[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?

[misao]

Originally Posted by KaVir 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?

I never did mention that the MUD was RPI or anything of the sort.

Basically, yes, you do what makes sense (don't dual wield if you lose a hand, etc), and you decide it oocly with the other person if you must, to the satisfaction of both. Combat very seldom occurs anyway; there are no warring factions, only various conflicts within one city.

Now that I think about it, I suppose I could suggest to the imms how they could work the loss into the code.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by misao I never did mention that the MUD was RPI or anything of the sort.

No, but you did say that the outcome of combat was handled through code. Combat systems are something I'm particularly interested in, so I was curious how the system meshed with non-coded factors that would normally have an impact on combat.

Originally Posted by misao Now that I think about it, I suppose I could suggest to the imms how they could work the loss into the code.

Well you'll never factor in every possibility, but in my opinion it can still be worth taking some things into account. Allowing players to define custom movement messages would allow someone to mention a limp or a pegleg for example, while people with a missing hand might have access to alternative weapons (such as a hook that can't be disarmed). This does tend to move the style of game in a specific direction though, and may not appeal to those who prefer a greater degree of manual control (although the same could be said about having any form of coded support beyond communication, of course - it really depends on your audience).

[Nymeria]

Originally Posted by KaVir This does tend to move the style of game in a specific direction though, and may not appeal to those who prefer a greater degree of manual control (although the same could be said about having any form of coded support beyond communication, of course - it really depends on your audience).

That's a very good point. Looking that from a MUSH perspective, its not uncommon for a MUSH to add some coded support, and then you will get some players who feel it is too much already, and some who feel that if X is coded, then Y needs to be coded to.

To use my own game as an example, we decided when we started that we liked some things from Elendor (my partner and I both started out there), but we felt that it was hampering female players and other non-combattants to have only skills and code for combat, healing and languages. So, we tried to design a CG with a more extensive skill set, and some coded systems other than combat to play into the social and political aspects of the game.

We've had a pretty mixed response. Other Elendor players find it strange, and players from a World of Darkness background find it interesting but perhaps not developed enough.

Right now, we're actually looking at getting a full combat system done since the plot line we've just begun could really use it. At the same time, we're looking at whether can maybe tweak the CG some to make it less complex and remove some unrealistic elements. Because I do think code can both help and hinder realism; I prefer purely RPed combat to combat that is handled by very simplistic code, for example. But the key is finding the right balance between too much and too little code, and that balance will vary from game to game. For some, any code will be too much code.

[prof1515]

Did some checking and the last MOO I tried out was actually Cybersphere MOO in very early (my notes date from January) 2008, not 2003. I don't have the bulk of my notes as those were lost with my old laptop in 2007 but I do have a few remaining from occassional pop-ins after that point. However, they aren't very detailed.

I noted my dislike for the ridiculous way you have to enter many commands, such as @command instead of simply the command itself, which just seems like an unnecessary way of doing something. I also noted the lack of a playerbase, citing only one other person I encountered who did not respond, but added that as it was 3am (my time) that might be the cause. So, not much help I suppose in regard to MUCH versus MOO code discussion beyond the note about the unnecessary keystrokes in commands.

Take care,

Jason

[misao]

That's true, if we had wanted it to factor into combat we should have oocly initiated combat and had the law enforcer perform the combat action that causes the limb to be... well, as combat is a small part of the MUD I'm not sure if we have severed. Broken, perhaps. But we both deemed it unnecessary in the context of my character (whom I designed to be a very weak character combat-wise because she's a small girl, so she would probably lose to anyone anyway, arm or no arm) and the situation.

[Ide]

While I don't agree with the main substance of Delerak's argument, since my conception of RP is rooted in the idea of stance and so on, I think he does make a good point about coded systems supporting interactions of a large number of players. A case in point is the Road to Amber mush, a large mush (much larger than BoD I believe) with an extensive (some would say complicated) set of coded tools for the support of RP. However RtA is distinctly different from a mud such as Armageddon, because RtA's code deals with a more meta, mush-like RP than the more mud-like RP you find on Arm.

Misao, I don't mind making the generalization that the difference between a RP mud and a RP mush is a mush is about collaborative ('meta-gaming') RP, and a mud is about actor-based (not meta-gaming) RP. You can split that a dozen different ways but I think in general it holds true and 90% of players of muds (which includes mushes ;D) will understand what you're talking about if you break it down in those terms.

My personal experience is that pound for pound, you find better writers on mushes. However I like a lot of things about muds, not just good writing, so that's why I don't play mushes in the limited time I have to play muds.

