[Nymeria]

Originally Posted by Delerak I don't see how it's subjective. Either you're roleplaying or your not. What is subjective is the type of player you encounter on any MUD or MUSH. You say you like fleshed out emotes that are well-written. That's a certain type of player. That has nothing to do with the quality of roleplay that the game as a whole conforms to. MUSHes tend to conform to a much lower quality roleplay standard because of the missing features. Code reinforces roleplay the same way a set reinforces an actor playing a role. Or the same way a sword reinforces the way a character is killing somebody. Or the way a pen is nice to have and be able to actually write something to down and have a physical written object from it. These are all things that reinforce roleplay and allow for a much more realistic world and realistic roleplay.

There are different types of roleplay, so yes, the very term roleplay can be subjective. And when you start talking about "quality", you are definitely in the subjective territory.

There is no standard definition of roleplay that says that certain features have to be present for the roleplay to be good. You have actors playing on empty theatre stages, or against blue-screens where they have to imagine fighting a 30-foot monster. I would argue that imagination is a far more important tool for roleplay than any code. In fact, I would argue that roleplayers who can work without any "crutches" such as coded commands are stronger and better roleplayers than those who need such assistance to create realism.

But that is subjective. Just as your opinions are. Trying to put something across as the one true way just comes off looking odd. That said, one can certainly identify trends for what is generally considered good within certain game genres. But if you ask 20 MUSHers about what good roleplay is you will get a very different answer than if you ask 20 MUDders.

[Delerak]

Originally Posted by misao They reinforce -your- opinion of RP. To me, RP is playing the part of a character in a story, writing his life story with other people. How is it of 'a lower standard' than yours? RP stands for Role-Play. Code can help or hinder, but it is definitely not the only means by which RP can be achieved. Have you never seen those RP forums that existed before the time even MUDs became popular? During the era of email-chess games? Would you call the entire genre false?

I never said it was the only way roleplay was achieved. I was merely stating that code reinforces your roleplay by allowing you a realistic way to think and act. Why would you roleplay fear when you the player know OOCly that I can't do anything to your character? Because there is no code to support my actions.

[Delerak]

Originally Posted by Nymeria There are different types of roleplay, so yes, the very term roleplay can be subjective. And when you start talking about "quality", you are definitely in the subjective territory. There is no standard definition of roleplay that says that certain features have to be present for the roleplay to be good. You have actors playing on empty theatre stages, or against blue-screens where they have to imagine fighting a 30-foot monster. I would argue that imagination is a far more important tool for roleplay than any code. In fact, I would argue that roleplayers who can work without any "crutches" such as coded commands are stronger and better roleplayers than those who need such assistance to create realism. But that is subjective. Just as your opinions are. Trying to put something across as the one true way just comes off looking odd. That said, one can certainly identify trends for what is generally considered good within certain game genres. But if you ask 20 MUSHers about what good roleplay is you will get a very different answer than if you ask 20 MUDders.

That's kind of like saying acting is subjective. It really isn't. It's a very clear standard and definition of what acting is. Either you're acting or you're not. Yes there are bad actors. So in the same sense there are bad roleplayers. If you can't grasp that then I don't know what other analogy to throw out there.

[Nymeria]

Originally Posted by Delerak This is exactly the problem I had with Blood of Dragons. While GRRM is my favorite author and I love his world. It just doesn't work when I login and expect to find some great roleplay and with 4-5 people on I can't find anybody anywhere. They're all either idle or chatting OOC somewhere. This is why I didn't put much time into the MUSH, and it's why I don't play mushes in general. When I login I expect the character to be 'waking' up from his virtual being and I am taking him over. I should be in-character when I login and be ready to roleplay whatever comes my way.

Well, one issue would certainly be trying to treat a MUSH like a MUD. Wandering around and just hoping to run into roleplay doesn't really happen on a MUSH. You use OOC commands, like a +where, to see where people are, and you ask if anyone is interested in a scene on an OOC channel. It is just how it is done. Trying to do it another way simply won't work on a MUSH, and I don't really call it giving MUSHing a try.

Its like trying to go downhill skiing on the cross country skiing track.

[Nymeria]

Originally Posted by Delerak That's kind of like saying acting is subjective. It really isn't. It's a very clear standard and definition of what acting is. Either you're acting or you're not. Yes there are bad actors. So in the same sense there are bad roleplayers. If you can't grasp that then I don't know what other analogy to throw out there.

