Cultural differences between MUDs and MUSHes

[Lotherio]

@Kanye-Qwest said in Cultural differences between MUDs and MUSHes:

And again, this is why I'm all about limiting my OOC interactions with people in game as much as possible. It eliminates both the issue of taking things that happen IC in a personal, OOC manner (since you have no OOC interactions to color your perceptions of things) and those popups of insanely derailing OOC drama.

If on a MUSH this is the stance to take, you may find more folks to play the way you like, and you may turn away others who don't like you showing up and then forcing them to some IC conclusion for something their not planned for. It harps back to what @Thenomain had mentioned. Either try OOC etiquette, or just show up, see what works for you.

As others have said, you tend to find the folks you like to play with and stick to it. Others complain of cliquishiness, but if you're all having fun, have a it. The sandboxes are usually big enough.

Just as staff, if I get complaints that OOC/IC cross over is occurring and there is some powering (forcing them to make up reasons beyond their IC control), I'll intervene. Assuming its in policy, but nearly every place I have seen, regardless of what comes after the MU, has a policy of no powering. And I know they will complain on most places I've staffed, even if you don't realize folks are doing submitting these requests.

[mietze]

I don't know why it's so hard for people to just say "oh darn, this person wasn't able to be here oocly, well, let's just assume they were prevented from acting by something unforeseen until we have a chance to talk." Bob not there because he had to wander off to take a dump in the woods/deal with another emergency patient npc/didn't make it back from the kegger run in time" is way different from "you abandoned your post IC/you decided to abandon these pcs ICly."

One is not stopping the action (I've played on places where you'd be time stopped for things like that) but also allowing for an out that doesn't give the player no input into how they would have acted.

It's a good compromise that doesn't get anyone stuck waiting. It's also oocly collegial.

The other in essence means that it's not you that controls your PC at all, unless you're on 24/7 others can make up the IC narrative and your actions as soon as you're logged off. (Maybe that would also encourage people to always plan their pvp actions by checking who list and using that as a tool...oh no wait. )

[Lotherio]

@mietze said in Cultural differences between MUDs and MUSHes:

The other in essence means that it's not you that controls your PC at all, unless you're on 24/7 others can make up the IC narrative and your actions as soon as you're logged off. (Maybe that would also encourage people to always plan their pvp actions by checking who list and using that as a tool...oh no wait. )

Sounds just like the 90s all over again. Planning for offline IC time, and folks trying to get in that killshot by concocting convoluted plans to off someone based on 'they're never on when I'm on'. And places where staff allowed this ...

[Pandora]

I think at this point, there've been so many 'What Ifs' thrown into the equation that the message is lost.

No one is suggesting making up the IC narrative for another player, it's merely suggested that if they can't be around, it's assumed they have some reason, however good/bad that reason may be, and they can let us know later when they log on. Or not. Up to them.

If anyone is giving someone a hard time OOCly about any of this, they are the ones crossing an IC/OOC line.

There is no line crossing if I ICly stab someone, ICly look for the doctor, ICly don't find the doctor, ICly bury someone in the woods.

If that's crossing an OOC line on a MUSH, then there we have yet another charming difference between MUDs and MUSHes.

[Arkandel]

@mietze said in Cultural differences between MUDs and MUSHes:

I don't know why it's so hard for people to just say "oh darn, this person wasn't able to be here oocly, well, let's just assume they were prevented from acting by something unforeseen until we have a chance to talk."

There are two reasons, one better than the other.

1. Because said people are jerks.

2. Because this person is actually abusing the fact they aren't around. For instance I log on maybe once a week but please assume I've been to all the political meetings, and while your PC was at risk of dying in the Slaughthouse of Horror please assume I was also there fighting valiantly at the back. What, it's time for you to put in a spend for Glory 4? Me too! We're old war buddies, you and I.

... I guess I could have summed it up by stating 'people are jerks' and leaving it at that.

[Pandora]

@Arkandel said in Cultural differences between MUDs and MUSHes:

and while your PC was at risk of dying in the Slaughthouse of Horror please assume I was also there fighting valiantly at the back. What, it's time for you to put in a spend for Glory 4? Me too! We're old war buddies, you and I.

So if A, B, and C go to the Slaughterhouse of Horror and die, are you going to log on dead as well? I'm asking seriously, because I'd like to know where the line between plausibility and convenience is drawn in the sand.

[Lotherio]

@Pandora said in Cultural differences between MUDs and MUSHes:

it's assumed they have some reason, however good/bad that reason may be, and they can let us know later when they log on. Or not. Up to them.

It puts it on them to do the work when they couldn't conceivably be there, regardless of circumstance, rather than working together for the reason.

If anyone is giving someone a hard time OOCly about any of this, they are the ones crossing an IC/OOC line.

