@Wyrom Alters and customization of items in general

[chalion]

First and foremost congratulations on a highly productive and successful last year. Looking over the list of accomplishments, changes, and events really highlight just how much goes on in the game world! Impressive stuff.

That being said, during EG the concern was brought up about the lack of general alteration merchants versus the amount of item unlocking. On the officials, this was discussed and a name in red responded with something along the lines of "Most GM's hate doing general alteration work". While this is understandable it is still a bit disheartening. I think the core of this game has always been the roleplaying aspect of it. The altering and customization of items to fit into your character is as much fun as it is aggravating as you wait for either a sadie scroll or for a merchant to come around offering the service and then hoping to get picked on top of that!

There exist some mechanics and items inside the game that allow players, to one degree or another, to alter items without the interaction of a GM. "Alter boxes" of various levels of unlocks and capabilities, warrior sheath making, cobbling (A very robust system), some alter wands that add patterns to clothing, and even things like adding locks and I suppose weavables. I am sure there is plenty more that I am missing. Forging has some variance but is nothing like cobbling when it comes to adjusting what the item can ultimately look like. I am going to reference cobbling moving forward because I think the system has a lot of flexibility, which is where my point is headed.

Are there any plans to perhaps put more power into the player's hands when it comes to altering existing items or further refining what newly created items look like? I imagine if a system similar to cobbling was implemented it would reduce some of the workloads on GMs and allow for further/better character look refinement on the player side. I can think of a few ways where doing so could also be worked into the updating of existing systems and breathing new life into them and also providing post cap goals, extended guild or profession goals and offering additional achievements in the long term. For example, a skill or guild ability that allowed a class to alter armor names or weapon names along with dyes and other adornments to use a pre-QC'd list of nouns and items in the game world.

So before this gets any longer, is there any room for discussion/recommendations on how to get more altering power into the players and allow for easier customization of characters ? Or is it the game's direction to continue to have limited means of players generating their own customizations (see list of items and methods above) while leaving more robust alteration methods in the hands of GMs, who seem to have indicated both in posting and the amount of times they offer the service, of not being interested in providing what I believe is a really desired service.

Just in case, and to be clear, this isn't meant to be an OMG NO ONE ALTERS ANYTHING EVER post. It is meant to see if there is room to have a frank and open discussion about something that I think a lot of the players are invested in one way or the other.
Thanks!

[Wrathbringer]

Go away, macgyver.

[chalion]

Look at you, scared of your own shadow. He would have had a poll.

[Wyrom]

The comment that the GM made was just the overall feel lately. There are GMs who enjoy doing general alterations. These are some reasons why GMs have moved away from it though. This isn't everyone's feeling, but I know it's quite a few.

The issues really stem to player requests that are a bit outlandish. You might not do it, someone else reading this might not do it, but we get some crazy stuff tossed at us. And as time has gone on, simply saying "No, I can't do that" isn't accepted anymore. We get the player who is standoffish and will argue with the GM for awhile. They will say how "someone else has this exact thing." Or they will threaten to quit over it. It puts a lot of pressure on GMs, so it's become almost too taboo. They don't want to put themselves in the situation that has been happening lately. There is also the lack of readiness and preparedness that were once very commonplace. Lastly, there are concerns with the merchant shopping for certain things. If a merchant says no, it doesn't mean find a GM that might say yes. Outside this, general alterations can just take a lot of time. So it's not the most effective way to work for a lot of people.

[Stry]

Pretty much the classic case of 1-2 fucktard kids ruining recess for the rest of the class.

... I'm not bitter. Really.

[chalion]

The comment that the GM made was just the overall feel lately. There are GMs who enjoy doing general alterations. These are some reasons why GMs have moved away from it though. This isn't everyone's feeling, but I know it's quite a few.

The issues really stem to player requests that are a bit outlandish. You might not do it, someone else reading this might not do it, but we get some crazy stuff tossed at us. And as time has gone on, simply saying "No, I can't do that" isn't accepted anymore. We get the player who is standoffish and will argue with the GM for awhile. They will say how "someone else has this exact thing." Or they will threaten to quit over it. It puts a lot of pressure on GMs, so it's become almost too taboo. They don't want to put themselves in the situation that has been happening lately. There is also the lack of readiness and preparedness that were once very commonplace. Lastly, there are concerns with the merchant shopping for certain things. If a merchant says no, it doesn't mean find a GM that might say yes. Outside this, general alterations can just take a lot of time. So it's not the most effective way to work for a lot of people.

So where do we go from there ? Does the player population become so badly mannered and prepared it scares off enough GM's that general alterations become rarer and rarer? If the service is offered less, the entitled attitude might become more pronounced because it isn't offered and "Who knows when I might get the next shot!?"

Changes to existing systems or adding new ones take development time which is a limited resource so unless something else is in the works its not like a solution will appear RSN. Is this something that you feel might fix itself in time, or isn't really a big problem in need of attention now (before it becomes a bigger issue maybe?)

Alternatively, am I crying wolf too soon ?

[Ltlprprincess]

What about the idea of allowing for a new artisan skill similar to cobbling but seamstressing instead? I know the coding would take some time, but this would open up new avenues and allow those who may not even want to merchant hunt the chance to fee something new made.

[SashaFierce]

The comment that the GM made was just the overall feel lately. There are GMs who enjoy doing general alterations. These are some reasons why GMs have moved away from it though. This isn't everyone's feeling, but I know it's quite a few.

The issues really stem to player requests that are a bit outlandish. You might not do it, someone else reading this might not do it, but we get some crazy stuff tossed at us. And as time has gone on, simply saying "No, I can't do that" isn't accepted anymore. We get the player who is standoffish and will argue with the GM for awhile. They will say how "someone else has this exact thing." Or they will threaten to quit over it. It puts a lot of pressure on GMs, so it's become almost too taboo. They don't want to put themselves in the situation that has been happening lately. There is also the lack of readiness and preparedness that were once very commonplace. Lastly, there are concerns with the merchant shopping for certain things. If a merchant says no, it doesn't mean find a GM that might say yes. Outside this, general alterations can just take a lot of time. So it's not the most effective way to work for a lot of people.


Part of the blame belongs to the GM's as well though, because I have been told no by GM A, only to ask GM B, who is part of QC and they'll say, yeah that's fine.

That happens especially when you're trying to work with rare or uncommon materials. I passed some black alloy armor (full plate) and gave my requested alteration. The GM said I can't do that, but I can do this. (Love GM's who can write up awesome alterations) and they gave me something really amazing. When I tried to use almost the identical show for a black alloy shield, the GM said I can't do that. We had to take a good 15-20 minute pause while I assume they talked to someone in the background where the idea was approved except for 1 word.

I'd really like to see the alteration rules reworked. Part of the frustration for me as a player is that the requirements have become too realistic. Ie. Ask for a treasure sack, and the response is, what makes it a treasure sack?
Another frustration is the "subjective" clause. What GM A considers subjective, GM B may not. I forget what it was that I had altered recently, but the first GM said it was subjective and the second GM had no issues with it. Which is exactly why players merchant shop. It's not consistent, so remove the clause and allow subjective words to be used. It would create less frustration for players and GM's.


Just a quick add: I find it boring when I'm limited to "a grey wool sack" vs "a black treasure sack". Someone may prefer to have the material and all that for "realism" but I come here for the "fantasy".

[Stry]

So where do we go from there ?

People learn to read ALTER and shutthefuckup when a GM tells you "No". Then, maybe over time things improve a bit when doing a GALD session isn't as painful for the GMs.

Unfortunately, there's a certain group of people with a heightened sense of entitlement, based solely on the fact that they pay the same subscription fees as everyone else. For a prime example, see the other thread about afk scripting. (Before it became a thread about Tisket's yoohoo... wtf people... wtf)

[Gelston]

Have more than one idea/item you want done. If you get told no, accept it and move on to your next idea. A lot of the GMs will help you make your idea fit the guidelines too.

[Erous]

So where do we go from there ? Does the player population become so badly mannered and prepared it scares off enough GM's that general alterations become rarer and rarer? If the service is offered less, the entitled attitude might become more pronounced because it isn't offered and "Who knows when I might get the next shot!?"
?

