@Jeshin said:
Character Concept Contest (any setting, genre, or game)
http://optionalrealities.com/forums/index.php?topic=198.0This might be the breakout contest for musoapbox users to take 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. No more pesky restrictions or game mechanics in it. Just good old character pitching.
Does this include character descriptions? I've managed to dig up a classic one I might want to flesh out and submit. (I think the character's name was Ishtar.)
@BetterJudgment said:
@Jeshin said:
Character Concept Contest (any setting, genre, or game)
http://optionalrealities.com/forums/index.php?topic=198.0This might be the breakout contest for musoapbox users to take 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. No more pesky restrictions or game mechanics in it. Just good old character pitching.
Does this include character descriptions? I've managed to dig up a classic one I might want to flesh out and submit. (I think the character's name was Ishtar.)
I love you so hard right now.
@Thenomain said:
Thanks for the support, @Gingerlily. I am interested that in order to bridge communication gaps you have to want to bridge communication gaps, and that is understandably not something someone who has to deal with a newbie commonly wants to do. Changing your mental gears is tiring on both sides.
You are welcome. An interesting conversation rather than "Who is more bestestest" might be "What does a MUD player need to know to try out MUSH games?" and "What does a MUSH player need to know to try out MUDs" Obviously mwv depending on the particular MUSH or MUD, but there are some differences in the mechanics, the culture, and yeah even the lingo, that could actually be useful to discuss. Productive. We do seem to have people who have tried both, some extensively.
To answer the contest question from phone so I'll get to the other topics when I get home.
The contest has a format for submissions which includes a description section. If you want to submit something outside the format or like skip portions of it than we will still judge it and host it but it probably won't place top 3
So as to the lexicon issue when discussing MUDs and MUSHes it's definitely an issue. In this thread alone I spent a good portion of my posts asking clarification questions to try and get a touchstone to proceed with the discussion.
That being said roleplay is roleplay. I certainly have my preference as to the environment for participating in roleplay but that's like saying you enjoy reading a book in a quiet room or with a soundtrack that compliments it or outside. It's just the manner in which you prefer the experience to occur. But then again I don't speak for the entire MUD community or the RPI community, only the Optional Realities community so you know... Grain of salt and all that.
I would say the 2 biggest differences between MUDs and MUSHes is our OOC policies. Some MUDs have OOC channels but they require you to have the narrative playout purely through IC events. Meaning you cannot go OOC I'd like to become a cop in the local PD. You would have to take IC steps towards letting people know you wanted to be a cop in the local PD. Meanwhile on MUSHes the collaboration (in my experience thus far) is more in the path of least resistance. I want to become a cop in the local PD. Great, lets cut out the busywork and get you right into a story arc that may or may not facilitate that. No muss, no fuss.
The second biggest difference (or the biggest big difference?) is that a lot of MUDs have coded NPCs which have coded combat abilities. MUSHes (normally) do not. This creates a pretty big experience gap between both games that can lead to one viewing the other as less serious. And brings up the "gameplay" term which is loaded.
@Jeshin said:
That being said roleplay is roleplay.
I think it's pretty clear by now that roleplay isn't roleplay, that the differences are part of the definition. You can try to be Ron Edwards and come up with an academic, clinical definition of it, or Fred Hicks or D. Vincent Baker and try to make the game you want to play.
Roleplay is Roleplay
If I put on sunglasses and tell my girlfriend that I am an FBI agent and she has the right to remain sexy. That is roleplay.
If I go onto a MUD and attack NPCs and collect resources from them to sell those to merchants in order to buy something for my MUD girlfriend as a gift. That is roleplay.
If I go onto a MUSH and enter a scene and talk about the weather while drinking coffee before someone robs the coffee shop. That is roleplay.
If I go to the park and find some LARPers and get a foam sword and lay siege to the jungle gym while people inside throw tennis balls at me and they shout spells. That is roleplay.
If I sit at a table with some dice and use an RPG to have a game night with my friends. That is roleplay.
Roleplay is the act of playing a role. Now people can argue which is better or which they prefer but if you are out there typing or speaking or acting in a manner which is meant to portray a character (not yourself) than you're roleplaying.
Let's get some Forge fight down in here!
