AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

There's absolutely a way for people to recognize you without seeing a floaty name. Its in your Bio. And most people wear the same clothes everyday (Amians are gross).

I don't know if this is possible or not, but its a sweet idea. There are lots of ways to distinguish each other. Clothes, abilities, people you're with. Faces, hair color, skin color. And -all- the details one is willing to give in the Bio.

Also, as for the "Bluff or have skills points" mentality hasn't ever been enforced between players. If you're purposefully enforcing it and metagaming information because a player isn't presenting social rolls, you'll be punished for it.

Quote:

REQUEST : Name Changer
Character : [REDACTED]

I'd like to explore the possibility of a name changer for my character, but possible also as framework for other characters who spy, change their identities, or otherwise go to great lengths to change their appearance and affect, and go into deep cover. How fun espionage and counter-espionage would be if we were truly ignorant of the other person and were forced to rely on actual observation and attention to find them out!

If the Name Changer in Area 51 is still there (or at least its scripts) then I thought this might be able to have very simple implementation. The means to change name could be in the form of a widget that is used to open a dialogue just like the Area 51 Name Changer had: utilizing the Shout channel to speak first/last name, confirm change. Booted. Login with new name.

A bit about Why :

I've played spies before who didn't need to hide their names, but their game was ultimately entirely different.

Rydraluin was an infiltrator to the Crimson Arcanist, but she wasn't particularly good at lying - so she didn't weave complex lies. She didn't try to have an alias, she just used her own name and got forged documents. Sweet and simple, there.

Zenith wasn't ever a long-term infiltrator, though she occasionally used throw-away aliases it was without changing her appearance in the slightest, most of the time - anyone who knew her as Zenith knew she was lying. Her brand of spying was more smash-and-grab, relying on not being seen, or being able to fast-talk her way out. Or just run.

Neither of them would have needed something like this.

[REDACTED], on the other hand, is an entirely different breed of spy. I've already learned a lot that I hadn't really needed to consider before, with the other two characters; mainly, that you can't rely on outfit changes and bio changes. I make massive use of bio changes to accompany his different outfits and disguises, but my experience has been people don't read them past the first time. Sometimes they don't even really read them the first time.

I can claim that with some certainty, because I've encountered it numerous times and on different characters. It seems to hold true even if its the first time a one character has met another. (For instance, Mosh's Marten didn't seem to realize that Erisidis with was visibly pregnant and instead though her injured, even though it's stated that she's more than halfway through pregnancy in its own line in her not-too-long bio. :wink:

) This is even more often the case when the character has already been met. It turns out a lot of players don't compulsively check bios. (Weirdos.)

In Tarkuul, [REDACTED] has created an identity he calls [REDACTED], and he goes to great lengths to affect different voice and mannerism, a different way of carrying himself, walking, moving, and behaving - in addition to having an outfit meant for blending in with necromancers. The bio he has when he's "[REDACTED]" describes these changes to "typical [REDACTED]" and it's fairly large changes. In addition to what I mentioned above, he pads his outfit to change his shape, strip it of obvious gender, wears a skull mask and even has a veil underneath that, and make-up (ala mundane disguise kit) under that. His emotes change to compliment the identity and appearance.

... And ultimately, he was still reacted to the very same way as if he had not been in disguise, and I had to instigate a read of his bio with a suggestion in Tells. None of the methods I am using (bio change, outfit change, emotes) can reliably withstand the split-second assumption of seeing the name above the character's head.

That becomes a problem when the other character goes, "Hey, [REDACTED]!" I can damage control that, but only so much and the mistake can swiftly ripple out of control - and suddenly I'll be hearing about how [REDACTED] has been spotted in Tarkuul, and all the contacts he's been working on are severed because of something ultimately OOC in nature. I'm lucky in that the last times this has happened, I think no one else was around to hear it - but if there were characters invisible or in Stealth doing their own spying, I have no way of knowing about them to correct the OOC slip-up so they don't report back a name that shouldn't have been said in the first place.

If I didn't have to worry about the unchanging name plastered all over my spy, I could then relax into more organic ways of letting people investigate him. (As in, them bothering to investigate at all rather than having preconceived notions resultant from the name, and me being able to provide clues that may feed or satisfy their suspicions.)

How it would be used :

I would not be using a name changer for simple aliases, or anything other than to distinguish between whole covers/identities.

[REDACTED] takes time in crafting his identities the same way that an artisan works their craft with attention and care. It isn't something that is slapped together; but once created, the process of transitioning between identities doesn't take an incredible amount of time (as a Spymaster, at least).

In general, I don't foresee a name changer needing to be used frequently - though I imagine 'frequently' is a subjective term. An exception presently: Tarkuul, and the donning of the [REDACTED] identity. More typically, when [REDACTED] assumes an identity, it will be something he "sleeps in", involves himself in wholly, and uses until he is done with it, then probably discards it. The effort into [REDACTED] is no less than what he would put into another identity, but is a necessary uniform to keep around while he is trying to wax relations elsewhere.

