Role Play Enhancements

This girl is role-playing a slave and would like to discuss how to improve the slave feeling for this role-play purpose, and she hopes to have this put for a vote to be adopted sometime. She hopes this is the right spot but if not asks that it be moved to where it is best. She has only been playing secondlife 1 week.

Secondlife to me is all about freedom. Incredible freedom to do and pretend to be anything. However the rules prevent some forms of role-play when we wish our own freedom to be in the control of someone else. It would make the game more real if an individual could waive their rights to freedom in some cases.

This girl will give an example. When this girl uses the position balls for some of the contraptions in which her hands are tied up, she should not be able to escape unless she is released by someone. It would feel much more real if escape were not possible from such things unless another person did something to help. This girl can easily escape from any situation by clicking on stand up, or by accepting a tp. It does not feel like girl is really tied up.

For roleplay purpose, it would be nice if girl could have message such as, " If you accept you will not be able to tp or be release without another player clicking the yellow switch across the room" and if she accepts then she will be stuck untill whoever she is with releases her, or if he goes ld, she can tp a friend to help, although that would be quite embarassing. And being traped and needing help, is a good roleplay situation to be in, heroes perform well in such cases. This girl is not sure if this feature would be best in all zones, or restricted to special zones with altered rules.

Then there is girl's slave collar. In real life, master would put collar on and lock it and girl would not be able to remove it. Would it be posible for girl to be able to have master place collar on her neck and have master lock it so girl should not be able to remove it from her neck in inventory or by unequiping it or equiping something else. It would add to the feeling of realism. Equiping the collar would then have a message for permission to equip and warning girl that she will not be able to remove it unless another player clicks on it and presses some button that appears on a menue visible only in his screen" Would that be too difficult to program?

This girl will probably have more ideas as time goes on, but is interested in feedback and comments. Thank you all for your attention and replys.

Lovepeace

Freedom to be a slave, classic

You can do some of the things you mentioned via scripted items, but many of the things are simply not possible without major code changes that most would not desire. So, its really up to your ability to be immersed in roleplay to make the best of what there is to work with.

Have fun.

Thank you Loki for your comment. Girl does not know how to do the secripted things, but if you could direct her to where she can find out who can, she would be very grateful.

Girl makes this proposal, because girl feels that it would require major code changes that would require a vote and LL to do work on it. Girl does not know if most would or would not desire them, that is what girl seeks to find out in this post.

If the acceptance message for clicking on a bondage type contraption with check boxes you click on could give choises:
" Check the level(s) of bondage you wish to enjoy:
[ ] Normal, no constraints
[ ] Disable stand-up, you will only be able to stand up if another person says -standup, which will restore all disabled features and release you.
[ ] Disable TP out, you will not be able to use TP features or accept any.
[ ] Disable TP in, you will not be able to easily obtain help.
[ ] Disabel position balls, you will not be able to click to another postion ball to escape.
[ ] Save settings on log-out, you will still be bound when you return from log out. If the device is occupied, you will be moved to a random near-by location in the same body postion until the device is empty. If the device is gone, all disabled functions will be restored.
[ ] Enter RL time these will be in effect(max time is 3 days, for example) ______ hours.

In this way, everyone will still be able to use the items as they are now, but will have more options and choices to get that "traped feeling". It would certainly feel more real for this girl to be begging her Master to untie her if she really realy needed him to because she could not escape. This girl has to pretend she can not escape now, and the feeling is not as real. By putting in a max time, this lets the user protect against the unexpected, and provide a way out if the scene lasts longer than planned, her Master goes ld and she is stuck there, for example.

Would people really object to adding more choices for people who want them, when they they will never have to use them if they choose not to?

Lovepeace

I really doubt that they will code in the ability to truly lose control of your character in a way that you can't just stand up or take off the attachment. Just isn't going to happen. There are already collars other objects that can severely limit your movement based on verbal commands of someone else.

The main reason it's not going to happen? Abuse potentional. There would be dozens of newbies tied down in dungeons and abandoned every night if you could do something like what you are suggesting.

heh i see what she mean, basically to have a better effect that the crappy "lock" commands i and other code into theyr collars

Keiki Wrote: "The main reason it's not going to happen? Abuse potentional. There would be dozens of newbies tied down in dungeons and abandoned every night if you could do something like what you are suggesting."

If this is the only worry, there are several solutions that could be adopted to protect against this happening. This girl is not sure how long "newbie" lasts, but lets say it is 100 hours of play time. These addional effects could be blocked entirely until the person had played 100 hrs and was by definition no longer a "newbie".