(Please don't.)
hmm >.> another touchstone I don't get the reference too. What is the context of "forge fight"?
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?159851-What-is-quot-The-Forge-quot
Oh, also the question about submitting descriptions was a joke. Ishtar was a character on Shangrila whose description was... a bit... famous around these parts.
@Jeshin said:
That being said roleplay is roleplay. I certainly have my preference as to the environment for participating in roleplay but that's like saying you enjoy reading a book in a quiet room or with a soundtrack that compliments it or outside. It's just the manner in which you prefer the experience to occur. But then again I don't speak for the entire MUD community or the RPI community, only the Optional Realities community so you know... Grain of salt and all that.
OR the ice cream/cake/whatever thing, but yeah. We're all over the which is better conversation and I'm glad you agree!
I would say the 2 biggest differences between MUDs and MUSHes is our OOC policies. Some MUDs have OOC channels but they require you to have the narrative playout purely through IC events. Meaning you cannot go OOC I'd like to become a cop in the local PD. You would have to take IC steps towards letting people know you wanted to be a cop in the local PD. Meanwhile on MUSHes the collaboration (in my experience thus far) is more in the path of least resistance. I want to become a cop in the local PD. Great, lets cut out the busywork and get you right into a story arc that may or may not facilitate that. No muss, no fuss.
I'm gonna have to say that on my MUD experience this one is a nope. Perhaps on some MUDs there is no communicating with staff about "I'd like to do this thing, how do I do it" but on some there absolutely is. Not a channel for it, but you can absolutely take OOC steps on some games to tell the staff your goals and have them give you feedback on what IN CHARACTER things you need to do to make that occur, which is not disimilar to a MUSH. Now if the 'position' or whatever a character wants is one that would only be granted by other PCs...then -ideally- on many MUDs you go after that IC only, using the avenues that are provided. Ideally, because as we know the whole 'players don't communicate using ooc methods' is an 'ideal' for some games but rarely and sometimes never a truth, thus telling the person who is head of Faction X OOC that you want in and having the head of Faction X give you some ideas about how DOES occur on MUDs, its just perhaps occurring on IM/Skype/whatever the kids use these days. My experience has shown collaboration on both MUD and MUSH, the question is just where it is happening. I have also seen people attempt to achieve X -purely ic- on both MUD and MUSH, it just depends how clear it is on how that can be done, and how much a particular player enjoys discussing their plans OOC. The idea that a MUD has only an in game ic narrative though is a myth. Its whether collaboration is the cultural norm, or whether it is done offsite.
The second biggest difference (or the biggest big difference?) is that a lot of MUDs have coded NPCs which have coded combat abilities. MUSHes (normally) do not. This creates a pretty big experience gap between both games that can lead to one viewing the other as less serious. And brings up the "gameplay" term which is loaded.
Yes. This one I'll agree with. Most MUDs have 'mobs' or whatever you'd like to call them, and you can fight them to gain skills in whatever way MUDs have for you to gain skills because THAT is an absolute totally true difference (or potential difference) between the styles of games. A real one, that in my experience is consistent. (I have never played on a MUD without coded NPCs to kill and who will respawn, etc, code code code, and I have never played on a MUSH that had them.) So here I agree.
When I said no OOC communication for IC story arcs I meant with players themselves. Most RP muds (if not all) allow players to communicate with staff freely about those things. Also yeah that stuff happens between players off site but on the MUD itself such restrictions will sometimes exist which (in my experience) come off as weird to MUSH players trying out the game.
@Thenomain said:
A Mudder's Perspective. Really, 'automated conflict' is the second-highest kind of RP you can attain? Automated Conflict is Role-Play? Described as "roleplay-focused player versus environment activities" I am fairly confident that this person either has not had a combat on a Mush, which is so roleplay-focused that it takes effing forever to get through.
