Optional Realities & Project Redshift
-
The classical heroes journey is predicated on a main character. Other significant characters (almost) always die in such tales. In text-based games it would seem difficult to reconcile entire playerbases all being the main character of their own heroes journey.
I mean I know of 3 MUSHes with perma-death (which I've played to some extent or another). Do most of them not support this feature/element?
-
@Thenomain, my first thought was Castle Marrach, but d'Image isn't bad either (come to think of it, weren't Marrach and d'Image related somehow? I can't remember).
However, what stood out to me about Usurper and what elevates it above those games is how the coded systems aren't just for +roll'ing or +sheets, but more a part of the game world overall. I guess this is a mud-centric view. I like that sort of simulationist piece, where the simulation isn't simply about your character needing food and water and making +babies, but more a part of the game's theme and setting.
-
@Ide said:
@Thenomain, my first thought was Castle Marrach, but d'Image isn't bad either (come to think of it, weren't Marrach and d'Image related somehow? I can't remember).
It's been too long, you know. Also, you're old.
However, what stood out to me about Usurper and what elevates it above those games is how the coded systems aren't just for +roll'ing or +sheets, but more a part of the game world overall.
Unlike a system that requires you to overcome an invisible barrier to move into the spirit world? All RPGs have systems that are part of the game world. While I too appreciate what appears to be an expression of an internal discussion ("I'd like to have this system, so let's put in this theme for it"), the game designer part of me wondered why this was so impressive. I mean, this should be standard.
Maybe it's my mush-centric view.
-
Actually I think the theme preceded the system in the case of Usurper. I know on Project Redshift that is how it worked for us.
-
@Ide said:
@Thenomain, my first thought was Castle Marrach, but d'Image isn't bad either (come to think of it, weren't Marrach and d'Image related somehow? I can't remember).
They were related in that there was a castle at the core of the setting. In every other respect Castle Marrach and Castle d'Image were radically different. Marrach was code-heavy and based on a ridiculous "verbing adverbly" communication style (enforced by the engine!). Castle d'Image (at least when I played on it) was a MUSH that had some coded stuff, but mostly was just like regular MUSHes with poses and emits and the like.
-
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 and I shall traverse the internet for you as well! I know that list may seem controversial but all of the games (including the 2 Moos and 1 MUSH) share those traits giving our users a guideline for what they can expect.
I wrote an article on it over here: http://optionalrealities.com/optional-realities-an-introduction-2/
Note: Please do not look to much into the lack of MUSH being commented on in the opening article. I'll need to send the editor to go add that right in, that was an oversight. We love MUSHes too.
-
-
@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 and I shall traverse the internet for you as well! I know that list may seem controversial but all of the games (including the 2 Moos and 1 MUSH) share those traits giving our users a guideline for what they can expect.
Firan (now dead) is the only thing not labelled explicitly a MUD that I'm aware of having all those coded systems. And goddamnit, the only thing I truly miss about Firan is 256-color crafting. LE SIGH.
-
-
It is worth noting that Otherspace created by Brody does qualify because of the couple of automated systems it does have as well as RP focus (like most MUSHes) and perma-death support.
http://otherspace.enjin.com/home
So it doesn't have to be all!
-
@Jeshin said:
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.
This whole conversation is interesting to me, but the point above is going to be the real kicker for any MUX/MUSH. I'm sure they exist, but I don't know any that have automated systems for any of the above, and none of the biggest do. Also, I don't think anyone here hates the association between the mediums, so you probably don't have to worry about it being controversial.
From your intro article that you linked, I feel like you're actually working against your own stated goals of inclusion by having the last two of your three requirements.
focused primarily on role-play, has coded support for player activities, and includes permanent character death.
The MUX/MUSH community is almost exclusively focused on RP, finding rare implementation of coded game systems. This seems like an arbitrary restriction if the goal is bridging divides between communities.
The MUX/MUSH community is generally perma-death on any non-consent game, but it's strange that it would be a requirement to be part of a larger community focused on RP. This seems more like a restriction in the other direction, against MUDs that don't support perma-death and, by unintentional proxy, full-consent MUX/MUSHs. Once again, it seems restrictive, if the goal is a community built around text-based roleplaying.
I otherwise support what it is you're trying to do and wish the project well.
