Disguise (Meta)

[Tathkar Eisgrim]

Is this intended as a discussion thread about the mechanics? Or bad players?

[Anomandaris]

Is this intended as a discussion thread about the mechanics? Or bad players?

I intended it to be a discussion thread about what is considered appropriate etiquette given the present mechanics and what makes sense ICly. I was curious to see the differing opinions on how to RP around disguises etc. My personal opinion as stated, is that people do Meta the disguise tag quite readily. Not all, but some. There are also reasonable statements that support a more "ongoing" active inspection, which may justify regularly inspecting PCs all around you with persistance. As a disclaimer, inspecting a PC that is disguised is not "metagaming" in the slightest, but being perhaps more vigilant with your inspections because as a player, you see the tag, is.

That being said, if you have something to add in a different vein related to disguise RP etc, please feel free to contribute to the discussion

[Shrouded Wanderer]

The disguise tag popping is one of the most annoying meta things in the game ATM. I should add that having (disguise) up only further reinforces behavior. Id guarantee that if that tag wasnt there the amount of examinations would drop dramatically.

[Tathkar Eisgrim]

Is this intended as a discussion thread about the mechanics? Or bad players?

I intended it to be a discussion thread about what is considered appropriate etiquette given the present mechanics and what makes sense ICly. I was curious to see the differing opinions on how to RP around disguises etc. My personal opinion as stated, is that people do Meta the disguise tag quite readily. Not all, but some. There are also reasonable statements that support a more "ongoing" active inspection, which may justify regularly inspecting PCs all around you with persistance. As a disclaimer, inspecting a PC that is disguised is not "metagaming" in the slightest, but being perhaps more vigilant with your inspections because as a player, you see the tag, is.

That being said, if you have something to add in a different vein related to disguise RP etc, please feel free to contribute to the discussion

Thanks for the clarification.

I would start by saying disguise is great fun. Having the RP opportunity to create persona / disguises. Huge kudos for it being part of the server.

As for etiquette. This is my own personal take.

I regularly inspect player-characters (PC's). Regardless of whether they have disguise up or not. I really like reading player-created descriptions.

I regularly inspect PC's who have disguise up. Some might consider this a bad habit -- but I am not trying to exploit the situation. I am trying to look for an RP opportunity. The chance to emote my watchfulness, or a hint in their current description that can be used to latch onto -- that can be later used as an identifier (i.e. what they look like in their guise / real self).

Because there is a lot of foot-traffic, and I don't know Undisguised X from Guised X -- there are no grounds (imho) to overly play my hand, i.e. to call out and break the disguise:

As a matter of etiquette, I give the person a degree of latitude and allow them to get away with it, on first viewing. Unless something else suspicious immediately happens.

For example, a disguised person on the street walking casually and doing normal stuff. -- No suspicion is aroused.
For example, a disguised, hooded, helmed person running on the street, at night, with a weapon to hand. -- A whole lot of triggers to my suspicion right there.

My current character is a Helmite. And a Guard. The character concept: I am super-vigilant. However, being super-vigilant, does not mean I immediately harangue and harass every disguiser. I might look -- but I don't act. I don't intepret the roll. I play nice.

In my opinion, a proper break of a disguise logically and minimally requires *two* triggers of evidence. Two encounters, two rolls, one roll + a description of a previous incident, etc.

Such is playing within the spirit of the game, rather than merely relying on the one dice roll of the mechanic (without proper RP).


-- Tath.

[Ninjimmy]

I'm just gonna toss it out again since the topic is Disguises and Meta, if we're going to argue etiquette is you don't examine frequently with a disguise, equally when it's broken the disguised needs to stay and deal with the consequences because it is WAY more Meta to peace out because the GUI tells you you've been rumbled.

IMO, there's a way greater onus on the Disguised to not Meta since you're fed as much, if not more, information that your character has no way of discerning.

[Aodh Lazuli]

To the OP.

I apologise profusely for reading someone's description. Damn, I'm an awful person. Remind me not to take an interest in the characters around me again.

[Basementfellow]

To the OP.

I apologise profusely for reading someone's description. Damn, I'm an awful person. Remind me not to take an interest in the characters around me again.

the only valid reason to right click a character is to attack

[Anomandaris]

To the OP.

I apologise profusely for reading someone's description. Damn, I'm an awful person. Remind me not to take an interest in the characters around me again.

Out of curiosity, if we could measure the data what do you think would happen? The data being the number inspections on a disguised pc with disguise tags Implemented, vs without? Do you really think the tag doesn’t affect “player” and thus PC behavior?