On the contrary, I've had several combat experiences on MUSHes, though I can certainly agree with this generally being a 'MUDder's perspective'. The notion that automated conflict or interaction with automated systems somehow is inherently disqualified from being roleplay is a pretty extreme MUSH perspective, and one that's certainly colored in a lack of experience with MUDs that have combat systems built around roleplay in addition to automated systems built and programmed to be dynamic and contextual. In theory, there's nothing really keeping a game from building its automated features, in a text-based engine, to be as immersive, interesting, and interactive as a game of tabletop, or at least coming awfully close. Some of Haven's features stand as a really strong example of how this can be done, and if you're incapable of seeing how automated systems can be used to prompt and bring players together for contextualized roleplay scenarios without the need of a helping hand from staff or a designated storyrunning player, that's an indication that your perspective is likely too locked in personal experience and habit to see the potential, or else you're bound with some sort of elitist mindset that simplifies all MUDs as mindlessly hack-and-slashy. Admittedly, most 'RP' MUDs are built upon the detritus of generations of hack-and-slash, and it shows, but many games, especially ones running on engines built from the ground up, have come a long way. The simple fact is that hack-and-slash will never be all that competitive on a text-based engine compared to mainstream graphical games, but the virtue of the text-based engine is its potential for creativity and storytelling and many designers now aim to build their automated systems to foster such approaches.
@Thenomain said:
I don't know what he means by "wide scope socialization", but if it's like most of the group meetings that I've played on Mushes then it's even worse, and I can't wait to get back into small groups. The way he seems to indicate it is something we call "Bar RP" and is no different than "downtime socialization". (The idea that Bar RP is always flatline-RP is a misnomer. It may provide important opportunities to catch up with plot.)
Wide scope socialization generally involves player-arranged events, such as parties or other such affairs, which usually do a great job of getting players interacting and building interpersonal relationships but only rarely serves as a meaningful part of a character's story or as a springboard for a moving plot. Generally speaking while these events are great for their breadth, they tend to lack in depth. They appeal to many players, but they seldom significantly impact any individual character in a meaningful way. Simply put, they lack gravitas. That's not to say they're worthless; they certainly aren't worthless, and are a fantastic tool for getting characters to interact with those they might not meet otherwise.
I actually distinguish between 'Bar RP' and wide scope socialization in the article, with 'Bar RP' being what I typically class as a downtime interaction. The reason it comprises the flat line of the pulse is because it's flat line roleplay. It is the lowest common denominator, and when all else is gone, 'Bar RP', mudsex/tinysex, domestic roleplay, etc. will still be there. If we tried to strip another layer of roleplay to dub something else the 'flat line', there would be no roleplay left to point at, as all that would be left is idling, and I don't believe I need to point out that idling is not roleplay. I think this point of disagreement likely springs from two causes, one in that you assume a negative connotation in this sort of roleplay being deemed the flat line, and another in that 'Bar RP' generally tends to be a bit less common and more impactful on MUSHes (in my experience) than on MUDs. The ability for more impactful roleplay to emerge from 'Bar RP' or other downtime activity, or for it to serve an important role as a carrier of plot information for characters, is actually consistent with being the 'flat line' of a pulse (from which we get spikes).
@Thenomain said:
Crayon's solutions must also be a Mud-thing, because I don't know what he's talking about. It reads to me like "do things". Okay, I promise to do things.
They're very likely a primarily MUD thing, as MUSHes tend to rely more on staff or player storyrunners to keep things moving. MUSHes also tend to favor an approach through which most plots (and roleplay) are engineered and possibly even predetermined through OOC communication, where MUDs tend to aspire towards creating an environment that will organically spur players into contexts that will lead to a story. I do think the automation and incentivization tactic is unique to MUDs, but also somewhat rare and seldom done well.
@Thenomain said:
With one exception: Incentives. We here in the Mush world have a love-hate relationship with incentives to players, because we are constantly fighting the "bloated character sheet" (aka Dino) problem, when it is a problem. A substantial number, but probably not majority, of us believe you should play games to play games, and agree to the setting and theme and rules of the game you log into. The only incentive I need (or, really, want) is staff giving a shit what I'm doing.
We have this in the MUD world, too, and it's probably significantly more prevalent than it is on MUSHes, at least in my experience with both. This is also something that can be corrected with better game design, but that isn't always going to be an option when you're working directly from tabletop rules. One thing that I think MUDs should generally aspire to is actually designing the game and its automated systems dynamically enough that staff doesn't have to give a shit what you're doing in order for you to want to do it, or tell a meaningful story through doing it.
@Thenomain said:
I still would like to see a Mudder approach coding the Storytelling system. This is not just a challenge, but to see how it would end up.
