Descriptions in AR

I was hoping to get some consistency in regard to what is acceptable and not acceptable for descriptions. Our current help file for descriptions indicates:

Your description should not describe detailed clothing. Describing dark
leather armor with glowing sigils, when you're wearing red dragon armor
would be out of place. If you were to say "His armor has been let out
a bit at the waist to accomodate his girth" This would accentuate the
fact the character is overweight, without telling you how it actually looks.
Small personal effects, such as trinkets and jewelry, are permitted in a
limited quantity.

Your description should contain no actions of any sort (e.g. Davairus
says hello when you look at him) and it should not tell the reader how
they feel or what they think. It should not describe your personality
or your history. These should be left to your interactions with the
other players inside the game world.

I adhere to these description rules and have been called out when I have not and been asked to make changes. That being said, I see SO many descriptions saying I hear something or see something or feel a certain way when a person comes into the room. As a player for immersion, I find that distracting that every time I look at someone I hear a boom or smell something.

Could we make description evaluation consistent based upon the rules in help description or take out the need for a description to be evaluated, since the evaluation is subjective, not based upon rules as written.

I made a point about this a while ago as well and I totally agree. I find it a very overt intrusion of my immersion when someone tells me how I'm feeling or where I'm looking. There's some leeway there (smell and sound don't require you to specifically focus on them in order to pick them up). But for the sake of RP, PLEASE stop telling me how I feel or where I'm looking in your description. Is there a description-stickler among the Imms or in the Consortium bold enough to thwart these reckless immersion breakers?

One other thing to keep in mind about descriptions - you look the same regardless of whether you are standing/in combat/sleeping/etc. so including actions is a bad idea. Also, having them meet the viewer's gaze makes no sense when they are asleep or the viewer is concealed (invisible etc.) in a way that the character cannot see.

We've had somewhat notable characters who did not meet the standards properly - there was a duergar druid who tagged along with Eurayel in the distant past whose description included metallic equipment and it was obvious that not enough thought was put into the character's description.

ChatGPT is writing a lot of descriptions/backgrounds.

I consistently make people remove actions and anything that involves someone else's thoughts or feelings. If you see someone's desc that breaks those rules and it's bothering you, report them. At the very least it might get some oversight on who's approving descs with illegal stuff in it. Just be sure you are reading the other files referenced in help desc ie desc2 etc.

I am a mixed bag on this. I agree wholeheartedly with actions not being allowed. But if you go too far into the "Immersion"....one could never even add eye color (what if I look at you when you are asleep, oh man.....my immersion!?!?!?). Oh man, I looked at his ghost, and it said his clothes and armor were well kempt......my immersion!?!?!?) Not disagreeing at all that it has seem to have gotten subjective, and some descriptions that I think have many RULE breaks in them get approved. There was an elevated description not too awful long ago that broke a description rule. Would be nice to see it more uniform.

I hear you guys complaining about people's descriptions being against the description room/helpfile "guidelines". However, it kinda sounds like its coming from a position of grievance rather than actually giving much of a fuck about this. i.e. I had to fix my desc to remove my deerstalker hat, so Bob the warrior needs to.

Some descs break every guideline on *very* high profile characters and nobody ever said a thing about it.

Case in point, this one:
https://abandonedrealms.com/players/display.php?name=taurth

As you gaze into this stone's eyes he gives you a feeling of balance and 

courage. He seems to wear a pair of topaz black earrings on his ears, they 

start humming as he slants toward you. His brushy eyebrows curve around his 

head like a falcon striking from the air. He wears a circlet upon his head, 

covered with skulls and bones, giving him his power. His shoulders are 

weighed down be the spiked black plates he wears upon them. On his left arm 

you see a mark, a mark of the Fury Fists. Coiled around his right arm is an 

emerald dragon, reaching up to his neck to become a sturdy shield. Upon his 

chest you see a steel spiked chain mail, engraved upon it is a cobra resting 

on a muscular arm. He wears yet more steel spiked leg plates gleaming with 

energy, and protecting him from weak magics. On his right cap you see a 

small birthmark, a mark of what seems like a rattlesnake on top of a fallen 

warrior. He wears steel boots with wings upon his feet, to travel great 

distances beyond the realms. Even though he seems tired and wounded, he 

will take up any and all challenges faced upon him. You sense no magical 

enhancements on his body, he seems to have rid himself of any and all magic. 

His veins pop once again as madness surrounds him unleashing his ultimate 

strength.

You can see the first line alone literally is "he gives you a feeling of balance and courage." and it goes on to describe a load of badass gear. The description obviously looks like a decked out berserker.

Even though the desc breaks the guidelines quite overtly, I think on reading it that I can tell the player actually enjoyed writing the desc and likely also felt it something to be proud of, and it is not riddled with mistakes or typos. We all know if you were looking at Taurth that all you were going to see is a wall of titanium badassery underneath that desc, the same old badass titanium he had on his previous 50 identically titanium'd out characters, and he's used the desc as opportunity to make up for lack of customization in the gear. Intuitively it does not seem totally wrong to do that, just taking things at face value here, and it looks like an NPC that would fit in the world of AR. But he couldve absolutely been asked to rewrite that.

Not to pick on him specifically but for examples sake.

We typically crack down on people who have done a really bad job (including no desc). I do read loads of really bad descs, and it becomes a blur after a while and I'm just screening based on whether I felt like it was totally abysmal or obviously OOC. But I have also showed plenty of these descriptions that I thought were good to people who I know enjoy reading books, and what I'd generally hear is they are awful to read, bad grammar, typos, etc.. it sounded like even the best ones are still not adding any appeal to the game at all.

I'll also say this. the chatGPT thing is probably a good idea for most of us, in fact might equally be a good tool for us to use to help analyze whether descriptions fit the guidelines.

