Optional Realities & Project Redshift

[Rook]

@Jeshin said:

It provides an ultimate and fair arbitration to an extent. So where we remove the risk of god-moding or arguments about results we take on the risk of bad roleplayers trying to abuse the system to win. Whereas on MUSHes I would speculate that you support roleplay and take on the risk that people will ignore or fudge the system to win.

There in those two statements is the fundamental reason I think that there is a clear difference in play styles between MUD and MUSH, and the players that each attracts. It also clearly (for me) outlines what most MU*ers differentiate between 'roll playing' and 'roleplaying'.

You and I disagree on your usage of the word 'fair' in the first sentence, ultimately. You see an automated system to grab numbers, crunch them and output an outcome as a defining quality to a game you would sponsor. I propose that automated systems cannot be wholly 'fair' in the context of a roleplayed scene due to the sheer number of variables involved that (to this day) only a human arbitrator can factor in. Again, my opinion.

Finally, on almost every MUSH in existence, there is an unstated expectation that arbitration of scene outcomes is done by those judged fit to do so, and that every involved player implicitly accepts the rulings of that arbitrator. There are appeal and review processes, but in general, what is ruled on the scene tends to go unless there is a complexity or outright error. Thus, players "ignoring or fudging" the system is something that is very handily stomped on in most MUSHes. Even free-form system-less games where lots of hand-waving is done "for the sake of the story over systems" have a line that players can cross into "powerplaying" or "twinking".

[Jeshin]

@Rook

The debate of roll-playing and role-playing still exists on MUDs, the addition of automation doesn't preclude it for us. As to usage of the word fair! I did specify to an extent. No automated system would ever be truly fair just like it's debatable that MUSH Judges are always thought to be fair as there is an appeal and review process involved.

I would argue that people who play MUDs do so with the understanding that code arbitration is the ultimate decider unless a Staffer intervenes and thus because it is an accepted feature of the game by those who play it would be "fair" in the sense that it has no inherent bias. Just like people who play MUSHes understand that Judge arbitration is the ultimate decider unless a Staffer intervenes (assuming not all Judges are Staff) and thus because it is an accepted reality of the game by those who play it would be "fair" to them despite the potential of bias.

That being said! I have tried several MUSHes and I actually intend to try a few more. They have been generally great experiences and I am a fan of the nWoD system even though I wouldn't implement it on my own game. I would encourage anyone who is interested in learning more about roleplay on MUDs to try one of the games listed here: http://optionalrealities.com/connections/

Your past experience might hold true with these games. Your perceptions might be proven true. Then again you might find an experience that is enjoyable and a change of pace from your MUSH experiences. I find MUSHes to be an enjoyable change of pace to RPIs.

EDIT - If you're looking for a middle-ground between MUSH & MUD I would suggest... Sindome (MOO), Burning Post II (MUD), or HavenRPG (MUD). I believe these games would be the easiest cultures and setups to try if you aren't interested in a more MUD like experience you'd get from Shadows of Isildur (MUD) or Armageddon (MUD)

[Rook]

If you are a roleplay focused game.

If you have automated system(s): this can include crafting, exploration, combat, medical code, etc etc. Doesn't have to be all but you have to have one or two.

If you have perma-death defined as the ability for story, characters, or the environment being able to kill off your character permanently without your consent.

Most every MUSH out there fulfills each of these requirements, the tripping point is solely on your use of the word 'automated'. Given your remarks in this thread, after several people have pointed out differences, it seems that Optional Realities will not be listing many MUSHes due to the lack of said automated systems using your definition. It's a shame, because you've drawn a line between "RolePlay Intensive" and "RolePlay Exclusive".

"Intense" indicates that the experience is chock-full of instances of role-playing, but this then implies that there are parts of the experience that is NOT role-playing. IE: Single-player MUD-style play. People cannot single-player a MUSH.

[Jeshin]

Yes I believe it is correct that at this time Optional Realities would not be listing a lot of games. I have hope however that times and experience in the genre might lead to more games falling under the tent we have set out. As my prime example I approached Asherat from Kushiel's Debut prior to the opening of Optional Realities to see if that game would "qualify". It didn't at the time but when I stopped back in earlier this month there appears to be some consideration of adding coded support / automated systems due to the influx of players they have experience.