Haven's the only MUD that I've seen really approach this, if you're referring to player storytelling, though your emphasis of the Storytelling system makes me wonder if you're referring to a specific game's approach that I've not experienced. It's interesting, and certainly has its flaws, but it's a very refreshing thing to have on a MUD.
@Thenomain said:
Hell, no MUSH would classify as "RPI" according to these people, even though we take our RP very seriously. 'WHO' is a tool, and if we don't have 'where' reporting then there will be heartache. Pages, channels, all ways to organize and table-talk things that need table-talked. I think half of any game I code is for player-tools and not character-tools. For us, this is critical, because we play the game as an extended tabletop.
Until someone comes along and tries to figure out the difference between Mush and Mud, there will be no synthesis. This is why I think Optional Realities' supposed goal is silly and comes down to, "It is what I say it is." As long as it isn't supposed to be about Mushes, sure, but the original post is all about the Mushes. Then isn't. Then is. Then isn't. Yeah. This isn't solvable without understanding and compromise.
I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to as Optional Realities' 'supposed goal', but as far as the differences between MUDs and MUSHes go, I think they're actually fairy simple. MUSHes tend to be an online platform for tabletop. They may have some automated systems to mirror tabletop rulesets to varying extents, but they seldom have significant degrees of automation. The mimicry of tabletop has allowed MUSHes to historically cultivate and cater to a stronger roleplay culture, whereas MUDs tend to come from a more gamer-oriented or hack-and-slash background. What you tend to find in attempts at 'synthesis' is an unhealthy clash where either design elements modeled after MMOs fail to be conducive for roleplay or tabletop elements prove to be incompatible with automation. You can highlight the differences, such as the tendency for MUSHes to rely primarily on OOC avenues to arrange for roleplay and storytelling where many RP MUDs at least aspire to an organic approach, but this doesn't really get us anywhere meaningfully. The term 'RPI' is loaded with a lot of feature-oriented nonsense regarding things like 'Who' lists and OOC communication, and a long history of bickering over its actual definition, but it's my belief that it's more or less a de facto title for games that aspire to build their automated systems and game world in such a way as to be conducive to a similar level of storytelling as you would find in a tabletop setting, though many, being Diku-derived, are pretty unsuccessful at it. Not everybody is likely to think that it's a realistic goal to be striving towards, or a reachable one, but I do think that the text-based medium is uniquely well-suited to the approach. Either way a 'synthesis' won't really be possible without breaking free from both the 'tabletop' mindset (which relies on staff or player storyrunners too heavily to be compatible with automation) and the MMO mindset (which features automation that caters to simplistic feedback loops and grinding behaviors that aren't really helpful for incentivizing roleplay and storytelling enough to ensure that it stands at the game's forefront).
@Thenomain said:
Which is why I see it as a vanity project. You choose the games. You choose the definitions. It's your world, and we are guests. If we disagree then we are wrong.
The definitions are fairly straightforward, and not meeting certain requirements, eg. automated systems, might seem a little subjective but it's a pretty simple sieve through which to sort out games that are reasonably alike. Not being designed with a reasonably similar approach in mind doesn't necessarily make one 'wrong'. I'm not sure where vanity has anything to do with it, nobody's saying that a game is 'wrong' in its design because it doesn't use the same approach as the games that Optional Realities considers as community partners.
@Alzie said:
A ship floating through space meant to repopulate the human race after an extinction event fighting against unknown enemies using high technology where the captain is controlled by a secretive council of humans that decides when they do what. If you take out actually colonizing new worlds it'd be the same.
I actually happen to be watching Knights of Sidonia on Netflix presently, and there are certainly similarities. Those similarities can also be found in the backstory of the Trigun series, Atonement RPI, Battlestar Galactica, and a wealth of other science fiction stories. It's probably not as common a trope setting as 'post-apocalyptic desert wasteland' but it's pretty well-utilized (and fun).
@Tyche said:
I couldn't fathom what the heck it was all about.
Sorry! I'll work on improving readability with future releases, and might try to write up a simplified version of the original article.
@Thenomain said:
What I am discovering about people who are exclusive Mudders: They have a very specific, almost draconian idea of what "RP" means.