I just used chatGPT to generate a stone giant berserker desc (I literally pasted it the desc guidelines and said give me a desc) and it gave me this in like 2 seconds.

With massive stone fists clenched around a colossal maul, the giant emerges, its form as ancient and weathered as forgotten ruins.

An imposing figure, its broad shoulders dwarf even the tallest trees, its legs like ancient pillars of stone.

Radiant amber eyes, burning like molten gold deep within its cavernous sockets, pierce the darkness with an otherworldly intensity.

Moss clings stubbornly to the rough surface of its head and shoulders, swaying gently in the faintest breeze.

A constant tremor vibrates through the earth, a silent echo of the berserker rage that simmers beneath its stony exterior.

Scarred and weathered, a jagged fissure runs across its brow, a testament to countless battles fought and won.

Tucked beneath a thick leather hide, a single, polished obsidian shard rests proudly, a silent trophy of past victories.

Even in repose, the giant exudes an aura of raw power, a force of nature barely contained.

Radiating with an otherworldly presence, the stone giant berserker stands as an imposing sentinel, a force to be reckoned with.

imagine you just read that after a million trash desc and are trying to decide whether that is worth gold or not... (also incase you missed it, look at the first letter of every line)

I think maybe the point is, we have description rules, we have people who approve descriptions not taking those rules into consideration. Either get the people who approve on the same page or get rid of/modify the help description. This way you don't have some people who just hit the approve button and others having a 10 minute discussion about placement of punctuation.

Please provide specific examples.

From the rules:
Your description should contain no actions of any sort (e.g. Davairus
says hello when you look at him) and it should not tell the reader how
they feel or what they think. It should not describe your personality
or your history. These should be left to your interactions with the
other players inside the game world.

Descriptions that are in the GY or have been distinguished:
"Looking about this place, you can't help but notice the little gnome
standing before you."
"Breaking your eye contact, you look over the rest of his face."
"A tension fills the air around her of magic ready to be bent to her whim. It causes her blond hair to wave constantly as if caught in a wind. "
"Several more warts have nestled themselves on either side of
her nose, one in particular appearing ready to pop. Your attention is then
drawn to a small pustule just below her left cheekbone, perhaps a wart that
did pop, as it secretes something vile."
"The only challenge to the elf's beauty is a series of brands that begin near
her left temple and trail down her jawline. They correspond to celestial
landmarks in the Serin skyline. The faint glimmer that pulses behind them
suggests a motion that should be impossible."
"You espy that she is in fact a female of the race, uncommonly seen in these realms. "
"The disparity of the colours of this females features are the first thing
you notice about her."
"You notice a tattoo of red and black on her left hand showing to be an eye
surrounded by a ring of fire. "

Why do I notice these things, why are they the first things I notice and therefore everyone notices, why does my character know that your hair blows in a constellation, breaking my eye contact - i wasnt making eye contact...etc.

I get your point, and I feel like I am turning into a bit of a desc nazi myself. This is because, I was careless at the beginning and if I thought it was cool I commended it, without regard to the rules, and Vanisse and Vevier set me straight. Now, I am much more conscientious of it and tend to probably go a little overboard on what's allowed and not allowed.

Heck, I remember my first interaction as an imm. Do you know what it involved? It involved the person I was talking to asking why it was ok for me to do it if they couldn't do it, causing me to rewrite my desc at the same time they did. I am much more considerate about my descs after that experience.

I understand why the rules are what they are but I am also of the mindset that we're playing a text game and some suspension of disbelief should be expected. Descriptions with that sort of language and detail often add depth and flavor. It allows the player to describe the character more vividly and enriches your perception of the character. It's a slippery slope though and there should be a line between acceptable and unacceptable, even if it's blurred. All that to say I am fine with it being slightly subjective and at the discretion of Immortals.

Cool so we have actual examples to dig into now.

There are a couple in that list there that seem a bit of a stretch to have in the desc, e.g. "looking around you notice a gnome", "looking over blah's face you blah blah", and the breaking eye contact thing . I actually recognized that desc, it is Wylsin

https://abandonedrealms.com/players/display.php?name=Wylsin

Here is the full thing:

Looking about this place, you can't help but notice the little gnome

standing before you.  He has one bright green eye that seems to seek yours

out.  Where the other eye should be there is simply smooth skin.  

 

Breaking your eye contact, you look over the rest of his face.  A short, 

almost button-like nose sits right in the center.  His lips have a slight

orange-ish hue to them, and when he talks his teeth are dazzlingly white.  He

has curly red hair, and when he turns his head it seems to shimmer as

though a great heat were emanating from him.

this mort was considered a very high RP character and in close contact with Vevier and the rest of the consortium contingent, frankly, the kind of character who would be looked toward for what is a perfectly fine desc, and part of the RP "elite".

Obviously, I can recognize those are putting repetitive actions into the descs that the viewer has to perform every time they look at the character. I don't see where that is really being covered by the guidelines we have in place here, though perhaps it could have been. At least it is not gold trimmed.

The warty one is kind of a gross out, it probably did not need that much detail, but a writer is trying to evoke an emotion and it seems to do it. Other than being arguably too vile (which for AR's theme, leans toward horror, so therefore probably isnt true), it could be criticized because it tells you that you are examining a wart which you probably wouldnt be doing. There was a new command added in the last patch "extend" which could be used to add extra detail onto a wart, and that would solve that issue in short order.

https://abandonedrealms.com/help/search.php?search=extend

But there seems literally nothing wrong with this - "You notice a tattoo of red and black on her left hand showing to be an eye surrounded by a ring of fire.". .... we dont have any objections in the guidelines to having small tattoos. I wouldnt even bother to add an extension for that. It falls under small cosmetics like trinkets and tiny pieces of jewelry.


