Sneaking and Hiding

That's what I said.

As long as you both agree on something, I'm happy.

While I do not agree with rcrantz outlook on the game and why we're playing it, he/she has hit the nail right on the head.

You cannot trust most MUers to responsibly handle OOC information, such as the fact that they are being eavesdropped or spied upon.

Magically the conversation changes from what was going to be said to a watered down version. Magically they do not reveal certain things they were going to. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. It's a shame that we have to resort to OOC trickery to accomplish something ICly, but thats just the reality of the genre we play in.

I do not see the point of any hide system that does not physically remove you from the view of others. It will just be pointless and a waste of time and no true 'spying' will get done.

I think the important thing to remember is that it's also more or less impossible to determine who can be OOCly trustworthy or not beforehand. As I have indicated several times before, I have had people that I trusted a good deal OOCly take OOC knowledge and act on it ICly. I don't think they were even aware they were doing it. And since you seem to think I am not trustworthy OOCly, and you may want to spy on me, then you are in quite the pickle with cooperating with me on it, aren't you?

Right, you dont even have to know you are doing it to do it. It's better off to just remain in the dark. I totally agree.

Just to further clarify, also append '. . . and still fairly difficult afterwards' to my previous 'it's also more or less impossible . . . beforehand' statement. Especially if someone is unintentionally using their OOC knowledge IC (which is really the most common violation, and the hardest to prevent), it is often very difficult to tell when it's actually happened, unless it is utterly flagrant--which subconscious violation tends not to be.

Spending the majority of one's IC existence effectively invisible is no abuse of the system, but often, most +hiding would do so without any observation of room descs or poses made by other people.

If I pose being in a secluded microchamber - a booth or such - within a room, and pose whispering (but not actually using whisper) to my companion, while my armed bodyguards stand outside said booth, a spy will still overhear me as though he sat under the table. Or, worse still, an assassin would somehow appear right behind me, with a weapon raised for a clean kill.


But, that was DH1. I had somehow, albeit naively, hoped espionage would be more interesting for every party involved. Rather James Bondish, but perhaps that is more +disguise than +hiding.

I always enjoyed hiding, and made a lot of fun come out of it. Nevertheless the chief reason I have suggested my change to +hide is not to satisfy those who have constantly complained about its existence but to make it more fun for those who are +hiding by adding a chance they would be caught eventually, no matter how good they were. The fun really happens after someone is caught, whether or not he gets away. How long has he been listening? How much did he hear? The spy wonders then whether his information is worth anything now--will he change his plans? Will he miss the crucial moment?

There was never any danger or uncertainty on DH1, which certainly diminished its fun.

Really, ignoring poses or room descriptions is by no means the exclusive provenance of +hide. It happens in every type of combat imaginable, and will continue to happen so long as the concept of 'room' continues to exist as it does--where a several-square-kilometers mall is a room, and so is a tiny kitchen behind a ramshackle restaurant. With +hide, though, it really is an entirely avoidable phenomenon. If you wish to avoid eavesdropping, use the whisper command to represent taking that extra care to be sure no one can hear you.

If we are assuming that the espied cannot always be reliable (and it is my estimation here that a single instance of unreliability is more than sufficient), we must also assume that the spy is unreliable. It makes little sense to pose something that says, essentially, "I am sitting in a spy-proof box," and then simply assuming that the spy will say "oh, I guess I can't hear anything he says," or otherwise just leave.

If you whisper, you've succeeded at foiling the spy, in a more or less foolproof fashion. The most he has is that you had a meeting with someone, and done so in a whispered fashion. This isn't entirely useless, of course: he knows that your meeting is secretive. But it is enough to prevent your secure information coming into his hands.

There are other foolproof methods that even DH1 offered against spies. Meetings aboard ships, meetings behind +locked doors. They work perfectly. If you are concerned with spies, then use one of these methods. Merely posing that you can't be spied upon is asking to be upset when someone does anyway.

It also fails to take into account that perhaps the spy feels that yes, he can spy on you, not ignoring your poses, but rather in spite of them--that your pose is not sufficient to prevent him getting close enough to eavesdrop, or from overhearing. It would rather defeat the purpose of a coded automated system to then call a judge to adjudicate whether or not he can hear you--especially given that the coded automated system is at least in part relying on the assumption that with matters of secrets and stealthily obtained, IC/OOC crossover cannot be entirely prevented. (It might be slightly more possible, if this were the sort of MUSH that goes around policing its players and forcing them to adhere to a certain quality standard, but DH has never been that type of game, and I think would quickly drive away players if it became one.) Especially since you have a foolproof mechanism at your disposal that will foil all spies, and prevent even the possibility of IC/OOC crossover.

I am perfectly content to mistrust that people will handle it appropriately if left to their own devices. I have never held it against anyone--it is part of the game. It has made the moments when secrets were revealed that much better. It creates suspense and tension, and it guards me against any unpleasant misunderstandings--at least on secrets I'm keeping.

By golly, the answer to everything really is more commands. We should just forgo posing entirely and page each other our private conversations.

Pardon the sarcasm, but there appears little in the way of middle ground. I will simply await whatever the ultimate solution will be, even if it be, undoubtedly, coded.

