Posts made by Thenomain

@Kestrel said in Cultural differences between MUDs and MUSHes:

@Thenomain said in Cultural differences between MUDs and MUSHes:

Can you please frame the example situation as it would happen on a MUD? That is, you asked someone if you could come to their house, they said nope sorry too busy, and that's off-putting to you. What is your cultural expectation?

OOCly, it wouldn't happen.

So you wouldn't know where people were, and therefore you couldn't make the decision to join or not join.

Then your expectations are coming from something that is not related to MUD. Either that, or the situation you gave, stopping by someone's IC location, is different. How would it happen in a public sense?

more edits, I love the edits: I used to page everyone in a room with 'you hear a knocking at the door, knock knock'. This is partially because as I code, I know exactly how the code works.

Also, there's nothing wrong for you and your cohort stopping by the scene anyway, but if you want things to be more IC, how would you know to go there? Again, what were your expectations when you paged? How does your culture have it go?

@ixokai

I'm not going to give you permission or not to opine, but your post was entirely "I don't code it nor use it", which doesn't answer the original question: How can we make it better.

Unless your answer is: Dump it. In which case I engaged with this by explaining why I don't think it's worth dumping. I'm challenging your notion, so we can come to better understanding on what works, what doesn't, and how to improve both.

(note: I have a gigantic peeve when people tell me that I'm allowed to do something they think is stupid. Eatabagofdicks.)

@faraday said in Better Places Code:

I dislike mutter code but it's just a peeve. I prefer transparency, especially for the monitoring and logging reasons others have mentioned.

Transparency is easier to code, too.

Clusters are a must.

Option to make all places look like their own in-locaton channel system seems alright. I would probably opt to keep it more quiet.

@Arkandel said in Better Places Code:

2. Its primal function MUST be to reduce spam for EVERYONE

Disagreed. Its prime function is to create an in-game logical separation within a physical play-space. Reducing spam is a high priority, but we already have a few commands that reduce spam: Page and @Emit for two.

And you know how much I hate spam.

@ixokai said in Better Places Code:

But you guys who want to, go ahead. All power to you

So ... thanks?

I just... don't want to.

Then ... don't. I honestly don't know why you're posting.

I think rooms are the nice, ideal, perfect granularity of defining a scene, in my opinion.

The reason table systems were more widely implemented in the first place was because people on the balcony were spamming their scene to those in the ballroom or people who were trying to have a nice, quiet conversation on the elegant seats closest to the closed room that they know a murder is currently taking place and they are the lookout.

Not all of us want to shove these into one location, and I for one don't want to make the balcony a separate room, nor do I think it's appropriate for it to be a temproom. Making exits opaque or asking everyone to remember that there is such a thing as a transparent exit adds to the complexity of role-play, not simplifies nor enhances it.

edit:

@Lotherio said in Better Places Code:

How come that wasn't continued.

Because after the late 90s/early 00s, we pulled back from the idea that everything needed coded. We no longer have language code, either. Then the number of coders whom existed went down to a small handful, so the less that needed coded the more a game can accomplish.

@Arkandel said in Cultural differences between MUDs and MUSHes:

@Thenomain Places code also has some disadvantages. For example (IIRC, I can't check at the moment) every pose has to start with your name.

This discussion has moved here: http://musoapbox.net/topic/1062/better-places-code/

In short, the 'pipe' can be used for emits. I believe this has always been true for classic Places, but like Anomaly Jobs, documentation and culture surrounding the use of this older code can be anything from mildly frustrating to utter WTF.

@Kestrel said in Cultural differences between MUDs and MUSHes:

You paged H with 'I'd ask around later if there are any lone Grounders interested in RPing at the village, for a smaller scene.'
H pages: Yeah, I will, probably. That actually really turns me off, honestly. One of the reasons I don't care for MUSHes as much.

I you guys too, really I do, and I hope you won't take me posting this as a 'fuck you, I'm so mad that you didn't let us join'. But can you see how the environment fostered by this particular etiquette standard might come across as very nerve-wracking and unwelcoming?

Can you please frame the example situation as it would happen on a MUD? That is, you asked someone if you could come to their house, they said nope sorry too busy, and that's off-putting to you. What is your cultural expectation?

