Sneaking and Hiding

It's late where I am, and I'm not sure I'm following the argument. The argument from fairness confuses me a bit. First, because most of the systems we use are heavily random; a Jedi Master's chances of hitting a newbie with a lightsaber are good, but he'll miss half the time, and in this way, a thoroughly reliable "stealth shield" is an anomaly--most skills do have a chance of misfiring or failing, whether against superior skills or just due to plain bad luck. Second, using the same argument, a tracker could just as easily say that he should be able to type +watch and always be watching for spies until he +unwatches. Why should the benefit of the doubt go to the spy rather than to the tracker?

At this point, I remain a stealth agnostic; I don't have a pet system in mind, but I'd like to hear more perspectives, more interplay, more constructive criticism, and more discussion of the perspectives already presented, because I don't believe we've reached an optimal solution yet.

Then you make the timer on scan something reasonable enough that you have to choose when to use it. You suspect someone is nearby? Use it. But you only get to fire it off once every 30-1 hour.

I really think if you just make it automated chance to fail, it's going to promote that chance to fail. At the same token you say people need to activate hide once and they're good to go? Put the check on the doors for movement, moving is tough, staying in the same place less tough. If you're moving around then have the auto-check, but if someone is stationary and got there hidden, make it on the players to find them, not on waiting for the automated code to find them.

What advantages will this confer to RP, what are the costs it would incur, and what is the balance? This is the question I continually ask in any discussion of systems, and the most important question that needs to be answered before a consensus can be reached.

When I shoot there is a random chance that I hit or miss. That is fair. Same with a lightsaber. But it is in response to me doing an action. Yes, I realize that when I set +hide I just did an action. But I would counter that if I invest in something there is no chance I made a bad investment and that is even more fixed in time as +hide that this isn't fair.

I don't pick Merchant, I don't invest. The player that has chosen this skill gets away scot free and there is no chance that he/she will ever fail at investing. This player then can hire many folks to come kill my player because he made lots of credits to pay them.

So the thought that spying can do harm then I counter that there isn't a skill that can't do harm to someone and that all skills should be under the same rules.

Well in a previous post I addressed those I felt.

How does it promote RP?

Player A is a spy sneaking, player B is a Bounty Hunter. Player B is having a meeting and does a +scan to see if anyone is around.

COMBAT: Player B has scanned the room.

That is emitted. Player B's skills don't match up and Player A is still hidden to Player B.

But player A DOES NOT KNOW THAT. So now Player A has a few options. He knows B is suspicious, but doesn't know if he's been outed. So his options are to leave, or to continue to press his luck and watch.

OR, What if Player B does see Player A? Player A still doesn't know. Now Player B knows someone is sneaking around him, following him. He could bait him, feed false information (ZOMG imagine how pro that would be!) or shoot him while he's trying to hide for a damage/combat bonus.

What if Player B is a politician? Then Player B knows he needs protection, so he hires Player C who is also a spy to act as counter-intel and check to make sure he's not being spied on by running +scan.

To me this is true balance, it creates a give and take between players. If someone forgets to +scan? Well, their bad. It'd be like someone forgetting to equip a weapon in combat... it happens, life goes on. The other way promotes nothign other than 'outing' someone. I don't see how that generates any RP or any decisions as players on what to do, or creates any give and take.

We're removing +invest because of its unbalancing nature, so I don't know how good an example it is.

I welcome further discussion of hiding and sneaking, and will continue to follow the thread very closely; it definitely raises useful and interesting things to consider as we work together to design the most RP-friendly stealth system.

In my opinion what Paradox outlined is much more fun than just waiting around for the timer to run to see if there is someone spying. There are PC actions, there are results given to PCs. Folks can respond "Gee George, why do you keep scanning, worried or something?"

Or even better "George, for the last time, there is no one here, stop with the blasted scanning already."

Edited note: I am only using +Invest as that is what I know of...I have no idea what there is in the new system. Just examples.