There may be a very clear standard for the minimum that defines acting, and for the minimum that defines roleplaying. But beyond that there are an awful lot of different ways of doing things. In fact, you can probably boil down both definitions to "pretending to be someone you are not", possibly with the addition of a medium such as "on stage" or "on a game".

[Delerak]

Originally Posted by Nymeria Well, one issue would certainly be trying to treat a MUSH like a MUD. Wandering around and just hoping to run into roleplay doesn't really happen on a MUSH. You use OOC commands, like a +where, to see where people are, and you ask if anyone is interested in a scene on an OOC channel. It is just how it is done. Trying to do it another way simply won't work on a MUSH, and I don't really call it giving MUSHing a try. Its like trying to go downhill skiing on the cross country skiing track.

Therein lies the issue with MUSH though. How can you possibly justify having a +where command that instantly shows you where every character is at? That's completely OOC. Roleplaying "scenes" isn't staying in-character at all then. You're basically just getting together and chatting, that's why I don't consider it roleplaying. When you play a role, you should be in-character, your knowledge should be as limited as that of the characters. You shouldn't be able to instantly know where every character is, the same way you shouldn't have access to those character's backgrounds and instantly know everything about them.

I wasn't treating your game like a MUD or anything, I was logging in and trying to play it like I would roleplay in any situation. When I do improv at my local theater, or when I go on stage to act, I am in-character, we don't take breaks or anything. When the show is over (akin to us logging out of the game), then you can go out of character. But until then I feel that when you login, it's showtime.

[misao]

Originally Posted by Delerak I never said it was the only way roleplay was achieved. I was merely stating that code reinforces your roleplay by allowing you a realistic way to think and act. Why would you roleplay fear when you the player know OOCly that I can't do anything to your character? Because there is no code to support my actions.

Oh, trust me, I can and have roleplayed fear quite realistically despite knowing OOCly that my character wouldn't die. I have also RPed fear while knowing OOCly that my character can die (in my current MUD, permadeath is a feature); and I don't see any difference in how I RPed the two. It's called 'roleplay'. Why would you roleplay fear when you know that it's just a game, and your character is just a codestring? Same reason. That element of OOC fear might affect some people's RP, but it doesn't affect mine.

[misao]

Originally Posted by Delerak Therein lies the issue with MUSH though. How can you possibly justify having a +where command that instantly shows you where every character is at? That's completely OOC. Roleplaying "scenes" isn't staying in-character at all then. You're basically just getting together and chatting, that's why I don't consider it roleplaying. When you play a role, you should be in-character, your knowledge should be as limited as that of the characters. You shouldn't be able to instantly know where every character is, the same way you shouldn't have access to those character's backgrounds and instantly know everything about them.

Nobody EVER said a MUSH was an RPI, Delerak. I think you're getting confused. They never claimed to have 'IC all the time'.

I have no issue with you and your RPI. It's when you start to assume that it's the highest echelon of RP a player or game can ever aspire to, that it gets to me. Or when you use your definition of RPI to define what just 'RP' should be.

There's a reason why RPI is a subgroup of RP, not the entirety of it.

[Nymeria]

Like misao, I have no problem roleplaying fear (or indeed any other emotion) without there being code that enforces certain consequences. For me, and many others with me, roleplay is to imagine those feelings. I don't need code to tell me anything, though occasionally it is fun. For example, I think its fairly boring to negotiate the outcome of a joust, so that's why we have coded support for that. It also goes faster, so code can definitely be helpful in scenarios where there are a lot of decisions that otherwise need to be made OOCly.

The strict separation of IC and OOC is, for the most part, very much a MUD thing. On MUSHes, you can generally have quite a lot of OOC information at your disposal, but it is also true that you shouldn't misuse that information. If I use +where to see that player A is in player B's bedroom, then it would be wrong of me to act on that as IC knowledge. On the other hand, if I see players gathered in a public location, I can come up with an IC reason for why my character would go there so that I can join in the roleplay.

If you expect things to work exactly as on a MUD when you're on a MUSH, then you will definitely be disappointed and you will probably not have much fun at all. Doesn't mean that one way of fun is better than the other.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by Delerak I assume when you put in the card game WAR for GW2 you had inspiration from another card game?

Well the game itself started out as a draw poker snippet.

Originally Posted by Nymeria I guess it would be clearer to talk about the differences between MUSH-style games and MUD-style games.

I think it would make things clearer if you compared MUSH with other specific MUD codebases, otherwise you're basically comparing a codebase with its own genre, which gets confusing. It's like trying to talk about the difference between D&D and roleplaying games, or the difference between Doom-style games and first-person shooters.