Based on your response should I assume you missed the very clear caveats and disclaimers I said like... “ As a disclaimer, inspecting a PC that is disguised is not "metagaming" in the slightest, but being perhaps more vigilant with your inspections because as a player, you see the tag, is.“

I thought it was pretty clear I was talking about a very specific type or behavior, not the utilization of inspection across the board. So one more time, it’s not inspecting PCs or any of that general play, I like reading descriptions too, it’s the “inexplicable” increased curiosity one seems to receive and increased frequency of inspection when a wearing a disguise tag.

And just in case, very simple example I see often actually. PC 1 sees PC 2 with disguise tag, but out of inspection range. PC 1 slides over to within range to inspect and break disguise. Baseline assumption, that this would not have happened if PC 2 were not disguised, and that this is an added level of curiosity by PC1 due to the tag.

Tahtkar Eisgrim (previous post) articulates nicely how they think about using these mechanics as a guard helmite and I think it’s a perfect example of not using the maximum advantage the mechanic offers to accurately rp the PCs level of suspicion based on known information.

[Liareth]

I didn't read all the text here but I'll share recent personal experience. I've walked into events disguised and had the <someone failed to break your disguise> pop off in strings of a dozen, followed by a brief cool down and more strings of a dozen. It is tiring.

Why is this tiring? This is how the mechanic works - it represents passive inspection and if your character has line of sight with a disguised character, it makes sense for you to examine them regularly.

Out of curiosity, if we could measure the data what do you think would happen? The data being the number inspections on a disguised pc with disguise tags Implemented, vs without? Do you really think the tag doesn’t affect “player” and thus PC behavior?

Based on your response should I assume you missed the very clear caveats and disclaimers I said like... “ As a disclaimer, inspecting a PC that is disguised is not "metagaming" in the slightest, but being perhaps more vigilant with your inspections because as a player, you see the tag, is.“

Neither of those things are metagaming. The disguise tag is a hint to you, as a player, that you should be examining a character regularly (as long as they are in line of sight, which is tested mechancially), which represents your character's passive inspection of the other character. What would be metagaming is seeing the tag and actively going out of your way to follow or act unusually suspiciously towards the disguised character.

And just in case, very simple example I see often actually. PC 1 sees PC 2 with disguise tag, but out of inspection range. PC 1 slides over to within range to inspect and break disguise. Baseline assumption, that this would not have happened if PC 2 were not disguised, and that this is an added level of curiosity by PC1 due to the tag.

Quoting to confirm quickly that this is a good example of metagaming the disguise tag.

I don't understand why many people in this thread hate being examined. I've actually received a tell chastising me for "spamming examine" before. Since this is clearly a sore spot for some players, maybe the disguise check should be moved to an automated proximity-based check instead, to remove the player element from the equation.

[Anomandaris]

I didn't read all the text here but I'll share recent personal experience. I've walked into events disguised and had the <someone failed to break your disguise> pop off in strings of a dozen, followed by a brief cool down and more strings of a dozen. It is tiring.

Why is this tiring? This is how the mechanic works - it represents passive inspection and if you are actively interacting with a disguised character, it makes sense for you to examine them regularly.

Out of curiosity, if we could measure the data what do you think would happen? The data being the number inspections on a disguised pc with disguise tags Implemented, vs without? Do you really think the tag doesn’t affect “player” and thus PC behavior?

Based on your response should I assume you missed the very clear caveats and disclaimers I said like... “ As a disclaimer, inspecting a PC that is disguised is not "metagaming" in the slightest, but being perhaps more vigilant with your inspections because as a player, you see the tag, is.“

Neither of those things are metagaming. The disguise tag is a hint to you, as a player, that you should be examining a character regularly (as long as they are in line of sight, which is tested mechancially), which represents your character's passive inspection of the other character. What would be metagaming is seeing the tag and actively going out of your way to follow or act unusually suspiciously towards the disguised character.



I don't understand why many people in this thread hate being examined. I've actually received a tell chastising me for "spamming examine" before. Since this is clearly a sore spot for some players, maybe the disguise check should be moved to an automated proximity-based check instead, to remove the player element from the equation.

I don't hate being inspected, I simply notice that player behavior changes quite a bit (sometimes) when I'm wearing the tag. That's all. There are plenty of players who don't go out of their way to follow and inspect or do anything that seems to be attributed to a "heightened suspicion due to the tag." Perhaps using the word metagame was wrong and ruffles feathers, I don't mean it in a mean way, I simply don't know what a better word to describe using that OOC info to alter IC behavior would be. I am not trying to call out the whole playerbase by any means either. That said, this kind of thing does happen and this experience is shared by many who use disguises regularly (along with others, like using activated abilities, gear swapping, casting spells etc to boost the spot score prior to an inspection due to seeing the tag).