Another method that should appeal to LL is to charge people who would be interested in having these choices open to them, is to charge a 1 time fee to enable them for your avitar. People who pay the fee, get to use items with the full bondage choices, people who don't, just continue using them as always. This idea pays for itself in LL working to improve the coding choices. How much would that be? This girl has no idea, but she only paid $10 for the account, another $5 for this simple thing she would pay. It would be more than worth the fun!

Lovepeace

"Newbie" isn't so much a time as a state of mind. To me, anyone who's been in world less than a year is a newbie... but even so, some do exhibit newbie behaviour after even longer, while some can act like responsible citizens after no more than a few months.

Roleplay over the internet is a fickle medium. At any time, either party could easily just shut the PC, severing the connection and rendering "roleplay enhancements" useless.

Second Life is inherently all about freedom of expression. This includes the right to sacrifice those freedoms to another party. Any enforcement of such should fall on the part of those involved, instead of the admins (Linden Labs), provided both parties consent.

In English, that means this:


... is up to the two of you to enforce. If the person leaves, that's their right... just as if they had shut their computer entirely.

Now, I know nothing of this issue other than what I hear, but: Remember that these practices are between two consenting adults. If the person leaves, they're no longer consenting, and any forced restriction beyond that point would be wrong in my book.

Thank you for your reply Jeffery.

Assume this girl were bound in a device or cell, where she had agreed to a time of 3 hours for the scene. Assume that person with her decides to leave her there alone for 3 hrs while she begs him to come back and remove her, because she can not remove herself. If you carefully read the example, girl wrote that ANYONE can release her, so LL would not have to get involved should she decide she was boored enough to break the reality of her role-play, which she would never do. She could shout in the zone for example or IM to her friends for help, and ANYONE of them could come by and release her, and be the hero, or heroine.

As you may have seen, girl left an out. In RL if girl were tied up in basement, nobody would hear her shout or call for help. If girl wanted even more RL she would have proposed to also disable shout and IM. She would not want that, then how would there be communication, there would be no fun. Girl realizes this is still game and wants there always to be an out, but the out should be somewhat diffuclt, and require outside help where others can be drawn into the role-play by becoming rescuers simply for being in the right place at the right time. Make new friends that way, or have friends visit to help.

And there is still ultimate no force involved in a scene that girl voluntarily places herself in a situation that is risky. It is the risk that makes bondage excitng, girl never knows what will happen next, game is always fresh and each adventure different and intersting.

And in the worst case girl ends up sitting there 3 hrs. Girl is bored, watches TV waits till timer expires and is released. There is never any harm done to girl, so there can be no wrong, and if there were any harm, it would be entirely caused by girl to herself, and if that were what girl wanted to do, or someone else wanted to do, why should they not be allowed to?

Lovepeace

Again, that sort of thing is up to the two of you to enforce. Such is the nature of what is coined "roleplay" (via www.dictionary.com ) - "to assume or act out a particular role."

My guess would be you two should discuss these things beforehand. Because, no offense, but I seriously doubt LL would change their client in overt support of player-enforced bondage. Such is the nature of a resident-run world: the residents should find a solution to the problem.

As well intentioned as it may be, I agree with the assessment that LL is not going to change their client for this sort of thing. It is far too open to abuse for the immersion it provides. Part of roleplaying is learning to immerse yourself in the situation without needing external bounds. It's a state of mind more than a state of law, even if you are roleplaying bondage. I would recommend that if you really want to enhance your experience, that perhaps you actually buy a collar in real life, to wear while playing, rather than have rules enforced in software. The feeling of tactile sensation is probably more effective anyway.

There are other games that maybe would enhance the roleplay feel of master/slave better.
www.sociolotron.com comes to mind.

Thank you for your replies. Camille this girl will check out that site, thank you.

Sophia, this girl in RL is 51 years old with a husband and 2 children. She would not sit in front of her computer with a collar on. Someone last night in Ar was telling this girl that they take being a slave of the Gor mythology into their RL. In another post, this girl had stated that people who come to second life and try to bring the laws and rules of first life here with them are missing out on having a second life, for them, they only have one life in two places. But in the same way, the experiences in second life should not devour first life. For this girl, the best experience will be that the two lives should be separate and different. In second life, girl is a whore, in first life she never was and has no intention of doing so. These lifes will remain separate, but girl will enjoy experiencing both, and the opportunity to experience things that first life will never be suited for.

