Alternative Formats to MU

Sparks

@rook said in Alternative Formats to MU:

But at face value, it is just text being sent back and forth. The channel in which it is process doesn't matter to the end-user.

The point is that it doesn't have to be just text being sent back and forth.

Evennia's model is that you have a Portal (which accepts incoming connections, be they telnet, ssh, or the web client) and a Server (which does all the actual work). All the text sent from the Server to the Portal can support out-of-band metadata. For telnet/ssh, this metadata is just stripped off, but why not do things like show a typing indicator in the web client?

You could also do things like make a map in the web client that supports receiving your current location from the server and putting a little pin on the graphical map showing 'you are here'. You could send a list of people in the room as people enter and exit. You could include things like 'this blob of text is a page associated with conversation 1' and make the web client pop the page conversation out into its own window, a'la instant messenger.

A list of people presently online on the game, where you can click on one and have it open a private messaging conversation to them, is arguably a lot more intuitive to everyone who uses the internet than knowing you need to 'page <blah>=<foo>'. Everyone's used to being able to do that on Discord servers already, or Battle.net, or Steam, or Skype, or IRC, or whatever.

And that's without getting into a complete rewrite from scratch where Telnet isn't even part of it, and the web client isn't just some 'richer' way to access it that can use extra metadata.

Roz

@rook said in Alternative Formats to MU:

@Arkandel
I just don't see the difference between typing things out and filling out a webform, when it comes to making a MUSH character, other than the UI.

Except that UI is huge and is a big part of why someone chooses to put in the work to figure out any sort of website, program, app, etc. You can't just say "there's no difference other than the UI" as if the UI doesn't matter. It does matter. That's why there's a huge industry in developing UI.

I don't understand why you think there's literally no difference in "interacting with a website that behaves in a manner that's familiar" and "downloading and interacting with a brand new program using command line syntax that's entirely alien."

An incoming player dabbling around might toy with it, but if they aren't immediately hooked by the potential of great depth, the storytelling, the new venue in playing a game... the UI isn't going to snag them in, in my opinion. I may be wrong, I often am.

It's more a matter of the fact that someone might actually be a potential player who would absolutely be hooked in by all those things you mentioned -- but the UI is their first introduction and it's weird and unintuitive and offputting, so they move on. The point is that you're losing players who could be really productive and valuable to a game.

Once again I state: UI is not the barrier to entry, nor is the back-end protocol.

Once again I state: I have heard from lots of people that UI is the first barrier to entry.

MUSH is just not a venue for the short attention span, those that are lazy or those that have a very low motivation to learn something new. I put my money on that statement. You all disagree, and that's fine, I'm just stating repeatedly that I don't think that UI changes, protocol changes, or whatever, will fundamentally change MUSHing past some sort of invisible tipping point of ease-of-use.

All I've seen from your argument is that you personally find to be barriers of entry once people have invested a certain amount in the medium. I think you're looking at it from a perspective that's far removed from actually thinking about how a brand new player sees things upon their first introduction to the medium.

Rook

@Sparks
Everything you have described is possible, entirely, with every MUSH and MUX server out there today. The problem is simply the client.

Arkandel

@rook said in Alternative Formats to MU:

@Arkandel
I just don't see the difference between typing things out and filling out a webform, when it comes to making a MUSH character, other than the UI. You still have to write up a description, you have to select all the nibbly bits of Stats, Attributes, Powers, Weapons, Merits, blah blah blah...

But the UI is a tremendously important part of the exercise. Imagine if, in order to use Google Maps, instead of typing in an address (and being presented with potential matches you can just click on) shown on a map, you had to type in a long command, then manually grep through the text-only addresses to find the one you want, then having to paste the one into a second command to actually start being navigated there... in text, rather than being shown the roads.

Same thing, completely different experience.

It's not a dramatic example though. Even today to walk from Room1 to Room5 you need to get exposed to five rooms' worth of descriptions, character (or NPC) names, etc. It can easily scroll your screen a couple of times.

