Arelith

It possible to make one change in disguise system? At this point you must to speak through "OOC" with a person who is broke your disguise. Can be add to descriprion of broken disguise a PC name who is broke your disguise?

What? You don’t need OOC communication for this.

Also, to note, no one could have been spamming examine on you as it would only work once every 6 minutes. It would have been different people plus NPCs.

The examine is used to represent a passive look at the character which is something that they can just notice. We can’t make a perfect representation of it in game nor can you except perfect defense (but I was covered up!!) because it is based on what your character can do.

There has been talk about making this automatic. You can search back for the thread (or maybe someone can link it).

For me it is the NPCs spamming spot checks that throws me off. I really don't need to know if that rothe broke my disguise but I do need to know if it was another character. As it stands it is impossible to tell the difference.

Why do you need to know?

The notification was originally added so that you, the player, on an OOC level, could know whether or not someone was metagaming your disguise without breaking it through IG mechanics. With the portal page playername change, the easiest and most used method of metagaming disguise names has been made significantly more difficult. It's not meant to give you any information about the spotter, or to be used as in character knowledge. Giving you definitive knowledge about who can and can't break your disguise would be too powerful.

If you have any suspicion at all that someone has metagamed your disguise, you should report it to a DM, and let them handle it. They can check logs and see if a successful check was made.

As someone who plays a character with exceptionally-high spot, I really wish breaking disguise was decoupled from the examine tool. Sometimes I just want to read a character's description (even in disguise) without dinging them 25 piety.

Aardra wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 01, 2020 4:58 am

As someone who plays a character with exceptionally-high spot, I really wish breaking disguise was decoupled from the examine tool. Sometimes I just want to read a character's description (even in disguise) without dinging them 25 piety.

10 piety*

Drowboy wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 01, 2020 1:52 am

Why do you need to know?

Because people want to know when a pc has broken their disguise, so they know if someone starts acting odd around them - they actually -have- broken the disguise, and arn't just metagaming, with an npc happening to break the disguise at the same time.

I sort of understand this, and I feel it myself at times. On the other hand, this could also be abused by the disguised person. And one can argue that really it shouldn't matter if a pc or npc brok the disguise, for a good rper.

It's one of those arguments I can see the point of, very much so. But on the other I think adding it in would bring it's own batch of problems.

Perhaps we could separate "a player has broken your disguise" and "an NPC has broken your disguise"?

Dalenger wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 01, 2020 2:29 pm

Perhaps we could separate "a player has broken your disguise" and "an NPC has broken your disguise"?

Too metagamey that way.

Since the message is an OOC indicator to be used for more OOC reasons, it should not matter if the PC know that an NPC broke their disguise or not. Maybe just send the message only if the breaker is a PC?

You walk into Cordor disguised.

Several npcs, one pc you can see.

You can thus assume it's the one pc and metagame them/avoid them in future for having enough spot to bust you.

... I don't need the endless spam of 10 NPC guards failing to ID me.

Regardless. Removing the (Disguised) tag is all the system needs. All it does is foster metagaming. If you're character isn't peery enough to examine who they're talking to by habit (ie, manually looking at them), you shouldn't be given the big LOOK AT ME flag-waving that (Disguised) does.

Might-N-Magic wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 01, 2020 4:27 pm

Regardless. Removing the (Disguised) tag is all the system needs. All it does is foster metagaming. If you're character isn't peery enough to examine who they're talking to by habit (ie, manually looking at them), you shouldn't be given the big LOOK AT ME flag-waving that (Disguised) does.

I could be wrong, but I get the impression the team doesn't want the server devolve into:

"I'm the real Chancellor. This man is an imposter! Shoot him!"

"I'm the imposter? Don't be ridiculous! This man is -CLEARLY- the bad guy. Shoot him!"

"They're both lying! I'm the real Chancellor! Shoot them both!"