I had someone literally message me because I had won a custom tattoo, arguing with me to make my win feel like trash and actually say 'you overestimate your worth in this game.' And then threaten to make my life hell. Some people are absolutely batshit crazy. I don't even think batshit does it justice...the sense of entitlement with some over a game is absolutely outrageous. I feel bad for the GMs, really, I can't imagine the shit storm they get over a color, or even the way commas represent themselves in the text.

[chalion]

Not to get on a high horse, but I personally understand the basic ideas of being a curteous merchant selectee. It was beaten into my from the start that you should always have a list of possible alters, be prepared with a very specific request or a focused request for help with an idea.
I've had two experiences that somewhat fall into the list of problems that were listed as being part of what wears down GMs. The first was getting a rat sack altered. I asked for a "cage" as the noun. The first GM I went to responded "I am not comfortable with the noun "cage"" no problem, heres my other item and other alter. work got done and done. I went to another merchant and they said "sure thing, heres a suggestion based on your idea to make it better (It was much better)" and I was done in a minute or two.
I recently got spun for some general work, I asked to have a custom setting added to my jewelry box, gave the descriptor that I wanted. The merchant wasn't authorized to add custom descriptors (this is a whole different rant about invisible walls and fake scarcity). I had nothing else ready to go so I just told the merchant thank you and that I had nothing else to work on and to spin someone else.
I wasn't ready with a backup so I wasn't going to screw someone else out of the chance. Two other people or so got spun after that before the merchant left.

[Allereli]

I had someone literally message me because I had won a custom tattoo, arguing with me to make my win feel like trash and actually say 'you overestimate your worth in this game.' And then threaten to make my life hell. Some people are absolutely batshit crazy. I don't even think batshit does it justice...the sense of entitlement with some over a game is absolutely outrageous. I feel bad for the GMs, really, I can't imagine the shit storm they get over a color, or even the way commas represent themselves in the text.

Yeah, I feel you.

I know staff is working on making rules clearer for both sides, and I've tried to do what I can on the wiki to spell out what I know about using dyes, body parts, etc, but a big problem is historically rules haven't been recorded properly so that both players and staff are on the same page.

I tested Zythica at Simucon during live alterations with a fairly ridiculous design that I thought was most likely allowed but involved materials she might not know about. She didn't know about them but Tamuz was sitting there and said they were okay and the item got done. I thought the exchange was rather interesting to watch and it really does depend on who you get. People should certainly not be OOC rude to merchants (esp threats to rage quit), but you can't blame players for taking an idea to the next merchant if it isn't spelled out for them somewhere exactly why the item won't be made or material worked with.

eta: I don't mean to call out Zythica about anything, they were really obscure materials.

[Viekn]

Lastly, there are concerns with the merchant shopping for certain things. If a merchant says no, it doesn't mean find a GM that might say yes.

I'm guilty of this, but maybe it's because I don't understand how things work. I'll come up with an idea and request it, and sometimes the response from the GM will be "I'm not comfortable doing that." To me, that says that my request isn't necessarily against rules, but for some reason this particular GM isn't familiar enough with what's allowed or not allowed, and another GM might be, so let me ask again with another GM. I'm not trying to skirt the rules, but more than once this has been the case where I get an answer from a GM that's not 100% black or white. I'd suggest two things. When a GM gets a request they know is flat never going to fly, say so very specifically so as not to leave any doubt. Secondly, if there is a GM working that might not be 100% familiar with what's allowed and what's not, have an e-mail address that requests like that can go to. "You want a sword of doom? I'm new and not sure that's allowed. So while I can't do that myself, I suggest you e-mail alters@simu.com and see if it's something that could be done in the future." I don't know, just some thoughts.


I tested Zythica at Simucon during live alterations with a fairly ridiculous design that I thought was most likely allowed but involved materials she might not know about. She didn't know about them but Tamuz was sitting there and said they were okay and the item got done.

Case in point.

[Viekn]

Just a quick add: I find it boring when I'm limited to "a grey wool sack" vs "a black treasure sack". Someone may prefer to have the material and all that for "realism" but I come here for the "fantasy".

I completely agree. This is a text based game. In what way am I to communicate to others that my character is heavily focused on treasure hunting by using realistic colors or patterns to convey that this item is used to hoard treasure? You can't, so allow treasure sack. And I know some do, but like SashaFierce says, make it consistent across the board.

[Whirlin]

Would it make sense to put general alterations into a QC ticketing process automatically where it could be routed for appropriate oversight and approval, rather than a live event?

So, instead of people waiting in a room, dish out a handful of Sadie alteration scrolls and just deal with it offline/at a later point. It could alleviate the initial GM stress, and I'm sure metrics could be gathered on total tickets outstanding to manage the frequency of GALDs and streamline GM's workload a little bit to more of a ad-hoc basis.

[SashaFierce]

Would it make sense to put general alterations into a QC ticketing process automatically where it could be routed for appropriate oversight and approval, rather than a live event?

So, instead of people waiting in a room, dish out a handful of Sadie alteration scrolls and just deal with it offline/at a later point. It could alleviate the initial GM stress, and I'm sure metrics could be gathered on total tickets outstanding to manage the frequency of GALDs and streamline GM's workload a little bit to more of a ad-hoc basis.

This wouldn't work.

A: They don't like delayed services, because they tend to get very backed up.

B: It completely removes the choice of using rare materials.

[Zaigh]

Would it make sense to put general alterations into a QC ticketing process automatically where it could be routed for appropriate oversight and approval, rather than a live event?

So, instead of people waiting in a room, dish out a handful of Sadie alteration scrolls and just deal with it offline/at a later point. It could alleviate the initial GM stress, and I'm sure metrics could be gathered on total tickets outstanding to manage the frequency of GALDs and streamline GM's workload a little bit to more of a ad-hoc basis.

I can only see a system like this being even more burdensome on the GMs overall and limiting alterations to a point where the players would feel horrid.

[Whirlin]

This wouldn't work.
A: They don't like delayed services, because they tend to get very backed up.
B: It completely removes the choice of using rare materials.


I can only see a system like this being even more burdensome on the GMs overall and limiting alterations to a point where the players would feel horrid.
Don't disagree with any of those statements (although, I'm sure they could find a way to add the rare materials!)... but if GMs feel like there's pressure to execute in a timely fashion when not having adequate access to necessary QC resources, it's just an alternative that could allow them to spread the burden out and add their perceived necessary oversight into the process. Furthermore, this would only apply to the GA of the GALD, as lightening/deepening is now fairly regimented/scalable/quick to execute.

It may not be ideal, but more tools on the toolbelt can only offer better support to customers. If someone is having a particularly hard time coming up with something on the spot, and the GM doesn't want to wait/etc, the GM can just hand over a scroll and tackle it offline... Or if approaching the end of a night, and someone has been sitting there for 16126336234 hours waiting for Durakar to finish off his 10th spin, and 10th alteration on his same weapon until he wordsmiths it just right... the GM could hand out a couple scrolls to the first few room order people for later delivery.

It would also offer a good learning opportunity to new GMs and they could collaborate with the Zythica/Tamuz folks to go through some of the tickets, and see what works and doesn't work before they're ready to do it live.

[Donquix]

I'm sure it also doesn't help that everything sold now has 19 unlockable tiers they have to make sure the alter plays nice with :D

It's not everyone handing the GM vanilla flaring/weighted weapons/armor or off the shelf 20 lb cloaks that hold 80 lbs anymore.

[Hoodtralfeck]

i have said this before , but items need to have a line telling you what merchant/shop the item is from when ya inspect it . i have like 100 zested items and have no clues what 90% of them are . We can only get certain items unlocked from certain people . all this time i been showing up with a backpack full of crap and having to take up much needed time having merchant check items til find one they can do . That the only update to game i can think is missing ... also the 925 update please

[Viekn]

(although, I'm sure they could find a way to add the rare materials!)

1. If a GM can take your item from your container to work on it via alter scroll, why can't they take a piece of veil iron from your container as well to use with the alter?
2. Is there a legitimate reason for needing to have the rare material? Wouldn't GM's have the code necessary to incorporate a rare material into an alter without needing a sample of it? I've never really understood the reasoning behind that.


If someone is having a particularly hard time coming up with something on the spot, and the GM doesn't want to wait/etc, the GM can just hand over a scroll and tackle it offline... Or if approaching the end of a night, and someone has been sitting there for 2 hours... the GM could hand out a couple scrolls to the first few room order people for later delivery.