Now do that in a web client, picking from a map overlay, clicking on your destination... and you are done. Your main window is unaffected - in fact you can show or hide any unnecessary information at will.

Different experiences.

Apos

@sparks said in Alternative Formats to MU:

A list of people presently online on the game, where you can click on one and have it open a private messaging conversation to them, is arguably a lot more intuitive to everyone who uses the internet than knowing you need to 'page <blah>=<foo>'. Everyone's used to being able to do that on Discord servers already, or Battle.net, or Steam, or Skype, or IRC, or whatever.

I am 99% sure that that feature alone would make these games immediately accessible to a wider audience. Clickable tool bar to bring up a collapsible who list/friends (watch) list, clickable conversations, and so on.

RnMissionRun

I am not opposed to the idea of a web interface on principle (by which I mean UI, not just rendering text in a browser window).

My very first game was started in 1997. Pueblo was a brand new thing, the notion of having graphics, sound, clickable links and all was super exciting to us and so we moved to implement it on our game.That's when we discovered that we were writers, not graphic artists and since none of us were that interested in developing those skills, we decided to ignore the web. This was the right decision at the time since it turned out that pretty much everyone else did, too.

This is my main problem with the web interface. If you lack the skills for it yourself, you're going to have to find someone else that can do it, and these days, even finding a coder or builders can seem an impossible task. It doesn't matter that there are millions of skilled web developers out there (any more than it matters that there are millions of skilled Python developers, if your game is written in Python), finding one willing to work on your game (for free) is going to take a miracle.

Meg

@rnmissionrun not if it was already part of the platform and all you had to do was change some configuration options.

RnMissionRun

@meg said in Alternative Formats to MU:

@rnmissionrun not if it was already part of the platform and all you had to do was change some configuration options.

My current project uses Evennia, so there is support for it. I just never planned to do anything with it.

Rook

I get what you guys are saying. I think that we're just talking at two different levels.

The reason that I say that the UI isn't the issue is not because I don't recognize the value of dropdowns in a choice list being hella faster than typing it out after looking through a help file.

I just think that, even with UI changes in a client (whether app or web), players face much larger hurdles than just the command structures. You will see a fundamental shift in how MUSH is played, period, if you (as @Arkandel proposes in his example) remove the physical movement from room to room on grids. You will start seeing people hiding/ignoring information that is, in today's MUSH standards, designed to be read, followed and dealt with in an IC way. That's just one example, and I don't think that I'm being old-dinosaur by pointing this out.

Shift every rule, check and validation into a web client, and you will have a complex web client. Why? CharGen is complex. Shift every +command into a web client, and you will get a complex web client. A window for seeing who's in the room, who's online, including filtering for "Everyone in WHO", "My friends", "Just in this Room", or "My Faction". That alone speaks to things being complex to learn, potentially lending to people missing things.

Imagine +watch now being desktop notifications (and yes, people would ask for it). Imagine the web client interface for managing that functionality. Pages and channels, too, in their own windows if you like, but do we now do Slack-like @-mention notifications? What about +beep/+alert?

Sit back and try prototyping out functionality of a MUSH into a web client. That is a good first step to having this conversation, in my opinion as an engineer. Let's start going through actual UI/UX exercises and proposals.

I get that you propose and think that it will somehow lower barriers of complexity in entering players' experience. I get it. I just don't think that it is as easily solvable as you think. And, if it is, I am not yet there with your vision, and I think that I (and others) need to see what you envision. I'm happy to help in this project, as I said before. Promise. EDIT: I'm already deep into working on it here.

But during the envisioning phase of any project, we need to all agree on goals. In this case, that is a concrete UI/UX.