That's why I said bring specific examples.

its easy to say guidelines arent enforced but its not realistic to expect imms to read thousands of half-assed shitty descs and not end up unconscious on auto-pilot eventually. Also, you can have the threat of being punished for breaking guidelines, but that'll only motivate a guy to do just enough to not get slain. I would argue that doing this well is in fact very much cultural.. meaning veterans need to lead. its very strongly a community culture thing where peer pressure plays a biggest part in how good the descriptions are.

We can probably leverage the AI in the next month or two to get better screening processes in place for the ones we want to give gold to.

"why so serious?", but really, why so serious?

For me, I would very much prefer to read a description that is rich in describing the character's features (with flair), just as if I am reading a paragraph from a good fantasy novel introducing a new character for the first time, than to read some monotoned and boring description which I will probably just stop reading halfway.
Honestly, when I am examining the armor that a character wears, I am normally just counting in my head how much hit/dam or hp/saves this guy has. Personally, I want to see within the description itself words that describe to me how magnificent the armor (light bouncing off the armor and piercing my eyes or whatnot) looks, because the bloody titanium fullplate that I see him wearing is simply just a 'titanium fullplate'.

Umm.... so anyway. I attempted gemini desc screening tonight and results were thoroughly terrible (they are both wildly inaccurate and the API takes way too long to respond) which means we are definitely stuck with this situation for a while.

Looking about this place, you can't help but notice the little gnome standing before you.  He has one bright green eye that seems to seek yours out.  Where the other eye should be there is simply smooth skin.  Breaking your eye contact, you look over the rest of his face.  A short, almost button-like nose sits right in the center.  His lips have a slight orange-ish hue to them, and when he talks his teeth are dazzlingly white.  He has curly red hair, and when he turns his head it seems to shimmer as though a great heat were emanating from him.

task assigned is

State which guidelines this description breaks.







response from gemini is:...



It breaks guideline 3 because it mentions the character has curly red hair.  This is a detailed aspect of clothing.



It also breaks guideline 4 because it mentions that the character's hair shimmers.  This is an action."

absolutely atrocious.

On reflection of this thread, I also think the approach of criticizing the Imms for making mistakes is completely out of order for several reasons.

1) considering they are all volunteering free time to do this. Imms don't even write those descs. give them a break.

2) I think only reason you are complaining about these descs right now is because I recently made a way to make it way way easier for imms to find and approve the desc in a timely manner. which unleashed a MASSIVE backlog on the imms. if we were only reading 1-2 new desc a week it would be understandable to criticize that. But the reality is we have been drinking from a firehose of late, and the pig needs to pass through the python. that means some descs that arent that badass might have got gilded because they were seen amongst 20+ utter shit ones. that will not last. So just try to be patient and give that a chance to get under control and closer scrutiny. and similarly, if you are writing a desc, dont rush it just because its surge and you have to get something done before level 15 which you powered through in 10 minutes and have a really good group.

For my part, I'll also try to be more specific here. My beef is with two things specifically in a description: telling me where I'm looking and telling me how I feel.

1) telling me where I'm looking - I should have been more specific here earlier. I dont mind a description telling me, "you notice blah blah blah..." because likely, if I'm reading your description, I'm taking the time to notice things about your character. What I mean here is if someone is telling me that I'm looking "up at you", "down at you", watching you "emerge from the shadows", etc. this, in my opinion, is a description that's written with a lack of regard for someone else's RP. There are pretty simple ways to write if someone is tall, short, or stealthy without indicating where or how you have to look to see them.

2) telling me how I feel - this one bothers me far more. Don't tell me that I'm awestruck by you. Don't tell me I'm shaking in terror at the sight of you. Again - you're violating my RP by putting feelings into my character that likely aren't there. You can invoke feelings of awe or fear without putting those words or feelings directly into the observers brain.

I don't mind if someone is invoking actions like laughter, casting spells, etc. in a description - I think this just provides more context and flavor for how someone might observe this character, and as mentioned in this thread, it shows someone clearly had fun writing it. You could say someone "emerging from the shadows" is also an action... but the subtle difference here is that you're telling me that I was looking at the shadows, not your character.

Regarding asking Imms to screen for this, it sounds like that's a huge ask given the number of descriptions that are created in this game. I like the note that this is a cultural things that veterans can push, but other than being a member of the Consortium, how does a veteran enforce this other than leading by example? Are you expecting reports on people? Because I feel that might create more unwanted work for you. Only Consortium members (as mortals) to my knowledge can directly interact with a player to discuss their description. Otherwise people have to be clever about directly referring to a description that they read without breaking RP.

Yes report them. At the least we will have a history built up of what is bothering players about descs, and identify if it is worth treating with a higher priority. We have reporting for rules and we can have reports for descs too. the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

there are only 2 active player descriptions that contain the word "feel", and one of those characters is on life support, so this doesnt seem like actually been a huge problem. Its seems like a big fat nothingburger. So I will say it again, provide specific examples please. Thanks

Dav, I think you are getting a little triggered. It is not as though the OP said IMMS Suck, AR sucks, wah! It seemed to me as a justified question. Can we get rid of desc approvals, or can we make sure all the people who are approving do so on an even keel. I don't think this was intended as a criticism.

Thank you @kornhole. You summed ALL of that nicely.

I don't know if Dav is getting triggered as much as he is coming to the forums with a mission: identify the problem and produce a solution.

To be clear, this isn't something that's rampant and out of hand (apologies for my early jest... sarcasm can be hard to convey through a forum post). It's something that occasionally crops up that makes me wince and breaks my immersion. It's a minor problem, but a problem nonetheless.