There is no line crossing if I ICly stab someone, ICly look for the doctor, ICly don't find the doctor, ICly bury someone in the woods.

If that's crossing an OOC line on a MUSH, then there we have yet another charming difference between MUDs and MUSHes.

In a MUD, killing is in the code, completely.

On a MUSH, we assume the rest of the IC world still exists, if you conceivable demonstrate that you stabbed them (easy, in the code), gave the IC doctor a chance to be found (timestop the scene to be fair to the player, not be a douche and say 'welp offline, they failed') or got staff to check for NPC docs for you, and then make your rolls for stealth to show you buried them without being noticed yes.

It goes to circumstance. You kill the other on a city game, have at it, bury them away. The instance involved a ship in question. You stab them on a ship, you should see if the other 100 or 1000 or whatever inhabitants didn't hear anything, also, check to see that the people running around running the ship during your frantic search for doctor didn't alert any NPC interest in your circumstance. You moved the body around, make sure no one saw the body bag being moved around.

On the MUSH, we're only saying give others a chance, but also noting the entire world exists as it logically would without having it all coded and presented. MUD is limited to what the staff has coded, the MUSH accounts for everything els.e

[acceleration]

IMO, people don't usually go out of their way to timelock to include another player unless the scales will be seriously tilted somehow by adding the third player via their skillset or position etc. The same is true in that I don't see a lot of passive aggressive 'You flaked out on me' unless adding Doc C would have been a game changer, or there was some underlying resentment toward Doc C already. There is an exception if A, B and C are all friends OOCly and want to wait for C to roll around so s/he can RP sweet, sweet medical godliness, which TBF is a niche area of expertise that doesn't get the sort of screen time combat primaries do.

MUSHes tend to be more about the idea of 'collaborative roleplay', and generally require a staff/ST ruling of some sort for non-social things to happen. There are a lot of reasons to ask for staff to handle antagonism which primarily come down to the idea that MUSHes don't have straight code as a replacement for mechanical rules, although if players are cool with each other OOCly they might proceed without one. MUSHers also like to ask for STs so there's some element of surprise to their stories and things don't just feel prewritten or too easy. MUSHes mostly differ from MUDs in that the level of danger tends to be set directly by character action in MUDs in addition to scripted but not necessarily predictable danger and invisible staffers. In MUSHes, you can adjust your danger level via a number of OOC means (RP preferences, who you play with, which events you attend, etc.), with events tending to be pre-scheduled and having their danger levels broadcasted in advance.

Timelocking typically takes place if:

1. antagonistic action is taken and B wants to call C in as backup vs. A, requiring all three players and an ST to show up to mediate. In my previous 'may lead to complications statement', in general if players are on their guard via ambush, an ST job that asks them about their whereabouts will get an answer like 'I'm not going anywhere without my my good friend C these days.'
2. A and B ran into trouble somewhere, B is critically injured and requires Doc C's medical godliness, but Doc C isn't online. STs may rule for or against waiting until Doc C is able to come online, but that's typically framed by the IC circumstances.

Edit: The above ignores the 'it's 3AM and everyone needs to pass out but we haven't finished killing this horrible monster' scenario. Those get timelocked too but no one really needs that explained, do they?

In an RP MUD, timelocking to wait for another player would be considered metagaming. RPIs typically already have built-in justifications for not being logged in. A lot of things are streamlined by code, the clock is considered to be running at all times barring significant OOC disruption, and there's no reason to pretend the 8 hours that elapse between X event and Y logging in don't exist. This helps immersion by instilling OOC pressure, ironically by hand-waving the inconvenient OOC influence of real life.

All that said, despite all the difference in playstyles between MUDs and MUSHes, I've seen plenty of vitriol about both types of gameplay floating around everywhere. Lack of staff transparency can be a major issue in either type of gameplay, with accusations of favoritism, cheating, metagaming etc. having been thrown around about probably 90% of the RP options there are out there these days. There are enjoyable things about both kinds of gameplay, too. It just depends on what you like and what you're willing to get used to.

[Arkandel]

@Pandora said in Cultural differences between MUDs and MUSHes:

@Arkandel said in Cultural differences between MUDs and MUSHes:

and while your PC was at risk of dying in the Slaughthouse of Horror please assume I was also there fighting valiantly at the back. What, it's time for you to put in a spend for Glory 4? Me too! We're old war buddies, you and I.

So if A, B, and C go to the Slaughterhouse of Horror and die, are you going to log on dead as well? I'm asking seriously, because I'd like to know where the line between plausibility and convenience is drawn in the sand.

That's what I'm saying; in my example I'd get to reap the IC benefits of being there without actually having to share the risk, simply by getting to interpret whatever happened after the fact.