Lotherio

@arkandel said in Alternative Formats to MU:

@rook said in Alternative Formats to MU:

@Arkandel
I just don't see the difference between typing things out and filling out a webform, when it comes to making a MUSH character, other than the UI. You still have to write up a description, you have to select all the nibbly bits of Stats, Attributes, Powers, Weapons, Merits, blah blah blah...

But the UI is a tremendously important part of the exercise. Imagine if, in order to use Google Maps, instead of typing in an address (and being presented with potential matches you can just click on) shown on a map, you had to type in a long command, then manually grep through the text-only addresses to find the one you want, then having to paste the one into a second command to actually start being navigated there... in text, rather than being shown the roads.

Different experiences.

If you want to find an asteroid as part of some personal agenda as an amateur astronomy, guess what, you're best bet to locate it is telnet via the HORIZON system. You can google where the planets are right now. HORIZON has web interface, but it just isn't as advanced or useful as telnet'ing into the system. Astronomers aren't trying to update it, the tool still works and its easy to learn through the HTML/PDF documentation. If you don't know the math, it will look greek to you. If you're interested in astronomy, surprise, you'll learn it on your own.

I use google maps, but I like travelling on back roads, a lot. Like dirt roads, county roads, etc. I'll use google maps to get to another city and such, I love the interface of my phone tracking me and offering groupons in other cities, or google suggesting I review the restaurant I'm in and snag a picture and all. But if I'm really exploring about, I still pick up the current year atlas for any state/location I'm visiting just to be safe.

Edit: New systems are great, I know there is also a drive to work through SQL on the backend to coordinate between soft code in the system, altering the hard code from in the system, and utilizing that for web interface. It all sounds great, and I'm looking forward to what may come. I look forward to what's to come, but yeah, still that social barrier of 'meh' too much text to read, or 'too many commands to learn'

As for telnet and too many commands to learn, I don't think that holds ground. Look at minecraft, finding servers; you have to put your telnet address and port into a client (the launcher). You want a 'safe' environment, you have to go through a white list (ie, giving your telnet addie and port to host admin to be allowed through the ports). Many people learn this through minecraft, its not archaic yet.

Roz

@rook I think you kind of have to accept that UI is important to every other person out there, and that your feeling that it's not important is unique to you as an internet user.

Rook

@roz Please read my latest. Again, I'm not against UI. That is not my argument. I am trying to come at this conversation in an engineering feasibility standpoint as much as any sort of personal preference thing.

surreality

@rnmissionrun I dunno about that one. A lot more people tinker with graphics than tinker with Python, I'd think. This is not to say that a lot of people are necessarily any good at it, but most of that's a matter of taste anyway.

Auspice

If you want Discord-style 'chat' for your roleplay, why not just go and start roleplaying there? I mean, people have been roleplaying in places like that for a while now.

Single-sentences, rapid-fire RP. 'Mary giggles.' 'Bob smiles.' 'Ryan says, 'Let's go.' 'Mary says, 'Okay.' 'Bob goes over there.' 'Ryan follows.'

You too could be part of that engaging environment!

If an interface of buttons and drop-down menus is what you need for the future of your roleplay, it's out there. If you need avatars, it's out there, too. There's MMOs with roleplay servers.

I just happen to think the crux of MU*ing happens to be the actual writing aspect of it. And the more we obsess over what buttons we're clicking (or not), the further we drift away from that.

And maybe I'm alone in that thinking, which makes me kind of sad.

RnMissionRun

@surreality said in Alternative Formats to MU:

@rnmissionrun I dunno about that one. A lot more people tinker with graphics than tinker with Python, I'd think. This is not to say that a lot of people are necessarily any good at it, but most of that's a matter of taste anyway.

Maybe, but overcoming 20 years of inertia is going to take more effort than I'm willing to expend at this point.

I'll reconsider my position when I start seeing more games with web based UIs.

Meg

@rook some of us have started use casing and wire-framing for this kind of thing. I don't think it is nearly as complex as you make it out to be, but it's also not simple. Some of what is in a MUSH can just be left on the cutting table, honestly.