I'm completely satisfied with calling on (veteran) players to report when they see these things in descriptions. No action needed from the Imms, just a call to players to report it when they see it.

So as far as I know, everybody who is currently approving descriptions is already doing so on an even keel. I have seen no recent evidence otherwise, and we definitely arent going to stop desc checking.

As is often the case when disagreements like these unfold on the forums, I am of the firm opinion that you are ALL wrong. :lol:

While I think immersion is essential to effective role-playing environments, some suspension of disbelief is required to engage fully with the game and its premises. I think Mogu has the right of it here.

I also understand that the volunteer immortal staff have disparate tastes and may therefore fail to enforce description rules uniformly: this is not malice but rather subjectivity.

@Stiehl26, I did not find your list of examples especially compelling and do not think most rise to the level of offense you've ascribed to them (in addition to Wylsin's description, you also excerpted Ilromie's. I'll note here that, while both of these characters were RP juggernauts in the AR landscape, neither of their descriptions was commended).

Ultimately, I much prefer to read something interesting and engaging rather than a rote inventory of physical characteristics that (apparently) I should only be able to observe when the character is sleeping.

Where I do sometimes take issue with description policing, however, is when descriptions with egregious (and to my mind obvious) errors are elevated. I will share a recent example below and hope this is not construed as an attack on the character/player:

When Fawneria's description was first commended, it was riddled with errors (typographical errors, repeating sentences, etc.); it even referred to the character by the wrong name near the end of the description ("Seraphina's presence. . ."). It seemed obvious to me that it had been composed by an AI engine or "borrowed" from somewhere else.

Since then, it appears that a staff member has assisted Fawneria in fixing (most of) the errors in that description before commending it anew (it still contains one sentence fragment and the typo "allurepiercing").

I mention this because I do think it illustrates the dilution or changing of standards.

says everybody is wrong. says mogu is correct in next breath.... I love to read it! That's such good shit haha

Seems like this horse is pretty thoroughly beat but I can't help myself...

1) respect the effort
2) obey the rule of cool

#1 goes for the person writing it and the IMMs reviewing it. They put in way more time on this topic than you did reading it. If it's clear the effort is there, Make like Elsa and let it go.

#2 "they are more guidelines than real actual rules persay". The investing feelings thing is the biggest sticking point. Other than that... If it's cool it should be fine. Nothing turns a fun read into a trash read faster than getting five to change something you spent 30 minutes writing and really liked. That can make players phone it in across many characters. I want to throw props to Dogran on this. When I first came back he was a real stickler. This happened to me and others I know and I trashed it up for a bit. He dialed it back, started giving more leeway for what the player clearly wanted to do while asking for adjustments to egregious breaks, and I instantly felt my investment rise. People don't change that easily so I want to shout him out for it, especially if people are pushing against him when is adaptation was a response to what I know a decent portion of the player base wanted.

Fawneria

In the enchanted glades, behold the female evil pixie, Fawneria.  Her

lithe figure adorned with a gown spun from midnight's essence, glistening

with hues of violet and ebony.  Tresses of onyx cascade down her slender

frame, entwined with sparkling shards of amethyst, framing a face of

haunting beauty.  Yet, her visage bears an eerie allurepiercing sapphire

eyes ablaze with an unsettling glint of mischief.  Delicate, translucent

wings, tinged with a faint iridescence, flutter behind her, exuding an

enchanting yet foreboding aura.  Every movement is a ballet of deception, as

her dainty fingers, adorned with shimmering rings, wield enchantments veiled

in malevolence.  Despite her diminutive form, Fawneria's presence commands

attention, a wicked elegance that beguiles and intimidates all who dare

gaze.  

Critical response from voidwitch

it still contains one sentence fragment and the typo "allurepiercing"

Critical response from our desc AI
(which has only been live a couple days)

1) The description uses flowery language and exaggeration, such as "behold the female evil pixie" and "twinkling shards of amethyst."
2) The description includes actions, such as "wield enchantments veiled in malevolence" and "every movement is a ballet of deception."
3) The description describes how clothing actually looks, such as "adorned with a gown spun from midnight's essence, glistening with hues of violet and ebony."
4) The description includes opinions, such as "an eerie allurepiercing sapphire eyes ablaze with an unsettling glint of mischief.""

I think going forward we will be more than good here.

I get the personal beef when people put in a lot of effort to churn out an amazing description and don't get recognized then the five line cookie-cutter, copy paste, or chat gpt desc gets gilded. I feel that pain in my soul. But at the end of the day its like anything else. Humans will do the best they can with it.

Well, generative AI is part of the world now, probably forever. from my recent experimentation with it, I find it is a very good tool to generate text that follows an example with some rules, and that isn't surprising. The fact it is producing content that some human's think is worth praise should really be expected, considering we have had the best minds in the world paid millions of dollars to make it do just that. However, I find it performs INCREDIBLY poorly at analyzing human-written text to see if it follows those rules, and obviously cannot replace humans at all for that task. It gives us some instant feedback and looks like its catching very obvious noob mistakes, but it gets easily confused and reports complete nonsense as well. I instructed the desc AI to also tell us if the desc looks generated by AI. It doesn't give a very accurate reading. It is what it is.

Are you guys trying to catch and prevent players from using AI to generate description? I don't see an issue with using AI.

I don't think anyone is trying to catch people using AI, per se, but rather the people who write descriptions that follows the rules written about how descriptions should be. They shouldn't tell me how I feel, they shouldn't tell me what draws my notice, they shouldn't tell me what impresses me or makes me feel...those are the issues and the people approving them saying those are great and sometimes "gilded" .

Thank you for your efforts in trying to curb this D.

