@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!