Jeffery, for "to assume or act out a particular role." girl is not talking about acting. Girl is talking about scenery and props, things that affect the setting and the mood. Girl can act on a barren stage, but the audience will enjoy the experience more if the stage has been set to look and seem realistic. Girl only asks for more props to aid the experience of her performance for both herself and those she is with. Girl does not know if LL will change programming or not, even if people want the changes girl proposes. But if it helps game experience and can be done in a way to minimize problems, girl feels they will do so, if it is profitable or even to keep ahead of the competition, for example the site Cammile mentioned.

Lovepeace

I back the girl's proposal. I want LL to add a better object editor and more scripting power. This is something they can do that the residents cannot. The D/s community in SL certainly seems large enough that their desires should also be considered.
The newbie concerns are certainly valid :- I think some careful discussion about how to implement the feature is warranted. Perhaps a preference in the client, off by default, that enable submissive features. Sure, it could be turned back off at any time, but that would require some out-of-world interaction that may provide a sufficient level of isolation. The preference could be protected with a safe-word, as in many RL encounters.

Granted, features like those should be supported by a specialized client, and most definitely not the standard client. Perhaps there should be special script functions that only run on extended clients, i.e. non llfunctions, which would fit this much better. A plugin API would solve this sort of thing.

However, it should definitely not make the main client, as it would really be primarily abused, since what you are stating is essentially an undesirable state for the majority of users. It makes sense to have a special client for that.

Thank your for your comments and support Ben and Sophia.

Ben's idea of a "safe word" would be a good one, except that someone told me there are commands that disable the keyboard that is used in some D/S situations. This girl feels that feature apparently in the game already would need to be looked at. Girl personally feels that this disabeling of the keyboard would not be a good feature to allow similtaneously with the other ones she has suggested. There would be no "out". Girl does not feel there would be any fun either, girl would just sit watching TV, go afk, read, or do whatever, until timer ran out. There would be no mental involvement, and frankly little fun. It is much more work and difficult in RL, to have to keep talking to Master, describing her feelings as he spanks her for example, or she begs to be released after 2 or 3 hours. Silence is just an afk opportunity, and really not a good thing for role play, it is too easy to do nothing. And it would prevent the "safe word" feature, and asking for friends to help in an emergency.

Sophia, girl is not sure about what a different "client" means and involves. Would we still be able to interact with everyone else or would we be in a seperate world? Would people see what we were doing? Using the above example, say girl accepts a 3 hour bondage in some device. Let us say that when this happens, a "Bondage timer" appears above the device for all to see that counts down the time remaining on the device that it enforce the bondage girl has agreed to, unless girl is removed before that. Is the device girl is in common to both clients? Assume my master wishes to release me, and he is in the same bondage client as girl is, so after 1 hr he says "-stand up Lovepeace" and then the machine lossens the leather straps around my wrists and ankles and she goes free. Now assume master's internet goes out and he goes ld and can not get back. So girl sends IM to friend who runs there to release her. Assume friend is on normal client, and says the release words "-stand up Lovepeace". Will the device be able take commands from people not on the "bondage client" and turn off "Bondage timer" of the device so girl is released? Would friend on different normal client even be able to see "bondage timer" of device, if they did not have "bondage client"? Girl is not sure what this client thing is or involves, and how different people on different clients would be able to use the same things and commands in same world. Do people now all have 1 single client now or are there people running around already on different clients already within SL?

Lovepeace

girl,

The 'Client' folks are referring to here is the program that runs on your computer to play Second Life. There are two parts to Second Life - what runs on your computer, and what runs on Linden Labs' systems in California. Those two pieces in combination are what makes the 'game', from a *very* simplified technical perspective.

There has been some talk of giving technically-inclined folks the ability to modify the 'client' themselves, and customize it to suit special needs. If it does come to pass in the future, I think this is the most promising solution to your request.

Unfortunately, I don't believe having a 'client' that we can manipulate and change is something we can look forward to in the near-term future. But because its been discussed, it is not outside the realm of possibility.

Typically when Linden Labs adds features, they add those that benefit the Second Life community as a whole, rather than one segment of it. Granted, there are exceptions - but based upon previous history - Linden leaves features that benefit just one segment for residents to figure out and solve. This is another reason why I believe a modifyable client could be your answer someday.

One thing I'd suggest in the mean time, is to focus yourself on the psychological aspect of BDSM in this virtual world. A skilled master doesn't require chains to restrain you. As you know, it is all about an exchange of power & trust. Just as Linden asks us to get creative to solve our own technical problems as much as possible, I think if you find a creative and wicked Master, you may find the neccesity for unbreakable restraints irrelevant

Good luck on your journey

Thank you Travis for your reply, it was very helpful.