The problem with that is that it means that people can disguise themselves as other folk, and then break rules, and it adds an extra work for us, as DMS, to work out who is the real player and who is not the real pc.
Even without the DM side of things, it gives players the chance to ruin the /reputation/ of other players through such an act.

And yes, the situaiton above to a degree too.

It would be nice if the disguise tag was hidden up till the point where your spot beats his disguise and then the disguise tag pops up over his head for you.

It would avoid most if not all the meta gaming.

TooManyPotatoes wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 01, 2020 5:19 pm

I could be wrong, but I get the impression the team doesn't want the server devolve into:

"I'm the real Chancellor. This man is an imposter! Shoot him!"

"I'm the imposter? Don't be ridiculous! This man is -CLEARLY- the bad guy. Shoot him!"

"They're both lying! I'm the real Chancellor! Shoot them both!"

You can still have that now and I don't even see how that's a problem, it's a legit situation that often happens using a disguise idiom. Just now we've got a HUGE METAGAMEY "I'M THE DISGUISED ONE" tag that really shouldn't be there.

The GrumpyCat wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 01, 2020 5:20 pm

The problem with that is that it means that people can disguise themselves as other folk, and then break rules, and it adds an extra work for us, as DMS, to work out who is the real player and who is not the real pc.
Even without the DM side of things, it gives players the chance to ruin the /reputation/ of other players through such an act.

And yes, the situaiton above to a degree too.

I'm sure DMs have enough spot to figure out who's who, no? Barring that, simply have the system log everytime someone uses -disguise. And while you can ruin the reputation of characters (which is legit and sometimes the point of disguise), anyone can figure out who it really is just by clicking on the portrait to send a tell.

"Oh, it's the player so-and-so."

It's just really tiring and metagamey that most players who are lazy and or chill and pretty much never look at anyone they talk to or passing by suddenly become Sherlock Holmes the moment they see (DISGUISED) come into view.

The GrumpyCat wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 01, 2020 5:20 pm

The problem with that is that it means that people can disguise themselves as other folk, and then break rules, and it adds an extra work for us, as DMS, to work out who is the real player and who is not the real pc.
Even without the DM side of things, it gives players the chance to ruin the /reputation/ of other players through such an act.

And yes, the situaiton above to a degree too.

Could we perhaps make it against the rules to impersonate another character? Disguises must be original identities.

Might-N-Magic wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 02, 2020 6:04 am

most players who are lazy and or chill and pretty much never look at anyone they talk to or passing by suddenly become Sherlock Holmes the moment they see (DISGUISED) come into view.

This is probably debatable, but personally, I dont know about playing a spy, and then never getting anyone suspicious of me. If I had to wait until people have read everyone's descriptions in a hub to only then realize there's something off about my character (because I dont want to play a 100% perfect spy. That's just not spy RP anymore imo) the scene is over or I'm long gone. What I'm trying to say is that the other side of the coin is that it also helps the spy in some ways. I dont know if it makes sense.

Might-N-Magic wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 02, 2020 6:04 am

TooManyPotatoes wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 01, 2020 5:19 pm

I could be wrong, but I get the impression the team doesn't want the server devolve into:

"I'm the real Chancellor. This man is an imposter! Shoot him!"

"I'm the imposter? Don't be ridiculous! This man is -CLEARLY- the bad guy. Shoot him!"

"They're both lying! I'm the real Chancellor! Shoot them both!"

You can still have that now and I don't even see how that's a problem, it's a legit situation that often happens using a disguise idiom. Just now we've got a HUGE METAGAMEY "I'M THE DISGUISED ONE" tag that really shouldn't be there.

The GrumpyCat wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 01, 2020 5:20 pm

The problem with that is that it means that people can disguise themselves as other folk, and then break rules, and it adds an extra work for us, as DMS, to work out who is the real player and who is not the real pc.
Even without the DM side of things, it gives players the chance to ruin the /reputation/ of other players through such an act.

And yes, the situaiton above to a degree too.