It would also offer a good learning opportunity to new GMs and they could collaborate with the Zythica/Tamuz folks to go through some of the tickets, and see what works and doesn't work before they're ready to do it live.

I like the idea of doing both scrolls and live alters. Especially the part about giving some alter scrolls to a few of the people in front of the room who have been waiting a long time and got nothing. Can't tell you how many times that's happened to me. Also, why not spin for 15 people. Offer any of those 15 the chance of using an alter scroll instead, the rest can wait in line. 70% of the time, I've got a simple alter where a scroll would be fine and I'd rather not have to wait in line anyway. Just as an example, currently I've got some orange leather boots with glaes plated toes: Would love to have dark leather boots with glaes plated toes.

Also, what about giving 1 alter scroll a month to paid accounts? As it is, as a standard subscriber, I generally have to go months between festivals before getting a chance at getting something altered, then I likely have to pay for access to the festival just to get it. Having one general alteration scroll per month would likely take care of the 70% of the alters I want, thus alleviating the pressure on GM's to do them live. I don't see it being much of a conflict with premium as they already get quite a few chances per month with alters, but if it is an issue, grant them 2 alter scrolls per month.

[Gelston]

The reason they require you to have the rare material is so that ypu lose some of that rare material. Use another weapon, that weapon is gone. It is to keep everyone from having rare material workings. Otherwise it just wouldn't be rare.

[chalion]

The original goal was to ask if/could there be work to take the burden of alters OFF of the GM staff. We've all identified methods that might work better for the short term, but still require a live person to touch the items and make the changes. More tools that players can use to make the alters themselves in one form or another reduces that strain on the GM staff and frees them to make more scripts, create new stories, create new hunting grounds etc.

[Viekn]

The original goal was to ask if/could there be work to take the burden of alters OFF of the GM staff. We've all identified methods that might work better for the short term, but still require a live person to touch the items and make the changes. More tools that players can use to make the alters themselves in one form or another reduces that strain on the GM staff and frees them to make more scripts, create new stories, create new hunting grounds etc.

I like the idea of having a tailor/seamstress be an artisan skill like cobbling. I would also like the idea of incorporating more options into an NPC shop. Take Dari's Clothier in the landing. You can already customize items with certain colors and materials. Why not QC a list of item descriptors to add as well, i.e. frayed, singed, weathered, crisp. Allow NPC shops to use rare item alter materials. Not like being able to use a veil iron broadsword, but like the alter materials that were released at the DR dig: hunk of veniom, switch of illthorn, etc. Maybe those could be coded to be used accordingly: You request a pair of veniom buckled trousers". The shop clerk replies "A pair of veniom buckled trousers. I can do this if you give me a "small hunk of veniom". Give veniom to clerk. "Very well. Return in 10 minutes for your order". This type of thing is somewhat coded into the dye tents, because you have to give them the type of dye you want.

[Mogonis]

I like the idea of having a tailor/seamstress be an artisan skill like cobbling. I would also like the idea of incorporating more options into an NPC shop. Take Dari's Clothier in the landing. You can already customize items with certain colors and materials. Why not QC a list of item descriptors to add as well, i.e. frayed, singed, weathered, crisp. Allow NPC shops to use rare item alter materials. Not like being able to use a veil iron broadsword, but like the alter materials that were released at the DR dig: hunk of veniom, switch of illthorn, etc. Maybe those could be coded to be used accordingly: You request a pair of veniom buckled trousers". The shop clerk replies "A pair of veniom buckled trousers. I can do this if you give me a "small hunk of veniom". Give veniom to clerk. "Very well. Return in 10 minutes for your order". This type of thing is somewhat coded into the dye tents, because you have to give them the type of dye you want.
Please hyphen responsibly.*


*Hyphen rules may not play well with 15/15/15 rules.

[Malisai]

Gonna be honest. If you only have a general idea, the merchant should tell you to get your stuff in order and pass you. If you cant be bothered to come up with some alter ideas, the merchant shouldnt waste their time with you. When you walk up to a merchant you should know what you want. If the merchant has a suggestion that is fine, or if maybe you are not sure about a part, thats fine, but you should never hand them something and go "well something sorta like". It should be "can you change this to "A hooded gray cloak" or whatever.

[Wyrom]

I'll touch on some things here.

The whole "a grey wool sack" vs. "a treasure sack" is mostly because, what is a treasure sack? What are wizard gloves? What is a ranger cloak? There are some things you can imagine from the wording, like a chef's hat. You get an immediate sense of what that is. Even a wizard's hat works. But a treasure sack doesn't really bring anything to mind. It's a sack, that holds treasure. I understand the realism vs. fantasy argument. You can't let me have a treasure sack but I have a shade-lizard that lives in my skin? I can't have some wizard gloves but I literally shoot fire out of my fingers? The limitations of alterations aren't meant to frustrate, just to make things more clear when all we have is text. There are some things I don't agree with QC on either.

If a GM says no to something, that's simply what it is. If they say they don't feel comfortable, that's different. The former is merchant shopping, the latter is fine to ask another merchant (until someone says no). The first merchant might not know if it's possible. The second GM might know a definite. We are working on tools to make this better on the GM side. Altering a ClimateWear cloak or a Joola bag can be a lot of work if you don't know how to alter the different fields and such. And then they use variables in descriptions, it can be ugly to someone not GSL cleared.

Some GMs are looser with the rules, it's a known fact. We are trying to correct it though. And that might suck for players because you likely see those merchants as heroes. But it does make the rest of us look bad who play by the rules. I feel we've done a pretty good job at reining this in though. But again, communication and tools are being worked on to help where things fall apart.

The alter scroll approach is just too much burden to take on. Working a room of 50 people will not be the same as 50 scrolls.

[drauz]

I'll touch on some things here.

The whole "a grey wool sack" vs. "a treasure sack" is mostly because, what is a treasure sack? What are wizard gloves? What is a ranger cloak? There are some things you can imagine from the wording, like a chef's hat. You can an immediate sense of what that is. Even a wizard's hat works. But a treasure sack doesn't really bring anything to mind. It's a sack, that holds treasure. I understand the realism vs. fantasy argument. You can't let me have a treasure sack but I have a shade-lizard that lives in my skin? I can't have some wizard gloves but I literally shoot fire out of my fingers? The limitations of alterations aren't meant to frustrate, just to make things more clear when all we have is text. There are some things I don't agree with QC on either.

If a GM says no to something, that's simply what it is. If they say they don't feel comfortable, that's different. The former is merchant shopping, the latter is fine to ask another merchant (until someone says no). The first merchant might not know if it's possible. The second GM might know a definite. We are working on tools to make this better on the GM side. Altering a ClimateWear cloak or a Joola bag can be a lot of work if you don't know how to alter the different fields and such. And then they use variables in descriptions, it can be ugly to someone not GSL cleared.

Some GMs are looser with the rules, it's a known fact. We are trying to correct it though. And that might suck for players because you likely see those merchants are heroes. But it does make the rest of us look bad who play by the rules. I feel we've done a pretty good job at reining this in though. But again, communication and tools are being worked on to help where things fall apart.

The alter scroll approach is just too much burden to take on. Working a room of 50 people will not be the same as 50 scrolls.

How can everyone tell what that sack is made from? How do you know that its a vruul skin? I have to look at a label to tell you anything about my RL clothes. You can't have 100% realism (or as much as you can in a game with magic and dragons and such). To me a treasure sack, wizard's cloak, ranger cloak, etc are just fine. I mean how do I know everyone's name in the game? How can I look at someone and know they are a wizard?

What I think a more important question for me would be is "Does this affect people's immersion in the game?". For me the answer is no.

[Viekn]

The whole "a grey wool sack" vs. "a treasure sack" is mostly because, what is a treasure sack? What are wizard gloves? What is a ranger cloak? There are some things you can imagine from the wording, like a chef's hat. You get an immediate sense of what that is.