I personally like Paradox's system. It seems simple enough, provides a lot of potential different RP scenarios (which is what a MUSH should be all about), and it doesn't hurt anyone in reality. If you are a good spy, you might have confidence that the +scan did not pick you up. Likewise, if you are a good tracker, you might have the confidence to know that your location is safe to speak. If the code allows for otherwise, than... MORE RP FUN!

While I have never had a problem with people +hiding or +sneaking generally, I have had a few occasions when I felt a bit annoyed by individuals using those commands as there was really know way for their presence to enhance MY RP. And from what I have seen, nobody cares about RP unless they are getting involved in the hooks or actions as well. If there is a command I can use every 15-30 minutes (if I am really paranoid to feel I need to scan more than once), than it sounds good to me. Gives me a chance to find a spy and to RP that scenario as well.

Has anyone had any good examples of hiding and tracking being used in a positive way on DH1?

I know of plenty of uproar over +track being used too much to pinpoint people (and ping them as they went all over the MUSH) and I've heard of the early days when +hide was unbalanced and ANYONE could hide.

How often will this "ideal" RP happen? It sounds like the darkside-shroud that force users have. They can sense that another person sensed them, but other than the first time they got sensed, they know whether they were sensed or not.

Like: Yoda entered, I got sensed... I'm sure he knows I'm evil!

or: NoobJedi is around and I got sensed, he felt nothing, I know it.

It seems like Paradox has outlined a really cool scenario that COULD happen... if the system is coded up that way. But, because it's a coded system, does it lend itself to more predictability?

I mean, even at 50% hit/miss with lightsabers, the Jedi and Sith with the best lightsaber skills still win like 90% of the time. Or even 80.

And didn't we have a discussion earlier about how people are always running around behind locked doors, locked ships, etc. to avoid being eavesdropped on by hidden characters?

Is it possible that that behavior will continue if hide is kept as it is? Is the answer to tell people they can't board a shuttle and then go elsewhere and then change ships again?

What I really want to know is: When you have used +hide to eavesdrop to gather info... how did it work? I'm not passing judgment, I want to know. Did you hear about a scene starting and show up hidden? Did you +comsys/scan to find some people worth spying on? Did you +track? Did you wait it out in a spot for... a long time? How exactly did you get into the room to listen in on plans? Honestly. And if you personally haven't... how do you think you would?

Also... let's say it's logical... Crime Boss's Palace. You see Crime Boss is online (perfectly good reason to try to go to his HQ) do you +hide and then sneak around? Do you +run exits? What goes into the infiltration, in your mind? Do you go when he's offline and sit? What if someone does that? If they sneak in when offline and idle hidden?

What do you do when the meeting is taking place and you are hidden? Read what's being said? Log? Watch for +scans and chat on Pub?

I'm not being disrespectful, but I do want some honest discussion about what happens when the ideal isn't met (ie: a +scan, the unsure spy, the sure tracker... who will move first...) because while that is a cool scene... I don't know how often that will play out and how many players WILL do that. Vs how many will use code to get what they want (whether it be to hide perfectly or +scan like crazy to keep their meetings private) and both +hide and +track have long histories of complaints from almost everyone and for BOTH sides (for and against) for BOTH commands!

I know of instances, many instances, where both +hide and +track and the other skills that go along with with this type of character were used by not just by one player but by many in ways that generated a lot of RP.

Since DH1 is still going on, and some of those players are still playing the role I will not put it out here to be common knowledge. It is the players place to give that information.

As for the premise of the question, I really don't understand it. I am inferring from what I am reading (and please correct me if I am wrong) that if there can be no proof that it was used in a cool way (which is subjective at best) then it is suggested that it should change it in favor or a code based "outing" over an RP'd way. I feel that the discussion is a valid one, should PCs have to act or let Code act for them, and that PC actions will provide more chances of RP than a code based.

Again I support that if you eliminate the need of PCs to act in the environment that is created then you will eliminate PCs in the long run. It becomes PC verses code...and there are stores full of games that fill this need. What MUSHs provide is a way for a player to truly immerse themselves into the game, interact with others and create a story.

I think the system on DH1 can be improved.