I'm sure DMs have enough spot to figure out who's who, no? Barring that, simply have the system log everytime someone uses -disguise. And while you can ruin the reputation of characters (which is legit and sometimes the point of disguise), anyone can figure out who it really is just by clicking on the portrait to send a tell.

"Oh, it's the player so-and-so."

It's just really tiring and metagamey that most players who are lazy and or chill and pretty much never look at anyone they talk to or passing by suddenly become Sherlock Holmes the moment they see (DISGUISED) come into view.

I'll be more clear in my example

*Vance Gavelle logs in*
*Runs up to random PC, and one shot pvps them, no talking, then logs*
*PC reports this to DMS, and also (understandably) complains about it to various players*
*The player of Vance Gavelle now gets a reputation that they're a big griefer*
*We look into it, and discover that it wasn't Vance's player, or Vance himself, but someone disguised as Vance.*
*The interaction was so short and so unpleasent, that no time was given for the victim to check - either by *looks* or probalby even by click the portrait (If nothing was said that can be hard. Also keep in mind it's possible to change ones log in now. So the log in check is far from assured.)
*Because of the above, it's possible do a lot of harm to the player of Vance's reputation, and it puts more work on us. I will grant not a /lot/ more work, but dependent on what the rules break was, potentialy still a fair bit more work.

Might-N-Magic wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 01, 2020 4:27 pm

Regardless. Removing the (Disguised) tag is all the system needs. All it does is foster metagaming. If you're character isn't peery enough to examine who they're talking to by habit (ie, manually looking at them), you shouldn't be given the big LOOK AT ME flag-waving that (Disguised) does.

You're mistaking spot (passive observation) for search (an active examination of an individual or place).

This post by Xerah about sums up the answer.

Xerah wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 01, 2020 12:55 am

The examine is used to represent a passive look at the character which is something that they can just notice. We can’t make a perfect representation of it in game nor can you except perfect defense (but I was covered up!!) because it is based on what your character can do.

There has been talk about making this automatic. You can search back for the thread (or maybe someone can link it).

In an ideal world, the check would be entirely automated, because spot vs disguise is a passive action rather than one that is dependent on careful examination. It would work something like this:

A is disguised as B. His name shows up as B, sans disguise tag.
A walks past C, D, and E. As soon as he is in LoS and every X interval of time thereafter, C, D, and E roll their spot against the disguise.
For the sake of argument, C and D fail to break the disguise. They receive no notification whatsoever, nor does A.
Also for the sake of argument, E breaks the disguise. He gets a system message informing him that B is really A in disguise. A is notified as well that someone has broken his disguise, but sternly informed that the information is strictly for OOC use.

There would be no need to examine anyone for the checks to roll, rather, every single observer would generate a roll automatically.

When the disguise system was put in, however, it was determined that the above system would be too resource-intensive. What we have is a compromise. In lieu of an automated system, observers of disguised characters are notified to please run the spot vs bluff check that, by all rights ought to happen automatically, but for technical reasons at the time the system was implemented, could not.

tl;dr it is not metagaming to examine someone with a disguise tag, rather, it is the closest we could come to a system where, by all rights, a disguise user ought to automatically provoke a spot roll from every single observer he or she comes across.

Re: OP's question.

No, there's neither need nor cause to give the disguise user any sort of information about the identity of the person who broke his or her disguise. The notification is there in your combat log strictly so that you can know that someone broke the disguise and that any challenge to your identity afterwards is being made in good faith.

The one change I'd make to the system is strictly for reporting/logging purposes. I would change the "You have broken a disguise!" combat log message that the observer gains to "You have broken [undisguised character name]'s disguise!". This would give no information that they don't already have, but would make it easier to logcheck and send in confirmation reports. Currently it's a little awkward, at least on the player side, to send in documentation that you did indeed break the disguise in question, since the combat log notification has no specificity.