@faraday

Hey, I re-created places from scratch for The Reach.

https://github.com/thenomain/Mu--Support-Systems/blob/master/places.txt

I re-implemented the classic Places, but made it based upon a function. And orderly. And everything goes through a single command. And easy to add to a location. And easy to have locations with infinite seats (set as '0'). And fixed clearing people out. And even made it check the entire game for other places they may be logically connected to and remove them from there if they join another place in another room.

The one thing that I want to add is the ability to have 'groups', an idea that came from ... well, I'm not reading my own code, but I think it was Metro? or LA? It was recommended to me from someone long ago on Haunted Memories.

Some games used to use 'mutter' code to leak bits of what's said to the room.

I've played with the idea of parsing anything that is not inside double-quotes ("...") as poses to the rest of the room.

Staff need to be able to monitor a place without taking up a 'place'. Monitoring code needs to exist in general, and is one of the many, many, many reasons I made it function-based.

It's also made making your own room-parent-output for places very easy.

I can't think of a character shortcut that I'd use for places. the backtick (`) is occasionally used for 'ooc' chatter. That should be implemented more. edit: It looks like I use the pipe (|) for emitting to the place.

I suppose you could hook into the pose code, tho fair warning, posebreak already does that.

Posebreak must parse in places code.

That's my napkin-list for now.

@ixokai said:

And on games that do pervasive logging, places is a nuisance.

This is because the logger isn't scanning places. This is an easy fix. A stupidly easy fix. Get someone to fix it.

The problem with not using places is that it allows a location (a setting) can then be used for multiple scenes. On games big enough where two groups of people want to be in the same location, this allows them to not "own" that location and still have separate scenes.

On games with this level of activity, places is a critical tool for sharing the setting.

@Arkandel

What, you can't sit at a table and have your own scene? Do people not use "places" code anymore?

@surreality

This is sometimes called "going from zero to one", which involves effort and is often difficult.

@Arkandel

It's a graphic novel with sets and (lightly) animated puppets, tho it's about the reading. Sometimes there is voice acting. Sometimes there's choices to be made (a la Choose Your Own Adventure). Often there is ambient music. I heard about "acted out audio books" so think of something more like that. It's a form of storytelling and if it's compelling or not is entirely subjective. I don't play racing games for the same reason, and like everyone on the planet I'm going to bitch about a play, movie, tv show, sporting event, or book that made me disgruntled.

And I expect to be mocked for it, just like everyone else.

Visual Novels need to say whether or not they're a Comedy or a Tragedy. That is, does it end with horrible things happening, or does it end with everything being generally okay? Half of the ones I've personally played lately (two of four) were split and I want to be more aware of my purchasing decisions.

Me and my first world problems.

@Lotherio said in Cultural differences between MUDs and MUSHes:

TL;DR – to avoid coming off like an ass, try communicating with other players

Another "this". I'm afraid that we are getting mired down in definitions that have more than one connotation, which is the "cultural differences" thing that we've been trying to address from the start.

Respect & understand. All these games are based on social interactions. Communicating is one great way to do this, but isn't the only way. Hell, if there's no need to communicate you can stick to "being IC" and roll with it. There is, again, absolutely nothing wrong with this, as long as you know when to step out of the role and address the players.

Maybe that's why a lot of us gravitate toward WoD. Yeah, it's wish fulfillment at its highest (trumped only by superhero games), but it also has drilled in the Golden Rule of White Wolf: If you don't need a rule, don't use it. Mushes evolved from Pure RP environments. Most people who wanted code-heavy systems went immediately to, well, a real code system (MUD is based on C). The casuals stuck it out with Mush.

On the whole, Mush for Role-Play First, and Mud for Game First. We all need to remember that the full name of what we do is "Role-Playing Game". Nothing is perfect, here, but here we are, bouncing between the two.

Ta.

@ThatGuyThere

The asking to join the scene one or the principle or respecting the scene in place is a direct outgrowth of people being pissed off as a result of others completely shitting on scenes in progress.