Are you comparing the TinyMUD family with the DikuMUD family? Or are you comparing specific features that are common in TinyMUD derivatives and absent in most other MUDs (or vice versa) - and if so, which features? Or are you more generally comparing MUSH with other types of MUD (such as Merc, SMAUG, MudOS, MUCK, ROM, etc)?

[Nymeria]

Originally Posted by KaVir I think it would make things clearer if you compared MUSH with other specific MUD codebases, otherwise you're basically comparing a codebase with its own genre, which gets confusing. It's like trying to talk about the difference between D&D and roleplaying games, or the difference between Doom-style games and first-person shooters. Are you comparing the TinyMUD family with the DikuMUD family? Or are you comparing specific features that are common in TinyMUD derivatives and absent in most other MUDs (or vice versa) - and if so, which features? Or are you more generally comparing MUSH with other types of MUD (such as Merc, SMAUG, MudOS, MUCK, ROM, etc)?

Fair enough. I think a lot of MUSHers (myself included) tend to assume that because TinyMUSH, TinyMUX, PennMUSH and the few other variations of MUSH/MUX that exist are very closely related, the same applies to the other MUD-families.

I would say that my comparison was between MUSH/MUX and any other members of the MUD family (minus MUCK and MOO if they sort under there, I can never quite recall).

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by Nymeria Fair enough. I think a lot of MUSHers (myself included) tend to assume that because TinyMUSH, TinyMUX, PennMUSH and the few other variations of MUSH/MUX that exist are very closely related, the same applies to the other MUD-families.

It does to a certain degree (for example most DikuMUD derivatives have a lot in common, and even most LPmuds tend to have a similar sort of feel) - but there are also a fair number of MUDs that fall outside the main three families.

Originally Posted by Nymeria I would say that my comparison was between MUSH/MUX and any other members of the MUD family (minus MUCK and MOO if they sort under there, I can never quite recall).

MUCK is derived from an earlier version of TinyMUD than MUSH, but code-wise they're still part of the same family. MOO was created by the same author as MUCK, and was obviously inspired by TinyMUD, but it's not based on the same code.

A comparison of MUCK and MOO would certainly be interesting (both developed by the same author, but only one of them a TinyMUD derivative). I did play around on a MOO once, but that was over 15 years ago, so the details are rather fuzzy - and I don't recall ever playing a MUCK. But I'm sure there must be a few people who have played both.

It could also be interesting to compare MOO with LPmud, as both were inspired by TinyMUD without being based on the actual code. LPmuds tend to be more game-oriented, but I think that's really more due to the mudlibs that most LPmud owners use.

[Orrin]

Originally Posted by KaVir A comparison of MUCK and MOO would certainly be interesting (both developed by the same author, but only one of them a TinyMUD derivative). I did play around on a MOO once, but that was over 15 years ago, so the details are rather fuzzy - and I don't recall ever playing a MUCK. But I'm sure there must be a few people who have played both. It could also be interesting to compare MOO with LPmud, as both were inspired by TinyMUD without being based on the actual code. LPmuds tend to be more game-oriented, but I think that's really more due to the mudlibs that most LPmud owners use.

There's also Coolmud of course, which is also by Stephen White and builds on a lot of the MOO concepts. I tinkered with Coolmud for a project years ago and I remember it being exceptionally well written with some really neat features. It's a shame it never really caught on.

[prof1515]

Originally Posted by KaVir A comparison of MUCK and MOO would certainly be interesting (both developed by the same author, but only one of them a TinyMUD derivative). I did play around on a MOO once, but that was over 15 years ago, so the details are rather fuzzy - and I don't recall ever playing a MUCK. But I'm sure there must be a few people who have played both.

I've tried out hundreds of games including MUDs, MUSHes, MUCKs, MOOs and dozens of so-called "custom code" games (nearly all of which would honestly fall into one of the other categories) though the last time I tried a MOO would have been about six years ago and about four or five years ago for MUCK. I'm afraid I can't recall which was which exactly and wouldn't consider myself a reliable source to describe the exact code differences anyway since my experience was as a player and code'tard (ie, there are more qualified people to discuss the code details).

[jackal59mo2]

I can mainly tell I'm on a MOO when I get very, very confused about the commands. Those puppies can be strange.

