Reset Password
Existing players used to logging in with their character name and moo password must signup for a website account.
- AkechiLiker69 1m
- Gaijin_Guest 12m [Welcome to Sindome]
- Dawnshot 14m
- Gunnar 1m
- Sabess 12s
- NoShame 1m
- zeezenfrozen 1m
- JohnWilliams 1h
- Atheran 3m
- SacredWest 1h
- hex37 2s
- BCingyou 1m
- sukebug 48s
a Mench 2h Doing a bit of everything.
- JakeyBoy 2h
- Sulfurado 25s
- Baphomei 1s
- Qewy 28m
- Baguette 40s bitchmade
- Wonderland 36s
j Fengshui 3h <- My Book
- Btracker 48s
- Fogchild1 1m
- CookieJarvis 20s
- Ryuzaki4Days 5m Take drugs. Kill a bear.
- Slyter 28m
- MrJDucky2 13h
- ReeferMadness 9m May the bridges I burn light the way.
And 26 more hiding and/or disguised
Connect to Sindome @ or just Play Now

Require nakeds when disguised

I think nakeds of some sort should be required when wearing a hood. Just not describing your hand nakeds, for instance, gives you an OOC advantage against being identified.

Similarly, hoodie-wearing NPCs should probably spawn with nakeds or at least clothes and gloves.

Since @name isn't enough to identify a character officially, I fully support requiring nakeds of a minimum length in all non-duplicate slots as a baseline requirement for disguise.

A simple code check could even throw an OOC reminder to players that they must fill those nakeds up before any disguise is applied.

It'd be easier if they could simply load their disguise descriptions instead of having to @describe over and over again.

Like, for example.. load appearance Woman', and you automatically change your description to what you already wrote for the disguise, etc.

I've been told, at least, that clearing your nakeds when you put on a hood is unacceptable meta gaming.
I still believe that players should not be able to change their nakeds as part of Disguise. Or if they can, gate it behind something like the disguise name level of proficiency.

It seems super gamey to me. A character's physique is their physique. If they're muscled, they're not going to suddenly be not muscled. If they're flabby, they're not going to suddenly be not flabby. If a character is worried about the physical attributes of their naked giving away their disguise, they can cover up those body parts with clothing.

Otherwise it seems to me that adjusting physical descriptions is borderline genetic engineering. That is not something people should be able to do without a huge amount of training and preparation.

At the risk of dragging eal life into this, look at some of the Transformations that actors have to go through for playing roles. Christian Bale is a really good example of an actor who goes to pretty extreme physical lengths in order to embody different characters. Those Transformations don't just happen overnight. They require physical trainers and dietitians and doctors. Then it takes weeks if not months to gain weight or lose weight or hit the gym or do whatever is required to get the body into the condition that the person wants it to be in.

I think IDing someone based on their hands is pretty dubious to start with, in the end unless they have some kind of highly distinctive attribute there its just OOC prose pattern matching.

Not a fan of being forced to write aimless nakeds either. In my case anyway, if the character has something to write about there I will, otherwise they're hands. Everyone's got 'em, we know what they look like.

Intent obviously matters though. If someone is clearing distinctive @nakeds then that's something else, but my own feeling is that gloves are just as ambiguous as hands are.

Without hands, you have no @skintone. Hands also will very often give you a clue about whether someone is masculine or feminine.

So no, I don't think you know what they look like. I mean, IDing someone on hands alone is (depending on the circumstances) unreasonable, but skintone, size, all of those things are clues.

Gender presentation is a function of shortdescs, which people have the option of masking. Seeing someone's hands is not telling anyone anything that couldn't be obfuscated by default and IDing anyone in a city of 80 million based on their skintone is not plausible.

Realistically players pattern match the prose and the work backwards. As I said, removing @nakeds to enable a disguise is bad intent but really if someone's @naked reads '%s has ordinary hands' and another player reads that, are they really going to ID someone based on IC information, or OOC writing?

I really don't see there being some huge issue here. Hoodies reveal most of a character's other clothing, which is far more justifiably identifiable than their hands would be.