So, that was the Request I sent in when I was still playing my spy. It was pretty quickly shot down, and there weren't really any good alternatives offered. The closest it seems we, as disguised-character Players, can get is asking a DM to change our displayed name the way Assassins can request to have a DM change their names for a hit. There was some other discussion about this back and forth with some DMs via PMs, but ultimately nothing incredibly different from what has been stated already. I looked through my PMs for other stuff, but I didn't find anything particularly compelling to share on it. It is POSSIBLE to make something that does this that Players could use without direct DM intervention, but it's 99% unlikely to ever happen, and that's pretty much where we, and my spy's ESF: Bluff, are at.

The only thing we can really do, that I can see, is to try to encourage other players to pay more attention to attire and bios than names; and make sure that we do the same. I would even post the alias they were dressed as at a given time when they were in that disguise directly in their bio, as a reminder for people who knew that "A" should be addressed as "B" but didn't remember how to address them because the name wasn't floating over their head.

Honestly, people who call for social skill roles when others use disguises make me laugh, because they're frequently the ones who completely ignore their enormous stat dumps for the sake of power. If a system is developed, great, but it shouldn't run on social skills.

It wasn't PCs deciding to honor social skills like Persuade or Bluff, or not, since they're not meant to be used on other PCs; it was them rarely if ever being taken into account when being used on NPCs that urked me. But in my case, at least, I would have taken Bluff regardless, because for that type of character it was like taking an "RP spell" on a mage. It simply made sense to show some dedication to their trade, even if it was with skill points that would never be used or acknowledged. It gave me a sense of justification for how good the character was at lying and disguising themselves. It just would have been nice if they also could be utilized in interactions with NPCs reliably, like they were meant to be.

Yossarin wrote:

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.

And in a way it should as a disguise would mean that person has most of his body covered (Unless someone changed shape) and defenitely doesn't want anyone looking at his/ her face.
It depends on some factors (such as the weather) but such behaviour ussually is highly suspicious and noticable I'd argue. You can't just saunter into Cordor on a sunny day completely swathed in robes with a hood completely covering the face and then not expect people to stare at you.

Can we please just steal Areliths disguise and language systems? Please?

I have to agree about Aerith's thing, and also Mana brings up a good point. What if we had a 'disguise point' system completely separate from skills?

Further, if it's a roll based system. We make it something separate from normal. A flat system based on certain factors. We can already tell when someone's face is covered, so there's that.

Face is covered? Get a flat +10 to your 'disguise' check.

Make 'disguise kits' which are helmets that give you a different head based on the race. So 'elven disguise kit' gives you elven heads for example.

Disguise kits add a +15 to your 'disguise' check. Disguise kits could ALSO be given a power that lets you change your display name (but I doubt that would fly, despite how good it would be if it were physically possible using the code).

Somebody wants to check on somebody? They have something like the RP widget or something targetting them to 'inspect' them. If you roll better than 'half' their own disguise roll (made at the time when they put on the disguise, which is modified by what your disguise is), you get a message that says 'you're suspicious of this person!'. Wisdom could be used as the modifier (if any) for the 'inspect' command's roll.

If you roll better than their disguise check, then you are told out and out 'they are "so and so" in disguise!' or something. If your character has never MET this guy, then they obviously have no reason to be making these rolls in the first place.

Yes, this system favors the person being disguised, but I think that it's necessary to help encourage the return of 'espionage' characters and give them a level of defense against the inherent metagaming that ALWAYS occurs during shit like this.

My entire goal with these suggestions is to allow for OTHER kinds of roleplay where a player can participate without being ostracized, and to create an alternative that is workable for players who want to play spies, without having to make freaking alts for each faction and starting from scratch with each of them, which is just ridiculous, and frankly, leads to way too many temptations for metagaming, and I suspect, leads to metagaming PERIOD unintentionally because it's impossible to say, be a player with a character in Tarkuul, and one in Wiltun, and know one is planning to attack the other, and NOT react accordingly on both characters.

Though at the end of the day, the least code intensive, though most DM work intensive solution, is to make 'figuring out a disguised player' exactly the same as 'permakilling a player'. You can do it with permission from the player themselves, or if the DMs intervene. Under no other conditions. If you do it under other conditions then you are punished the same way you would be for blatant metagaming.

Social skills are a measurement or baseline on the influence your character has over NPCs. Why? Because it gives consistency when dealing with NPCs because they don't have a player behind them making conscious decisions for them. A DMed NPC is much the same, its a baseline and if the DM develops the NPC further she can decide on how to modify the NPC and how to react.

In a player vs player situation social skills doesnt really matter, it all falls on how you've developed your bond between your two PCs. If your character is good at bluffing then he is also creative enough to make a believable disguise that can fool even the closest family members. So in technical terms, its all effort vs effort in your RP when dealing with players while NPCs its a diceroll because they can't put any effort against you unless a DM have put some serious effort into tailoring a personality for them, then its just as it'd be against another player.