That is a completely fair point. I get the whole "treasure sack" doesn't immediately bring something to mind, but a "chef's hat" does. But if I want to convey that my character is a treasure hunter, how do I do that within those confines? Is my sack adorned with treasure chest stamps? That seems an even more absurd way to do it. Is it stamped with the words "treasure sack"? Of course not. There is no realistic way to convey that message, but a lot of this game is portraying what we want things to be through words. In a graphical game, this wouldn't be an issue because there'd be no way to do it. One of the great things about Gemstone is that it's completely text based. Let's use that to our advantage and allow things like "treasure sack" and "warlock's cloak" to better portray our character. I don't need something specific to come to mind when the word "warlock's cloak" is used. What it conveys is that you are some type of dark magic user that I might not be able to gather if it were just a dark woolen cloak.

[SashaFierce]

Some GMs are looser with the rules, it's a known fact. We are trying to correct it though. And that might suck for players because you likely see those merchants as heroes. But it does make the rest of us look bad who play by the rules. I feel we've done a pretty good job at reining this in though. But again, communication and tools are being worked on to help where things fall apart.

This is pretty much the opposite of what I (we) as players want. We want there to be more heroes. Because the non-heroes are ruining all the fun.

[Wyrom]

How can everyone tell what that sack is made from? How do you know that its a vruul skin? I have to look at a label to tell you anything about my RL clothes. You can't have 100% realism (or as much as you can in a game with magic and dragons and such). To me a treasure sack, wizard's cloak, ranger cloak, etc are just fine. I mean how do I know everyone's name in the game? How can I look at someone and know they are a wizard?

What I think a more important question for me would be is "Does this affect people's immersion in the game?". For me the answer is no.

I mean, if we argue the semantics of how do we know anything, we're obviously going to get no where. We have to draw the line somewhere.


That is a completely fair point. I get the whole "treasure sack" doesn't immediately bring something to mind, but a "chef's hat" does. But if I want to convey that my character is a treasure hunter, how do I do that within those confines? Is my sack adorned with treasure chest stamps? That seems an even more absurd way to do it. Is it stamped with the words "treasure sack"? Of course not. There is no realistic way to convey that message, but a lot of this game is portraying what we want things to be through words. In a graphical game, this wouldn't be an issue because there'd be no way to do it. One of the great things about Gemstone is that it's completely text based. Let's use that to our advantage and allow things like "treasure sack" and "warlock's cloak" to better portray our character. I don't need something specific to come to mind when the word "warlock's cloak" is used. What it conveys is that you are some type of dark magic user that I might not be able to gather if it were just a dark woolen cloak.

I touched on treasure sack because it has been deemed too vague by QC. I can certainly address the profession adjective again. But it sort of falls to imagery and what is it? We always ask to describe what it is. What makes a cloak a warlock's cloak? Is it a high collar? Tattered and flowing? Silk lined? That's where we're sort of going with these QC rulings.


This is pretty much the opposite of what I (we) as players want. We want there to be more heroes. Because the non-heroes are ruining all the fun.

The non-heroes have made following the policies a nightmare and why you have seen a lack of general alterations.

I feel we're far more relaxed these days than we ever have been. We have a monthly discussion on words to get official rulings. Things like Japanese/Erithi terms are more accepted (like that instrument you wanted Viekn [should be approved soon]).

[Stry]

This is pretty much the opposite of what I (we) as players want. We want there to be more heroes. Because the non-heroes are ruining all the fun.

It's your 'heroes' that have caused problems with system by not following the rules to begin with. Now that means fewer alters for everyone. Nice work.

[Mogonis]

Fewer alters means less bad grammar and shitty writing in the game!

[SonoftheNorth]

Unique items and alterations are why a lot of people play Gemstone instead of WoW etc.

[Viekn]

We always ask to describe what it is. What makes a cloak a warlock's cloak? Is it a high collar? Tattered and flowing? Silk lined? That's where we're sort of going with these QC rulings.

But that's just it, any profession could wear a high collared cloak, a tattered cloak, a flowing cloak, a silk line cloak. By those standards, it's completely impossible to convey "I am a warlock". Wouldn't wearing a "warlock's cloak" fit more in line with what you're trying to achieve than a title we have in game? For realism, technically none of us should have titles/etc., but wearing a "warlock's cloak" would convey that. What about culture? Why is it ok to have my culture set as simply "Dhe'nar" and not force people to have some type of physical look about them that conveys they are Dhe'nar? Does that not fall into the same argument about not using "warlock" but making something look a certain way that convey's warlock?

I think it would be totally cool to have a system where we were able to convey that via how we looked more. What if instead of Lord/Lady, you could only wear a hood if you were 20 trainings, or you could only wear jewelry if you were a certain train, to help convey via the way we look that we've achieved a certain rank. In absence of that though, or in absence of a system that changes the way we look to convey what culture or profession we are, why not allow us to use "warlock", "treasure sack", etc.?


Things like Japanese/Erithi terms are more accepted (like that instrument you wanted Viekn [should be approved soon]).

Thanks!

[drauz]

I mean, if we argue the semantics of how do we know anything, we're obviously going to get no where. We have to draw the line somewhere.

I mean, you kind of started the semantics argument but whatever.

I did draw the line, "does it ruin immersion?". Yes its subjective, but everything in this game is. Its my personal opinion that a wizard's cloak (and items like that) won't ruin another players immersion and would improve the experience of the one owning it.

[SashaFierce]

I touched on treasure sack because it has been deemed too vague by QC. I can certainly address the profession adjective again. But it sort of falls to imagery and what is it? We always ask to describe what it is. What makes a cloak a warlock's cloak? Is it a high collar? Tattered and flowing? Silk lined? That's where we're sort of going with these QC rulings.


That's part of the fantasy to me. What I imagine a treasure sack to look like might be different than what you imagine a treasure sack to look like. I like the mystery. I like the vagueness.

If we're all limited to wear silk/leather/wool sacks, it gets boring. Gem pouches are okay. But what does a gem pouch look like?

The increasing limitations with alters is going to kill the magic.

[Wyrom]

Fewer alters means less bad grammar and shitty writing in the game!

Come QC for us! ;)


Unique items and alterations are why a lot of people play Gemstone instead of WoW etc.

And we still offer a load of unique items and ways to customize your look.


But that's just it, any profession could wear a high collared cloak, a tattered cloak, a flowing cloak, a silk line cloak. By those standards, it's completely impossible to convey "I am a warlock". Wouldn't wearing a "warlock's cloak" fit more in line with what you're trying to achieve than a title we have in game? For realism, technically none of us should have titles/etc., but wearing a "warlock's cloak" would convey that. What about culture? Why is it ok to have my culture set as simply "Dhe'nar" and not force people to have some type of physical look about them that conveys they are Dhe'nar? Does that not fall into the same argument about not using "warlock" but making something look a certain way that convey's warlock?

I think it would be totally cool to have a system where we were able to convey that via how we looked more. What if instead of Lord/Lady, you could only wear a hood if you were 20 trainings, or you could only wear jewelry if you were a certain train, to help convey via the way we look that we've achieved a certain rank. In absence of that though, or in absence of a system that changes the way we look to convey what culture or profession we are, why not allow us to use "warlock", "treasure sack", etc.?



Thanks!

What happens when an empath wears the cloak though!? Like I said, I'll discuss it again with QC. But we definitely have to draw the line somewhere.

The whole knowing names and titles is just too much changing everything about the game code and likely even the engine.


I mean, you kind of started the semantics argument but whatever.

I did draw the line, "does it ruin immersion?". Yes its subjective, but everything in this game is. Its my personal opinion that a wizard's cloak (and items like that) won't ruin another players immersion and would improve the experience of the one owning it.

Might not ruin your immersion, but what if it ruins someone else's? But see above.


That's part of the fantasy to me. What I imagine a treasure sack to look like might be different than what you imagine a treasure sack to look like. I like the mystery. I like the vagueness.

If we're all limited to wear silk/leather/wool sacks, it gets boring. Gem pouches are okay. But what does a gem pouch look like?

The increasing limitations with alters is going to kill the magic.

We haven't been increasing the limitations though. We've definitely been more lenient in recent years. We've added a lot of new words and some Elanthian (fake) terms.

[Mogonis]

Come QC for us! ;)
Wait, seriously? Don't tease me, bro!

Here's an example. Any time you address someone, you use a comma before the pronoun. There are a lot of instances in the game that don't have a comma. When you try to attack in a sancted room, there's no comma. IT DRIVES ME INSANE, and you guys refuse to correct it. Furthermore, this message should be two sentences.