I think the MUD community has cultivated a lot of ideas about what constitutes 'good' roleplay, or what constitutes a story, but I think debating what is and isn't roleplay is actually pretty silly. If anything, I found your suggestion that roleplay revolving around automated systems was not, in fact, roleplay to be exceptionally draconian!
I may not have mentioned it but I stepped down as community lead for OR to focus on Project Redshift development. Crayon replaced me but I didn't tell him about musoapbox until yesterday because I was keeping you interesting people to myself... I guess I'll go like... do my job and stuff and let him take over.
=(
It was fun.
On the topic of automated combat, I really loved Firan's last version of combat code. It was automated, but it still gave you like a minute (or you could double/triple/etc the timers for big events like Gladiator matches) between your attacks, to pose something every other attack or so.
I think the reason MUSHers generally frown at a MUD's idea of combat, is likely because there is no RP involved once you hit 'kill joe', because combat is too quickly paced and can even be over in a matter of seconds.
@Tempest said:
On the topic of automated combat, I really loved Firan's last version of combat code.
What we were doing in the Wheel of Time MUD I was in a long time ago was try to bind posed combat with coded combat. The problem in particular was that, if everything was only posed we'd run into players who weren't willing to lose or take hits, resulting in sparring/combat scenes lasting for too long. On the other hand if everything was only hardcoded there was a big disconnect between typing "kill <X>" and the roleplay about it.
The solution we came up with was to turn the combat system from a real-time into a turn-based one. So if my character is trying to hit the other player's leg I'd pose it, then type something like "attack Bob left leg". The code would calculate the chances of success and assign damage and/or secondary effects (lowered defense due to lack of mobility, for example).
The full version of that was to turn combat into something more tactical as well by adding encumbrance for armor, weapon effects, disarm modifiers, etc.
Basically if you want to have coded combat turn-based is the only way to go. It's essentially what the WoD MU* are using, only most of the calculations happen on the players' side as the game provides the dice system. Some games facilitate it a bit further (say, by calculating your defense based on merits), but it could be automated further - moving it further from the table-top paradigm by hiding some elements from the players but increasing ease of use.
HavenRPG and Burning Post II both use RP heavy combat (by MUD standards).
In Haven you are placed on a grid and can move around on it. When fighting NPCs you just pick your attack and there's an action delay and stuff. When fighting PCs you emote out combat in turns (with a timer so if you take to long you pass) and the code is able to apply the combat stuff based on your inputs.
Burning Post II uses what they call threaded commands. They are also on a grid and when you emote it parses out the combat stuff to execute. I'm not as familiar with the Burning Post II approach so I can't go into more detail than that.
Hello! I missed this, and will spend as little time as I can doing the dull back-and-forth and instead hit what to me were the high points. Please keep in mind that the post or one like it was marked as "obviously sarcastic". As in, much drama-rolling-of-eyes and deep-sighs that, in polite conversation, wouldn't appear.
@crayon said:
@Thenomain said:
A Mudder's Perspective. Really, 'automated conflict' is the second-highest kind of RP you can attain?
[...] The notion that automated conflict or interaction with automated systems somehow is inherently disqualified from being roleplay is a pretty extreme MUSH perspective
Hardly a Mush perspective. I remember a fairly amusing complete-freak-out from the VP of Blizzard North publicly (in an official blog post) defending Diablo 2 as "role-play" because of the number of people verbally chiding him for calling the game a "role-playing game". It is a perfect example of the extent of disagreement of what "role-playing" is.
The point I was making, however, was not dismissing it as a tool for role-play, but that it's number two on the list. I personally would put "Bar RP" higher than "typing automated commands at bots". This was as well dedicated to the differences in experience. As a Musher, I think pointing out a steel wall of difference of experience as not a negative.
All the extra, explanatory words were not in the essay. I was not the intended audience of the post, but @Jeshin wanted me and people like me to be the audience. My audience reaction was reacting to the lack of context that "#2: Pew-Pew!" had.
I would like to point out, right now, that "a pretty extreme MUSH perspective" is the kind of reason I don't like these discussions. I work pretty hard not to cast stereotypes even when I'm talking with my Mocking Voice. Look into the broader world to find examples of behavior.