There are a number of solutions. I didn't realize there was a 6 min freq cap on it, that is great to hear. Making the proximity requirement for breaking disguise or reading the descrip info could make a lot of sense as well. Then a PC would have to be within a more reasonable range to inspect someone, not eagle eye someone from across the way mid-stride as they walk the other direction at the edge of mechanical limits for perception (this happens all the time and I have been guilty of it as well). Automating it at a given frequency within a certain proximity is interesting as well, though it would ping the heck out of disguises when in fact a PC might chose not to apply such scrutiny (such as a meeting between allied factions where anonymity is respected and honored - this would also unnecessarily drain piety due to god saves).

However if it is wholly passive and a PC needn't "actively" apply a "higher level of scrutiny" to break a disguise, I suppose your suggestion would make more sense as a mechanical solution. Though I can relate to PnP as a (potentially) applicable example, of rolling against a PC's passive perception vs. them triggering a check of their own volition. Is there a distinction in our ecosystem that should be represented by an active inspection vs. passive? I don't know, it's one of the things I was curious to hear peoples' thoughts on. Thanks for your reply, I was curious to hear some of the perspective of the team as well!

[msheeler]

I didn't read all the text here but I'll share recent personal experience. I've walked into events disguised and had the <someone failed to break your disguise> pop off in strings of a dozen, followed by a brief cool down and more strings of a dozen. It is tiring.

Why is this tiring? This is how the mechanic works - it represents passive inspection and if your character has line of sight with a disguised character, it makes sense for you to examine them regularly.

My response to this is this -

During an hour long gathering of 12 to 15 people, it is reasonable to see 15-30 <your disguise was ... > tags. It is not reasonable to see 15 every 5-10 minutes for a total of 60+ <your disguise was ... > tags. I didn't re-write my description over the course of that time, I HIGHLY doubt it is normal behavior for people to update their character descriptions 2-4 times over the course of an hour of play. You inspected me, you read it, maybe you forgot or needed to check something and re-inspected me at some later point after the cool down expired. That is reasonable behavior. Unreasonable behavior is inspecting someone every ten minutes for what ever the duration of you time together is. I really doubt that that kind of behavior persists when there is no (disguised) tag.

[Xerah]

I think you missed the point about how it’s supposed to be a passive representative check.

If we did change it to be automatic, the range would be the same as it currently is (you can’t check someone’s disguise across the screen as stated here) and you’d see a lot more checks.

[Liareth]

Making the proximity requirement for breaking disguise or reading the descrip info could make a lot of sense as well...

There is already a line of sight and distance check on examine, as well as a timer. As for a separate mechanic to represent active observation, this would make sense, but it would need to be implemented carefully.

I didn't read all the text here but I'll share recent personal experience. I've walked into events disguised and had the <someone failed to break your disguise> pop off in strings of a dozen, followed by a brief cool down and more strings of a dozen. It is tiring.

Why is this tiring? This is how the mechanic works - it represents passive inspection and if your character has line of sight with a disguised character, it makes sense for you to examine them regularly.

My response to this is this -

During an hour long gathering of 12 to 15 people, it is reasonable to see 15-30 <your disguise was ... > tags. It is not reasonable to see 15 every 5-10 minutes for a total of 60+ <your disguise was ... > tags. I didn't re-write my description over the course of that time, I HIGHLY doubt it is normal behavior for people to update their character descriptions 2-4 times over the course of an hour of play. You inspected me, you read it, maybe you forgot or needed to check something and re-inspected me at some later point after the cool down expired. That is reasonable behavior. Unreasonable behavior is inspecting someone every ten minutes for what ever the duration of you time together is. I really doubt that that kind of behavior persists when there is no (disguised) tag.

People aren't examining you to read your description. They are examining you to roll against your disguise every so often. You're right - this behaviour wouldn't persist if there was no disguised tag.

This is the intended design of the system and is not a rule break or unreasonable conduct from players. It is expected that players should be examining regularly when interacting or observing a disguised player.

The issue here, I believe, is a fundamental misunderstanding of what right click -> examine means in the context of Arelith's disguise system.

To clarify, again: this is not an act of active observation ("I'm looking closer, intentionally, because I'm suspicious of you"), but an act of passive observation ("I might notice something unexpected about you without intentionally looking closer").

Failing a disguise check doesn't mean your character was being actively scrutinized. It means your character was being passively observed by somebody within line of sight who noticed that something felt off or wrong about your disguise.

It was only implemented this way because of concerns, at the time, about the performance implications of running regular automated disguise checks. The design intent behind the system has always been for players to regularly examine disguised characters during interaction or observation.

If the disguise tag were removed then the disguise check would need to be automated, otherwise players would have no way to know that they need to examine a character to trigger their character's passive observation roll.