This. Yes, the social contract is inefficient, @Kestrel, but it works when there is no adjudication in place, no staff on hand to control the scene, no code to say what is right and wrong. I've head some of us mushers occasionally claim the idea "because I can, it's okay". Someone left their character object open for teleportation so I can jump to them, their fault if they didn't turn it off. I'm staff so I can act on any information available to me, too bad if you think otherwise. I can see where you are on the game so I'm going to tell my buddies who are looking to beat you up too bad for you. All lot these are real examples.

There are many reasons to ask, as people have said, but I'll give you a secret:

If you think you're not going to be a jerk, it's just as okay to not ask.

It is a public part of the grid, after all. Check in, say hey, make friends, scoff at the beer selection, have short scenes or long scenes, pose having an enjoyable walk in the park, mix it up for you and for them.

I mostly ask so I know that I won't be sitting there posing to myself. If your okay putting on a short show, then don't let that stop you.

Remember, a Mush is mainly about a game-space for role-playing. The play's the thing. If what you decide to do respects this, and on the whole respects the other people who have the similar aim, you're probably alright.

@Ominous said in Cultural differences between MUDs and MUSHes:

@Thenomain said in Cultural differences between MUDs and MUSHes:

A single room can have multiple scenes in it, and it happens all the time. They are interlinked by proximity, but nobody is throwing you out of a room by saying they're not willing to include you in their interactions. There's no reason to be a jerk because you feel slighted. There's certainly no reason to feel slighted.

I am referring to people who have told me before "No, you can't be in here at all," when they are RPing in a public room. It's incredibly rare, but it has happened.

Oh, then yes. I don't read "ask before joining a scene" to be the same as "the room belongs to those in it", but I'd agree that those people who want ownership of a room should be smacked. Anyone who enters an existing scene and ignores the situation also need smacked. While there's no call for telling someone to scram from a room, I'd say that first come first scene-set too.

I think we're agreeing.

@Ominous said in Cultural differences between MUDs and MUSHes:

@faraday said in Cultural differences between MUDs and MUSHes:

• Ask before joining a scene in progress.

This is the most asinine rule I come across in this hobby, particularly if there are private rooms to use. I am fine with people saying "We're on a dinner date, so, no, you can't sit at our table," but to deny my character being allowed in the room at all? No, I'm going to pose my character striding over to your character's table and pouring the glass on wine on your head. Take it to a private room if you want to control who can join the scene.

Dude, chill. We have already established that there is no single answer, and some people have refined this as "wait a round of poses before posing in" or "ask/wait for a sitrep (situation report)". The answer works for @Faraday's part of the hobby. Maybe instead explain why it's not a good idea.

A single room can have multiple scenes in it, and it happens all the time. They are interlinked by proximity, but nobody is throwing you out of a room by saying they're not willing to include you in their interactions. There's no reason to be a jerk because you feel slighted. There's certainly no reason to feel slighted.

@Midgardener said in What would a superhero game need to be/do to bring in a new player base?:

Wild Talents would be a decent online system, without all the IP balderdash.

And teaching people the ORE system, which is difficult to learn with their twenty-eight types of die resolution setups. (Kind of kidding: Wild Talents, if memory serves, has three, tho it's the only system I know of that it's entirely possible to over-power your abilities and cause huge amounts of destruction. It's mostly by choice, tho, so it's not like The Tick.)

@TNP said in Marvel: 1963 (Lookin for a Coder):

It's a bit awkward to use after being so familiar with Mux but Penn's channel system has some nice features. It's great being able to target a single channel or them all at once and @chan/gag is great. I don't need to shut off every channel individually and have @adisconnect turn them back on so I don't forget.

You can turn all channels on and off in Mux. Have been able to for a while.

Hey, I have more time now so I'm going to retreat back along the thread quite a bit.

@Kestrel said in Cultural differences between MUDs and MUSHes:

Do many MUSHers have an aversion to conflict-based RP

In short, yes, and it's for reasons further removed from my "code vs. cooperation" distinction from Mud to Mush, though I and other people have touched on this enough that it's probably been sufficiently answered, but I want to dig further into this. You (Kestrel) have even answered some of it.