First as to this girl's proposal, girl feels it is best to have everyone in the world seeing the same things. Girl would not want to see one thing on her computer while someone else saw something else. In that regard, she does not like this idea of different clients. Girl feels it would be better to have game features such as she has suggested that are available to everyone, but can only be turned on intentionally or by paying an extra fee for them, which girl would not mind.

Second as to this girl herself, she has a Master who she played with in everquest 3 years, and herself played that game 5 years. He joined her here after she told him about this wonderful game, just to be her Master. However, he then thought this is such a great game, that he brought his RL gf here now, and has been recently preoccupied with her, as is understandable and as is his right. Maybe girl will soon have a Mistress as well. Although girl feels these proposals will add to the realism of the game and help players enjoy it even more, if there is a "creative and wicked Master" who feels he has a chance of teaching girl that she is wrong, the name of her master is in her profile and he can be contacted to see if he wishes to sell or rent her so she can be taught this lesson, however remote that possibility might be.

Lovepeace

lovepeace you should contact, me, i build many stuffs for the D/s community and can make some clever stuffs, and on top of this they stay in SL's limitations

stuffs i did, like locking collars, muting gags , etc... of course these items do not PREVENT you to disobei, but you better shouldnt ^^

There are already collars and ball gags and other bondage objects that, when "locked" will notify the person who locked them that you have removed the object from your AV.

There are also collars that *will* not let you stand up from an enforced pose unless you have also registered yourself as a master/mistress for that collar.

So, wearing such a collar, for example, my Mistress can command me to assume some pose. I cannot change that pose unless she either releases me with an "up!" command or I detach the collar myself. If I detach the collar, she gets an IM stating that I've done so.

That's pretty darn close to absolute control given the game mechanics and potential for abuse. If I "cheat" as a subby and remove something that's "locked" onto me, the person who locked it on *will* know about it and can deal with me accordingly.

A bdsm toy builder could easily script this same functionality into any piece of bondage furniture, collar, armbinders, cuffs, spreaders, whatever. You get put in a cage or tied to a bed or strapped onto a bench or what not, and if you click your "Stand Up" button, your Dom/Domme will find out about it and can deal with you accordingly. Isn't that close enough to "real" for roleplay purposes?

Anything that *truly* gives up control over your AV is just far too prone to being abused by some griefer somewhere.

That said, there is a weapon type known as a "cager" that can be difficult to escape from unless you know the "trick" to doing so. (And note that its an abuse to use a cager on someone without their consent.) A wily bdsm toy maker could employ the same scripting concepts to bondage gear and furniture to truly simulate a loss of control (but understand that once the sub learns the *trick* for getting out, it's actually less effective for roleplay purposes.

I see no reason for LL to further facilitate Control of one Av by another.

They arent in the BDSM business.

If , using the tools that exist, a submissive still chooses to remove his/her collar, get up from bondage and similairly not behave - i think that any good dom/domme should be able to handle that situation.

Like was stated - nothing is going to prevent the sub/slave from merely logging off. And I can see no reason to leave someone "trapped" on logging back in.

If It absolutely necessary to give that level of control away where you cant remove things even in an emergency, where you cant type, or log off... then Move in RL with the Dom/Domme - becuase that is a point Beyond the scope of an internet relationship In my opinion.

Actually, there is a simple solution to this dilemma. I'm surprised that no one has suggested it.

At this point, we can already give another player access to control of our objects; why not make an option available on our Friends List along the lines of "Allow this player to have control over your avatar (i.e. the ability to make you perform actions, etc.)?" and a checkbox to allow it?

This could extend from the ability to make someone sit down in a certain spot to allowing your sexual partner to force you to allow them to perform certain acts which you ordinarily hesitate to do. LOL!

All you would have to do to release yourself is uncheck that box and restart the game.

Comments?

P2

Thank you all for your comments.

Kryah, this girl does have a few item ideas she would enjoy discussing with you and has been meaning to contact you, but her Master and now Mistress (who is a vampyre!) have been keeping her very very busy. When she is available, girl will contact you.