With this addition (whatever it is, they didn't share their plans with me beyond considering it) it'd be right up on the OR website probably within 24 hours. Regardless of being listed with a sub-forum MUSHes, MOOs, and MUX are more than welcome to come and post up a listing in our General Discussion sub-forum or Other Game thread. I encourage you to do so.

EDIT - Quick addition here since I went back to my records to pull the conversation I had with Brody from Otherspace before listing him. As you can see, we're not really requiring a MUSH to convert to a MUD.

@Brody / Otherspace said:

Blurb: OtherSpace, online since 1998, is an original-theme space opera that’s followed a series of evolving story arcs shaped by player actions.

1. We've got permadeath.
2. We've got CSpace for travel among the stars, a crafting system, and a referee-assisted dice rolling system that calculates skills and difficulty modifiers.
3. We're almost entirely focused on roleplay.

[Three-Eyed Crow]

One reason I mentioned the FS3 games is that I consider them quite a bit less code-intensive for players than other places I've played that probably wouldn't qualify just because the systems they used weren't "automated" to some degree. So I suspect this, as a proviso for these sorts of games, is going to get really arbitrary, as I don't think it's something game designers of this sort put much thought into. As @Rook said, a lot of games will fit your definition, but which ones do and don't is going to be, I suspect, rather random, and probably not indicative of how someone with a MUD background might enjoy them. Something like Firan was an obvious MUX/MUD hybrid (Otherspace is probably one as well), but those games are rarities.

[Tempest]

I suddenly find myself intrigued by Sindome. Time to look around.

[Jeshin]

Optional Realities listings are not for games that people with a MUD background will enjoy. Optional Realities listing is purely and solely for any game which falls under our definition of text-based RPGs. While this does create situations where much more advanced MUSHes don't qualify due to no automation it does create a consistent experience and expectation for users who are going to Optional Realities for a game listing instead of discussion or the articles.

All the games have at least those 3 qualities and they have them in varying degrees.

EDIT - And to say it again. Not having 1 of those qualities doesn't make you a bad game or a game unworthy of our attention. I hope my discussions on this board have at least imparted that Optional Realities is very interested in any text-based game even if it doesn't qualify for listing. It's just a decision we made in order to keep from becoming a general listing site like MUDPortal, TMC, TMS, etc etc.

[BetterJudgment]

@Thenomain said:

I loved URU. URU, for those who don't know, was an MMO by Ubisoft and Cyan. The idea was that everyone would play an explorer in the abandoned D'ni ruins and solve puzzles. But here's the problem I had with that: Once the puzzle was solved, you're just following in someone else's footprints. Why, I wondered, did someone not put a rope ladder in this key spot so I could reach this keystone? One a conflict is resolved, it's resolved. It's done, over with, and if you want to engage it again that's cool and all but it's not the kind of game that RPGs (traditionally story-based) are meant to be about.

I don't know if this is why URU failed, but fail it did. It tried to be about a story, using tools that were about playing games.

In case you didn't know: Myst Online/URU Live. No updates and still with all the faults you described above, but free.

[Thenomain]

@Three-Eyed-Crow said:

I'm curious how you feel about something like Faraday's FS3.

Faraday's code framework is love. FS3 is just the icing on the cherry on the cake.

I missed this:
@Jeshin said:

You know it only now occurs to me to comment on this but....

• If you are a roleplay focused game.

• If you have automated system(s): this can include crafting, exploration, combat, medical code, etc etc. Doesn't have to be all but you have to have one or two.

• If you have perma-death defined as the ability for story, characters, or the environment being able to kill off your character permanently without your consent.

Than you too can be listed on Optional Realities

I am having one of these days, so I'm going to respond to this a bit flippantly:

"Go you? Did you want a cookie or something?"

There are plenty of pure-consent games in the history of this hobby, good consent games, and I've been thinking about setting up one for fun and the fun of others. That doesn't mean there aren't stories. That doesn't mean that there aren't challenges. I think point #2 and especially point #3 is a Muddist view. I have never ran a LARP where death was more than a far-away spectre, something that was not really on the table unless the characters went running toward it with open arms.

