Jun 3, 2015, 4:40 PM

@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".