-
Hey,
This question has been raised on our own community forum and it is certainly a valid one. After all roleplay focused games are traditionally more MUX/MOO/MUSH oriented and requiring automated or coded support excludes the lions share of them. So why do it? The honest answer is that we believed that coded support in some form is beneficial to the final product of the game and since we cannot be all things to all people we had to provide a qualifier so we don't list every single MUX/MOO/MUSH in existence. Just like perma-death is often difficult for MUDs that aren't RPIs to achieve. Thus we do not list every single MUD in existence with an emote/pose function. We will let TMC/TMS and broader communities handle such things.
That being said there is a difference between being listed on Optional Realities and being a user or contributor to the website. While I won't list a MUSH that lacks any coded support what so ever, I will engage in discussion about that game until my hands lose feeling in them. I believe that the development discussions and general cultural discussions across genres on the community forums are still valuable and there is no requirement for the users to be MUDers or believe in coded systems or even believe in perma-death!
So while the listings are exclusive to an extent, the community is open to all, and I think this thread alone is a good example of the kind of discussions we'd want on the OR Community boards. To wit I provide 3 links, because I like the number 3.
http://optionalrealities.com/forums/index.php?topic=25.0 --- Someone asking about why Optional Realities and why the restrictive requirements.
http://optionalrealities.com/forums/index.php?topic=113.0 --- A thread about why create a MUD (or text-based game) in 2015 considering all the competition. I believe this would benefit from contributions from more MUSH centric players.
http://optionalrealities.com/forums/index.php?topic=29.0 --- A thread discussing roleplay cultures and their effect on game design and also how to incentivize them with game design or discourage them with the same.
-
I may not be following your intended meaning here, but I cannot think of any MUSH that "lacks coded support".
After all roleplay focused games are traditionally more MUX/MOO/MUSH oriented and requiring automated or coded support excludes the lions share of them.
The lack of punctuation makes that sentence hard to parse, for me. With that said, I am quite sure that most every MUSH out there, minus the very rare 'table top sandboxes', are rather heavily code-supported. From CharGens to Dice commands to whatever, MUSHes run a gamut of heavily coded (Firan) to lightly coded (standard systemless social mush).
The difference between MUD and MUSH is that MUD's systems are hard-coded. MUSH are almost entirely done in 'softcode' or within the game itself using the functionality of objects that the entire game can access and run commands from. I have built D&D games that incorporated object-creating Crafting systems, Vendors selling those objects for cash, and the player could +equip those objects to actually automatically incorporate stat changes on their +sheet. Much in the same way that MUDs work. On that same game, I built a grid-based 'tabletop' functionality that allowed people to 'use miniature' combat in scenes, complete with DM ability to draw on the grid, move figures, etc.
-
That might be my MUD centric perspective affecting my terminology. By coded support we mean the following:
- If I do a dice roll and you do a dice roll, the damage is applied automatically or the affect is applied automatically. So for an example let us use Kushiel's Debut.
+roll/willpower Presence+Socialize (to distract you with body language and conversation)
I roll with Exceptional Success and you perhaps counter-roll and lose. You then receive a message like: You are distracted by <target>
^ That right there is what I would consider the bare minimum definition of "coded support" or "automation". A system which applies the results of actions to the players without allowing them to ignore it or requiring a judge to tell them what happened. Now could they ignore it? Sure but the fact that the system exists and informs them of their current state is "coded support"
- An example of combat "coded support" would be...
+roll/specialty strength+dexterity (longsword specialty to strike you)
You do an opposing roll and I win out. Apply the damage automatically and allow the participants to narrate how things are playing out.
So when I am discussing "coded support" I don't mean the tools and systems which allow people to roll and stuff. I am basically alluding to automation because the code is supporting the results of the tools you are using. Please note I only used Kushiel's Debut as an example. Their code does not auto send messages or auto-apply damage to my knowledge.
-
I'm assuming coded support to mean actual commands (kill joe, forge sword, track jane, search couch), and not just 'you can roll dice and have a +sheet'.
-
Also Tempest is correct. Coded support would be things like being able to use a track command that checks your +sheet stats and produces an appropriate output message like. Jane's tracks lead to the north! Crafting code support would be another where there are a lot of tiers of crafting but on a most basic level crafting code support would just be the ability to produce an item that is derived from your +sheet statistics and skills in such an art.
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.
-
@Jeshin said:
A system which applies the results of actions to the players without allowing them to ignore it or requiring a judge to tell them what happened.