Be at peace my child, there is no need to fight here.
Fix1: "Be at peace, my child; there is no need to fight here.
Fix2: "Be at peace, my child. There is no need to fight here.


In this example, it's especially bad because it's correct in the first part and wrong in the second part:



Tingah says, "You want to be removed from your current task assignment, Mogonis? If so, ASK me about REMOVAL one more time to confirm this choice."
>
Tingah says, "Very well Mogonis, I have removed you from your current assignment."

[Ososis]

I was under the impression that if you received a hard no on an alter that was then tagged to the item to prevent merchant shopping. I am sure unjust tags have been lifted, revised, unseen or initially unmarked and has led to overturning of the "no" in many instances. Also worth repeatin there is a difference between a "hard no" and things like "I'm uncomfortable doing that" or "I DONT do that do to IG merchant styles, sensibilities, or skulls"

I know shit tons of scrolls could be a mess, but maybe throw some in in place of RPAs sometimes. Perhaps they could be stingily used at merchant sessions on complicated items to address more people. After 3 get handed out, announce that complicated alters will be passed up so please have something simple or a lighten deepen ready as backup. "Complicated" is decided at the sole discretion of the merchant, arguing this point is grounds for immediate lose of place in line.

Maybe have a master list of active players and start scratching them off the list as time permits with little RP moments to individuals that end up in a one on one session. If the player misses the rp opportunity twice they get crossed off the list. List resets when it's been reasonably worked through.

I love the additions to the analyze verb, it made altering my awesome Joola tunic super easy as I knew exactly how to altar it. I don't have any good tips on improving it but anything in that vein is super sexy and I'm sure would make it easier on gms. Maybe have links to alter policy specific to that style of item.

Wyrom I am so altar hungry I want to punch roltons. It's everything I want forever. I know that's not helpful, but it is My Truth.

[Mogonis]

Wyrom I am so altar hungry
http://www.sanctamissa.org/en/sacristy/sacristy-sanctuary-and-altar/sanctuary-and-altar-01.jpg

[Viekn]

What happens when an empath wears the cloak though!? Like I said, I'll discuss it again with QC. But we definitely have to draw the line somewhere.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing specifically for a <profession> cloak. Although I don't find anything personally wrong with it, I wouldn't wear one because it's a bit too simple for my taste. Although I would use a treasure sack. And what's the harm if an empath wears one? I can wear a chalk pouch, doesn't make me a sorcerer. I'm just making the point that I don't think we should be so focused on how someone knows a treasure sack is a treasure sack. Who cares! We play a text based game. Embrace that fact and use that advantage for players to better customize their character by allowing those descriptors. I ask this in all seriousness, what's the point of not allowing that in a text based game?


The whole knowing names and titles is just too much changing everything about the game code and likely even the engine.

I know, I'm not arguing for that specifically, although I think it's a pretty cool idea and something to consider long term. I'm just making the point of why is it ok in Simu's book (or whoever's book you want to call it) that we can use the word "empath" in a title which technically per trying to be "in character", we shouldn't be able to see, but it's not ok to use the word empath to describe a cloak which our character would be able to see someone wearing. Yes I agree that strictly speaking "what makes it an empath's cloak", but leave that up to the person looking to fill in the blanks. That's what makes reading books so much better than watching the movie, my own mind fills in what I think it should be. If some other peron (movie director / GM merchant) forces their perceptions of what it should be on me, it's not nearly as rich of an experience.

[Viekn]

I know shit tons of scrolls could be a mess, but maybe throw some in in place of RPAs sometimes. Perhaps they could be stingily used at merchant sessions on complicated items to address more people. After 3 get handed out, announce that complicated alters will be passed up so please have something simple or a lighten deepen ready as backup. "Complicated" is decided at the sole discretion of the merchant, arguing this point is grounds for immediate lose of place in line.

I like those ideas a lot. Listen, I'd be in favor of merchants being a bit stricter in favor of more general alterations being done. I still feel strongly about my other opinions of being less strict, but I'd learn to live with stricter guidelines if it meant more opportunities for general alterations.

[beldannon5]

since you are in here wyrom i have a question I am sure everyone has asked before but i haven't/ Why is there spellburst in OTF? Seems ridiculous

[drauz]

What happens when an empath wears the cloak though!? Like I said, I'll discuss it again with QC. But we definitely have to draw the line somewhere.

The whole knowing names and titles is just too much changing everything about the game code and likely even the engine.

Is it possible to make an item automatically change your setting to not allow you to display your profession?




Might not ruin your immersion, but what if it ruins someone else's? But see above.

Everything is subjective. You have to appeal to the majority or else you might as well not change anything in the game ever for fear that one person's immersion might be in jeopardy. There are always gonna be people who either hate it or love it or are just meh about it.

[Leafiara]

I mean, to be fair to the treasure sack and warlock's cloak vagueness, etc., I have a "gem pouch" and an "instrument case" (which is what they were unaltered) and I have no idea what those look like. I can't even say they're shaped like a gem and an instrument because then it's still a question of which gem and which instrument.

Also, my cleric is proud and vocal about being the daughter of a ranger and bard, so it would be perfectly consistent with her character to wear something like a ranger's cape. (In fact, even without having anything like that, one time a low-level character assumed she was a ranger because she's so known for doing foraging jobs.)

[Raelee]

There is also the lack of readiness and preparedness that were once very commonplace.

I've been thinking about this lately... even before this thread was posted. This seems like as good of a time to bring it up as any though.

It used to be very common, especially at large, crowded alteration sessions for the merchant to ask for a volunteer to lead a group to help people with ideas and stuff. (Usually someone who is proven to know how this stuff works.) Someone almost always stepped up. Yet, I feel like a helper group doesn't happen that often anymore. And, I don't just mean that nobody forms a group... there usually isn't a request for the group either.

Sometimes people are very willing to help, but they need a little nudge to realize the need is there. Maybe one first step is just for some merchants to start asking people to help each other again?

Other random idea...

What about a series of Alteration 101 merchant sessions? Take a brave/crazy GM and have them run a 30-45 minute seminar on alteration rules and such... do it every few months. Maybe they can spin for a group of 10 at the end of the class - with one of the requirements being that you have to have attended the entire class to be eligible for the spin. (Probably with some additional limits - like each account is only eligible for 1 per year... just to help ensure you're reaching different people. Or run it in conjunction with a mentor event... or somehow specifically target newer accounts... etc, etc, etc)

[Gnomad]

What happens when an empath wears the cloak though!? Like I said, I'll discuss it again with QC. But we definitely have to draw the line somewhere.The !? makes me wonder if this is a serious argument, but regardless:

If an empath puts on a warlock's cloak, then they're... an empath wearing a warlock's cloak.

What happens if a football player puts a hockey helmet?

If they're obviously a football player, they might look a little silly. Or, if they're not on a football field at the time, and not obviously a famous football player, then people will probably assume that they're a hockey player (and, in this situation, perhaps undergoing some sort of rookie hazing).

If a warlock is playing Full Contact: The Earth Sports RPG, I wouldn't expect him to memorize the differences in helmet styles between sports, and between different positions and brands within those sports. But his character would be familiar with the differences and should be able to identify a lacrosse helmet as a lacrosse helmet.

[Amerek]

Just a quick add: I find it boring when I'm limited to "a grey wool sack" vs "a black treasure sack". Someone may prefer to have the material and all that for "realism" but I come here for the "fantasy".

I agree with this 100%.

[Wyrom]

The !? makes me wonder if this is a serious argument, but regardless:

If an empath puts on a warlock's cloak, then they're... an empath wearing a warlock's cloak.

What happens if a football player puts a hockey helmet?

If they're obviously a football player, they might look a little silly. Or, if they're not on a football field at the time, and not obviously a famous football player, then people will probably assume that they're a hockey player (and, in this situation, perhaps undergoing some sort of rookie hazing).

If a warlock is playing Full Contact: The Earth Sports RPG, I wouldn't expect him to memorize the differences in helmet styles between sports, and between different positions and brands within those sports. But his character would be familiar with the differences and should be able to identify a lacrosse helmet as a lacrosse helmet.

The !? was sarcasm. I should have placed italics on it.