I agree we don't want it to be PC vs Code... definitely not.

But I haven't actually heard of any specifics, nor have I ever been involved with something that +hide gave more RP for me. I've certainly been involved when plans have been overheard. Yet there was no RP during the meeting (no one had tracking, big deal) and I've had other characters require that I meet in obscure locations, then board their ship, lock, liftoff, pass through a guarded exit, locked doors, etc.

So from MY personal experience, I haven't had any real boosts to RP. I mean, I've never even been +sniped at! I'm sure I've walked past hidden people... but I just have never seen it yet. So I'm trying to understand how it happens, from the actual "day in the life of a spy" type thing.

Like... on DH1 now... how do you spy? Just pick a room that's likely to get high-level RP? check +where? Wait for an +event? Do you actually follow people?

I'm so removed from stealth and hiding and spying that I can't actually envision what people do NOW vs what might be different in DH2.

But I have read, months ago, people complaining to NO end about +track and +hide! It faded as all things do. But do people just shrug and not care anymore? Or were things fixed?

Also... just on the record: I believe you that +track and +hide has been used to make good RP... but when you say "generated" was it from the eavesdropping? Or the info that was gleaned? (The Majority of the RP. I'm sure there have been times a Spy has been caught and had to flee.)

Again, not trying to say "Oh, pfft! I never experienced! DESTROY IT!" but just trying to see how it would work. Because right now? I'd not do a stealth character because it seems boring to +hide and not be able to interact with a scene.

Firehawk wrote:

Has anyone had any good examples of hiding and tracking being used in a positive way on DH1?

Well, unless you'd like to tell me that basically my first... hm, six months? On the MUSH were not positive, and a good chunk of most of my time. To my knowledge nobody ever complained about me spying on them. I've had plenty of fun from it. Other people have had plenty of fun from it. So, yes, I do have examples of hide being good. I don't know of any actual good examples of +hide being a negative.

Quote :

And didn't we have a discussion earlier about how people are always running around behind locked doors, locked ships, etc. to avoid being eavesdropped on by hidden characters?

Not everyone is that paranoid, but the option is available to them if they really have a problem with it.

Quote :

What I really want to know is: When you have used +hide to eavesdrop to gather info... how did it work? I'm not passing judgment, I want to know. Did you hear about a scene starting and show up hidden? Did you +comsys/scan to find some people worth spying on? Did you +track? Did you wait it out in a spot for... a long time? How exactly did you get into the room to listen in on plans? Honestly. And if you personally haven't... how do you think you would?

It varies. I seldom heard about a particular meeting--that's not really where the interesting conversations come from. A lot of it was just lurking around cantinas. People never seem to learn that cantinas are the worst place for clandestine meetings. You can learn a lot there.

A good portion of it were scenes that I was already in, posed out, then +sneaked back in. Sometimes it was speculatively looking for people. You can learn the places they haunt.

Quote :

What do you do when the meeting is taking place and you are hidden? Read what's being said? Log? Watch for +scans and chat on Pub?

Generally I read what's being said. I'm always ready to react if something worthwhile happens--especially since there's always a chance someone can see me or otherwise knows I'm there.

Quote :

I'm not being disrespectful, but I do want some honest discussion about what happens when the ideal isn't met (ie: a +scan, the unsure spy, the sure tracker... who will move first...) because while that is a cool scene... I don't know how often that will play out and how many players WILL do that. Vs how many will use code to get what they want (whether it be to hide perfectly or +scan like crazy to keep their meetings private) and both +hide and +track have long histories of complaints from almost everyone and for BOTH sides (for and against) for BOTH commands!

+track has a storied history of complaints both legitimate and not; I don't believe the complaints against +hide are nearly as numerous nor as legitimate. While I have, as I have said, long championed the idea of the random check. I believe that (1) it should be /possible/ for anyone to see you, though obviously a master spy should have a much easier time of avoiding being seen; and (2) that a single check is probably not sufficient.

I really like the idea of a command that might make the spy wonder if he's been spotted, though that could easily get spammy, so perhaps it's not ideal.