Personally if people roll social against me, I keep them in mind when I RP but I don't decide the outcome solely on them and if you expect me to then its no better then godgaming. The other away around goes too, the character might be better at bluffing then the player is, hence I keep it in mind.

i understand where you are going with your thoughts terra but i dont agree with it. if that is the whole point to social skills then you might as well remove it or make it so we dont eve need them. As barbarians NEED intimidate for their fear effects, and persuade is required for some pre-reqs. Both of which are USELESS against NPC or PC because no one wants to roleplay their skills , everyone wants to be a bad ass twit who need no man.

The point of THIS thread however is finding a possible useful easy way to see if someone is disguised and a way to counter it. Many things have been done so far, and glim is workin' his best.

You might as well lock this thread as it will go NOWHERE until either people rip others throats out, and the throats of people who disguise will STILL be 'immortal' in the end, as no one can out them without A: having a counter spy to follow them (which would be metagaming!), just outing them( also metagaming!), or just saying 'screw it' and ignoring that PC and everything it does since you can't do ANYTHING to stop them.

Quote:

Both of which are USELESS against NPC or PC because no one wants to roleplay their skills

No, all social skills are used against NPC's. They're not used against PC's, however. Remember what happens when a Barbarian goes, "Rawr!" And rolls an 80 Intimidate check against players. And then expects everyone to obey the dice rolls, but had really -zero- RP and emotes to show it. Its poor form.

However, against NPC's, its a different story. That's where your social rolls are useful, and they are frequently used.

Quote:

i understand where you are going with your thoughts terra but i dont agree with it.

You can disagree all you like, but its the stance of the team. If players are caught disobeying this stance and godgaming or metagaming information (Ie: Refusing to believe a character's disguise because he doesn't present bluff rolls), that player will be punished. This isn't up for discussion, really.

The only thing we're discussing here is a mechanical means to help conceal a player's identity. It sounds like Glim and Terra have some neat stuff to work with, so let's just see what happens.

can we just ban being 'disguised' untill its done then? Personally i want nothing to do with the drama that will come with it if ther eis no way to prove them otherwise without getting in trouble.

If there IS a way to prove a disguise is fake that wont get someone in trouble, PLEASE list them immediately.

I can back Hax up on them being taken advantage of by the DM Team. I have been asked to use mine during NPC interactions, and it has been wonderful because it finally validates the fact that I invested ability points, skill ranks, and even feats into those social skills. Even when I was a DM, I used them for players, but in ways they might not have realized. Sometimes I asked for rolls, but other times I did not, and instead I set a target DC, and then checked the current "at that moment" skill bonus for that skill and assumed they were "taking 10". If they hit the DC, they were successful. If they couldn't quite make it with that, I asked for a roll, or just rolled it myself behind the scenes...and I added circumstance bonuses to the roll for the actual roleplay they did or the arguments they made. As in, "Oh, she worked in a mention of possible profits the person could earn. Since the bottom line is a major motivator, that'll be a +5 circumstance bonus."

Sorry, I know that is all a bit aside from the discussion at hand, but I did want to argue that the social skill ranks are not worthless. They're just limited in their scope, and rightfully so.

so only useful against DM plots basictly?

Yep. Which is how it is in tabletop, anyway. You don't use social skills on fellow players, and why there are very few counters to them save the classic "sense motive vs. bluff", which isn't even represented in NWN anyway.

Still off the topic, though, and the whole "social skills" debate doesn't need to be rehashed here.

I just cannot see any good system that allows for disguises. Arelith's is an alright half-measure, but it invites metagaming in situations where there should be none. And a kind of metagaming that can easily be explained away IC as "that's a stranger, and all strangers are suspicious, and I am a suspicious person. So nyah."

And any PC initiative you have that involves NPC's. Not just when DM plots come to you!

So like, if you want to go do something with your character that involves an NPC, you can use your skills to great benefit. It doesn't always hurt you not to have them (Sometimes it can), but it -definitely- helps to have them.

Sneaking into a city? Bluff! Trying to hire bandits, intimidate! Persuade! These are all really good things to have if you're looking to interact heavily with NPC's.

Mr. Hackums wrote:

And any PC initiative you have that involves NPC's. Not just when DM plots come to you!

So like, if you want to go do something with your character that involves an NPC, you can use your skills to great benefit. It doesn't always hurt you not to have them (Sometimes it can), but it -definitely- helps to have them.

Sneaking into a city? Bluff! Trying to hire bandits, intimidate! Persuade! These are all really good things to have if you're looking to interact heavily with NPC's.

Yep, and that's fantastic, when it actually works or is taken into account. That's a huge part of the sour taste in my mouth, especially since that was a core part of the compliant I sent to you that was never resolved. And pretty much why I was avoiding this thread in the first place.

Anyway, if we can borrow Arelith's "Soandso (Disguised)" system, that may not be a bad move, as long as it is merely an option to be used, and not enforced. More helpful would simply be the name changing system they have that goes along with being disguised. I'll leave my participation in this topic at that and carry on, my wayward son.