The main point, as it comes from QC, is "what makes it XXX?" Does a warlock's cloak have some sort of defining feature that makes it distinguishable? And then of course, if we do start allowing profession adjectives in alterations, where do we draw the line. We named some of the core professions here, but do we let an arcanist satchel into the game? A paragon's surcoat? A councilmen's robe? a warlord's battle harness? I have only used examples of things that have recently been asked for.

As for things like the gem pouch being used as an example. If they weren't released for so long, we'd probably deny things like that into that too vague category. Anything with a long history in game or any precedent, like herb pouches or herbalist's satchel kind of gets a pass.

I realize people will be a bit miffed and frustrated with these rulings, but I'm just discussing with you why they exist.

[Thondalar]

The !? was sarcasm. I should have placed italics on it.

The main point, as it comes from QC, is "what makes it XXX?" Does a warlock's cloak have some sort of defining feature that makes it distinguishable? And then of course, if we do start allowing profession adjectives in alterations, where do we draw the line. We named some of the core professions here, but do we let an arcanist satchel into the game? A paragon's surcoat? A councilmen's robe? a warlord's battle harness? I have only used examples of things that have recently been asked for.

As for things like the gem pouch being used as an example. If they weren't released for so long, we'd probably deny things like that into that too vague category. Anything with a long history in game or any precedent, like herb pouches or herbalist's satchel kind of gets a pass.

I realize people will be a bit miffed and frustrated with these rulings, but I'm just discussing with you why they exist.

Got a question about something...sort of related to all this, but not exactly...

I have some scalps. They came from that one thing that happened a while ago where Krolvins invaded and were scalpin' errbody. They are elven scalps.

I have a halfling warrior. He is a Mhoragian Halfling, and grew up listening to stories told about the pony wars, about the elves and their brutality, murdering all of the ponies. He has multiple Mhoragian-specific alterations already. He has a fully-realized, deep-seated hatred of Elves. It is all completely in character, completely fitting with the story created by the game designers.

I've attempted, on several occasions, to have these elven scalps added into an alteration of his weapons...as tassels. I've been turned down every time.

I get that we can't just have people making stuff up all willy-nilly, but...I think exceptions should be made in cases like mine. I'm providing the material, AND I'm giving a thoughtful, RP-based, character-driven reason for wanting it. Things like this add character to the game...they give it life. They give it the sort of imagination we all fell in love with so long ago.

I understand QC; I understand why some rules are what they are. However, I also feel like blind adherence to rote "rules" without context is just as dangerous as the opposite.

[Roblar]

That post reminded me of Beetkins, which always makes me smile. So, once again:

http://forum.gsplayers.com/archive/index.php/t-73799.html

Have at ye!

[drauz]

The !? was sarcasm. I should have placed italics on it.

The main point, as it comes from QC, is "what makes it XXX?" Does a warlock's cloak have some sort of defining feature that makes it distinguishable? And then of course, if we do start allowing profession adjectives in alterations, where do we draw the line. We named some of the core professions here, but do we let an arcanist satchel into the game? A paragon's surcoat? A councilmen's robe? a warlord's battle harness? I have only used examples of things that have recently been asked for.

As for things like the gem pouch being used as an example. If they weren't released for so long, we'd probably deny things like that into that too vague category. Anything with a long history in game or any precedent, like herb pouches or herbalist's satchel kind of gets a pass.

I realize people will be a bit miffed and frustrated with these rulings, but I'm just discussing with you why they exist.

To answer all your questions, yes. Let them in the game. Even a gigolo's hat. Let it in. Let people have de facto titles or sorts. Maybe they want to RP as something that isn't available in the title system.

a ghostly-grey sorcerer's <cloak spot noun> was offered as a option from an auto-alter event way back when. You selected the number you wanted and bam, you had the item. It had other profession specific alters available as well. So there is precedent. Granted this was probably over 10 years ago.

We are talking about a world with magic. Perhaps there is a style of clothing that different professions tend to wear. Of course if we are looking at it thru the lense of the real world there is no equipment a magical profession might frequently wear. Perhaps a <profession> cloak simply means they have their guild symbol printed on it like something given out by the guild when you join (not something actually given out for real in game). We have the chance to define that. I haven't really ever seen anyone complain about it, expect to say that they want it.

[SashaFierce]

The main point, as it comes from QC, is "what makes it XXX?"

Someone made a good point earlier; when you read a book, you use your imagination to picture what things look like. Every item doesn't have to be so clearly defined. IMO, they've pushed things too far towards realism when I want more fantasy.


Here is an issue I had recently. The armor show below was created by a GM. I whispered my original idea, she said, I like that, but how about this instead, and I went with her suggestion. I have armor and a shield that inspect as black alloy, the shadowdeath material. I wanted to play with it a little bit and have some fun with it. When I "tweaked" the armor show to apply the same show to the shield I had, it was determined to be unacceptable. I pointed out that a GM created the show, and even provided the name of the alterer, but after waiting 15-20 minutes for I assume back-end chatter. I had to remove the liquid-like state from the show.

Armor Show: The deep, dark black alloy of the armor immediately marks it as unusual. Masterfully forged from the strange metal, it seems to maintain a smooth, liquid-like state, the well-oiled material gleaming in a continuous flow with changes of the ambient lighting. Reflections caught against the armor blur as the metal changes angles, snapping into focus when the wearer is no longer in motion, the details caught against a background of mirror-like black. You also notice a small enchanter's glyph.

Shield Show: The deep, dark black alloy of the shield immediately marks it as unusual. Masterfully forged from the strange metal, it seems to maintain a smooth, glossy state, the well-oiled material gleaming in a continuous flow with changes of the ambient lighting. Reflections caught against the shield blur as the metal changes angles, snapping into focus when the wielder is no longer in motion, the details caught against a background of mirror-like black. You see nothing unusual, except for a small enchanter's glyph.


IMO, it wasn't worth wasting 15-20 minutes on. Nobody but me is ever going to see the show anyway. But because of the stringent rules, so much time had to be spent clarifying what is acceptable. Alterations may not be such a hassle if the rules were revised to allow more fun.

[Archigeek]

That post reminded me of Beetkins, which always makes me smile. So, once again:

http://forum.gsplayers.com/archive/index.php/t-73799.html

Have at ye!

Someday, I'm going to pull him out of retirement and actually play him. Good times.

[Enuch]

Someone made a good point earlier; when you read a book, you use your imagination to picture what things look like. Every item doesn't have to be so clearly defined. IMO, they've pushed things too far towards realism when I want more fantasy.


Here is an issue I had recently. The armor show below was created by a GM. I whispered my original idea, she said, I like that, but how about this instead, and I went with her suggestion. I have armor and a shield that inspect as black alloy, the shadowdeath material. I wanted to play with it a little bit and have some fun with it. When I "tweaked" the armor show to apply the same show to the shield I had, it was determined to be unacceptable. I pointed out that a GM created the show, and even provided the name of the alterer, but after waiting 15-20 minutes for I assume back-end chatter. I had to remove the liquid-like state from the show.

Armor Show: The deep, dark black alloy of the armor immediately marks it as unusual. Masterfully forged from the strange metal, it seems to maintain a smooth, liquid-like state, the well-oiled material gleaming in a continuous flow with changes of the ambient lighting. Reflections caught against the armor blur as the metal changes angles, snapping into focus when the wearer is no longer in motion, the details caught against a background of mirror-like black. You also notice a small enchanter's glyph.

Shield Show: The deep, dark black alloy of the shield immediately marks it as unusual. Masterfully forged from the strange metal, it seems to maintain a smooth, glossy state, the well-oiled material gleaming in a continuous flow with changes of the ambient lighting. Reflections caught against the shield blur as the metal changes angles, snapping into focus when the wielder is no longer in motion, the details caught against a background of mirror-like black. You see nothing unusual, except for a small enchanter's glyph.


IMO, it wasn't worth wasting 15-20 minutes on. Nobody but me is ever going to see the show anyway. But because of the stringent rules, so much time had to be spent clarifying what is acceptable. Alterations may not be such a hassle if the rules were revised to allow more fun.

To me looking at it I wonder how am armor could be liquid like. Perhaps the sentence could be reworded as I am thinking you are talking about the color/sheen and not the armor itself but reading the sentence makes it sound like the armor itself is liquid like and that does not make sense at least for any armor I would want to wear.