Ok so - Disclaimer: I am somewhat playing Devils Advocate here but:

No, there's neither need nor cause to give the disguise user any sort of information about the identity of the person who broke his or her disguise. The notification is there in your combat log strictly so that you can know that someone broke the disguise and that any challenge to your identity afterwards is being made in good faith.

There's an argument that the current system does not, in fact, do that. Because I don't know /who/ broke the disguise, the disguise break could come from another pc, or in fact an NPC. I just have to trust that the pc talking to me at the time was, in fact, the one to break the disguise and is not metagaming.

That being said - as aformetnioned, mentioning exactly who broke the disguise might lead to metagaming the other way. With PCs just 'happening' to leave when they see XXX has broken their disguise. So I don't really think there's a good answer. I do feel however that the complaint isn't entirely without some good cause.

The GrumpyCat wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 02, 2020 8:10 am

Might-N-Magic wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 02, 2020 6:04 am

TooManyPotatoes wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 01, 2020 5:19 pm

I could be wrong, but I get the impression the team doesn't want the server devolve into:

"I'm the real Chancellor. This man is an imposter! Shoot him!"

"I'm the imposter? Don't be ridiculous! This man is -CLEARLY- the bad guy. Shoot him!"

"They're both lying! I'm the real Chancellor! Shoot them both!"

You can still have that now and I don't even see how that's a problem, it's a legit situation that often happens using a disguise idiom. Just now we've got a HUGE METAGAMEY "I'M THE DISGUISED ONE" tag that really shouldn't be there.

The GrumpyCat wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 01, 2020 5:20 pm

The problem with that is that it means that people can disguise themselves as other folk, and then break rules, and it adds an extra work for us, as DMS, to work out who is the real player and who is not the real pc.
Even without the DM side of things, it gives players the chance to ruin the /reputation/ of other players through such an act.

And yes, the situaiton above to a degree too.

I'm sure DMs have enough spot to figure out who's who, no? Barring that, simply have the system log everytime someone uses -disguise. And while you can ruin the reputation of characters (which is legit and sometimes the point of disguise), anyone can figure out who it really is just by clicking on the portrait to send a tell.

"Oh, it's the player so-and-so."

It's just really tiring and metagamey that most players who are lazy and or chill and pretty much never look at anyone they talk to or passing by suddenly become Sherlock Holmes the moment they see (DISGUISED) come into view.

I'll be more clear in my example

*Vance Gavelle logs in*
*Runs up to random PC, and one shot pvps them, no talking, then logs*
*PC reports this to DMS, and also (understandably) complains about it to various players*
*The player of Vance Gavelle now gets a reputation that they're a big griefer*
*We look into it, and discover that it wasn't Vance's player, or Vance himself, but someone disguised as Vance.*
*The interaction was so short and so unpleasent, that no time was given for the victim to check - either by *looks* or probalby even by click the portrait (If nothing was said that can be hard. Also keep in mind it's possible to change ones log in now. So the log in check is far from assured.)
*Because of the above, it's possible do a lot of harm to the player of Vance's reputation, and it puts more work on us. I will grant not a /lot/ more work, but dependent on what the rules break was, potentialy still a fair bit more work.

Put up a rule stating you wil get perma banned if you do this sort of thing and lets see how mutch work it wil be for you guys

I guess there’s no way to make a tag such as disguised only appear in combat logs and be otherwise invisible? That would seem to solve a lot of problems, albeit mostly only from pvp griefers/fixture bashers.

Nobs wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 02, 2020 11:00 am

Put up a rule stating you wil get perma banned if you do this sort of thing and lets see how mutch work it wil be for you guys

I'm sure they could apply that to a lot of rules here, but it doesnt seem to be the approach the team is going for.

To my knowledge (and I could be wrong, of course), one can sign their name as someone else but it will come up with the "Disguised" tag. Would those in favour of removing the disguised tag be in favour of removing it for signing notes as well? Would the DM team see someone posting in someone else's name as a rulebreak?