It generated RP. One instance, a player by using emits that gave IC clues to those that were near that there was some one there. They RPd that they thought some thing wasn't right, they acted and this particular scene was a great time.

Another instance was that the spy gathered the information he/she got on a mission, reported back the information collected, actions were planned based on the information received, the spy was sent back in, at the right moment the spy used his other skills to help his/her compatriots in the actions they were taking. In this case there were about 5 scenes that were based just around the information gathered by the spy. There were many times in this example that emits were given, ignored, even once where the spy unhid and gave the person that was being spied upon the chance to act, and was told ICly to leave. Yea, it generated RP, lots of it.

Two examples of many.

But here is some reasons to make players act, not code:

1. Player A and Player B get into a bar fight. A shoots at B (an action taken by player A), B must react with the choices presented, the system determines the outcome. Actions of players provide reactions by the other.
2. Player A is flying his ship, Player B has a a check point set up and threatens to shoot A's ship. A now has an action to take, try to fly away, shoot it out. A tries to fly away from the blockade. Fails, Player B now shoots. Again, Player B did an action by blockading the exit, Player A gets to react to the situation, And so on. Actions by Players, reactions by players. OUt come of the actions judged/evaluated by the code.

Now, if we think that hiding is a single player action (meaning that if a player hides there is no reaction to that hiding unless he does it right in front of thers, so the system will have to act in the other players interest) we will have to do this for every command that uses skills that is a one person action.

For example....Player A meets with the big crime boss. Big crime boss tells Player A to fly these guns to Planet Faraway and will pay him lots of credits. Player A agrees, loads up the ship and types +Hyperjump Somewhere.

Now to keep it fair, since this is a single player action as there is no other ship around, the system should evaluate the player's pilot skills and determine if he actually can fly it correctly to where he wants to go. If not, he crashes into the nearest planet or even better, the system determines that his skills are not that good so he actually jumps right in the middle of either the nearest Fleet of Republic Navy that is looking for gun runners or right into the middle of the Sith fleet that hates the crime boss.


If you do one you have to do it all to be fair. That is all I am saying.

Now that I've had 4 hours of sleep I'm a bit more coherent.

We're talking about heroes. We're not talking about ordinary people. When you think of Heroes you think of their successes and failures, you think of people making decisions and actions that make them great.

Scenario A: A coded timer goes off every 10 minutes. Obi-Wan is sneaking through the Death Star and as he approached the tractor, the timer goes off and the storm troopers see him and shoot him. Epic.

Scenario B: Obi-Wan is sneaking through the Death Star and as he approaches the tractor, the Storm Troopers +scan the area but can't roll high enough to detect Obi-Wan. Obi-Wan deactivates the tractor beam.


Here's the point, was there substantial RP there? No. The big RP comes later because of the /results/ of the +hide. Not because of that moment.

I +scan and find Obi-Wan Kenobi sneaking around. I have so many RP angles now. I could shoot him, confront him, try to capture him, try to bribe him, RP starts at that moment based off of my action. /I/ found him. Not the code, not some arbitrary moment, my actions have led to a situation. That is heroic.

The equivalent is all Jedi every hour have a moment checked to see if their lightsaber turns on in their pocket or a blaster randomly goes off and shoots Han Solo in the knee from his holster. Sure they're good at using those things but 'ya never know what could happen'.


The Generation of RP with Hide most people will tell you does not come in that initial moment of the hide observing but rather later. I believe active +scan by players enhance that and provide a window of their choice to see what's going on. That will generate RP simply through the confrontation that would follow.

As I said previously, the only in-active scan I could see as being possible is moving from location to location, just because that is a bit more tricky than staying hidden inside of the trash can. But beyond that, let's let the players decide when they want to look around a room indepth, let's let the players show others they are paranoid. A politician who is always looking over his back and is paranoid to the degree that every 15 minutes he's checking to see if someone is hiding shows he's distrustful of other players. Do that with a Hutt and suddenly a deal falls through. Do that during peace negotiations and suddenly War is even more brutal than before. THe use of +scan in itself will generate RP.