If you do anything to alter your general appearance you will catch the wanton eye of our community who has seen you in the past with a "standard" piece of gear, and worse yet they might just walk up to you and say.. "Hi Sana!!" to which we can only groan and cry in frustration (or quietly explain to them you are disguised, which is wasted RP time, but worth it given the lack of altneratives.). If there was a disguised marker on our characters people would have to actively engage in metagame, whether they want to admit it or not to seek us out and disrupt our cloak and dagger roleplay. A disguise widget protects all parties involved by giving them necessary information from the very start! Once you see disguised the first thought to cross your mind would have to be "Does this disguise x character had fabricated pass as casual and compliant enough to go unnoticed?" To which we can progress with acceptable roleplay based on the answer.

I firmly believe that a disguised widget is on the same level of metagame that "hey where are you at x friend" is. It's a useful tool that helps us facilitate roleplay.

Quote:

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.

Love this idea. It's radical, but it solves the problem at the source. In disguise? No problem, just change your outfit, and rewrite your bio to match your new description (or leave it blank). You can just change it all back when you're done. No worries about metagaming disguised people - they'd blend right in! And if a character is following your disguised character because of how he's acting or dressed, well, then, it really -is- IC. Bonus: no more metagaming of people's names either.

It may or may not be feasible, but, I just think it would be so much fun!

Quote:

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.

This would just bring up a kind of fun rp situation IMO. And if people are using their bios, it shouldn't really be a problem.

Quote:

God no. Given we are not physically in the game it would be next to impossible to tell one person from the next.

Aside from bios (which can be blank), you'd have to get creative. Remember faces, outfits, voices, etc. It could potentially add to the immersion aspect of the game, if looked at positively.

Quote:

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.

No need to force anyone. But it would be in their best interest, if they don't want to be mistaken frequently. It's a self-correcting problem. But don't forget, all that's really necessary is 1-2 sentences of a brief, physical description - or, like Liz said, simply putting in their name.

...Change can be fun.

-

Quote:

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?

I like this idea too. The only problem I see with this is if you get into combat while disguised (especially PVP).

NaturallyCaffeinated wrote:

This would just bring up a kind of fun rp situation IMO. And if people are using their bios, it shouldn't really be a problem.

Quote:

God no. Given we are not physically in the game it would be next to impossible to tell one person from the next.

Aside from bios (which can be blank), you'd have to get creative. Remember faces, outfits, voices, etc. It could potentially add to the immersion aspect of the game, if looked at positively.

Quote:

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.

No need to force anyone. But it would be in their best interest, if they don't want to be mistaken frequently. It's a self-correcting problem. But don't forget, all that's really necessary is 1-2 sentences of a brief, physical description - or, like Liz said, simply putting in their name.

How do you remember someone's voice in a text-based game? It's still a terrible idea because we are not physically in the game and it would be hell to remember who people are. Nearly impossible, really. What you consider 'fun' is akin to making every kill worth 1 XP.

And yes, bios would be 'forced' because of the above. Without it, it would be impossible. A few people may think it's a good idea, but it would be chaos on a grand scale. It's best left to people to police themselves. Hell, I've had people use my char's floaty names before even though they hadn't yet given their names (and a polite reminder was all it took to fix that). I even have one character that goes by a totally different name than her floaty one, and even the people closest to her make the mistake but we're all adults and it's easily fixed.

Oh, I meant their voiceset. You're right, though, not really useful for identifying friends.

If someone didn't want to write a bio, I see putting their character name in the bio space as a simple alternative, but then again, you are still right. Some people would not like feeling like they have to do that.

More than that, I think a another complaint might be that people would have to examine bios all the time. That could be annoying. I do it already, so it doesn't bother me.
-
You make a good point, it would be hard. Personally, that appeals to me - but I can see how not everyone would enjoy it. Still, it's fun to consider what it'd be like.

I don't really like the "take away floaty names" idea, I hope we're not seriously considering it? Effectively, what the floaty names do is allow you to identify someone at a glance (we can say that what it does is indicate the physical parts of their model which can't be physically represented due to the limitation of the system). This is usually fine, because identifying people at a glance is what we do in the real world and it's is only a problem here when the floaty name shouldn't allow identification. But take away the floaty names and it will be the equivalent of putting us in a world where we cannot glance. We have to stop whatever we're doing - such as running (except in a straight line to a specific point) focus on them, and look very carefully for an identifying mark (if they have one at all, and I am not so optimistic to believe that no one will opt out and damn the consequences). It sounds a lot like a world where an undetermined number of humans have been replaced with alien doppelgangers (hey that sounds like a DM plot that should show up*). Also, while you are looking at them, you can't do anything else, including see anything other than the person and the edges of your peripheral vision.

I feel for folks who have disguise problems, I dealt with a lot of it myself (actually I was pretty lucky, mostly by keeping the dual-identities separate until a woman happened) but I swear to god if you force me to check descriptions every fucking time I see a generic-built human or female elf with the same damn popular outfits I will disembowel a bitch. Also it will screw with my chat logs.