And, of course, any implementation won't match everyone's preferences. So you may still want to take a base code and tweak it, and yes, you'd need a coder to do that.

None of this solves the coding problem or that our medium is still text-based roleplaying and if someone doesn't want to do that, it won't be the right medium.

What it does solve, however, is that man, my wireframes look pretty and it would be fun to update MUSH for the decade we are in.

Sparks

@apos said in Alternative Formats to MU:

@sparks said in Alternative Formats to MU:

A list of people presently online on the game, where you can click on one and have it open a private messaging conversation to them, is arguably a lot more intuitive to everyone who uses the internet than knowing you need to 'page <blah>=<foo>'. Everyone's used to being able to do that on Discord servers already, or Battle.net, or Steam, or Skype, or IRC, or whatever.

I am 99% sure that that feature alone would make these games immediately accessible to a wider audience. Clickable tool bar to bring up a collapsible who list/friends (watch) list, clickable conversations, and so on.

Heck, I think (as I'm sure everyone on this board is painfully aware by now) that even just putting your bboards on the website is a huge leap forward in usability; you can then read boards without logging in, you can read them without cluttering up your scene / logfile, etc. That's a UI change which immediately benefits even existing, experienced MU* users.

It's why the first thing I wrote for my Evennia game-in-a-box kit was a web-enabled forum system.

Roz

@auspice said in Alternative Formats to MU:

If you want Discord-style 'chat' for your roleplay, why not just go and start roleplaying there? I mean, people have been roleplaying in places like that for a while now.

Single-sentences, rapid-fire RP. 'Mary giggles.' 'Bob smiles.' 'Ryan says, 'Let's go.' 'Mary says, 'Okay.' 'Bob goes over there.' 'Ryan follows.'

You too could be part of that engaging environment!

If an interface of buttons and drop-down menus is what you need for the future of your roleplay, it's out there. If you need avatars, it's out there, too. There's MMOs with roleplay servers.

I just happen to think the crux of MU*ing happens to be the actual writing aspect of it. And the more we obsess over what buttons we're clicking (or not), the further we drift away from that.

And maybe I'm alone in that thinking, which makes me kind of sad.

I think this is a pretty unfair representation of the conversation going on. We're talking about how and why to develop a better, more user-friendly experience for the kind of RP we already have. No one is saying the writing isn't important. We're saying that the user experience of getting to that "actual writing aspect" could be improved in a way that would make it easier to use and more welcoming to new people who might enrich the hobby.

RnMissionRun

@sparks said in Alternative Formats to MU:

@apos said in Alternative Formats to MU:

@sparks said in Alternative Formats to MU:

A list of people presently online on the game, where you can click on one and have it open a private messaging conversation to them, is arguably a lot more intuitive to everyone who uses the internet than knowing you need to 'page <blah>=<foo>'. Everyone's used to being able to do that on Discord servers already, or Battle.net, or Steam, or Skype, or IRC, or whatever.

I am 99% sure that that feature alone would make these games immediately accessible to a wider audience. Clickable tool bar to bring up a collapsible who list/friends (watch) list, clickable conversations, and so on.

Heck, I think (as I'm sure everyone on this board is painfully aware by now) that even just putting your bboards on the website is a huge leap forward in usability; you can then read boards without logging in, you can read them without cluttering up your scene / logfile, etc. That's a UI change which immediately benefits even existing, experienced MU* users.

It's why the first thing I wrote for my Evennia game-in-a-box kit was a web-enabled forum system.

Yep, we have your forum on the game. It works great, but it's mainly a convenience for mobile users.

Rook

@meg
Believe me when I say this, because I do mean this with the utmost of curious sincerity:

I want to see it.

Start a thread, post images or give links. I want to see what you envision here, as it will likely greatly shift my perspective in this conversation! I am entirely open to that, and would be happy to alter my own thinking and vision.