Latest gilded description is 8 lines, and at the end "He moves with a fluid grace, exuding a sense of primal energy that commands fear and respect in equal measure." Not a problem in my eyes, but if my character doesn't give two fucks about physical prowess? One before that begins with "The disparity of the colours of this females features are the first thing you notice about her." One before that "Massive hands hang loosely at her side, near the hilts and handles of a number of weapons hanging around her body which clank quietly together as she moves looking around her whereabouts." One before that "The faint glimmer that pulses behind them suggests a motion that should be impossible." One before that was already discussed as possibly too much but included "...appearance is as grotesque and disturbing as your most vivid night terror." Just saying if one was looking for evidence of not all who can approve descriptions being on an even keel, one would not have to look very far. I am a terrible example, I usually have to write my descriptions from the description room at level 30+. Upon reflection, this has happened due to past experiences with the description "nazis". Being told once I could not include eye color, because "what if you are asleep". Now, in the defense of the person saying that, I deserved a flogging, I think that particular character made level 42 before winding up in the room, so I deserved extra scrutiny, and as many corrections as one could possibly find. I love AR and I love anyone trying to make it better. I have had big problems with certain posts from Stiehl before, but this subject has been an issue of mine for a long time, sometimes I get approved for the 5 lines I "Oh shit, im level 19 already, I better slap something up", and then a masterwork I spent hours preparing before I even put in gets, hey fix this and that, and you can't put that. -Endrant

To paraphrase George Orwell...

All descriptions are created equal, though some descriptions are more equal than others.

That jest aside, the description starts with a figurative blank page or slate and while there are some minimal expectations regarding what you create, it's yours to do as you wish with it. The Immortals still have the right to tell you when they think it needs to be changed... At one point I took a phrase from Hamlet in a character's description and they effectively pointed out I wasn't being specific enough with my definition of size at that point. It was a fair critique and definitely needed to be made.

I mean we can take gilded away if its just going to cause butthurt. Or maybe that becomes a Herald award or something. The point was just to have a way to give positive reinforcement instead of having only trouble rooms and punishments.

I don't think we should take it away, I like the feature, but I think they should be rare. I mean, I think I have only had one or two personally. There are some people who get them on nearly every toon.

Sometimes volume may be confused with quality?

The problem is there is a subjective nature to determining quality. Some things can be agreed upon overall but others will be disagreed upon.

I think that rules listed in help description should be able to alleviate that subjectiveness. I would think that is specifically why they are there.

If anything, maybe a guideline or a point system for elevating a desc. IE possible max points of 5, and must meet 4/5 points to qualify or something. IE a point for length, a point for creativity, a point for adhering to all the rules of posting a desc, a point for not stereotyping idk I am sure we can figure something out.

I'd love to see the critical AI response on some of my descs though. Might make me better. I already have an army of scholars ripping apart my backgrounds, lol.

Please use the insanity command to report descriptions that break immersion because of forcing actions, feelings, judgments, according to the guidelines in "help description". That will more or less guarantee a trip to the desc room for corrections.

Gilded description? Is that the gold outline when your description has been commended?

Do those show up in the recently distinguished descriptions or is that something that you've just been honored for by another player?

I noticed several of my characters have that gold outline and I'm not really sure how that happened.

Immortals can commend descriptions which gives you recognition on the site as well as the light of favor IC.

Ah, thanks for clarifying.

Maybe I'm in the minority here but I love more descriptions getting commended. It's not a competition y'all. It's not a "best in class" award. It's a "Hey that's cool. Hey everybody, read this one its neat". I really don't like scarcity for this. It hate it when the characters board is stale with 5 I have already read. And scarcity just makes people want it more and feel worse when they don't get it and think they deserve it.

If it's pretty cool, commend it. Feels good for them and I'll get to read it on the web page. If you think you deserve it just, ya know, ask. Maybe they haven't seen it or the reviewer didn't have the authority or they'll point a little thing out you can correct or add and then get your flowers.

More is better here.

OK I ran all the top rated killers through the desc AI, I think they are fair game since they have been kicking people's asses, they can probably have a thick skin for criticism of their descriptions.

---

Fawneria:
1) The description tells the reader how others feel: "Her presence commands attention, a wicked elegance that beguiles and intimidates all who dare gaze."

Ractor:
1. **Tells the reader how they feel:** "The look of wild and untamed coupled with the excessively harsh breathing give the impression this bull-man might be a loose-cannon."

Ragnvald:
* It states that the Jotun has "an unwavering resolve" and "an air of stoic determination," which are subjective judgments about the character's emotions and thoughts, rather than concrete descriptions of what someone would see.

Lorendil:
2. **Guideline 2:** It directly describes the character's personality: "eyes...are adorned with an otherworldly glow, reflecting both wisdom and an ageless spirit"."

Afales:
1. **Tells the reader how they feel:** "Tension is apparent within the compact creature before you." This line implies that the reader should feel tension upon looking at the creature.
(I think the last one is a 'miss' but it seems to be describing how Afales feels so nearly got it.)


----


Based on the results I am seeing over and over, the bigger picture there is a *general* bad habit of inserting emotions into descriptions. Its not everybody, but its very common. And that is coming up repeatedly in the thread as an immersion breaker.

When you say top 5 and kryton and zyron isn't in the list... it isn't a very accurate list of top 5. Just saying.... :D

Kryton:
- 1) The description tells the reader how the character feels (e.g. 'it is easy to overlook the fact he is completely void of hair') by using the word 'easy'.

Zyron
1. It tells the reader how the character feels ("bearing a brooding disposition") and how they are perceived ("appears to have endured a lifetime of hardship").


Obviously they have to login to get on the rating list.

Also I just want to point out that they are AI generated responses. The machine doesn't have any bias one way or the other. It seems pretty obvious to avoid the phrase "makes you think" in descriptions, when you have guidelines that say don't tell people what to think, but that's exactly what people are doing.. and the AI does catch that.