Maybe I'm too jaded but I just don't think the platform is really capable of properly handling disguises so we should just make do with how it is, rather than hobbling the majority of the playerbase just to make it work. Just try to manage metagaming when it happens and avoid tempting it, also.

*again

Options > Game Options > Feedback Options > Disable 'Mouse-over feedback'.

It'll disable names popping up on your screen unless you have your mouse over the PC and then Tab key. They will still appear in the conversation and combat logs, however.

666WaysToHell wrote:

Options > Game Options > Feedback Options > Disable 'Mouse-over feedback'.

It'll disable names popping up on your screen unless you have your mouse over the PC and then Tab key. They will still appear in the conversation and combat logs, however.

Good to know, thank you.

Glim wrote:

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.

What about a disguise widget that completely alters your name? It could perhaps be used via the bluff skill and countered by a detection skill like spot.

I'm going to regret this suggestion later.

bobofwestoregonusa wrote:

What about a disguise widget that completely alters your name? It could perhaps be used via the bluff skill and countered by a detection skill like spot.

I'm going to regret this suggestion later.

For what it's worth, I think it's a good idea. Do you mean like, just have it say "Disguised" rather than a tag in addition to the character's name, or a temporary, randomly generated name entirely? If the latter was possible, the disguised character wouldn't have to stand out as "Disguised".

Remove the ability to see names when you hover your mouse or highlight things when holding tab?

Spot vs. Bluff, contested roll, problem solved.

I don't think a spot roll vs bluff would work in a lot of cases. Many times when someone is disguised, they're wearing a full helmet with a robe and/or full set of armor. Unless Spot allows someone to see directly through a metal helmet, it wouldn't really work. It's also very easy to exploit a system like that on both ends. I don't think we need new rules or widgets. This is something that has always been left to the interpretation of the players and DMs involved and I think it should stay that way.

Sure, people will metagame. People have always metagamed and they will continue to metagame. Going after that issue by coming up with complex new rules and systems is kind of like going freshwater fishing with grenades.

Also then its a question of how much do each thing factor into it?, the problem with solid X skill vs. Y skill is then they can claim "I won the roll" even if the person half assed the disguises or on the flip side had such a well crafted one.
Persuaded come to mind "You should jump off that cliff and fly away.... just flap your arms real hard and you can fly." At no point would you ever see a DM enforcing persuaded rolls they themselves did not over see to set the counter roll or out right tell you to ignore.

With disguises DMs just make up the roll at random they have no set guidelines so players would have nothing too use to do it themselves, its why if a person is doing something that needs a disguise because they are banned or such you need a DM... or if you need a disguise because your going to commit a crime or other acts that would need you to hide who you are(Spy's, sabotage ..etc..) you need a DM or your meta gaming.

The DMs factor stuff in like how one talks (rolling R sounds, stutter, lisp) what one looks like, example Wicket is a short rotting bird kind of thing, that would be harder to hide up with more then say a helmet if they are wearing a wife beater and speedo. and a bunch of other crap.... but again they have no set guidelines its all on the fly and you could give every DM on staff and place them in the same situation and you might get a different ruling every time.

Yossarin wrote:

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.

If people had the word "Disguised" by their name, then that would cut out unintentional metagaming... WHICH HAPPENS A LOT! Especially with new players or casual players. With the word "Disguise" there, there will be less of this:

Guy:
Hey Bob! How's it going, man! Great night at the pub last night, and how about dem Bears?

Disguised Bob:
I'm not Bob.

Guy:
HAHAH, you are so funny. So anyway, Lucy said to call her next time we go out.

Disguised Bob begins OOC comments:
Please dude, I'm disguised, help me out here.

Guy begins OOC comments:
OH CRAP! I'm sorry, man. Can we start that over?

Disguised Bob OOC:
Sigh

I think intentional metagaming is a little bit less of a problem, because you both know each other already, and there's fun little tricks you can play on metagamers... teee heee

Your example presupposes two characters who have met in the past. My example is different and concerns two PCs that have never met before. Without the word disguised in the name, it is like any other encounter between two PCs that have never met. With the word disguised in the name, the other PC's player is immediately forced to ask, "Why is this person disguised?"

If I were the other player, I would ask myself that question, but then I would say, I don't know them nor do I know they are disguised. Not my problem.

But no other player is me! So instead you have a lot more instances of the other player burdened by the OOC knowledge of a disguised character and being tempted towards intentional metagaming.

Note that I am being cheeky when I suggest other players wouldn't do the same thing I do. I just have very high standards (but very low expectations) and will almost always encourage any addition or system to be as close to perfect as it can be, and not "let's just put this in this way to be expedient in spite of any contrary viewpoint". Any time someone says one type of metagaming is worse than the other and wants to implement something that allows one to be permissable, I put on the brake and point to the drawing board until someone has a good idea.