You will have to forgive me for suggesting a practical solution to the very easily avoidable problems you have presented--using a command which is built into PennMUSH, or hiding in rooms which are completely locked. It is just as, if not more so, unreasonable to expect people who are hiding to be able to magically decide which poses they can hear and which they can't, as it is to expect people who are being spied on to behave as if no one is there when they know about it OOCly. It's exceedingly unreasonable to expect someone to agree that your poses make you immune to being espied, especially when there is a basic MUSH command available that solves your problems entirely without creating any sort of conflict or other problems.

If you are going to use a coded solution to something, then the solution to abuses, especially abuses that will entirely defeat the purpose of the coded solution, is, in fact, commands or coded restrictions. Many systems have gone away from having coded solutions. Stealth is completely not viable without a coded solution--this coming from my years of experience trying to play stealthy characters on games which, at their best, had you roll stealth when you wanted to hide, and at their worst, had nothing at all and relied entirely on the other person to agree that you were being stealthy. It was nothing short of a constant failure.

You are right that there is no middle ground, of course. You can't half-ass a coded system--it needs to either be robust and take into account potential abuses and usage case problems on its own, or it should not exist. Given that stealth was, for me, at least, the single biggest draw for DH and the reason I stayed beyond the first week or so, I rather hope that a coded system remains in place and makes it even more fun, dangerous, and exciting.

I strongly suggest, if coded stealth bothers you, avoiding situations where it is likely to matter, or taking advantage of the numerous complete workarounds the MUSH already provides.

I think rcrantz has brought up many good points.

1) I would much rather see an active role in doing stealth and trying to find the one who is hiding. Associating it with skills like stealth and having a counter like lets say forensics is great. It also encourages diversity in classes. If an investigator is the kind of person who can find a stealthy individual, then great they have a niche to fill in the big picture of things.

2) Having a time limit removes any responsibility from the player and leaves the entire situation up to a roll of probability that overtime will eventually catch up to the spy type character. Taking into account that some scenes take forever to pose through (IC minutes don't always correspond to RL minutes) and the spy is at a severe disadvantage.

3) While I completely agree and support separation of IC and OOC, having a system where you ask beforehand would just be asking for abuse. If we wont post the stats for classes exactly or let you re-do a level because we are encouraging rp more than gamesmanship, then just think of the abuse that could possibly happen if we needed to ask permission.

With that said, if I were king for a day I would implement stealth like this:

A character can enter stealth at anytime. Perhaps a cursory ability check vs appropriate difficulty to see if any PC in the room notices. If they are by themselves, they can stealth at will. When entering or exiting a room, there is an automatic check against the appropriate skill (lets say forensics for sake of argument). If the player makes the roll they notice the sneaking player enter or exit.

A time limit before being able to +stealth would start as soon as you +stealth. This time shortens as your stealth skill increases.

A person who has forensics (example only). These people can +search to see if there are any stealthy characters around. It is the counter to stealth. There is a time limit involved that shortens as you increase in skill, just as for the stealth individual. This time limit is not affected by the automatic checks for entry and exit of a stealthy character.

If the stealthed player attacks, they break their stealth plain and simple to everyone in the room. The plus side is they get a bonus to their 1 attack roll for that turn only against an attacked person who doesn't notice you.

To clarify, if the person who is being attacked has the opposing skill like forensics, they get an automatic check as you attack. If the person they are attacking discovers their attack, then the bonus is negated and they have a bonus to their 1 attack roll the next turn against said player.

This would make stealth have both advantages in information gathering for spy types and combat for sniper/ninja types of individuals. There would be a counter in place that would become important to consider when developing a character. Just as not many classes offer athletics, whatever the chosen counter skill is would also have appeal. This would encourage diversity and broaden rp situations where stealth and the counter can be utilized.

Anyway, it was just something I was thinking about as I was reading through this thread. There are lots of good ideas here.

What if the person with Forensics - or the relevant cocktail of skills - also gets a passive @emit, if his skill is high enough an automatic half-check, like old Track vs Hide, except not automatic reveal. Something like: You notice something amiss here.

Maybe it's someone hidden, maybe it's just a clue left by a storyteller about yesterday's shootout in the same room, or just some salvageable rubble (even if +salvage is gone) from the same shootout. The investigator would will have to +search to uncover whatever it is.

As those hidden oftentimes spring out of thin air with wanton disregard for descs, if a stealthy personage is indeed hiding, then why not have: +hide here=location (be it an object in the room or something in the description).

For example, in a park, Hem Solo +hides here=behind the bushes. Pantspatine and his bodyguard stroll by, but the bodyguard is quite adept at spotting trouble and sees that something is amis behind the bushes. He can then +search, if so inclined, or move along.

Hem Solo can move to another location in the room (say, under a bench) if he wants, but it would be like moving through rooms.


Don't get me wrong, though. I still prefer a system based off hugs, rainbows, and fluffy kittens.

Hey Royal Jelly I like your idea. I think it would help bridge my idea with the automatic idea that was proposed.

Locations code is just annoying. I've never seen it work out in a way that it added anything to the game. And as I have said, there are already a number of perfectly viable workarounds for being spied on. I don't think you need to throw another one in there.

The emit is not a bad idea, though. Making it possible to accidentally stumble upon a plot hook is always a plus.