To you it makes perfect sense because you know what you mean but to an outside reader we have no knowledge so just examining the sentence itself I think is where the GMs had concerns. I think people are focusing too much on what an individual word to THEM means. Just because you have an idea of what something means to you does not mean it means the same thing to everyone and when you use a word that is ambiguous just because you use it as a descriptor does not mean it is describing anything. There could be hundreds of variations of a warlocks cloak and I think that ambiguity is what holds back the process. watlock is just an example because it's been thrown around but you can substitute many words like warrior or thief or slob. I am sure each one can create an idea in someone's head but I would guess that those are not uniform for all across the board and I think that ambiguity is where the problem arises for these folks from a QC standpoint

[Menos]

The non-heroes have made following the policies a nightmare and why you have seen a lack of general alterations.

I feel we're far more relaxed these days than we ever have been. We have a monthly discussion on words to get official rulings. Things like Japanese/Erithi terms are more accepted (like that instrument you wanted Viekn [should be approved soon]).

There have been some solid improvements in the explicitly allowed items. Things like weapon and armor nouns, instruments, clothing nouns. But that is not the whole picture. In an effort to be consistent we have moved from a system where anything was possible but the GMs would say no to bad items into a system where only the words on this list can be made and everything else is forbidden. Sure the list of acceptable is getting bigger, but the entirety of the English language had to be excluded first.

In the last 5 years I have significantly decreased my attempts to make alters, because more often than not it has been a very frustrating experience. Items I thought were simple and well within the rules have been rejected with the hard "No" and not the "I am not comfortable" answers.

As an example, I was recently given a hard "No" on a billowing silk cloak. I did not expect a problem as that same day I could have gone to the Vaalor NPC with any of my characters and be given a billowing crimson cloak. Within that same year I could have bought one of several different billowing cloaks or robes off the shelf from merchant events. I could have (and did) show the GM an online dictionary that used billowing to mean loose fitting. Even so, it was denied for implying movement.... flowing was an acceptable alternative. By way of referral I was sent to GM and later a big wig QC GM; both of which confirmed the hard "No" on billowing.

Some months later, maybe after one of those meetings, a merchant suggested billowing on a cloak I was having made. The merchant told me it was now acceptable. That seems like a happy ending to the story, but what would have been a single fun interaction was instead like four extremely frustrating ones, two months of accepting the shitty rule and one "oh, ok then" interaction. The process has become so horrible that I generally do not want to involve myself in it. I can hardly blame the GMs that feel the same from the other end. What should be exciting and fun chance to make a new item is now a slog that I have to go through (but I only bother with if the item is so far out of what I want that I cannot stand it as is).

If you ask me to chose between a world where I sometimes see a dumb dark elf sorcerer in a "warlocks cloak" but where making new items is fun or what we have now, I am going to pick the former every time. You can see that choice being made every time I decide to run my 3004th creautre task in OTF vs eagerly waiting in a room to be spun.

[Elvenlady]

What about a series of Alteration 101 merchant sessions? Take a brave/crazy GM and have them run a 30-45 minute seminar on alteration rules and such... do it every few months. Maybe they can spin for a group of 10 at the end of the class - with one of the requirements being that you have to have attended the entire class to be eligible for the spin. (Probably with some additional limits - like each account is only eligible for 1 per year... just to help ensure you're reaching different people. Or run it in conjunction with a mentor event... or somehow specifically target newer accounts... etc, etc, etc)

This is exactly what I've been doing with Elanthian Elegance and The Looking Glass! I started with The Long and the Short of It: Alteration 101 (https://sites.google.com/site/elanthianelegance/events/the-lecture-circuit/the-long-and-the-short-of-it-alteration-101) during Fashion Week last year and have also done The Art of Accessories (https://sites.google.com/site/elanthianelegance/events/the-lecture-circuit/the-art-of-accessorising-jewelry) where I talked about all the various functional items of jewelery we have available. They are all run IC wherever possible and I include links to useful sources of reference through the use of OOC whispers. I even held a second MHO event with merchant services that gave priority to those who attended the lecture earlier in the day.

As a Mentor, I also run an occasional session called "Show and Tell" that discusses how it's possible to subtly relate aspects of your character through how you dress etc..

I have more planned for this year!

[SashaFierce]

To me looking at it I wonder how am armor could be liquid like. Perhaps the sentence could be reworded as I am thinking you are talking about the color/sheen and not the armor itself but reading the sentence makes it sound like the armor itself is liquid like and that does not make sense at least for any armor I would want to wear.

To you it makes perfect sense because you know what you mean but to an outside reader we have no knowledge so just examining the sentence itself I think is where the GMs had concerns. I think people are focusing too much on what an individual word to THEM means. Just because you have an idea of what something means to you does not mean it means the same thing to everyone and when you use a word that is ambiguous just because you use it as a descriptor does not mean it is describing anything. There could be hundreds of variations of a warlocks cloak and I think that ambiguity is what holds back the process. watlock is just an example because it's been thrown around but you can substitute many words like warrior or thief or slob. I am sure each one can create an idea in someone's head but I would guess that those are not uniform for all across the board and I think that ambiguity is where the problem arises for these folks from a QC standpoint

Black alloy is the shadowdeath material, the material itself has a liquid-like state. Look at the messaging for the shadowdeath weapons for some examples of that. That's why in these alterations I wanted to play on that idea a little bit. It's a pretty rare material in the seemingly more and more common rare material list. I prefer to have things that not everyone else has, which is why I try to work with the rarest materials found in the game. I'm not talking about the "rare materials" list, I'm talking about materials that are actually rare.

It doesn't matter what the word means to you. You're never going to see it. As I've said before though, I like when things are ambiguous and you're forced to use your imagination. An outside reader would understand more if they researched materials.

I want more ambiguity, and I agree that's where the problem lies. Not everything has to be so well defined that it takes all the fun out of it.

[Wyrom]

Got a question about something...sort of related to all this, but not exactly...

I have some scalps. They came from that one thing that happened a while ago where Krolvins invaded and were scalpin' errbody. They are elven scalps.

I have a halfling warrior. He is a Mhoragian Halfling, and grew up listening to stories told about the pony wars, about the elves and their brutality, murdering all of the ponies. He has multiple Mhoragian-specific alterations already. He has a fully-realized, deep-seated hatred of Elves. It is all completely in character, completely fitting with the story created by the game designers.

I've attempted, on several occasions, to have these elven scalps added into an alteration of his weapons...as tassels. I've been turned down every time.

I get that we can't just have people making stuff up all willy-nilly, but...I think exceptions should be made in cases like mine. I'm providing the material, AND I'm giving a thoughtful, RP-based, character-driven reason for wanting it. Things like this add character to the game...they give it life. They give it the sort of imagination we all fell in love with so long ago.

I understand QC; I understand why some rules are what they are. However, I also feel like blind adherence to rote "rules" without context is just as dangerous as the opposite.

The scalp rule is one that I probably won't get to lift, which stems from "no player race skins." This dates back to a ruling beyond me from a long time ago.


There have been some solid improvements in the explicitly allowed items. Things like weapon and armor nouns, instruments, clothing nouns. But that is not the whole picture. In an effort to be consistent we have moved from a system where anything was possible but the GMs would say no to bad items into a system where only the words on this list can be made and everything else is forbidden. Sure the list of acceptable is getting bigger, but the entirety of the English language had to be excluded first.

In the last 5 years I have significantly decreased my attempts to make alters, because more often than not it has been a very frustrating experience. Items I thought were simple and well within the rules have been rejected with the hard "No" and not the "I am not comfortable" answers.

As an example, I was recently given a hard "No" on a billowing silk cloak. I did not expect a problem as that same day I could have gone to the Vaalor NPC with any of my characters and be given a billowing crimson cloak. Within that same year I could have bought one of several different billowing cloaks or robes off the shelf from merchant events. I could have (and did) show the GM an online dictionary that used billowing to mean loose fitting. Even so, it was denied for implying movement.... flowing was an acceptable alternative. By way of referral I was sent to GM and later a big wig QC GM; both of which confirmed the hard "No" on billowing.

Some months later, maybe after one of those meetings, a merchant suggested billowing on a cloak I was having made. The merchant told me it was now acceptable. That seems like a happy ending to the story, but what would have been a single fun interaction was instead like four extremely frustrating ones, two months of accepting the shitty rule and one "oh, ok then" interaction. The process has become so horrible that I generally do not want to involve myself in it. I can hardly blame the GMs that feel the same from the other end. What should be exciting and fun chance to make a new item is now a slog that I have to go through (but I only bother with if the item is so far out of what I want that I cannot stand it as is).

