned from a place, a DM needs to oversee your PCs efforts towards getting into the city. For example, if Laura is ever caught out on being Velsharran and it's noted by any guard, she'll no longer be able to enter Cordor without a DM to oversee her means of entering.

issue is currently there is no die to roll, richard. currently thats what this thread is for, but sound slike glim has ideas in mind so ill just shut up, eat a few more gummyworms, slurp some orange soda then become a blanketmole.

night!

Glim wrote:

The tag on the name however is a possibility, one I'll look into.

I do have functions to change peoples names without giving them the boot. However it is not a temporary thing, it'll be saved in the bic. However I do know how to nwnx up a way to set temporary names, or rather send name updates to clients without changing the actual name on the server.

Good points made, Shadowclasper, but I am afraid you are up against something a bit too big for us to tackle easily. If you arbitrarily force people to break off from following you they can very easily claim IC that they would follow anybody they didn't know. Or they are just being friendly and offering great customer service to a visitor. A disguise note in the name is an immediate dinner bell for metagaming, intentional and unintentional, bluff is preferential (I have some suggestions for problems like this down the road I will be making that apply to more than bluff), and really Ruce's makes the most sense but is agonizing to set up and to be fair you would need a DM asking people you pass to make checks to notice the disguise which also rings the dinner bell.

Letum once had an idea on this from though.

*Lights a candle of ivory to summon Letumlux*

A simple solution, in the meantime, would be for people who wish their characters to be disguised, to make some notes about it in their Character Description. I find all too often that there is nothing written about disguises, and they simply change clothes and expect everyone to know that. Also, if you are interacting with a PC that knows your char, then please emote or shoot a Tell, stating that you are disguised. I've had to retract statements, and posts over the years, because someone cried foul and my char wasn't supposed to know who the disguised one was...but I had no IC way of knowing that, or OOC for that matter, because no emotes were made, no Tell was given, or nothing was in the character description.

If you want to run around disguised, it's up to you to somehow let people know, IC and/or OOC, that your doing it. A lot of people change their clothes regularly, it doesn't mean they are disguised, and we shouldn't be expected to just know when someone is doing it, they have to let the rest of us know. I say this because there is a name above the characters at all times.

Color codes on the names could work, as long as there is consistency in the colors used, and a clear key, possibly in the PC's in-game Journal, that everyone has access to.

I have no idea if this is helpful, but I humbly submit that it's relevant.

My local cycling forum has regular meetups for coffee, as well as races, audax, sightseeing pootles and so on, and when I was new-ish to the board I saw the arrival of a fellow forumite, who at that point I'd been out riding with for about 200km worth of trips. Glanced over as he coasted into the bike park, clocked it was Adrian(for that is his name) instantly and went back to chatting.

Seconds later, a complete stranger sat down in front of me and starts talking like he knew me. It was only a few sentences later that I realised this complete stranger had Adrian's voice and was indeed him.

See, I'd only ever seen Adrian with a helmet and cycling shades on, and at the angle you're at when on a drop-bar bike. Seeing his full face at a vertical was entirely different.

Since that point the same phenomenon has happened again several times.

Yossarin wrote:

*Lights a candle of ivory to summon Letumlux*

*A whirling convalescent of shadow filled with distorted voices from beyond the Material howls into being.*
I ANSWER YOUR CALL. IS IT TIME FOR US TO MARCH UPON- Oh damnit, this thread. I was honestly trying to avoid commenting here because this is a really sore subject for me, and a large part of why I retired a character and left.

Spy RP in general is not very well supported when it comes it anything other than simply being hidden and never interacting with anyone. And even then. Partly because of the limitations of the game itself, as Glim and others have mentioned.

I don't think the Disguised tag would be helpful, for the reason Yossarin mentioned. Arelith used it, and it was fine as a way to denote that the PC was in a particular alias, so you should be reacting to them as if they were A instead of B. But that's really the end of it. It isn't useful as a way to truly disguise because it lets people know that you're hiding, and if we trusted people to not metagame stuff like that, we wouldn't even need to have this discussion; people would simply pay more attention to what a PC is wearing and what their bio says at a given time (since we have the ability to change them on the fly) instead of what name is floating above their head. Personally, I think all names should be invisible unless they are NPCs.