You're thinking about it terms of binary

ID. None of those things are enough on their own to give enough information to ID, but putting together the pieces through all of the available data sources helps.

More than that, the fundamental unfairness is this: if you aren't allowed to clear your nakeds to help a disguise, why do you get to make the decision to just not write them? I'm all for allowing people time to get their stuff together, but by the time a new character is acquiring disguises we should expect nakeds. At that point it is a strategic choice and not laziness. It strikes me as very strange that you can get a strategic benefit from choosing not to engage with the game's systems at CG.

Also, as a practical question, it makes it hard for staff to intervene. If it's against the rules to clear nakeds but not to never set them, how does staff handle an XHELP of "This person doesn't have nakeds set on their disguise?"

Staff don't police disguise and identification at all, unless someone is abusing mechanics. In practically any situation, if any naked is showing when a character is wearing a hoodie it will be their hands. If they have some identifying mark there it would be questionable to avoid displaying that, but has this actually ever happened?

There are easier ways to manipulate disguises to better outcomes, it's hard to imagine anyone going to the length of forever forgoing some @naked to get some tiny edge with one piece of equipment in a system that is much better when taken advantage of in other ways.

I seriously doubt this is a big enough issue to force all players to start writing totally unnecessary junk @nakeds, which is reactionary and overreach for what amounts to a non-issue. Players mostly just metagame as it is when it comes to descriptions and ID, I really don't see any pressing need for further fuel for that, especially something so drastic.

Why not make nakeds required? Is it really any more taxing / dissuasive to newer players than a required history?

Or staff can just be stricter about them in those situations. If someone is clearing them while disguised, and that someone is obviously not a new player who just hasn't set nakeds, it's a very easy distinction to understand them saying 'but there's no rule saying I have to have nakeds set' is being said in bad faith, and they're being meta shitbirds, which is breaking the rules.

I suppose over time this -could- become a situation where no one ever sets nakeds to just avoid being accused ot clearing them, but people doing that will probably just get weeded out over time, for being meta shitbirds.

Clearing @nakeds for a disguise is not gonna be kosher with anyone I'm sure, but I'm not writing 21 @nakeds and turning a description into a unreadable junk heap just because someone could in theory could save a tiny amount of chyen by forgoing gloves with a hoodie. I write those that are necessary and useful for describing a character.

If someone wasn't writing any @nakeds that would be one thing, but @describe is already mandatory and I don't see the need for something so incredibly drastic when full body disguises are the default anyway. I've never seen this happen at all that I can recall.

I've seen people in hoods with no nakeds showing several times recently. I've also seen a lot of people with no head nakeds at all, which makes it very difficult to identify someone.

We are no longer allowed to identify people based on their name, and so nakeds are one of our only tools to identify people.

Like I don't disagree that would be abuse of disguise, but this seems like a completely drastic enforcement for something that seems more like a potential area for abuse rather than one that is actually happening with enough frequency to address so broad-brush.
I've also seen a lot of people with no head nakeds at all, which makes it very difficult to identify someone.

As asinine as this is, can we at least recognize that it has next-to-nothing to do with disguise?

A whole 'nother thread seems called for on this subject. Oh wait -

That disguise isn't policed anymore like it used to be is in no way supposed to be a message for players to OOCly abuse a system for IC benefit (or detriment for that matter). Staff (Munch specifically, if I recall - please correct me if I'm wrong) have made a point to say players -must- change their nakeds to match their appearance. I.E If you hate re-writing your nakeds to appear feminine/masculine when changing sex for disguise then -don't- disguise yourself as the opposite sex. If you hate changing any part of your nakeds because it's OOCly tedious, only use the adjectives/pro-nouns that match your present @nakeds. That was my interpretation of staff wishes, in any case.

As far as erasing certain nakeds entirely when disguising? I can't imagine any reason for doing that other than gaming the system. Be it that a player finds it too tedious to write a new one or for any other reason, it's a detriment to the individuals who -could- use that data ICly, and to the spirit of cooperative competition as a whole.