Yossarin wrote:

Your example presupposes two characters who have met in the past. My example is different and concerns two PCs that have never met before. Without the word disguised in the name, it is like any other encounter between two PCs that have never met. With the word disguised in the name, the other PC's player is immediately forced to ask, "Why is this person disguised?"

If I were the other player, I would ask myself that question, but then I would say, I don't know them nor do I know they are disguised. Not my problem.

But no other player is me! So instead you have a lot more instances of the other player burdened by the OOC knowledge of a disguised character and being tempted towards intentional metagaming.

Note that I am being cheeky when I suggest other players wouldn't do the same thing I do. I just have very high standards (but very low expectations) and will almost always encourage any addition or system to be as close to perfect as it can be, and not "let's just put this in this way to be expedient in spite of any contrary viewpoint". Any time someone says one type of metagaming is worse than the other and wants to implement something that allows one to be permissable, I put on the brake and point to the drawing board until someone has a good idea.

If two characters have not met in the past, or will not meet again in the future, then a disguise is useless. A disguise is used to keep from being recognized. Most of the burden I see many players that play spies carrying around with them, at least on the surface, is the burden of constantly explaining to people OOC that their character is disguised. I, for one, have a difficult time keeping track of who is role-playing a spy, and who is not, especially on the surface where there are a ton of spies.

When someone introduces themselves as another name besides their floaty name, I do not assume they are a spy, I assume it's a nick-name. When I see them wearing different clothes, I act the same way towards them as I would if I saw someone wearing different clothes in real life. A disguise is more than having a different name and a different set of clothes, it is the attempt at concealing ones identity and portraying a completely different identity. It's a little hard to realize someone is portraying a different identity without a bunch of typing out stuff in-character, when in real life, if someone is really disguised very well, we would instantly believe that they are the identity they are portraying... no explanation necessary. Wouldn't it be easier for players role-playing spies if they didn't have to explain and explain and explain over and over again that they are portraying a different identity?

Quote:

If two characters have not met in the past, or will not meet again in the future, then a disguise is useless. A disguise is used to keep from being recognized.

But when someone says "Have you seen [so and so wearing such and such] walk by recently?" "Nope, just [a guy that looks like this], sorry".
And the two will never meet again, and haven't before. The person looking for 'so and so' never knows this, and doesn't need to know if the two have met before, or know each other. He's just looking for someone that looks a certain way, or acts a certain way or whatever, thus validating the disguise between two people that have never met, and never will again.

Also, I just want to add in that I absolutely HATE the use of the crafting system to assume a disguise. At least not without justifiable means. "No, you can't recognize me, I have a different outfit on" just seems as metagamey to me. I don't think it would be improper to contest rolls either. People put alot of effort into skills that can penetrate a disguise, so to use the crafting system and cry metagaming with no contest beforehand invalidates RP as well.
Much of what i'm reading in this thread only takes into account the person trying to disguise themselves and the injustice of being recognized. Two sides to every coin. /Someone/ is going to loose, and "may the best man win"....or so goes the saying.

Analog Kid wrote:

But when someone says "Have you seen [so and so wearing such and such] walk by recently?" "Nope, just [a guy that looks like this], sorry".
And the two will never meet again, and haven't before. The person looking for 'so and so' never knows this, and doesn't need to know if the two have met before, or know each other. He's just looking for someone that looks a certain way, or acts a certain way or whatever, thus validating the disguise between two people that have never met, and never will again.

good point

Analog Kid wrote:

Also, I just want to add in that I absolutely HATE the use of the crafting system to assume a disguise. At least not without justifiable means. "No, you can't recognize me, I have a different outfit on" just seems as metagamey to me. I don't think it would be improper to contest rolls either. People put alot of effort into skills that can penetrate a disguise, so to use the crafting system and cry metagaming with no contest beforehand invalidates RP as well.
Much of what i'm reading in this thread only takes into account the person trying to disguise themselves and the injustice of being recognized. Two sides to every coin. /Someone/ is going to loose, and "may the best man win"....or so goes the saying.

I've actually had someone claim that I was claiming an advantage by asking to roll to see if I recognize them. Isn't NOT being recognized an advantage? Should spies just be able to claim this advantage on everyone automatically? I don't think so, and it looks like you agree with me.

joe15552 wrote:

Analog Kid wrote:

Also, I just want to add in that I absolutely HATE the use of the crafting system to assume a disguise. At least not without justifiable means. "No, you can't recognize me, I have a different outfit on" just seems as metagamey to me. I don't think it would be improper to contest rolls either. People put alot of effort into skills that can penetrate a disguise, so to use the crafting system and cry metagaming with no contest beforehand invalidates RP as well.
Much of what i'm reading in this thread only takes into account the person trying to disguise themselves and the injustice of being recognized. Two sides to every coin. /Someone/ is going to loose, and "may the best man win"....or so goes the saying.