I don't recall what my actual idea was at this point, since I've tried to put all of this stuff out of my head, but I'll think on it and see if Yossarin can jog my memory.

UNTIL THE NEXT TIME, MORTALS.
*Cacophonous voices rise in a dissonant crescendo and lights ebb as the shadows pulse, then fade out into a susurrus of echoes.*

Well. Technically its possible to send ANY name to any client. Person A could see a different name to what Person B sees over your head and in the chatlog. The limitation is that I can't hide the playername or update the playerlist (p).

Liz's Radical Solution: Turn off all floaty names for all PCs at all times. If someone wants to be openly recognizable, they can enter distinguishing info in their bio.

Liz wrote:

Liz's Radical Solution: Turn off all floaty names for all PCs at all times. If someone wants to be openly recognizable, they can enter distinguishing info in their bio.

Also a fun idea, we would be forced to rely on sight, not names.

How about we copy Arelith's solution?

The overwrite the name with *Disguised* or *male/Female <insert Race>*
Then revert back to the old name

Problem solved. No messy character files

They really do have a nice system in place for that, for the little time I was there. It also shows up in the playerlist that way.

kalcibone wrote:

Liz wrote:

Liz's Radical Solution: Turn off all floaty names for all PCs at all times. If someone wants to be openly recognizable, they can enter distinguishing info in their bio.

Also a fun idea, we would be forced to rely on sight, not names.

God no. Given we are not physically in the game it would be next to impossible to tell one person from the next. Yeah immediately knowing someone's name is not really good, but the alternative is never knowing who is who, even if you have known them for a long time.

Plus you are 'forcing' people to use their bios, and a lot of people just use a blank one or the default one from character creation. Honestly it's a really Bad Idea.

Very_Svensk wrote:

How about we copy Arelith's solution?

The overwrite the name with *Disguised* or *male/Female <insert Race>*
Then revert back to the old name

Problem solved. No messy character files

I pointed out the flaw in that earlier. If you take the OP's original complaint about disguised people wandering around an area and others metagaming them, well...if someone goes by with a "disguised" name above them, warning bells will go off in everyone's head and they will immediately start being suspicious because the person is unknown.

Or, in a somewhat less glamorous view of the playerbase, players are immediately enticed to begin metagaming, both intentionally and unintentionally.

Forcing people to use their bio is a good thing, Naivy.

I think so, but people don't like to be forced to do things, either. And I was more illustrating the fact that a decent number of people don't give two shakes of a dragon's tail about writing a bio, so that wouldn't help matters. After all, they would only include a bio if they want to be distinguished. But, then, what about the people that know them? It will be quite difficult to discern who they are, especially if they are in the habit of changing outfits. And with the limited number of heads and everyone of the same race being the same height, you have far less visual clues than would be necessary.

At the risk of redundancy, those people would then be encouraged to use their bio. Even if they didn't enter anything there beyond simply their name. I get your objection, and I get that my suggestion would necessitate a shift in the way the "server culture" thinks about the bio page function. I'm arguing that all that would be all to the good.

If you're not using bluff or perform, I'm not even going to bother pretending you're fooling me. Just sayin'. Fancy clothes do not a disguise make.

MightNMagic wrote:

If you're not using bluff or perform, I'm not even going to bother pretending you're fooling me. Just sayin'. Fancy clothes do not a disguise make.

one might argue that if the face is covered it does.

Forcing the player to rely on "wysiwyg" is far to limiting, even with the large variety of models in the crafting system. It's too easy for multiple people to look the same or VERY similar. Also, asking some one to simply say "oh, new outfit? Then there is no way I can recognize you. Ok!", even if beholder is user keen sighted or keen eared. I've been subject to Ruce's situation lots too, but we are not our characters who may have invested a lot in their ability to notice things, simple use of the craft system is a cheap way around the need to invest skill points to contest, and fairly challenge the 'spotter/listener".

How about a new rule for diguises?

Who is online