Now I'm being more antagonistic than I like because it's been One Of Those Days, but I disagree with the core belief that a story has no meaning if it has no risk of death. In fact, in many cases sudden death can trivialize a character's story.

One of the John Wick RPGs requires target consent for death (7th Sea?), and I believe Spirit of the Century does too. It's a thing that happens. I don't understand the reason for the requirement.

[TNP]

@Rook said:

@Jeshin said:

So instead of putting in a +job to have a vase made. I could make a vase and its quality/value would be determined by some algorithm which is derived from my characters attributed abilities or +roll results.

As I said, systems that do this exact sort of thing are very possible on MUSHes. I've built them.

Crystal Singer MUSHes, both of them, assuming either still exists, were extremely heavily coded. You'd fly out to the Ranges, search for a landing spot, cut crystal. The craft, the cutter, were coded objects. The claim could hurt you badly. Etc.

[Jeshin]

@Thenomain

It is worth noting that when I made that statement I was referring to stories within text-based games, though I do believe that death & loss play a big part in all story telling. We likely have a fundamental difference of opinion on the topic. That being said it's still worthwhile to expand on this a little.

In normal storytelling like movies and literature and ancient stories/folklore death and loss play a huge part in the narrative. The majority of the time the main character(s) aren't at risk of death because they are the vehicle for the story. I would argue though that death and loss still exist within the world. We are meant to suspend disbelief and accept that there is danger and that is why sacrifice and heroism matter in them. I'll point to Agent Caulson in the Avengers, Boromir in Lord of the Rings, and the death of Aerith in Final Fantasy 7 which is notable because it's in a game with bringing people back is a function of gameplay. These are non-main characters whose deaths enriched stories and established that death was reality of the world that their story was being told in. Regardless of whether or not the Main Character was really going to die, within the story, they -could- die. Thus the trick and the suspension of disbelief.

In text-based games and their storytelling I believe that death & loss are even more crucial. Unless you take the tact that all PCs are main characters and thus should be exempt from that and if you do then that is your decision (or that of the game runner). I certainly won't say you shouldn't do it only that I believe there would be more value in having the threat. I'll use two games as examples.

The Sea of Storms (wheel of time setting) has perma-death but fighting between PCs tends to be resolved via RP like MUSHes with a staffer judging or players collaboratively completing the scene. If there is a disagreement there is coded combat which can be fallen back onto on the agreement of the participants. I actually staffed on this game for the better part of a decade and I can tell you the average character lifespan was something like 2-6 ooc years. But death was possible. It did happen. It wasn't willy nilly and it didn't require consent to happen. It worked pretty well for the stories we were telling there. (note this is another game that would probably be a good middle-ground for MUSH players). What mattered is that it -could- happen and thus it added tension and motivation to scenes and actions taken.

Sindome (cyberpunk setting) this game has perma-death but in my opinion it is extremely difficult to actually die. You see it has cloning as a game mechanic so as long as characters have the money they can keep updating their clones. There is a risk that the clone will degrade but that can be rectified for a small fortune. It is also possible to be killed before you manage to update your clone (which is extremely difficult to do and requires amazing timing and organization) or you can be killed so many times you go broke and no one is willing to help you out and die due to lack of updating the clone. I think you can recognize that while this game technically has perma-death it is a narrative rarity (just like traditional storytelling) for it to happen over the course of normal game play. What matters is that the specter and reality of it exist within the world and provide weight to decisions.

• Why do you believe non-consent death detracts from storytelling in text-based games? I mean there are just as many characters (not main ones) who die in tales for the purpose of story progression as those who live for the purpose of story progression.

• If I said death has to be possible but not probable would that change our disagreement as it pertains to text-based games? Like sindome perma-death is possible but improbable under normal circumstances.

• I apologize for coming off as overly comfortable. I enjoy this community and you guys (out of all other places I've come to share OR with) have engaged me the most in interesting discussion. I will try and curb being overly familiar as I don't mean to come off as arrogant or belittling.