I've actually had someone claim that I was claiming an advantage by asking to roll to see if I recognize them. Isn't NOT being recognized an advantage? Should spies just be able to claim this advantage on everyone automatically? I don't think so, and it looks like you agree with me.

The problem is who sets the roll? it would not be a solid bluff vs (spot,listen,bluff....what ever) so many factors need to be taken into account, like as a shapeshifter I have 1kfaces I can change every last aspect with little effort in the span of a few seconds IC (size/build,skin colour,hair colour, race be it elf, human, dwarf...dogs, birds ,ants ,voice , gender, clothes...ect.) you could have someone with 10000 bluff, he cant reach the level of disguise that a shapechanger can... unless your guards start questioning insects, farm animals, people who don't even fit the description at all.... more or less become the new TSA. (and no true seeing does not effect shape shifters so wont help.)

My point is people using a free game mechanical, resuscitation some investing in their character and thus sacrificing other aspects of their build. Using the crafting system is just a cheap 'win' button the way it is now.

As for the rolls, look in the special die rolls on the dice menu. The contested rolls are already in place. As for a shifter, they only change their appearance, they are still responsible for acting like what they are shifted into. As far as I know, a shape doesn't come with the native language or mannerisms of said shape. In this instance, a perform, or base charisma roll.....since charisma is the relevant attribute for Perform.

The crafting system is meant to add flavor, not be used as a mechanic against other pc's or npc's.

MAKING RULEZ IS HARD! HALP!

But seriously though. I really... REALLY like that there is spy rp on AMIA. While I haven't done it myself, I have definitely enjoyed having the threat of spies in the game. It adds an extra flavor to the complexity of the RP here that would be missed if it suddenly became illegal due to people abusing it.

I don't agree with the original poster on this point: a GM must be summoned in order to discover a spy... especially with all the spies we have running around. That's just too much spam for a GM's inbox... can't we come up with some kind of system that allows spies to be discovered that is almost as smooth as the system that allows sneaky people to be discovered?

I know it's not built in to the game mechanics like that... but can't we come up with a system (like spot or listen vs perform... or bluff vs spot... or something) that all involved in spy RP automatically subject themselves to?

I have characters who disguise themselves, and I've noticed that the biggest obstacle for playing a character like this is metagaming. Playing a character in this manner is not as fun as it could be because of the floaty names. If anything is to change in some way to address this issue, it should involve the floaty names all characters have above their heads. I don't have an answer to the problem, but I know it needs to involve the visible names of characters to counter metagaming.

Like almost every question of balance in this game, I think disguise is best thought of in terms of relative investment. My character can hide from yours because she’s invested skill points and mythallable gear slots in the Hide skill. Another character can detect my character because he’s invested even more resources in Spot. Those are the choices that should define what a character is and is not able to do: the choices to prioritize one ability over another. Giving up competence in one thing, in order to attain competence in another. The fact that every point you put into Spot is one point which you can’t put into Discipline or Tumble means that your character with +100 Spot has earned the right to have your Spot skill valued in game.

Likewise: if you do nothing to earn your disguise ability, if all you do is just flip on a widget and declare that your disguise is unbeatable, then your disguise is worthless. You’ve done nothing to make it deserve anyone else’s respect or consideration. As long as there is no system in place by which a character can make a legitimate investment in the ability to Disguise, then your enemies are entirely justified in jumping on whatever flimsy excuse they can concoct, in order to penetrate your disguise.

If the ability to be disguised is trivial, then the ability to see through disguises must also be trivial. A new rule or a name-change widget is not enough. Only mechanical investment in Disguise can make a disguise meaningful.

I don't entirely agree. Spot is guaranteed to be useful because there are whole (popular) classes whose combat dependency involves a hide/spot roll-off. As well, spot is probably one of the most called-upon skill in DM events. Every point you put into spot is a point well-spent - its value is right up there with discipline and tumble, the latter only being useful up to 30 ranks, and the former arguably useless on classes that can't get enough disc no matter what they do.

Disguise on the other hand doesn't even have a skill in the system, so you have to quibble around with vague alternatives. A point in bluff is a point almost-wasted. Hide would actually be a more fair test.

That said, I think a freely unimpeachable disguise is just as bad as suggesting a high-spot PC freely pierces any such veils. The problem is that the disguised PC and the observer have to come to an agreement on how best to handle it. Some will just force their way and call it meta if they don't get it. What can you do, really?

I don't disagree with any of that, Serbiris. There's not a perfect skill vs skill analogy already existing in game, so any pair opposing skills one might name will be inherently problematic. I do maintain, though, that skill vs skill is one of the two best options for resolving a disguise situation (the other option being the status quo: no system at all, and let it get worked out via RP). I'm just arguing that an imperfect skill vs skill system would be better than a perfect widget, since skill points are by definition a measure of investment, and consideration of relative investment is requisite for making systems balanced and equitable.