Just saying that I would prefer to be reading "it is easy to overlook the fact he is completely void of hair", instead of simply "he is completely void of hair". The latter is just too boring.

Ivindel, f you re-read the thread, you can see that the most annoying pet peeve is "do not tell anyone how to feel or what to think".. it breaks their immersion. By now everybodys made themselves clear that is a real turnoff. So I'd suggest take boring over commiting that faux pas. Show, don't tell. Also, there is another guideline that pretty much says don't be boring anyway. (Write in as much detail as possible).

There is an easy way to check this requirement. You simply imagine there is a camera in the room , and ask the question, can the camera see it?

So here is that exercise with Krytons desc:

A very large giant is here. His presence is known in many regards, one
being the shadow he casts that covers more ground that most creatures you've
seen, and can easily shade you from the sun if so desired. A unique feature
is his skin. It is multi in colour, burnt orange areas that blends and
melds into charcoal grey patches. Where these colours conjoin and mesh into
together, they form a different hue, completing the the complexion trifecta
on this giant. This feature is most dominant and noticeable since it covers
his face as well. It's hard not to stare. Due to the mesmerizing
pigmentation, it is easy to over look the fact he is completely void of
hair. Not one follicle is seen. At this point, it's more of a side note
that he looks of great, intense strength. Every muscle in sight is
extraordinarily large with veins pulsating, stretching the flesh to the
brink of ripping open, trying to contain the power within.


---


A very large giant is here. -- can the camera see it? yes

His presence is known in many regards, one being the shadow he casts that covers more ground that most creatures you've seen,
-- can the camera see it? no, this is telling your OWN personal history of what you've seen, and besides that, might be in a small chamber with no space or cave with no light, so it reads like a complete bullshit sentence. Its laughably silly.

and can easily shade you from the sun if so desired.
-- can the camera see it? no, and think about it.. you might be a fire giant too. this is a textbook example of over-exaggerating features without considering different viewers.

A unique feature is his skin. It is multi in colour, burnt orange areas that blends and melds into charcoal grey patches. Where these colours conjoin and mesh into together, they form a different hue, completing the the complexion trifecta on this giant. This feature is most dominant and noticeable since it covers his face as well.
-- can the camera see it? yes. these seem like pretty good (original, nice verbage) lines of description, and we hope for a meaningful relationship to the character's background or personality.

It's hard not to stare.
-- can the camera see that? in fact absolutely no, how could a camera see these feelings of having to gawk at stuff?

Due to the mesmerizing pigmentation, it is easy to over look the fact he is <insert physical characteristic>.
-- can the camera see it? again no, the camera is not being mesmerized, and probably neither is your character, as you are looking at a fire giant not an illithid. this looks completely out of place on a fire giant and is very questionable on anything else.

completely void of hair. Not one follicle is seen.
-- can the camera see it? yes.

At this point, it's more of a side note that he looks of great, intense strength.
-- can the camera see it? no.. the camera does not make "side notes", this is a good example of telling, not showing.

Every muscle in sight is extraordinarily large with veins pulsating, stretching the flesh to the brink of ripping open,
-- can the camera see it? yes

trying to contain the power within.
-- can the camera see it? no, but that's a cool line to end on, so that one could be let go in the interest of "rule of cool". You probably dont want to commit this mistake at all in the first five lines of your desc though, as that is going to make people stop reading.

There are ways to rewrite all that stuff into a "before the camera's lens" perspective, as well the whole thing should be reigned in a bit so the character isnt the size of a volcano, which considering the profile of this character seems honestly just super duper cringe.

--

Try this exercise with your own descriptions and amaze yourself as you easily write a much better description -- P.S. I have added this info to "help description2" for you guys to find later incase you lose it.

I really feel like we are saving the nose to spite the face here. Can we do a poll or something to make sure this isn't a vocal minority?

Maybe people should just relax on the "immersion" topic? Imagine if you tried to apply this room descriptions. That altar isn't foreboding! Don't tell me how to feel! Don't tell me I notice that statue! I'm speed running through an area I've been through 1000 times I didn't look over there!

Those descriptions are largely fine. Do we really want to force wordsmithing here? There is a difference between the sentences "has intimidating tattoos" and "you are intimidating by his tattoos". Jumping their hoops to say the same thing doesn't sound better to me.

Also, muds are a striped down world. We know Seringale is full of people that aren't in game as NPCs. Are we sure we don't want a character like Kryton to to say something about townsfolk parting to make way for him? There aren't many places in game to add that kind of style.

Maybe at very least we could we keep some greater freedom for those who want it and it just disqualifies you from getting commended rather than a trip to the description room? I'm telling you, going to that room after putting in effort and not getting to deliver your mental image of your character is a far worse player experience than what is felt the one time other players maybe actually read your description.

I agree with Scrynor that this debate, while well-intentioned, may have the unfortunate and inadvertent consequence of flattening player creativity.

As he also pointed out, the MUD itself does not pass this stress test, so the entire game would need to be re-evaluated to ensure it doesn't break someone's immersion.

e.g.: A member of the clan known as Talamaur is here.
A member of a long forgotten clan of vampires, the Talamaur, this being
stares at you intently. Never forcing himself on others, he awaits your
decision on whether or not to attack. With an evil grin he lets you
know that he can read your every thought.

e.g.: There is a beautiful girl here dancing about the room.
This is one of the most beautiful creatures you have ever seen. She is dancing around you with not a care in the world. She is wearing a long flowing gown, like she was going to a ball. She is very content just dancing. She is otherwise perfect, except for those strange two holes in her neck.
Bella is in excellent condition.