I'll end this reply with the repeating statement that I encourage all text-based games (even though that don't fit our 3 qualifiers) to promote themselves on Optional Realities and that while I have preferences and in the formation of the community we made some decisions which are exclusionary. We do not intend for that exclusion to go past a link list. I hope my continued involvement in this community and support for games that aren't listed will help convey that sentiment. I love text-based gaming, even if it's not how I would design the game myself.

[Three-Eyed Crow]

@Jeshin said:

In text-based games and their storytelling I believe that death & loss are even more crucial. Unless you take the tact that all PCs are main characters and thus should be exempt from that and if you do then that is your decision (or that of the game runner). I certainly won't say you shouldn't do it only that I believe there would be more value in having the threat. I'll use two games as examples.

There are plenty of threads that debate this topic in one way or another and plenty of MUSH players who agree with this. I haven't played a game that didn't have at least death as an ICA=ICC outcome for years. There's a lot of variation on this within non-consent and consent games (and variation within those terms). I'd say possible but not probable under ordinary circumstances isn't hard to find and my preference, depending on how you define "possible."

[Thenomain]

@Jeshin said:

I do believe that death & loss play a big part in all story telling.

See, now it's death and loss. Your advertising rules only say "death". I've already agreed that "loss" is important.

Why do you believe non-consent death detracts from storytelling in text-based games?

I don't. I say it can, and has, and non-concent death does not guarantee a good story. It doesn't even guarantee drama. The only thing it guarantees is an ending. I have (and will again, below) agreed that drama is necessary for a good story.

If I said death has to be possible but not probable would that change our disagreement as it pertains to text-based games?

Nope. Mind you, you don't have to placate to me specifically. If you want to demand that death must be on the table, it's your medium. Take that message and run with it.

If I wasn't currently in the middle of a large project, I'd create a game where death was never on the table unless the target allowed it. 7th Sea would prove quite popular.

I apologize for coming off as overly comfortable.

Don't apologize. I was apologizing as coming off as overly antagonistic. I am chatty, and therefore I might look representative, but I'm not. Take everything everyone says here with a grain of salt. Friendly salt, mind you, because salt was used for money and taking money from other people is good.

[Jeshin]

@Thenomain

The qualifier says perma-death because loss is presumed but in my previous statement on page 3? I referred to it as death and loss then in your reply you took out loss (because we both agreed that is vital to storytelling). I was re-affirming that death and loss are both important!

I agree that non-consent death does not ensure a good story as well. It is a requirement to be listed but we don't assume that any game with perma-death will be good at storytelling. For example you could have a game that was essentially Dark Souls but when you died, you didn't come back at the last save point sans souls. I wouldn't think that was good storytelling unless someone really brilliant created a setting around that kind of experience.

I'm not trying to appease you! If I were I'd probably have changed the requirements 2 pages back in this thread Often in debates about game design and storytelling I try and establish a point where both parties agree so I can better understand the variance between my original statement (which was disagreed with) and the new statement (which both parties can agree on). Helps with understanding, for me anyway.

Some more questions!

• I see on RenoMUSH (which is one of the ones suggested to me) that characters can blow up a bus full of nuns. In reading the game policies it appears there is no comment on death. Is perma-death possible on RenoMUSH?

• If perma-death is possible can you give me an example of what it might look like? (assuming you're involved with RenoMUSH or have played there).

• If I said that perma-death does not ensure quality storytelling but I believe it adds to story within text-based games would you agree with that?

[Thenomain]

@Jeshin said:

I agree that non-consent death does not ensure a good story as well. It is a requirement to be listed but we don't assume that any game with perma-death will be good at storytelling.

Then why is it a requirement? I think the answer is in the question quoted below. That is, because you want it to be. This is fair and I won't argue this. I still disagree with the conclusion of your thesis.

---

I can't speak for Reno, as I neither staff nor play there, but:

If I said that perma-death does not ensure quality storytelling but I believe it adds to story within text-based games would you agree with that?

I would whole-heartedly agree that you believe it. I believe that if it is part of the theme and setting then it should be mandatory, but if it's not, then it shouldn't be.