Conflict in a lot of RPG Mushes means combat which means death. A lot of people in the World of Darkness games see this as the primary conflict resolution. Killing means no more problem, and only a hit to a stat which is not tied into any other stat and therefore the consequences can easily be ignored so it is and was, systematically, consequence-free.

This created an OOC culture of people who were paranoid that people were killing for, well, OOC reasons. Because a lot of people were. You may think that the concept of an "online troll" is new, but it really isn't; being a dick because you can and it's funny to watch people get upset has been around for a long, long time. Well, in the WoD Mush community, the backlash to this was mighty. Staffers were draconian against people who even thought about doing this, because they were often victims to it themselves, so they started or became staff on games and were going to "fix everything".

Who groaned? Yes, if you've ever been in a company with a new manager who immediately decides to "fix everything" that normally means headaches all around as everything is changed regardless of what works. And because these staffers are trying to be good and righteous, and are also kind of paranoid, they created some of the very worst Staffer-vs-Player schisms.

Incidentally, birthing Wora (the precursor to Soapbox). This history is about a decade old. Maybe more; I can't remember.

The other thing you can do as staffer is get all the cool things that previous games would never get you. So you had some staffers doing bad things for good reasons, and others doing bad things for no reason, and you end up with a bunch of players who are poisoned by distrust, and legitimately so. These players become staffers, and the cycle continues.

This is only half of it.

The other half is what we've all been talking about. Players like to own their character, because it can take a long time to create it, and longer to get into it, and the emotional investment is both good (they want to see what happens next) and bad (they don't want to feel their effort is meaningless).

So what we ended up with was:

• A game about (not) killing people.
• Distrust of the staff/game arbiters.
• Investment in our work.

We have, I will admit, gotten over a lot of these issues. A lot of that is because we killed OOC Masquerade (things players aren't allowed to know about your character, even if they know them). We killed it dead. We killed it because if we can create an enjoyable game out of trust, then being antagonistic becomes acceptable. e.g., I know you're slighting me because your character can't stand mine, not because you have it out for me, not because your character is going to kill mine. With respect for the player, we can do more with the characters.

That can go too far. Like Political Correctness, if you slide that slippery slope to the ultimate conclusion, this means that if you're not super-nice or super-careful with other characters, then we can easily return to the bad old days.

I think this slippery slope is point-missing, myself, but it's a logical conclusion. The wrong conclusion to have, but logical all the same.

In one of the most enjoyable scenes I had on Fallcoast (WoD Mux), my homeless character was shamed by a grandma who was just taking her granddaughter out to get icecream, and dirty stinky hobo ruined it. It was NPCd by someone, and they were worried that they were pushing me out of the scene, and I said no, no, that was awesome, when can we play again. It was engaging, and my part in the scene didn't go on longer than it had to by, e.g., my character scoffing and mocking the woman. I could have played it that way, but I enjoy playing someone who is not Always The Hero Of Their Own Story. Certainly someone with human emotions, who can be mocked and shamed for their faults. We need more of this. We need more world-building imagination, not just "I must win against all against me" which leads to the "kill" mentality.

Incidentally, if you NPC'd that grandma, please PM me and tell me when we can scene again!

I feel like I have a kindred spirit in that regard, @Kestrel, which is part of why I wanted to dive into that one point. Also, to wrap up some history, and some conversation in this thread which really directly answered your question.

Ta, again.

@faraday said in Marvel: 1963 (Lookin for a Coder):

Can't quite understand those who pass up games just because the channel system irritates them, but I guess everyone's entitled to their pet peeves.

Because in some people's workflow, this is a big deal, which is why I mentioned how WoD seems to rely on channels. I don't drive manual transmission because I don't know how. I could learn, but it would be more than just a peeve to do so, so I avoid cars with a manual transmission. No slight against them, but holy crap would it be a disaster for me and mostly a waste of my time.

Perspective. As it changes, so does everything you do.

@Kestrel

As said by others, that pose skims a line. If you retract the internal monologue in that particular case, I would expect it to be fine by most people. There would probably be other ways to set the tone without using character brainwaves.

I rely on offering internal monologues in my poses, and I rarely hear a complaint.