If A, B and C go to the Slaughterhouse and get butchered my PC had a flat tire and didn't make it in time. Shame, he'd have saved the day!

[Kanye Qwest]

@Lotherio said in Cultural differences between MUDs and MUSHes:

On a MUSH, we assume the rest of the IC world still exists, if you conceivable demonstrate that you stabbed them (easy, in the code), gave the IC doctor a chance to be found (timestop the scene to be fair to the player, not be a douche and say 'welp offline, they failed') or got staff to check for NPC docs for you, and then make your rolls for stealth to show you buried them without being noticed yes.

...what? If A is setting out to murder B and get away with it, what exactly determines what is a 'fair' effort to find a doctor? I mean, if you stabbed someone, you are probably not going to make any actual effort to find a doctor. This example has gotten way far afield and doesn't make sense anymore. As Pandora noted.

[Lotherio]

@Kanye-Qwest said in Cultural differences between MUDs and MUSHes:

@Lotherio said in Cultural differences between MUDs and MUSHes:

On a MUSH, we assume the rest of the IC world still exists, if you conceivable demonstrate that you stabbed them (easy, in the code), gave the IC doctor a chance to be found (timestop the scene to be fair to the player, not be a douche and say 'welp offline, they failed') or got staff to check for NPC docs for you, and then make your rolls for stealth to show you buried them without being noticed yes.

...what? If A is setting out to murder B and get away with it, what exactly determines what is a 'fair' effort to find a doctor? I mean, if you stabbed someone, you are probably not going to make any actual effort to find a doctor. This example has gotten way far afield and doesn't make sense anymore. As Pandora noted.

The original scenario was on a space ship I believe. And the finding the doctor was brought up. Why do you get to determine for the entire NPC population that there is no doctor?

Also, I said in a city environment or more open, have at it. Its probably easy for A to kill B and get away with it.

Edit: This is ICA-ICC .... the world deserves to react, you can't hand wave it (or you can, but loses believability to me). Its like saying, we'll we killed the police chief because we wanted to, no one found us because on one was around on-line, guess we got away with it. They have to make up why they didn't notice us.

You can kill them, sure, but the story is losing verisimilitude for me by assuming it was just that easy.

[Pandora]

@Lotherio said in Cultural differences between MUDs and MUSHes:

Edit: This is ICA-ICC .... the world deserves to react, you can't hand wave it (or you can, but loses believability to me). Its like saying, we'll we killed the police chief because we wanted to, no one found us because on one was around on-line, guess we got away with it. They have to make up why they didn't notice us.

You can kill them, sure, but the story is losing verisimilitude for me by assuming it was just that easy.

There is a world of difference between killing a PC and killing a named NPC. The PC's author is here, the named NPC's author is generally staff. I'm all for intelligent debate - we all know there are differences between MUDs and MUSHes so why not discuss them, it's healthy and it's good. But when the examples become outrageous, what are we really arguing anymore? No one is saying 'let's murder the NPCs because we can!'.

[Lotherio]

@Pandora said in Cultural differences between MUDs and MUSHes:

@Lotherio said in Cultural differences between MUDs and MUSHes:

Edit: This is ICA-ICC .... the world deserves to react, you can't hand wave it (or you can, but loses believability to me). Its like saying, we'll we killed the police chief because we wanted to, no one found us because on one was around on-line, guess we got away with it. They have to make up why they didn't notice us.

You can kill them, sure, but the story is losing verisimilitude for me by assuming it was just that easy.

There is a world of difference between killing a PC and killing a named NPC. The PC's author is here, the named NPC's author is generally staff. I'm all for intelligent debate - we all know there are differences between MUDs and MUSHes so why not discuss them, it's healthy and it's good. But when the examples become outrageous, what are we really arguing anymore? No one is saying 'let's murder the NPCs because we can!'.

Haha, I didn't make up the closed environment of the ship, the attempted murder, the guilt, the looking for a ship doctor to care for an injured person. I'm going with the story provided

I have said you can kill them and get away with it, I pointed at a city, heck if its the country even better. If its all NPCs, have at it. There was a scenario involving three players, and the handwaving of the third player because they were not online.

Edit: If its two players and you're both having fun, knock yourselves out with this story. Just if it involves others, give them the chance. If B isn't suspecting, they get opportunity to allow their family, friends, faction, etc. to investigate or ask for staff intervention from the world of NPCs. But if you're both good with this story, run wild with it, have fun with it.

Edit: Added emphasis on three players

[Pandora]

I played on a game where setting a broken bone was a skill that not all doctors had and if one of them wasn't around or willing to set your broken arm, staff wasn't handing out free bone-setting splints from NPC doctors, you just had that broken bone until it healed. This wasn't a MUD, so I feel fairly confident saying YMMV based on what game you're playing with regards to the argument 'You don't get to decide that there's no NPC doctors around.' and that's not just a MUD vs MUSH determination.