I think what makes an RP game is that there are game rules that everyone agrees to follow, which means there are game rules. I also think those rules should facilitate the playing out of a role with intent to tell a story in a theme and setting that is agreed upon by the act of logging in.

These roughly reflect your points #1 and #2. (edit: Even if a game does not have code for the systems, tools to facilitate those systems allows them to be followed and therefore they exist in an implied, if not concrete, state. Anyone who doesn't follow them isn't really playing the game and is therefore a right berk.)

I don't think any game is really a game without risk and, therefore, loss. Though you say that you meant for this in #3, you won't change #3 to be anything but death, at least you're not saying you would and are still defending the position (via probing, if not directly) so at the moment I'm reading that to mean that you still believe involuntary death must be on the table at all times.

Mind you, even in the all but most consent-focused games, there's no helping someone who runs toward the dragon with arms wide open.

[Jeshin]

Hey,

So I think we (or at least I) am coming to the end on this particular exchange. I think I have a pretty good gauge on the concern and the disagreement so I shall go ahead and sum it all up likely just looping back to my original statements.

• Perma-death is a qualifier because we (the OR staff) believe that it is beneficial for a text-based RPG to have this. Whether it's common or uncommon, it has to be on the table (for us). This also helps somewhat narrow the # of games we are listing to prevent us from becoming a TMS/TMC competitor. This does exclude many and I do mean many good games and I will not even hint that they are less of a quality game because they lack perma-death. I will only say that I cannot/will not list them on Optional Realities. Still welcome to come advertise on our forums and participate in all manner of design discussions though!

• I agree that if game setting has some form of after-life or reincarnation mechanic (see DnD) then it's appropriate to pass on perma-death from a game design and story perspective.

• I am not currently aware of a roleplay focused game that precludes loss. It is such a fundamental element of storytelling that it goes without saying. There are roleplay focused games without perma-death. Thus why one is listed and not the other, but after consideration I'll review the 3rd qualifier to see if it should be added for the sake of being clear.

If anyone else wants to chime in on this, I'll certainly continue to respond but I feel like @Thenomain and I have at least come to understand each others positions. Maybe? Okay I feel like I understand his.

I do have a new question though!

• Do you believe in metaplots? Do you think that the game should be a sandbox for players to tell their own stories or that there should be an overarching narrative which the players can engage with and influence?

I ask because I'm reading about Eldritch and Reno at the moment and at least one of them openly states a lack of metaplot. I know Kushiel's Debut has a metaplot so how common/uncommon or wanted/unwanted is that sort of thing in the MUSH community?

[TNP]

@Jeshin said:

• If I said that perma-death does not ensure quality storytelling but I believe it adds to story within text-based games would you agree with that?

I haven't read the entire thread in depth - my bad, I know - so I hope this wasn't asked/said before. But I do have something to add/ask about this point.

The question is, whose story? On any game, there's several stories. There's the player's story (for certain definitions of story). Does the player benefit from losing his character permanently? That's debatable but perhaps. He could consider it satisfying if it happened in a certain way or for a certain cause.

Then there's the character's story. Does that add anything by dying? No. It just ends his story completely. Then there's the game's story as a whole. That could have something added to it but probably more in a theoretical sense than any real benefit. The character's companions, if any, certainly get to respond to his death and if they like angst RP, they'll have a grand old time. Personally, I have no desire to grieve a fictional character. It sucks enough in real life that it's not something I want to role play.

I don't think perma-death adds anything at all. I think it ends more stories than it benefits. Loss comes in many flavors and loss can certainly add to a story. But it seems to me that non-consent permadeath is a particularly unimaginative way of creating drama. It's the easy way out and adds nothing that another outcome cannot.

Mind you, even in the all but most consent-focused games, there's no helping someone who runs toward the dragon with arms wide open.

Well, on the one hand, suicide by stupidity shouldn't be disallowed. On the other hand, I can also think of more amusing things to do to the character and I"m sure you can too.