Sure, but if it's a really bad match-up it's not going to be an improvement - you'll just get the legion of spotters auto-foiling every attempt at disguise with minimal effort. Unless there is a fair ruling it might as well remain in the players' hands, given that it involves issues tricky for many players - partitioning of player/character knowledge and all.

serbiris wrote:

Sure, but if it's a really bad match-up it's not going to be an improvement - you'll just get the legion of spotters auto-foiling every attempt at disguise with minimal effort. Unless there is a fair ruling it might as well remain in the players' hands, given that it involves issues tricky for many players - partitioning of player/character knowledge and all.

Hrm.... So I suppose Spot would be a bad choice... in game terms, I suppose spot would only make it so you can examine the disguise in detail, not exactly realize that it is a disguise or determine the quality of the disguise.

I suppose Hide would be a bad choice too: It would just make it so you can hide behind a disguise, not increase the quality of the disguise.

A crappy disguise, sure... someone with good eyes can see "wow, that mustache is falling off..."

I think that a really good disguise can only be discovered by someone that knows a lot about disguises. I've found that when I ask a player for a roll in casual role-play, the most commonly agreed upon roll vs roll is the same roll vs the same roll. Having said that, I think that the only skill that really makes sense for disguise is "Perform".

Why perform? Most actors today, and all actors in the good ole days, know how to do their own make-up, costumes, and all that good stuff... so basically they have the skillset required to be a spy. A good actor can really only be criticized accurately on their skill by another good actor, since they know what went in to the creation of the portrayed character. What would you guys say to a Perform vs Perform check for disguise creation and discovery?

Not really feasible, as Perform is exclusive to bards. Other classes can't even cross-class in it.

I'd pick Bluff vs Search, myself.

Yeah. Dig your fingers a little below the laceration here and you find that the trouble here is symptomatic of the larger problem of skills not being equal in mechanical importance. That's a design flaw that requires attention during the slow-moving server overhaul.

Sure, you could argue you get the same thing in tabletop games, but it isn't quite as pronounced as it is here.

Liz wrote:

Not really feasible, as Perform is exclusive to bards. Other classes can't even cross-class in it.

I'd pick Bluff vs Search, myself.

Master Scouts don't get perform?

Nope.

Skill vs. skill happens /all the time/ in the game. AB vs. AC. Hide vs. Spot. so on and so forth. Skill vs. skill is perfectly viable and logical. A characters investment should dictate their success, or at least influence it. If another character hasn't invested in the ability to counter said skill, then that's their problem and should be forced to deal with it. A sneaker is forced to deal with the spotter, the fighter wielding an uber knockdown or dev crit forces the defender to deal with the opposing roll/ability. People should /not/ be allowed to use a free game mechanic the way people try to use the craft system for their disguises. Period. How many of these characters that say their disguises are so good have the relevant skill at crafting to even /create/ their flawless disguises? Tailoring, armor crafting, weaving......?

I didn't think so either.

Edit: Not only that, what about the monetary investment? The crafting system doesn't cost anything *all the time*, and last i checked, modifying magical armor wasn't as easy as selecting option 1, 2, or 3 on the menu.

I don't think Spot should work to counter disguises, because it's already a very useful skill. I don't want months of having the same disguise, alternate persona, and alias to go down the toilet just because suddenly half of all characters will be walking around towns in max spot gear with max ranks in spot.

Keep in mind, spotting something out of context means nothing. For ones spot to count, they must know what they're seeing. Or in the case of a flimsy disguise, say one poorly crafted, someone could see that it looks like it should be hiding something, and is doing a poor job. Say, a human trying to impersonate a drow or something, and the disguise malfunctioning or the like.

There are many ways around a flimsy disguise. Bluff, perform, charisma vs. listen, spot, search, wisdom...etc. That's just basic skill vs. skill, which is ...for you lore monkeys ....represented in the rule books, and a perfectly viable mechanic, and equally represented in NWN via roll vs roll. It happens all over the place all the time, whether we realize it or not.

The bottom line here is that it should /never/ be about free mechanic over someones investment in their character. Someone crying foul because they chose a bunch of options in the crafting menu, then get found out by someone that has an investment in their skills and abilities that are /meant/ to counter exactly these situations is just wrong. On so many levels...wrong. The person crying foul says their RP is invalidated and cheapened, when in actuality they are themselves invalidating the RP of the person that beat them, because the person that beat them has take just as much effort, if not more, at countering the disguise....or what ever other situation the contesting rolls are representing.

Somewhere along the line, this game became about 'winning', and not about having fun with our friends. We come home from work to get away from the stress of RL, and find outselves stressed out....for lack of a better word....again with finding a way to win at our game. Often at the expense of the person we're trying to play the game with.

Think of your disguises this way. Did your character /earn/ the right to go undetected? And before you answer this, think realistically, beyond saying 'yes, I carry seven different outfits in my bag, and it took me /all day!/ to make them!".
If you can honestly....HONESTLY...say you didn't /earn/ the right to go undetected, then bow out. Loose gracefully. Accept the consequences that you are requiring your 'opponent' to accept by not recognizing your character. It's a fair trade.

How about a new rule for diguises?

Who is online