Otells - Unleashed!

Selveem · Post by **Selveem** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 12:47 am

I know the reason why otells are currently restricted to the amulet of communication, but I think it would be better if they were not. If you think about it, the amulet of communication is for IC reasons to send a cerebral missive to another character.

In order to keep this MUD true to its very accomplished RP policy, I would like to see this restriction removed from otells. It does not make sense for me in an IC manner to suddenly wear an amulet of communication if I am not contacting anyone (ICly - of course I'm talking to them OOCly).

Now that is not to say I think OOC talk should be encouraged! I don't mind a very occasional OOC comment or quick question/answer. Even a friendly hi from an old friend! These shouldn't be interrupted by the OOC wearing of an amulet your character 'isn't really!' wearing.

Good proposal?

Amalia · Post by **Amalia** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 4:55 am

Agreed, if the change wouldn't be too difficult to implement I think it'd be a positive one. Now it's evident when someone is communicating ICly with their amulets, so it's not quite so big a problem (it seemed really ICly rude to pull out an amulet in the middle of a conversation, but since most otells in my experience are requests for some kind of help, it's not too avoidable either). At least with the current system the other player can fudge ignoring the sudden desire to wear one's amulet when you don't actually whisper into it.

Zilvryn · Post by **Zilvryn** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 7:46 am

I seem to remember otells used to be able to be sent without wearing an amulet?

Dalvyn · Post by **Dalvyn** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 8:52 am

+ Yes, it does not make sense that you would need an IC object to use an OOC command.

- If otell were allowed when you don't have an amulet of communication, then I can see scenes such as those:

A tells B: Hey, where are you, Bill?
... silence ...
A tells B: Hey, where are you, Bill?
B otells A: Hi, Adam. I'm in Howling Peaks, but I don't have an amulet of communication.

In other words, it would create the strong temptation to use an otell when you don't have an amulet of communication ... you know, just to let them know that you are not ignoring them and that the only reason why you are not answering is that you don't have an amulet. Oh, darn, I let it slip in my message that I was in Howling Peaks. Won't do it anymore, I swear!

That being said, I'm neither for or against this change. I'm just trying to show both sides of the argument.

Oghma · Post by **Oghma** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 8:55 am

I'm not really for it for the reason above. Though we have no way of thwarting im communication outside the game, we do have a way to keep it minimal inside, and really it is very minimal the control over otells as anyone with an amulet can use it as much as they like for communication.

Amalia · Post by **Amalia** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 4:23 pm

Actually, it's for just that reason that I *would* be for it. People who are inclined to otell someone where to find them are likely the same sort who'd just contact a friend out of game for help. If the have the option to do it in game, they have the chance of being caught.

Honestly, I don't think the "oops" excuse for telling someone where you are OOCly should hold any water. That's just not done by accident-- and if it is, it still gives the other person no excuse to come find you there ICly-- in fact it makes it so they have a sort of obligation not to go there ICly, because their "whims" are now distorted by knowledge of what's in the place they otherwise might or might not go.

In short, I don't think the arguable regulatory power of requiring an amulet for otells is more valuable than the ability to separate IC and OOC communication in that way.

Kregor · Post by **Kregor** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 5:38 pm

My thought on the matter... if you restrict someone from otell in the game with the amulet, then all you're doing is sending the otell to IMer. We're not really restricting the OOC communication in any way, using the above example.

At least if it's kept within the game, the communication is accountable.

Mariela · Post by **Mariela** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 1:16 am

Do people really ask where other people's characters are at oocly that often? I mean, really, it's just as simple to tell someone and just ask ICly.......

Which is why we have the amulets... and we wouldn't need them for the ooc communication....

And to be honest, if people want to discuss where their character are with their friends... worse to worse they just IM one another anyways. let's be real. Regardless of how much control you put upon the otell command there are a half a dozen ways around it.

PLUS it's just as simple to keep the amulet on IC and then OTELL someone OOCLY with "HEy bob.. where are you?"

So the point I am making is that you are *ahemed* if you do and *ahemed* if you don't involving the amulets.

So why not make them wholy and IC device? And cut off the ooc commenting cords to it and let us ask questions when we have a question... weither we have it or not, ect?

Jaenoic · Post by **Jaenoic** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:12 am

I would also like to suggest that the stamina cost for using otells also be removed. It seems rather unIC to be helping or receiving help as a newbie and it drains your stamina. I understand why it was implemented, to deter OOC communication of area quests ect., but honestly I feel that if people are going to do it they'll just take the stamina drain or as was said above communicate over an IMer. Really I guess I just have a problem of having an IC penalty for a purely OOC act, which is often nothing more than a friendly word of praise("Hey, I really thought you RPed that well") or letting a newbie know of a command they may be overlooking("It might be useful to know about the smote command...").

Selveem · Post by **Selveem** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:43 pm

Are there any other concerns (aside from the OOC communication of IC events) that may be discussed to reject the proposition? As the above mentioned, it would be just as easy for them to communicate that IC information via some external program, or, if needed via an amulet of communication.

Since this is realistically making things easier for our Imms to monitor, I would think this would be something to be on the positive side as well.