"That disguise isn't policed anymore like it used to be is in no way supposed to be a message for players to OOCly abuse a system for IC benefit (or detriment for that matter)."

This isn't the thread to broach this but I really have to say that I really think the messaging (and reception) of this change is exactly the opposite.

Staff saying complaints of disguise meta / abuse in most cases won't be investigated = meta shitbird DREAM.

Why not just make it a requirement that to wear a disguise item, you need X certain nakeds written?

For example:

- face

- At least 1 of left/right hand

- At least 1 of left/right thigh/shin

- At least 1 of left/right foot

Setting aside the fact there are many different types of disguises and none of them interact with @nakeds in the same way -- because there's no issue for that solution to solve.

Put it this way, I am a player who doesn't write @nakeds unless there is something pertinent to my character to describe in that location. I don't wear hoodies to begin with since they're just flat out inferior compared to the alternatives, but let's say I did and there was newly implemented restriction that I had to set all @nakeds to wear one -- what am I going to do?

I'm going to write some to wear that item, and then discard them when I'm done because I don't want a bunch of junk nakeds clogging my character's description. So now anyone who has seen my hand @nakeds while my character is walking around without gloves for whatever reason, has meta information that provides exactly zero context clues to identifying my character.

The actual actionable clues to my character's identity (build, clothing, voice, et cetera) were always there to begin with, the restrictions which only handled one item and one very narrow use case, contributed nothing to my character being identified.

Players are required to be appropriate and not exploitative with their disguises. That requirement is enough and anything beyond that are solutions in search of problems in my opinion.

I am a player who doesn't write @nakeds unless there is something pertinent to my character to describe in that location.

What isn't pertinent about it? And don't you think by saying that there's nothing pertinent there, that that's pertinent to identifying your character? I feel like you're making an assumption that no @naked = nothing pertinent there, when it would be more accurate to say no @naked = immy/newbie.

If you're purposefully using no naked to signify nothing pertinent without the intent to metagame, then when disguising up, I think it's fair to write something about exposed parts, even if it is, "There is nothing pertinent about %p thighs."

Unless you're attempting to disguise as an immy/newbie?

Sorry, I missed this part:

I don't wear hoodies to begin with since they're just flat out inferior compared to the alternatives, but let's say I did and there was newly implemented restriction that I had to set all @nakeds to wear one -- what am I going to do?

I'm going to write some to wear that item, and then discard them when I'm done because I don't want a bunch of junk nakeds clogging my character's description.

Yes, that sounds fair.

I thought having a basic set of nakeds was actually a character requirement?

How are you going to just not have hand nakeds? Are your hands average and ordinary? Okay, then describe them that way. Don't just leave major body parts, especially the most visible ones, such as hands, arms, face, hair, etc. blank.

On the flip side. We're supposed to change our nakeds to match our presented gender when using APPEAR. So I can see where there's suddenly confusion about this, because you can't very well change the bone structure of your hands, or an adam's apple, or the width of your shoulders easily. Some of these things you can handwave off as prosthetics, but again, there's not really a coded gameplay mechanic here.

It's one of those things where players are expected to self-moderate, but some are going to completely ignore/abuse it as much as possible until they start getting yellow texted. If you see a problem where someone walks into a dead end room like a bathroom with @nakeds, then walks out a moment later with a hood and no @nakeds, that's probably a situation you should XHELP.

I'm not going to die on this hill because the whole thing is a non-issue in my opinion, since anyone would just wear gloves anyway with a hoodie, and ninety percent of the time characters will wear a poncho and completely sidestep any possible relevance of their descriptions entirely...

...but if you the player reads 'there is nothing pertinent about %p thighs' on a character description, and identifies that character based on that prose, you're metagaming anyway. Characters don't have some quasi-omniscient perception of the fabric of reality.

This doesn't get policed anymore so it's a moot point, but let's be clear about what's happening there. This to me sounds more like asking for required tells characters should not be able to use anyway most of the time.

Two things.

1. Requiring modified descriptions for disguises.

In my case, all I did was replace "he / him / his" with the appropriate pronouns (help pronouns) so that when my character switches to an opposite or non-gendered APPEAR, the description aligns with it. That is the extent of what staff expected of me / my character.