These are the first two mobs I looked at after logging in, and both would be considered immersion-breaking based on the above thread.

I think we should encourage players to write interesting and engaging descriptions. Intervention should be required to address grammatical, spelling, and typopgrahical errors.

it isn't a good faith argument to introduce mobs and room descs into the conversation and then use that to strawman argument that the guidelines should not be followed for players since the same guidelines are not followed for mobs. We expect a higher standard from the player desc.

This thread has repeated a pet peeve / immersion breaker specifically (telling people what to feel or think), and an effective solution for that has been found and offered. As far as the creativity goes, I am have the opinion that the work will be more engaging for the viewer if you allow them to interpret what they are seeing and make their own conclusions about it. As opposed to snickering or complaining that it sucks on the forums.

I think this conversation is walking a fine-line between splitting hairs and throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I could be wrong in assuming this, but I think the line is pretty clear. There's a difference between saying, "You see a terrifying visage" and "The visage you see terrifies you." One can describe something as beautiful, even 'one of the most beautiful things you've ever seen', without imposing too much on another player's RP autonomy. The difference here is really whether you've described something using an emotion (such as terrifying or beautiful), or whether you're telling the other player that they SPECIFICALLY feel terrified or perceive the creature as beautiful.

Here's an example from a recent description:

"As you gaze to the heavens the sounds of thunderous sonic booms
reverberate through every fiber of your being. Expecting a thunderstorm you
quickly realize you are in the presence of a mountainous giant."

Here, I am being told that I gaze into the heavens. I am being told that I was expecting a thunderstorm. This is the violation I (and I think others) are referring to. Here is how I would rewrite this:

"The sounds of thunderous sonic booms mark the approach of a mountainous giant."

Yes, you wouldn't hear this if they were sleeping. But I think that's a silly line to draw. This shows most of the same creativity as the original description, but now I've removed the imposition on someone else's RP.

If this conversation is truly about breaking immersion, then I strongly disagree that pointing to other aspects of the role-playing environment such as NPC and room descriptions is somehow a strawman argument.

I'm removing myself from continuing debate, however, as I realize that participating in these conversations always leaves me enjoying the game less.

The very first post on the thread draws attention to PLAYER descriptions breaking immersion, so that's the topic we're discussing here. If the discussion uncovers that mansion mob descs also needs a bit of attention, then we should just queue it up and do it. I promise you I don't mind spending the 45 mins that will take. I already did a lot of work on that area. I enjoyed it. If anyone wants to volunteer too, be my guest.

It's not a strawman. It is a legitimate discussion about whether or not the original complaint is worth servicing. It's questioning whether addressing descriptions alone can even meet the original complaint of immersion breaking in this manner.

Because servicing this complaint is not free. If only complaints are heard then this is mine. Description constraints and being forced to change them are actively player hostile. When I first came back enforcement of background guidelines made me question is this was a place I could have fun. If not for people encouraging me to play, going through that room and process would have lost me as a player. Is the original complaint worth risking new player retention?

I don't disagree with what Lion wrote. It is a fine line. I want Ractor to be able to tell me his mannerisms make him seem a loose cannon. I want Afelas to be able to tell me there is always tension in his compact muscles. I want Fawn to be elegant and dangerous (but agree that can't make me scared of her).

To be clear, asking everyone to follow the rules as written shouldn't be considered a complaint.

A complaint would be that people aren't following the rules.

I think this is a game. Some people enjoy writing flowery descriptions some people dont. Everyone enjoys a different aspect of the game. I hate writing description so i only put in that effort when i wish to spend the time and effort on a particular character that gives me inspiration while having 45 trash descriptions. If u guys are going to make so much rules my description is going to be

You see a man. He has 2 eyes 2 ears 1 nose 1 mouth 2 hands 2 legs. Done. Then the immortal can write the desc for me and I'll just paste it in. If it breaks your immersion honestly, i dont really care. You can go gather the 10 literate people and write your 2000 lines description and talk about it among yourself.

So... lets get one thing clear, first. We havent introduced ANY new rule. Like Dogran reminded you already in his first reply, on page 1, he consistently asks people to remove these actions, thoughts and feelings references. There's nothing fresh to debate about that. Its been like that since 1999, and is a settled issue. 25 years have passed and there's at least four people on the thread still saying that this particularly bothers them, which isn't something we can just ignore. The writing is on the wall here and its clear that it isn't really being viewed as somehow more "creative" to include this sort of language in character description.

I can see that it bothers other players too having to follow that description guideline, and that's why I went to the trouble to find a way to make it easier to self-check (camera test). The point is not lost on me that players do get upset about having to change something about the character they planned for, and their default go-to is to give up on the character and not play it. However, having this rule enforced means the immersion takes preference over the number of active connections here. I think that's a good thing personally. If it goes in the other direction, maybe we would get more connections in the long run, but then quality is down and current players are alienated and/or just unhappy about it. From what I have heard this has seemed overwhelmingly a turn-off and therefore change seems unlikely to produce a positive result.

Then as for consistency of its enforcement, per this thread popping into existence, that's an identified area of needed improvement. Our staff may have our own subjective views of descs they rate as "good", and that's something we can have more discussion about (including heralds as curators might be nice), but the basic principles of screening are agreed on and available for everybody to read. Checking descriptions of low level players is a low-level imm task, just like checking names is low-level task. Beyond that, enforcement is and will remain REACTIVE. If you managed to already fly under the radar and get an approved description which shouldn't have been, then so be it, nobody will bother you about it now, as we only check descriptions once, an imms judgement is trusted thereafter. The exception to that is when it turns out a player reported it as something another player is doing that breaks immersion, which is a part of enforcing the game rules (stay in-character). Let me remind you though, its not like we are offering bounty rewards for players to snitch on each other.