[Three-Eyed Crow]

"Metaplot" feels like one of those words that's been abused into meaning whatever its user wants it to mean. Like any plot, they can be good or bad. It's all in execution. I think a game should have a clear take on its theme and occasionally tell large, game-wide stories, and I'm not terribly interested in games that are pure sandboxes without regular STs beyond PrP runners. There are lots of people who like the latter just fine, though. Like consent/non-consent, it's so variable it's not useful to talk about what the MUSH community thinks. All I want as a player is that a game be upfront about what it's trying to be, and I can decide for myself if I want to invest in it.

ETA: This thread gets into the weeds of this more http://musoapbox.net/topic/123/prp-or-srp/2 I don't know that there's any consensus except, "Some people like this, other people like that, a larger combination of those people would prefer both be available." To me it's all about the larger question of how to get and keep active STs of any stripe, which is the at times very difficult goal, whatever they're doing.

[Jeshin]

@TNP

So I don't think you will find it surprising it I were to say that the existence and possibility of perma-death itself is the contributor to story. When a character dies that is the end of a story and only a potential starter to a new story that branches from their death. It's certainly not a sure thing, but...

Let us suppose I am playing a disgraced Bard who has a wife that is not exactly socially noteworthy in society. They are both hunters but disgraced bard is the better hunter and his wife can't quite take on the game he does but she tries sometimes. Because this game has pema-death and because his wife is taking risky actions it is possible that she could die. He would be bereft, she is all he has left, and this motivation and fear is what drives actions and decisions he make. It basically informs his story. Lets say they make a promise to each other to hunt together but she goes out alone because she's an independent woman who chafes under restrictions. She gets injured and she can't hide it from disgraced bard. Now there is conflict and character development. Both characters have desires, they have fears, disgraced bards fear is firmly rooted in the possible death of his wife which fuels the conflict and development of his character.

That is a fairly accurate summary of the last 3 months of my Armageddon MUD bard characters life. I feel like it's at least one example of how perma-death adds tension and motivation to interactions. Now if the wife had died then yeah. As a player I would have been like nooooooooooooooooo take my right hand to bring this character back because I enjoy our interactions. But it is exactly that danger and loss which made the relationship so immersive (for me) in the first place.

So different strokes for different folks but I can go on and on about the potential benefits of perma-death to text-based gaming.

EDIT - Because I am a little tired I will TLDR this post because I fee like I may have went off on a tangent...

TLDR - The possibility of perma-death adds more to the story experience than the actual perma-death event itself. If I knew how to perform the literary trick of invoking the specter of death without the possibility of it within text-based gaming in a reliable manner. I wouldn't believe the actual death part would be needed. As such a feat is beyond me (or any game I have yet to play) I believe that perma-death has to be on the table in order to contribute its benefits to the story.

[TNP]

@Jeshin said:

TLDR - The possibility of perma-death adds more to the story experience than the actual perma-death event itself. If I knew how to perform the literary trick of invoking the specter of death without the possibility of it within text-based gaming in a reliable manner. I wouldn't believe the actual death part would be needed. As such a feat is beyond me (or any game I have yet to play) I believe that perma-death has to be on the table in order to contribute its benefits to the story.

I know you said you needed that aspect of randomness but nothing you said couldn't be done on any other game. You could have played out the exact same situation. All that coding does is make it random whether it happens or not. Without the code, it's up to the players. And really, it's /still/ up to the players even with the code. She could have decided not to hunt without him. She decided the possibility was something she wanted to play out with you. Hell, she could have done the same exact thing by deciding after 3 months of playing it out, she'd flip a coin. Heads / Death. (Anyone else flashback to History of the World, French Revolution?)

But it's coded. And she lived. And you're both relieved. Except without the code she could also have decided she'd almost die. Maybe she'd be attacked by an animal and be mauled badly, losing an arm so she couldn't hunt. Or any one of a hundred other possibilities that you can't code. Code, in this case, seems to take the place of imagination.

EDITED TO ADD:

Okay, I just noticed where the lack of meeting of minds is.

You're talking about the player's story. How you, the player, reacted to not knowing what would happen and the emotional response. I'm talking about the characters' stories and what would make for a more interesting plotline to RP out.