[faraday]

On one extreme you have the situation on the Firefly ship or @Wretched's safe house where it's silly to assume the char is absent just because their player is.

On the other extreme is @Arkandel's Slaughterhouse or the "I'm going to wait to murder you while the police PCs are offline and assume they were taking a siesta" where someone is abusing OOC absence.

The vast majority of scenarios fall somewhere in between and are far from black and white. They require a case by case judgement call. Using the extremes as straw men arguments doesn’t get us anywhere.

[Ganymede]

@Pandora said in Cultural differences between MUDs and MUSHes:

... that's not just a MUD vs MUSH determination.

None of this is really a MUD v. MUSH argument. It's more a difference between simulation v. narration. MUDs generally have more code to allow for more simulation experience. MUSHes, which have relatively less, learn towards a narrative experience.

Just as some people prefer Fallout 4 in Survival Mode, some people like Casual because they want to worry about less things when playing. And that's just fine. Having played on MUDs, I prefer MUSHes because I find that they cater to the casual gamer a little better -- at least, they cater to this casual gamer.

If the question is "why?", there are good answers here. If the question is "which is better?", then this is, at best, a stupid discussion to have.

[Kestrel]

This thread is exposing a lot more differences between MUDs and MUSHes than I expected. Goes to show, I think, the 'one is game-heavy, other is roleplay-heavy' distinction doesn't quite cut it. There are many more nuances to the two styles than that.

@Three-Eyed-Crow said in Cultural differences between MUDs and MUSHes:

@Lotherio said in Cultural differences between MUDs and MUSHes:

It is forcing a 'you were not at your post'. Player cannot be on 24/7, or even every day of the week. Their char would be, this is making a weird cross over of OOC/IC.

Yeah, this. Half the reason people burn out on these games is the implied, inflated obligation they sometimes feel like.

Got to admit, I am finding my current MUSH way, way less stressful than any MUD I've ever been on.

Maybe except when it comes to OOC communication. They're about the same, on that front. (Different, but with pros and cons to each.)

[Arkandel]

@faraday Of course. My point was that it shouldn't be considered universal that someone unable to be OOC present for an IC event should get to pick the justification for it.

Generally they should, but it shouldn't convey any particular advantage - my rule of thumb is to handwave it completely. If it's something we just don't mention IC then that's for the best.

[Lotherio]

@Pandora said in Cultural differences between MUDs and MUSHes:

I played on a game where setting a broken bone was a skill that not all doctors had and if one of them wasn't around or willing to set your broken arm, staff wasn't handing out free bone-setting splints from NPC doctors, you just had that broken bone until it healed. This wasn't a MUD, so I feel fairly confident saying YMMV based on what game you're playing with regards to the argument 'You don't get to decide that there's no NPC doctors around.' and that's not just a MUD vs MUSH determination.

This goes into asshat territory too.

If I'm staff, and its conceivable NPCs are doctors, players shouldn't have to wait for the bone setting. It should be assumed. In fact if A, B, and even C are having fun, the NPC world should react as expected without staff needing to be there, or hand waving no NPCs. That sounds like a deterrent to RP in general.

Opposite the three player scenario, the two player scenario is they should be able to continue play without the time stop situation just the same.

@Kestrel

Fun is where you find it. I like the versatility of a MUSH, where other MU*s use a bit more code. Like the doctor case, its hard to think I would live in a city without an NPC doctor around if its plausible, but I'm limited to only using PC doctors or needing staff around to RP it. I'll leave such places. Or that I need an object called 'lace' to tie my shoes when its like a dime a dozen at any store.

I still play MUDs, but not RPI, I prefer my RP on a MUSH, I enjoy grinding on a MUD. Sometimes I do get into the RP if it so happens someone chances by while I'm mining or farming or making paper or enchanting something. I admit I tent to go to a MUD when OOC drama does crop up, usually in the extreme cases noted here. A break where I'm in full control and there is no OOC to worry about.

[Ganymede]

@Kestrel said in Cultural differences between MUDs and MUSHes:

This thread is exposing a lot more differences between MUDs and MUSHes than I expected. Goes to show, I think, the 'one is game-heavy, other is roleplay-heavy' distinction doesn't quite cut it. There are many more nuances to the two styles than that.

If your response was to my last post, this is why I very carefully chose my words.

There are nuances and interests. There are motivations and pleasures. You'll note that I did not say 'game-heavy' or 'roleplay-heavy' because those terms have connotations. In fact, I didn't even use MUD v. MUSH. I said simulation v. narration.

I said simulation v. narration because this discussion pops up within MUSHes, irrespective of MUDs. How immersive do we want the game to be? How much freedom should the game give to players to decide outcomes? And so on.