Fuschichou writes, " ..That's pretty darn close to absolute control given the game mechanics and potential for abuse. If I "cheat" as a subby and remove something that's "locked" onto me, the person who locked it on *will* know about it and can deal with me accordingly....A bdsm toy builder could easily script this same functionality into any piece of bondage furniture, collar, armbinders, cuffs, spreaders, whatever. You get put in a cage or tied to a bed or strapped onto a bench or what not, and if you click your "Stand Up" button, your Dom/Domme will find out about it and can deal with you accordingly. Isn't that close enough to "real" for roleplay purposes?"

and Colette writes, "If , using the tools that exist, a submissive still chooses to remove his/her collar, get up from bondage and similairly not behave - i think that any good dom/domme should be able to handle that situation. "

The goal of this girl in making this suggestion is to add realism to the devices being used. The exact ideas you both suggest to do in game, could be done in real life this way: Master pretends to tie up slave in chair in real life with paper chains that easily rip. Then he says girl must stay in chair for 30 min while she thinks only about her pussy and he will know if she gets up because of the ripped paper chains and will punish her by spanking her with party ballons if he finds out she does. She can easily get up anytime she wants, but it remains in her control if she decides to stay, there has been no transfer of power to her Master, the power is still hers. This exactly simulates what we have now in SL that this girl wishes to change.

Take the above situation and substitute real handcuffs and a whip. The girl voluntary agrees to wear the handcuffs and once she enters into the situation, the power is transfered. She does not have control, her fate is in her Master's hands. They may have a safe word, but will he Honor it? The power to do so is his, he must untie her if she uses it, she is helpless on her own. It is the symbol of her trust in him that she has given him that power. The feeling of submission and loss of control is greater in this case. It is this feeling that is not present in the current devices that tie you up in SL game.

Girl realizes that this is game and not all things in reality are good. That is why she proposed a Timer that would end the bondage after a set time she chooses. In RL girl could die if Master had accident and never came back to release her, but in game, that would not be a good thing. A Timer will keep abuse and problems to a minimum, since you can always let it run out if Master does not come back. This girl personally would seek to be rescued however, if girl thought Master had problems, since it is more realistic to have someone come and untie her than her bonds just dissolving. Or perhaps the timer will indicate the time it takes struggeling to finally work your way out. Whatever the case, this girl feels the enhancements she proposes to improve the reality and feeling of power transfer in being submissive would be fun for many people playing the game now.

Phoenix, girl is not sure what you mean, there are such items like that in game already. If you mean to give total control, it would be equivalent to Master just having girl's account and 2 boxing her, and in effect playing with himself. Girl does not feel that would not be fun for him for long. Girl needs to be traped in some situations, yet still have some resources available to her in order to be....entertaing... so she has things she can still do while traped. Total control would be no fun for either Master or Slave, this girl just wishes to shift the balance a little, not make it so lop-sided there would be no need for interaction between them, which would take away all the fun.

Lovepeace.

No, that's not what I am referring to.

Currently, there is an option on the Friends list that allows you to give another player permission to modify objects that you own (commonly known as "mod perms". This allows me, for example, to edit objects that belong to my wife as though they were my own.

What I am suggesting is not to allow another player to totally control your avatar as if it were their own account -- what I was referring to is an option for a player to allow another specified player permissions to make them -- "force" them, if you like -- to do actions such as sit on a pose ball, etc., thus creating the ability for slaves to permit their masters to force them to sit, to put them on a sex ball (such as in the case of a rape scenario, for example), etc.

Hope this clarifies what I was talking about.

P2

I feel the need to chime in again here.

As stated, the chances of LL building what's been talked about in this thread are slim to none. This is a moot point.

On controlling another avatar in-world, such things are indeed quite possible with scripts, assuming the person is wearing a given attachment. This includes moving an avatar (llMoveToTarget), rotating an avatar (animations systems or deft llMoveToTarget manipulation), forcing an avatar into certain animations (PERMISSION_TRIGGER_ANIMATION), et cetera. You could even go so far as to bring an avatar back if they teleport with such a system, assuming they're on the main grid and something like the ROAM is built in. At any time, the avatar can take off the attachment.

All of this kinda misses the point of the original message - the want here is to prevent a person from "escaping" of their own free will, a practice which is diametrically against the way Second Life was created in the first place.

In that sense, any system promoting that sort of behavior would be against their goals as a company.


However.

Here is a feature that I would back. Give us, as residents, the option to log into an avatar "as an observer" (presumptively with a different password).




This would do several things, including, but not limited to:

- Allow more attendance at Town Halls
Such a system has been discussed before for this very reason.

- Allow more options than "Video Linden" for peeking into the workings of Second Life on an opt-in basis
Naturally, you would list the current "observers" on an avatar in addition to their name.

- Allow people to anonymously log in without breaking current systems
Another requested feature.


And of course...

- Allow for opt-in voyeurism
You have her give you her password. You log in as yourself and her. She watches and tells you select actions to perform. Whatever floats your boat...




Anything directly about controlling another avatar will not be accepted. The difference is this system would not be about control at all; it would simply allow for an opt-in mechanism that can be used in whatever way you please.