Honestly, though, there are subjective differences in "tone color" between games built on different code bases. MOOs seem to use "radio" objects of some kind for channels; in fact, the MOOs I've been on have far more, and usually far more varied, objects that any MUSH or MUX, and sometimes more than a MUD variant. However, since all of the MOOs I've experienced have been set either in the present day or in some sort of technological future, that may be a function of genre rather than of what the code does better.

MOOs honestly fascinate me more for what their "code" seems able to do than any other games I've seen. I really regret that I wasn't around for BellonaMOO, given how much I love that book (Samuel Delany's Dhalgren) and how much it seems possible to do with the code base. I'd bet that creating and maintaining such a place as that (or such as HellMOO, to use a current example) has to be a huge time suck, though.

[Newworlds]

Originally Posted by Nymeria Like misao, I have no problem roleplaying fear (or indeed any other emotion) without there being code that enforces certain consequences. For me, and many others with me, roleplay is to imagine those feelings. I don't need code to tell me anything, though occasionally it is fun. For example, I think its fairly boring to negotiate the outcome of a joust, so that's why we have coded support for that. It also goes faster, so code can definitely be helpful in scenarios where there are a lot of decisions that otherwise need to be made OOCly. The strict separation of IC and OOC is, for the most part, very much a MUD thing. On MUSHes, you can generally have quite a lot of OOC information at your disposal, but it is also true that you shouldn't misuse that information. If I use +where to see that player A is in player B's bedroom, then it would be wrong of me to act on that as IC knowledge. On the other hand, if I see players gathered in a public location, I can come up with an IC reason for why my character would go there so that I can join in the roleplay. If you expect things to work exactly as on a MUD when you're on a MUSH, then you will definitely be disappointed and you will probably not have much fun at all. Doesn't mean that one way of fun is better than the other.

In this scenario it seems you must rely a lot on player maturity and self monitoring which is what I found in the MUSH I played years ago. Though I do not recall the commands you list here. In the MUSH I played it was all about poses, story, and and interaction.

[Delerak]

Originally Posted by Nymeria Like misao, I have no problem roleplaying fear (or indeed any other emotion) without there being code that enforces certain consequences. For me, and many others with me, roleplay is to imagine those feelings. I don't need code to tell me anything, though occasionally it is fun. For example, I think its fairly boring to negotiate the outcome of a joust, so that's why we have coded support for that. It also goes faster, so code can definitely be helpful in scenarios where there are a lot of decisions that otherwise need to be made OOCly.

The system doesn't exist just for you. It has a much more far-reaching purpose. It doesn't matter that you have the discipline, understanding, and skill to not metagame. What matters is that there are players who will abuse the system. Perhaps not at BoD because honestly you don't have a substantial player base so your claims of there being a 100% clean base of players is surely possible at a mud that averages only a few players anyways. When the numbers climb into the double digits, and high 60s-70s, and even the hundreds, your percentage of great players falls drastically and you have to deal with players that are not on the same level of understanding as yourself.

In this instance, the code is what helps prevent abuse by these players, but at the same time, the code is a great balancer. It is a prop with which you utilize. You earlier made mention of people who act on a barren stage or who use a green screen. Ironically you've only further proven my point. People don't act on stage with no props on purpose. I go to Improv where we still use whatever we can get our hands on. I assure you step into any theater, and the shows they do will have props, a set, and the actors will be wearing actual clothing.

Just because you don't have the tools (the balancing code of a MUD), doesn't mean you shouldn't seek them out. That's like saying you're going to act without props on purpose. Or without a set in the background to help the audience further believe that they are in that world. That's actually what the code is, a system of props and tools to help further your belief in the world around you.

Turning your nose up at MUD code and saying MUSHers have better storytelling is also pretty arrogant. The storyteller dictates the story and the code you have further reinforces that story with realism. I don't know how else I can explain it.

[Nymeria]

I've logged onto a couple of MUCKs and MOOs in the past as well, and while MUCK seemed like it could be learned, MOO just made my head spin.

Originally Posted by Delerak The system doesn't exist just for you. It has a much more far-reaching purpose. It doesn't matter that you have the discipline, understanding, and skill to not metagame. What matters is that there are players who will abuse the system. Perhaps not at BoD because honestly you don't have a substantial player base so your claims of there being a 100% clean base of players is surely possible at a mud that averages only a few players anyways. When the numbers climb into the double digits, and high 60s-70s, and even the hundreds, your percentage of great players falls drastically and you have to deal with players that are not on the same level of understanding as yourself.