Okay, so there aren't really HUGE flaws in +hide. I definitely can agree with that. But is it perfect?

For the Obi-Wan example, I wouldn't actually use +hide. I definitely think the entire Death Star Escape was several GMed scenes. And Obi-Wan used stealth checks based on his poses to accomplish his mission.

But one that does happen with +hide is predictable results. No matter the room or IC circumstances. You pretty much will fall into the pattern of knowing who can see you and who can't.

What if we wanted each room or each scene to be different? Say it's nighttime! Or cloudy or rainy? Those can affect both the ability to hide and the ability to be seen. Or what about tweaks to the position in a room? A huge library can be easy to hide in, but if you want to get close to a target to kidnap him... just one +hide command to do it?

How could we allow stealthy movement and actions in a single scene that went beyond the standard +hide's counter of (+scan or you can't see me) type of thing?

I want to see ways to expand stealth, not just keep it the same.

I think this thread is raising some interesting questions; it's certainly changed the way I look at stealth and hiding.

Indeed, I'd like to see this thread go further in exploring the issues.

To achieve that goal, I wonder if we can retire the "if hiding had a chance of "running out," then to be fair, spaceships would have to crash into stars and blasters would have to randomly explode" line of argument. A time limit on successful hiding, however it were implemented, would be broadly comparable to a maximum-items-gathered limit on +salvage, or a maximum-credits-per-day limit on +collect, or a maximum-recoveries-from-incap-per-day limit, or a maximum-engineering-checks-per-week limit, or a maximum-ships-per-shipyard-per-month limit, or a maximum-+escapes-before-death limit. The argument by analogy isn't really an argument against at all, since we have a lot of limits on the effectiveness of even very important abilities.

Continued reliance on the argument by analogy is only going to confuse the issue. There are other very good arguments for having a +scan rather than a passive "your cloak runs out" mechanic. For example, the argument that a scanning command leads directly to RP results -- that's a good argument in favor of having one. I'd like to see more of those arguments. Such arguments deepen and enrich the conversation, which will eventually give us a hiding mechanic that will hopefully satisfy everyone, but if not, will at least really work.

...I thought blasters WOULD randomly short out?

Yeah. They do. One of my favorite moments in ESB is when the Falcon's anti-personnel gun suddenly cuts out during the snowtrooper attack. The look on Han's face ... it's one of those little touches that make the story awesome.

The chance is low, but it'll happen sometimes.

While the Obi Wan invasion could have been several GM'd scenes, the GM'd parts would have been the onscreen. Him slipping around the DS could easily have been background done via +sneak.


I think the point of the analogies Gulp is to highlight how other systems utilized user input to function whereas this would be far more arbitrary for the system. The last statement I'll make on the analogy is sure, blaster's short out but you gotta pull the trigger don't you. Same way I said when you +hide you have and +sneak you should have a chance to be found out since you're inputting commands.


Now, with the possibility of +scan, you have inclusion of personal scanners and droids which would create markets for both. A market for an R2 unit to run a sweep. Not to mention characters with low abilities to scan are going to want to have that protection against spies and therefore will need to hire individuals to counter-intel. See this is where I start getting happy with the thought, instead of waiting for the system to roll it, players need to go out and create and find solutions or simply endure the consequences of having your every moment watched by teh man in the white van across the road.

I actually like Paradox's suggestion. Actively looking for a spy should be a check of some kind, but, much like +disguise, I think it should be visible to just the checker and the checkee. Otherwise, Player A +scans a room with a thoughtful glance in his pose, then everyone else in the room with him starts +scanning, if they'd posed it or not. It was a common phenomenon with +recognize.

I would also like to see a more evolved version of +hide/+scan based on rooms. A good survivalist would +hide better out in the wilderness, but a street-savvy pickpocket can blend in better in busy city streets.