My opinion here is that people are going way off the reservation with the direction to "change your description" to completely re-work their @nakeds in a meta and gamey way. (see my previous posts about physique being physique). Again, this is my opinion. HELP DISGUISE mentions the following for CREATING disguises (please notice the LACK of @nakeds)

Players who wish to effectively utilize disguising material should be changing their @shortdesc, clothing, @voice and @Look_place, using @holdback, updating their @describe, and using the 'appear' command.


Characters have disguises, stealth, appearance, @describe, @holdback, @voice, clothing, weapons, pose, and emote that can all be used together to craft a 'different' appearance.

HELP DISGUISE mentions the following about assuming / recognizing someone who is / was disguised

Again, if a player chooses to ignore these and make assumptions about who your character is, through a disguise, a disguised name, an appearance change, their voice, their description, their nakeds, their clothing, their attitude, the slang they use, the actions they take, the actions they fail to take, or anything else, that it fair game.

In case this is not clear, based on the help file it is implied that it is okay to use @nakeds to recognize someone. There is no mention of it being okay to change @nakeds as part of a disguise. It is intentionally (?) omitted from the long list of character elements that players should consider changing when adopting a disguise.

2. Essential nakeds (hands, face, etc)

These are things that everyone should have. HELP DISGUISE explicitly says...


You should strive to not only disguise yourself from the other character, but also the other player! If they can't OOCly guess who you are via meta cues such as recognizing your characters clothing, you have won half the battle.

That includes things like prose, word choice, etc. Not describing (hands, face, etc), even as simply as "Jane has hands." is gaming the system and giving characters an unfair advantage.

Statements like "A character would just wear gloves anyway." is dodging the issue. What if gloves aren't available? What if a character just got mugged and lost them? What if a character "didn't have a hand issue" because they "always" wear a shroud, but then they lose their shroud?

We are all smart people here. We can come up with a million different ways to justify to ourselves and others why "we" are special snowflakes and shouldn't have to conform to convention. Let's be honest though. Not conforming to convention, not having a basic set of "visible" descriptors like hands, face, etc. is creating an unfair advantage.

FWIW - I don't like having to describe ears. None the less, my character has ears so I gave them an ear description. It's not eight sentences about the sweeping curve of their cartilage and the perfect shape of their unpierced lobe, but it's enough to be a potential data point to identify them by.

I think we can all agree to adopt some basic nakeds OOCly, or we can start getting ridiculous ICly.

"Oh my God! That mona has no hands. Mona, where are your hands?!?!"

"Joe Baka has no Feet! No Feet! How does he even walk with No Feet?!?!? We call him Joe No Feet. He just stuffs DuWear boots full of newspaper and pulls them onto his stumps."

That's what I'm going to start doing to people who don't put their hair and eye color and build in their @describe or @nakeds anywhere.

Isn't "build" in the short desc (lithe, chunky, gangly, etc)?

Or do you mean something else by build?

Build isn't in short desc if you have certain levels of appearance or other factors overriding it. That's something I think brought up in previous threads though.
Exactly. Same as hair and eyes - they can appear in shortdesc but that fordamnsure isn't reliable.
I agree with build. But I specifically put eyes and hair in nakeds as they aren't always something you can tell.

For me the description should be things you can reasonably tell in most circumstances. height, build. Maybe complexion. Maybe how they move. I prefer Descriptions to not overshare but a the same time hit all the key points.

The rest I save for nakeds and while I do not feel every naked needs to be filled (just because I don't have a neck naked doesn't mean my head floats above my shoulders) I do think that some key nakeds are important for all characters (PC and NPC).

And while some PCs are offenders, it's really the NPCs that need to get their act together. :P

Is there a reason why the tokens do not have pants, gloves and footwear?

Giving them those items would go a long way towards removing the obvious tells that they are NPCs.

I agree with @Grey0 that not all nakeds are necessary.

I think that we should all strive to describe any naked that is visible when a disguise is worn, or could be visible if a disguise item slips.