This is important because it is not the player's observation skills that are being tested, it is the character's observation skills. The onus should not be on the player to determine that a character is suspicious enough to examine. This is a passive feature of the character that must be divorced from the player if the act of being disguised is hidden from them.

If such a change were made, your disguise would be tested at the exact same frequency in the best case, but in the average case, more often.

[Defense Light Fables]

But if it was made passive, all those ZHENTARIM BATTLE WARRIOR MAGES OF EPIC STRENGTH would destroy your combat log.

[Wuthering]

I think it makes absolute perfect sense to say "this is how you are supposed to use it" when you actively examine a disguised person every time the cycle lets you. Obviously this is a thing a lot of players didn't know even though it does say it's a passive check in the Wiki (so if someone gets miffed you busted them on a repeated attempt you can send them there, and maybe Liareth's quote in this thread should go there too to drive it home.)

At the same time I think it's human nature that there will be players who are irritated that someone is repeatedly checking to break their disguise-- since the examiner had the choice not to do so. Yes, they are totally in the right to repeatedly check and no, the busted disguiser has no right to complain but that choice to examine again versus letting it go seems like a major point of conflict. It's where someone is choosing to go after you instead of letting it go and that's where people can get irrational.

So... hopefully it would be possible to make it passive some day. It may make it more difficult to get away with disguising but it may also remove conflict from the feeling someone is out to get them.

[Maladus]

I think the only issue I have with the tag is that it automatically tells the other people to be suspicious. If it was a passive thing they wouldn’t be suspicious until they were told by their passive perception that something about the disguised player looks off.

[AstralUniverse]

If a character is not disguised I can only examine them once and get all the information I need from their examine window.

If the character is tagged as disguised then I, as player, know that I should be using the examine more on that particular PC because there /could/ be more information to reveal.

This is all OOC. What's happening IC, in both cases (disguised or undisguised) is that my character is looking at your character.

[Nobs]

I think the only issue I have with the tag is that it automatically tells the other people to be suspicious. If it was a passive thing they wouldn’t be suspicious until they were told by their passive perception that something about the disguised player looks off.

I feel the same way

[Tathkar Eisgrim]

It is also worth noting, visible checks against a Disguised individual are good for making the player-character nervous as to whether they have been spotted. That is good feedback to have! A Disguised player-character should not be coasting on their ranks, but actively putting effort into the disguise / discovery play & counterplay.

[Aardra]

The tag is necessary for balance reasons, but it does bring in a standard of almost subconscious metagaming. I examine people regularly just because I like reading descriptions, but I admit to being "encouraged" to examine PCs more when they have (Disguised) after their name. It's like playing a warlock before Favored Souls were a thing... if players saw your PC with a staff and shield, the understanding was a 50/50 chance you were either a warlock or a caster cleric, and it didn't require a conscious thought for players to suspect that. When I had a guard character 3 years ago, this fact was discussed IN CHARACTER, my point being that unconscious thoughts absolutely do creep in to roleplay and improvised character decisions.

I will say this, I wish there was an inspect tool that was separate from the examine tool. I would feel bad on a 99 spot character examining people and knowing I'm triggering a god save and piety loss just because I want to read their description.

[Aodh Lazuli]

it’s the “inexplicable” increased curiosity one seems to receive and increased frequency of inspection when a wearing a disguise tag.

And the point I am making is that you are casting this judgement of people's inspecting habits with absolutely no data on which to base it, as you do not get a notification if someone inspects you when you are not disguised.

This entire discussion of it being a "huge problem" is worthless until we can determine that it is, rather than having a gut feeling that it might be.

I get that having a disguise metagamed is frustrating. It has happened to me a few times and was irritating on each occasion. But most of those incidents are unintentional on the part of the metagamer, or due to a misunderstanding of how disguise functions in relation to the DMs rulings on the mechanic.

I'm not going to try to speculate as to the increase in inspections of disguised characters, because there is absolutely no point in doing so. Speculation is a waste of everyone's time, and is only revealing of the pre-formed biases held by those making guesses.

[-XXX-]

Tbh, I don't see any significant problem regarding the disguse/examine mechanic itself.

The parameters are set by the implemented cooldown on any break disguise checks.
That way the examine feature can be spammed while offering fair conditions to the disguised character.

The examine itself can represent a deliberate investigative attempt of any character who has developed a suspicion, but can also be a way to see whether an ignorant character might have noticed something by accident (since there's no other way of determining that atm).

In other words, having an IC reason to examine another character is not mandatory before doing so, nor does it necessarily have to represent your character being proactively looking for something.


Personally my biggest pet peeve with disguises is how they also conceal aura attunements, which Ive been struggling with how to translate into IC information.
It's not a big deal, but would welcome any advice regarding this... just btw