If you ask me to chose between a world where I sometimes see a dumb dark elf sorcerer in a "warlocks cloak" but where making new items is fun or what we have now, I am going to pick the former every time. You can see that choice being made every time I decide to run my 3004th creautre task in OTF vs eagerly waiting in a room to be spun.

The billowy/billowing thing was settled, and we will allow billowing. Billowing, however, is a frozen action. Where billowy talks of the nature of the garment. Frozen actions are something that QC gets very angry with. Same with things like a "low-slung bandolier" or "a bag resting at the hip." What happens when you aren't wearing them? But try billowing again.

As a player I pushed for certain things. I have a treasure sack and a low-slung pair of sheathes on my rogue. I had a billowing cape on my warrior.


To answer all your questions, yes. Let them in the game. Even a gigolo's hat. Let it in. Let people have de facto titles or sorts. Maybe they want to RP as something that isn't available in the title system.

a ghostly-grey sorcerer's <cloak spot noun> was offered as a option from an auto-alter event way back when. You selected the number you wanted and bam, you had the item. It had other profession specific alters available as well. So there is precedent. Granted this was probably over 10 years ago.

We are talking about a world with magic. Perhaps there is a style of clothing that different professions tend to wear. Of course if we are looking at it thru the lense of the real world there is no equipment a magical profession might frequently wear. Perhaps a <profession> cloak simply means they have their guild symbol printed on it like something given out by the guild when you join (not something actually given out for real in game). We have the chance to define that. I haven't really ever seen anyone complain about it, expect to say that they want it.

While I get what you're saying, I don't think we can ever go as extreme as the gigolo's hat and pimp's cane. The auto-alter/dye thing was about 20 years ago.


Black alloy is the shadowdeath material, the material itself has a liquid-like state. Look at the messaging for the shadowdeath weapons for some examples of that. That's why in these alterations I wanted to play on that idea a little bit. It's a pretty rare material in the seemingly more and more common rare material list. I prefer to have things that not everyone else has, which is why I try to work with the rarest materials found in the game. I'm not talking about the "rare materials" list, I'm talking about materials that are actually rare.

It doesn't matter what the word means to you. You're never going to see it. As I've said before though, I like when things are ambiguous and you're forced to use your imagination. An outside reader would understand more if they researched materials.


Somewhat the case on black alloy. Black alloy, as a material by itself, is not sentient/liquid. I could create some black-alloy armor right now and it's just standard 0x armor. Shadowdeath has reused the material, and we've almost exclusively left black alloy to it. But another use may happen one day.


I want more ambiguity, and I agree that's where the problem lies. Not everything has to be so well defined that it takes all the fun out of it.

I will say, this is all very good feedback. Those of you who messaged me privately or via email about this as well.

[Viekn]

I will say, this is all very good feedback. Those of you who messaged me privately or via email about this as well.

I would just say that at the end of the day, whatever you all need on your end to start doing more general alterations, just do it. I'd rather have more stringent rules and more chances at general alterations, than less stringent/more ambiguous rules and less chances at alterations. I know there will still be issues, but whatever we as a player base can do to make the GM's life easier and want to come out and do work more, the better.

[Gelston]

The scalp rule is one that I probably won't get to lift, which stems from "no player race skins." This dates back to a ruling beyond me from a long time ago.


Wait, you answer to someone on game rules?

[Fallen]

I guess the good news from all of this is it helps drive up the value of older alterations. In a game that's been around for 20+ years, you can typically find what you're looking for if you poke around long enough.

[Gelston]

I guess the good news from all of this is it helps drive up the value of older alterations. In a game that's been around for 20+ years, you can typically find what you're looking for if you poke around long enough.

Hell, I remember when an item having an alteration made it worth 1m more, even if it was ugly. I still have this hideous 6x shield that I overpaid for in like 98.

[beldannon5]

Yawn. I usually tell the merchant what i like then let them choose with their creativity. Although with most merchants i just do lighten or deepen so others can get work done even asshats

[drauz]

The scalp rule is one that I probably won't get to lift, which stems from "no player race skins." This dates back to a ruling beyond me from a long time ago.

So my halfling skin satchel is worth money!

[SashaFierce]

Almost forgot, but I recently had problems trying to use the word rugged. The GM suggested weathered or worn instead.
I mentioned that rugged items are dropped by the treasure system.

[Allereli]

Almost forgot, but I recently had problems trying to use the word rugged.

yeah that's weird.

[SashaFierce]

yeah that's weird.

(OOC) Xxxxxx's player whispers, "Rugged is a bit on the subjective end, can we go with something a bit more descriptive of the item? Perhaps worn, distressed, weather - giving it an apparent used look."


This is why people merchant shop.

[LivderaDeralleur]

Hm. That is a bit weird. I swear I got my Warrior's Wounded Wear boots made into "some rugged leather boots", though this was over a year and a bit ago when Wounded Wear was first created.

[Wyrom]

(OOC) Xxxxxx's player whispers, "Rugged is a bit on the subjective end, can we go with something a bit more descriptive of the item? Perhaps worn, distressed, weather - giving it an apparent used look."


This is why people merchant shop.

Message me the deets on that one?

[Thondalar]

(OOC) Xxxxxx's player whispers, "Rugged is a bit on the subjective end, can we go with something a bit more descriptive of the item? Perhaps worn, distressed, weather - giving it an apparent used look."

I've had "gaudy" turned down a few times, even though almost everything else on me is gaudy, and the next tent over is selling gaudy items off the shelf...


This is why people merchant shop.

Yep.

[Ceyrin]

My favorite in recent memory was being denied an idea because I used the color cochineal. I guess there are no analogous equivalent beetles in Elanthia.

[Wrathbringer]

This past eg I got denied on "tempered" on a tempered heavy greataxe because tempered could reference the enchanting system. I was like, wtf? oh well. The next merchant I tried did it though.

[m444w]

I admire the attempt to make the system less confusing (for players and GMs alike), but it has really become a quagmire and I've mostly stopped even attempting to get alterations unless the changes are so tiny that it would be utterly unreasonable for a GM to deny me that change.

Ceyrin's example is really a prime reason for it, just because the definition of a word stems from some sort of thing found in the real world it is usually denied, and I realize it is a slippery slope, with terms like "damask" vs "damascus steel", and I personally would rather see one idiot with damask steel running around than see someone become jaded over choosing a color that is derived from beetles.

The idiot I can chose not to interact with and ignore, the weight of annoyance with arbitrary rulesets is much more insidious, especially when coupled with some sort of vague white list that is fundamentally flawed, and drastically reduces the descriptive and imaginative powers of those that want to shape their characters.

Now with that I recognize there have been some great steps forward, such as removing the ridiculous rule about robe armor only being able to be "robes", and for that alone I am much appreciative. The goal was very worthy, but I just wish in generally the attitude was less focused on stopping bad actors and more focused on enhancing enjoyment, and I additionally be very keen on the arguments for the semi-recent rare metal rules, because to me they mostly seem to fall along the same vein of unnecessarily restrictive arbitrary rules we could use less of, especially since you already had to previously provide fodder anyway.

[Gelston]

Especially since it is Damascus Steel... A damask steel sword would be... A fabric sword?

[Mogonis]

DEATH RUNES OF DESTRUCTION

[Gelston]

a malevolent, bile-green onyx and veniom-hilted longsword splattered with the blood of gremlin-slayers

[RENorado]

DEATH RUNES OF DESTRUCTION

Ha. Speaking of runes, recently found armor that is "branded with runes of power" in a box...but got shot down by a Merchant when I asked for Elven runes on my weapon. I would think that probably most could identify a rune as Elven but not many would know if one is powerful... I'm not a jerk, so I went with one of the Merchant's suggestions and said thank you and didn't think of it again til now.

[Versin]

A simple short-term idea is to have GALD merchants get LD out of the way first. Those services are finished much quicker, and it sucks to wait two hours to lose a few pounds on a suit of armor. It would also give the neewbs time to think of alters.

[Tisket]

(Before it became a thread about Tisket's yoohoo... wtf people... wtf)

haha