Wide scope socialization generally involves player-arranged events, such as parties or other such affairs, which usually do a great job of getting players interacting and building interpersonal relationships but only rarely serves as a meaningful part of a character's story or as a springboard for a moving plot.
Ngh. That word. "Plot." I don't know what it means in the Mudder world, but here in Mush-land it means everything and anything but lately has meant "run things for me".
And to use a tinge of my Mocking Voice, I genuinely feel a little sorry for those whose socialization with a character isn't a meaningful part of their character's story. I also feel a little sorry that character-arranged events aren't seen as being meaningful. It seems hollow. Reason #23 I am probably not suitable for Muds.
I actually distinguish between 'Bar RP' and wide scope socialization in the article, with 'Bar RP' being what I typically class as a downtime interaction.
I have no idea what "uptime" is, then. See Above.
Another quick pause:
What I'm really reading is that "I have different expectations on RP and have found the medium in which others and I can share this". It's similar to the idea that if you're playing on a MUCK, then you're a Furry. People congregate with others of like mind.
MUDs tend to aspire towards creating an environment that will organically spur players
How?
Five million dollar question.
How does this work? Because if it can work for Muds, then I guarantee you that it can work for Mushes because we are, essentially, two parts of the same Elephant. Mind you, a lot of us probably don't want to come down from the top of the Elephant to do real work. Because it's fun up there.
@Thenomain said:
I still would like to see a Mudder approach coding the Storytelling system. This is not just a challenge, but to see how it would end up.
Haven's the only MUD that I've seen really approach this, if you're referring to player storytelling, though your emphasis of the Storytelling system makes me wonder if you're referring to a specific game's approach that I've not experienced.
There's a game line called "World of Darkness". The game system beneath it is called "The Storytelling System". Joe-Bob says 'check it out'. This was a challenge for Mudders to try and design a Mud from the starting position of a Mush. It's the inverse of my challenge above: Instead of being able to create a Mush from a Mud baseline, create a Mud from a Mush baseline. Since almost all Mush baselines are complete and full-formed Tabletop RPG systems, I was mainly saying: This shit ain't easy.
And there's something that I'm getting the idea that your long-time Mudder doesn't get about Mushes. All this "automated system" nonsense has me at over ten-thousand lines of code for the Storytelling System. On one hand, I want to genuinely see how a Mudder would approach it. On the other, it's my koan to the Mud community.
I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to as Optional Realities' 'supposed goal'
This was my prodding at @Jeshin that he hasn't been clear, either to us or to himself or probably both, what Optional Realities is really about. A lot of us rabbled and roused at the notion that to be part of his curated game-list, a game must have permadeath. As the overtly stated goal that OR is for discovering quality RP, this rankles. His argument to the contrary, that it's how he feels, is not satisfactory at best and selfish at its most typical. You can have quality character development without a hint of death.
Castle d'Image is probably one of the more popular and still-discussed Mushes of ages past with no enforced, let alone permanent death. And so I more than rabble-rouse, I mock and satirize and keep the wound open because I genuinely feel that it deserves it.
I actually think the automated systems requirement is reasonably valid.
If anything, I found your suggestion that roleplay revolving around automated systems was not, in fact, roleplay to be exceptionally draconian!
And incorrect. Thanks for playing.
I've been pretty clear. The criteria exist for a consistent baseline between all the games. The criteria was formed at the beginning of OR by the staff at the time. I considered changing it and opted out. We currently have several non-MUDs listed and we're happy with that and are looking to add more when they approach us or if I happen to spot them while nosing through the MUSH community.
I even updated our 1st article and made an announcement on the forum to clarify this and linked it here and I have over 6 times now invited anyone (and everyone) to advertise or discuss their specific games on our forums. No takers yet.
Additionally: If you don't want to advertise on OR because of an issue with our approach that's fine. This website right here is a new listing service which puts text-based games alongside other genres to try and heighten exposure. I would suggest giving them a try, they could certainly use the additional listings.
@Jeshin said:
Character Concept Contest (any setting, genre, or game)
http://optionalrealities.com/forums/index.php?topic=198.0This might be the breakout contest for musoapbox users to take 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. No more pesky restrictions or game mechanics in it. Just good old character pitching.
Does this include character descriptions? I've managed to dig up a classic one I might want to flesh out and submit. (I think the character's name was Ishtar.)