In almost all RPGs out there, there is an arbitrator that fills in for the myriad thousands of modifiers, lookup tables and variables that would/could factor into such a contested roll. Let's take a simple gunfire exchange and tear into it as an example.
Scene: Bob and Mary are firing guns at each other in a local bar.
- Who has initiative, or first shot? Mary posed seeing Bob enter the bar, she knows that there is a hit order on her, and she knows Bob is a hitman. She posed getting out of her barstool and heading through the table to the bathroom. Maybe this comes down to a roll, but Bob hasn't posed seeing Mary yet, so... Who makes the call? How is it decided?
- Who has cover, and if so, to what degree? Mary can dive to the floor, behind a few tables, patrons and chairs, the moment that she senses Bob drawing his gun. Bob is standing up, but there are people between he and Mary, so he is covered from the waist down, maybe?
On most MUDs, someone has to run a 'hit Mary' command. Usually, the first one to do it, gets first strike. If Mary isn't paying attention, or if she is slow, she could be dead in that first strike despite hiding in the 'Saloon' room waiting for Bob to enter.
The difference between MUDs and MUSHes is exactly this arbitration, for the sake of the story being told, and most every MUSHer out there would be horrified if a game allowed Bob to 'shoot Mary' and 'win' the scene because he acted first. Where are the other considerations? they would scream, having just lost their character with zero input from themselves.
Now, back to your points: Almost all arbitrated/STed games out there have commands for staff/Storytellers/DMs to apply damage, per se, to characters. It's not automated, but with the above discussion, hopefully you see why.
-
@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.
If you discount games that do not have this level of code, then you will be discounting a huge amount of roleplaying games out there that have large playerbases, are very popular, and are very well done.
-
I'm curious how you feel about something like Faraday's FS3.
http://lynnfaraday.github.io/MUSH/fs3/mechanics.html
We used it on ye old Battlestar Cerberus (and it's been used in many a BSG game and lots of fantasy games, including Game of Bones which is running now) and it automates a lot of functions, like combat damage and healing. It's designed with MUSHes in mind, though (it's turn-based rather than operating in real time, a GM still runs and narrates the scene but just doesn't have to do fifty million rolls by hand), and you just +roll outside combat.
There are other games with combat systems that do things like auto-apply and track damage, that's just the one I'm most familiar with.
-
I realize I'm not the one being asked, but personally, I do not like FS3's automated bits. I like the +sheet code fine (with appropriate restrictions and game-specific gauges) as an alternative to WoD sheets for other genres to use, but not the combat code. If combat is coded to be more than +rolls, I'd rather it be coded more fully than FS3.
-
Hey,
So it's important to clarify that we are not discounting the quality or storytelling potential of text-based RPGs that lack one of our 3 defining qualities. It is just that they do not fall under the purview of games which we would list and give a sub-forum. We have a thread and sub-forum for discussing text-based games in general and article contributions can certainly come from them as well.
Yes what you are describing is how some MUDs would handle it. Although support for cover, vnpcs in the room, hiding, so on and so forth can and have been coded into systems in the past. I would also propose that MUDs provide "coded support & automation" exactly for the sake of the story being told. 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. In my experience nWoD (for example) is a fairly easy system to break. There's websites with the dice roll statistics and everything basically laying out the optimal way to approach distribution of points and so on so forth.
Based on this webpage and assuming I am reading it correctly. This game would qualify as having "coded support & automated systems" and thus would only need to be roleplay focused and support perma-death to be listed on Optional Realities. I cannot stress enough that we are not asking for MUSHes to become MUDs to be listed. We are simply stating that we believe some automation improves the player experience and if a game staff agrees and applies automation where they feel is appropriate than we can look at it and decide if it is enough to be listed.
For example Otherspace (currently only MUSH listed) does not have automated combat. It has other automated features like space travel for example.
-
@Jeshin said:
Based on this webpage and assuming I am reading it correctly. This game would qualify as having "coded support & automated systems" and thus would only need to be roleplay focused and support perma-death to be listed on Optional Realities.
Yeah, I was curious about how something like that would be quantified for your purposes (the qualitative aspects of the system itself notwithstanding, it's just a MUSH system I'm familiar with that's automated). I suspect there are MU*s with more complex coded systems that might not, just depending on how they're applied and how much the coder bothers to automate them (and games with automated systems installed may almost never use them), so I wonder if it differentiates types of MUSH/MUXes as well as it might other sorts of games. It's as interesting a way of looking at games as anything, though.