I've had good and bad instances of +hide RP. The good kind involved the spy throwing out poses of moving shadows or something of the sort that would indicate he was there, even if I couldn't see him. It didn't affect what I was going to do or say ICly (EDIT: I shouldn't speak for everyone. I know many people would move to another room or something if there were poses flying from an unknown source.), and I'm sure it was more fun for the spy than just sitting around for the duration of the scene. The bad kind is the type that I find about later, when a spy pages me, telling me he had seen my conversation with Player X about Secret Plot Y, in my Fortress of Solitude, amidst thousands of guards. The latter was more common.

Not to divert to much from the topic at hand....
In my opinion if a room that is set where 250 combatants can engage in a room at any given time and someone parks thousands of troops in that room I would say that it is then easier to hide and slip past the mass of aimlessly milling folks that are there. Add 15 or so turrets, maybe a walker or two....yea, very easy.

I think that the use of armies and turrets got way out of hand on DH1. Look at the Magtrain room on Coruscant...and one time I counted over 3500 troops parked in there for weeks on end not to mention the stacks of turrets. Folks ignore them, they added nothing to the room nor any scene. They were just something that cluttered up the "look" and to be used as a hammer if ever needed.

I am glad we are going to be getting away from this in DH2. But, back to the point...I always laugh when thousands of armies are just left standing in rooms for months and then when one person does one thing then the wraith of those armies are brought down on them or foul is cried cause there are lots and lots of troops there and turrets and walkers and tanks...in a small room...just gives the person that is a spy more stuff to blend into and hide behind.

Isn't it a bit unfair to the non-spy to say that all their stuff makes it easier for a spy?

Especially since armies and turrets never are factored into the +hide attempt.

What if the player envisioned a 200 man army that patrolled the landing pad in rotations of 50. Half of them as sentinels and half as patrols?

With the current systems, both +hide and army creation and control (or lack of) you couldn't DO this. So the army-owner would get all bent out of shape... but if I told a spy "You have to make more checks to avoid detection." The spy would get upset, I'd imagine. Since then the counter to them is armies, etc.

But that's what just makes me dissatisfied. The best idea that's been proposed so far is a +scan command similar to +recognize... in theory, I agree it's AWESOME. Since it creates a bit of a bluffing game (albeit a short one since the Spy only has one turn to decide whether he was seen or not) but I see it as something that's going to lead to an arms race, people getting just enough +track to spot most spies, get the best R2 droid or hand scanner, etc.

The reason why it can become an arms race, or even a race that's over before it starts (ie: never try spying on Gulp, he always goes around with an R5 unit and +scans several times, plus he took 5 levels of tracker which gets most spies!) is because it's put down in a coded system that will be figured out and exploited for one side's gain. And then either spies will get items to help them, or the targets will get more lockable or blockable doors, etc.

I imagine most people don't notify the target that they're being spied upon because of worry about twinking? I mean, I have to admit, it's hard to sit in a scene, knowing you failed the check, and knowing the spy is there, and then spill out your secrets as you would without that knowledge.

But there has to be something that allows spies to be... spies and specops. Not just listeners.

Again, I mentioned this previously.

A method to give an added bonus/incentive to spies is that any attack from hidden status has that extra boost, so that helps assassins. Granted, any attack you take while hidden will damage you extra. So there's at least something beyond just hiding and listening.

My firm belief is +scan is an indepth search of an area, not a glance around. If you're scanning an area you are taking time to do it. Time that is represented in the form of a 30 minute - 1 hour cooldown. So people /will/ have to use it when they're checking a situation out. This also feeds into the added chance of being caught from sneaking into a room. Someone could scan, then a spy come in, and that'd suck, but if they sneak good enough then they get in after the scan has been run.

Now for things to do besides sneaking around and listening, well let's open up a thread about specops, because this thread is focused on sneaking and hiding.

Speaking hypothetically, what about giving the scan a 15- or 30-minute range of effect, where you start it, and it ends 30 minutes later? That might better represent taking time to search.

So you enter a room, type +scan, and wait for 15 minutes to get the results back? Hmmm... could be interesting, allows for some things to develop during that time I suppose. I don't know though it seems like it might be a little overcomplicated, someone will do +scan but then stand there until it comes back cleared?