I haven't claimed we have a 100% twink-free or stellar player base, but we do have a large percentage of experienced MUSHers who all prefer no to very little code.

Does abuse happen on MUSHes, whether they are non-consent or consent? Sure, but then you deal with those situations of abuse. I don't believe in having a system for the lowest common denominator if it can be avoided.

But sure, MUSHes are generally not setup to handle hundreds of concurrent logins in terms of their administrative structure. That's generally a conscious choice.

Originally Posted by Delerak In this instance, the code is what helps prevent abuse by these players, but at the same time, the code is a great balancer. It is a prop with which you utilize. You earlier made mention of people who act on a barren stage or who use a green screen. Ironically you've only further proven my point. People don't act on stage with no props on purpose. I go to Improv where we still use whatever we can get our hands on. I assure you step into any theater, and the shows they do will have props, a set, and the actors will be wearing actual clothing.

Code can be a useful prop, no doubt about it. But its not necessary. And I've certainly seen theatre with a very bare minimum of props. On a MUSH, that bare minimum can be just the grid, and perhaps a +whisper command for whispering and having only pieces of the conversation overheard by anyone other than the target.

Originally Posted by Delerak Just because you don't have the tools (the balancing code of a MUD), doesn't mean you shouldn't seek them out. That's like saying you're going to act without props on purpose. Or without a set in the background to help the audience further believe that they are in that world. That's actually what the code is, a system of props and tools to help further your belief in the world around you.

MUSHes aren't lacking those tools because they can't have them. They are lacking them on purpose, because MUSHers feel that too many props can be distracting and take away from the imagination. How many movies don't we hear about where the special effects are taking away from the story?

Originally Posted by Delerak Turning your nose up at MUD code and saying MUSHers have better storytelling is also pretty arrogant. The storyteller dictates the story and the code you have further reinforces that story with realism. I don't know how else I can explain it.

As far as I am concerned, and many MUSHers with me, MUSH roleplay is better storytelling. I am sure that you, and other MUDders, feel MUD storytelling is better. That is why it is all very subjective. You can't objectively say that more code or less code is superior, but subjectively you can certainly say it.

[misao]

Originally Posted by Delerak Turning your nose up at MUD code and saying MUSHers have better storytelling is also pretty arrogant. The storyteller dictates the story and the code you have further reinforces that story with realism. I don't know how else I can explain it.

Aaaand... calling MUSHes a 'huge chatroom', saying that they have 'no roleplay', and that the MUDs you play are THE ONLY STYLE OF RP that should even be considered RP... isn't arrogant, I suppose?

Talk about the coal calling the oak tree black. Geez.

You clearly don't understand the intricacies of MUSHes. Yes, you can abuse the system. You can even abuse the system on many MUDs, even though it's harder. It's still easier than abusing the system of a multi-million dollar game like WoW, though.

But what's the point? Abuse the system, go ahead. People will just leave immediately if you do it once. Do it twice, word spreads. Do it enough, nobody will want to RP with your character. Of course, some people just plain don't care. I could -not- care in Armageddon either, Delerak. I could go into a public room and spam whatever emotes that just don't make sense. And I could make another character pronto once I get banned. Emails are easy to come by and my IP is a dynamic one; so there's no way to tie down my account unless you ban my entire country.

Point being, if 'people can abuse the lack of code' is a reason why MUSHes fail, then ANY game that involves RP fails because no matter how much code you put in, immature people can and will screw around with it.

To quote you an example; in the MUD I currently play, there are some things which are coded (outcomes of combat), and some things that are not (for example, if you RP chopping off someone's limb as penalty of law). Recently, my character had a limb chopped off -- there was NO code for it at all. But why the hell would I -want- to go around pretending that the limb had never been chopped off? Besides the fact that a quick review of logs by imms would have demonstrated that I was trying to circumvent ICA, it would be just plain stupid.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by misao To quote you an example; in the MUD I currently play, there are some things which are coded (outcomes of combat), and some things that are not (for example, if you RP chopping off someone's limb as penalty of law). Recently, my character had a limb chopped off -- there was NO code for it at all. But why the hell would I -want- to go around pretending that the limb had never been chopped off? Besides the fact that a quick review of logs by imms would have demonstrated that I was trying to circumvent ICA, it would be just plain stupid.

Just out of curiousity...losing a limb should have a huge impact on your fighting ability, but if combat is handled through code, and limb loss isn't, how do you represent the lost limb during combat? Does the combat code allow you to specify some sort of penalty for yourself?