The only thing that changed here is I provided a simple way for you guys to check and self-resolve it (making it easier for you also makes it easier for the staff), and leveraged AI's to make up for some of our human short-comings in screening that. The game staff includes people with jobs and kids who don't have that much free time to spend on AR, so it would be nice if we could not burden them with making description checks into a high effort task.

TLDR; Just fix whatever two lines of your desc failed the camera test (only relevant if anyone has actually even noticed). Expect PK'ers to get razzed more about it since they bother people while making themselves ironically easy targets.

Sure same rules since 99', and taken 25 years for somebody to claim it breaks their immersion.

My next desc...

A mass of size is here in the form of a living being. Its size takes up a quantity of space. The color of his skin can be dark, or perhaps grey or blue, depending on lighting and if color blindness is not a factor. Freckles are strewn across his face, noticeable or not depending on time of day and consciousness. His arms span a distance. His legs extend a length. There is nose on his face.

(yeah yeah I'm sure there's some claimed "immersion breakers" in that one too.)



I'm screwed.

There is nose is on his face.


Right there! Immersion breaker. Is that a face on a nose or a nose on a face. What are you trying to describe xenyar!!!

oops little typo there. I purposefully edited it to say "There is nose on his face." I seriously can't stop laughing at it. My old lady thinks I'm crazy...

Hey what's up dude, you have nose on your face. hahahahaha

I was using it to spot which guys are idiots so I haven't brought it up.

Description commendation posted to the front page! Is that new? I like!

Its actually not new, but glad you liked it.

I don't understand why this is so difficult. I challenge each of you to take a look at 2 different people, a man and a woman. Make a note of the first 5 things you notice about them. If you are feeling creative note 7 things. Write a description based on those facts alone. Not what they are doing, or wearing, just details. Start with the color of their eyes, the color of their hair, the shape of their eyes, nose, and lips. Decide if they are fat or muscular, look for scars, or blemishes. It shouldn't take more than 10-15 seconds of looking at someone to determine all those facts if you are looking for them. That is plenty to write a description off of. Then if you want, when you are editing it after, you can take a few minutes to make the desc more visually appealing, while not changing or overly embellishing those features.

A foul odor wafts over from the short stocky woman standing here. Greasy
black hair is pulled back tightly from her heinous face lashed into an
untidy fat braid that falls down her back. Glaring red eyes regard the
world with hatred from above a bulbous nose upon which sits the largest
single wart in existence a single black hair dangling daringly from it. Her
dark sweat-covered skin and soil-stained clothing both look ridiculously
filthy as if both have avoided a proper cleansing for some time. Dangling
above her pendulous freckled cleavage is a shiny golden medallion embossed
with a fist with the middle finger extended. Ironically the medallion
somewhat obscures a tattoo of a moon with a comical smile. She scurries
about frantically on short stubby legs, looking around furtively for
something that must be important to her.

On a beaded bracelet around her wrist is an orange and black striped
tiger's paw.

I saw this woman in my dreams, then lived the reality. The bracelet was a bit much but was something IC after killing a hated rival.

That description is well written. I would of complained internally about your statement of the largest single wart in existence, as that is an opinion, but I would have let that slide with a smile on my face. Then I would have made you change the action in your second to last sentence, otherwise, that is beautifully written. To be clear, I would have made that change happen, and then elevated this desc for creativity. I usually never elevate ones that I make someone change fyi.

how would a camera know that the eyes regarded the world with hatred?

I'm sure you get that look sometimes. Not hard to discern.

Well, @Ashlyn. You trying to imply that I invoke hatred in others? A description of a facial configuration of features, like "scrunched nose and furrowed brows could mean" might be more in line with the rules, while still conveying the idea? Just saying, its not hard to put in whatever emotion you might want to convey, by solely describing physical attributes. Also, yes, I know a look of hatred, and I catch many, FTR. The Fire Giant I RP might just think you have to poop or you ate something not pleasant!?

That example illustrates the way the camera test allows a description to be thoroughly vetted with ease. As a reader, who is more than just a camera, we can see the larger goal of a repulsive character. The middle finger medallion is amazing. However if you look at these two lines together "Glaring red eyes regard the world with hatred" and "looking around furtively for something that must be important to her" that sounds like somebody who is in a mood, looking for something they lost. That probably would go better in the background or as emotes/poses.

Here is a more recent auto-response just so you know what the desc bot is commenting like.

Desc:

Fluttering with great intensity is a set of wings that is keeping this
little demon steady in the air. Atop it's head is two charcoal coloured
horns that extend upward in a crooked disorderly fashion, the tips of the
slightly smoldering.

Analysis:

it contains some unusual and unnatural language ("a set of wings that is keeping this little demon steady in the air", "the tips of the slightly smoldering"). It is possible that it was written by a human who is not a native English speaker.

It's nice that the bot can tell there might be an ESL thing going on and give a little more leeway.

I think a really big part of this entire conversation is just about a core disagreement on the purpose of a description. Dogran is right that it isn't hard to over the rules. Everybody can do that. The issue is many people don't want to. That isn't the story they want to tell. They want to express more and express it more freely as they see fit.

I actually think maybe the new feature already has this covered? What we just split the difference? Main description straight camera test, extended more freedom to do whatever? Then your intense red eyes can be in the main, and if somebody looks closer they can see they are filled with hatred. If everybody agreed on that split then it seems to me we could update the guidelines and be done with this conversation. Everybody could know main is strict appearance and extended is more story mode which might involve citizen reactions or provoked feelings or whatever.

I also think the proposed commended backgrounds could help. I think sometimes people feel they need to mash everything into a description because it's the most likely thing to be actually read. A path for a background to hit the front page might change that.