[Nymeria]

Ide,

I absolutely agree. There are certain kinds of MUSHes that, especially when they grow a bit larger, can benefit from certain coded tools. These tools can serve as auto-judges or handle other issues that would take a lot of manual administration. Certainly, if you want some kind of conflict, it does not hurt to have a coded way of resolving it when staff doesn't have time to judge every scene or when the players don't feel comfortable working it out between themselves.

That's why we have coded systems for our tourneys, and a coded system for targetting positive and negative rumors at other players, and that's why we're going to try to add a fuller combat system for the rebellion in Dorne.

But that the same time, I played on Tales of Ta'veren when it first opened (and pretty much exploded with players, thanks to the popularity of WoT at the time), and there were no coded systems at all. It worked pretty well for a while, though in the end the admin decided that they wanted to add a CharGen at least. The plan was probably to also add some systems depending on the CG setup later on, but it never happened before the game shut down.

My issue with Delerak's argument has been that it comes across as saying that there cannot be good roleplay without coded support, and that the coded support has to be for every action you can take. It all depends on the structure of the game as well as what the admin and the players work best with.

[Delerak]

Originally Posted by Nymeria Ide, My issue with Delerak's argument has been that it comes across as saying that there cannot be good roleplay without coded support, and that the coded support has to be for every action you can take. It all depends on the structure of the game as well as what the admin and the players work best with.

I never necessarily stated this. You can get roleplay in a chat room. Whether it's good or not is up to those participating in the roleplay, but a the same time you don't have the proper tools to level the playing field. People can unrealistically do things, and generally speaking, (no offense to those who RP in chat rooms), any roleplay you DO find in a chat room is going to be shallow.

I found the same to be true at MUSHes. I consider the roleplay that occurs shallow because you don't have the proper tools to help you make decisions in-character. The tools you do have breed metagaming habits. Just my opinion of course which you obviously disagree with.

[Nymeria]

Originally Posted by Delerak I never necessarily stated this. You can get roleplay in a chat room. Whether it's good or not is up to those participating in the roleplay, but a the same time you don't have the proper tools to level the playing field. People can unrealistically do things, and generally speaking, (no offense to those who RP in chat rooms), any roleplay you DO find in a chat room is going to be shallow. I found the same to be true at MUSHes. I consider the roleplay that occurs shallow because you don't have the proper tools to help you make decisions in-character. The tools you do have breed metagaming habits. Just my opinion of course which you obviously disagree with.

I feel that is contradictory. You say you can roleplay in a chatroom, and whether it is good or not is up to those participating. But then you say that in a chatroom you don't have the proper tools to level the playing field.

I am arguing that there are no universal "proper tools". It all depends on the game. Some games don't need the playing field levelled by code, and have excellent roleplay even so. Your opinion that code is needed to keep roleplay from being shallow is, most definitely, a subjective opinion.

Just as my opposing opinion is.

[Nymeria]

One additional thought, since Ide brought up the issue of writing quality. Perhaps one could compare MUD roleplay and MUSH roleplay in terms of one favouring the quality of the simulation and one favouring the quality of the writing?

[Delerak]

Originally Posted by Nymeria One additional thought, since Ide brought up the issue of writing quality. Perhaps one could compare MUD roleplay and MUSH roleplay in terms of one favouring the quality of the simulation and one favouring the quality of the writing?

No that's wrong. Plenty of people favor the quality of writing on MUDs. I don't think MUShes have better writers. That's is all too dependent upon the person in question. I just believe that the MUSH environment breeds a social-only, dialogue-driven roleplay. Which is fine for those that want that, but some people want something else, such as combat-oriented characters and want a realistic character that HAS in-character power to kill another person if it comes down to it. What good would Jaime Lannister be if he didn't have a maxxed out weapon skill such as Swords and Parry, etc. He was a beast, and rightfully so. What about Gregor? I mean, how can I honestly take a Gregor-type character seriously when you don't have a strength stat, and Gregor's isn't off the charts.

The one good thing I can think about MUShes is it would be a good place to start out for somebody who likes to sit around and just talk. Good for the so-called tavern-sitters, and/or socialites of muds which are all too common and a much needed aspect in the roleplaying community. What would the tavern be like if it were empty all the time?

Anyway, we've kind of debated this to the point of exhaustion, and I guess we just have to agree that everything we're talking about is relative to the person in question. My issue with MUSHes still stand. They don't have the tools to make the roleplay believable and in-character. It's just too much like a big chat-room full of people that want to socialize as themselves instead of get in-character.

[Nymeria]

Originally Posted by Delerak No that's wrong. Plenty of people favor the quality of writing on MUDs. I don't think MUShes have better writers. That's is all too dependent upon the person in question. I just believe that the MUSH environment breeds a social-only, dialogue-driven roleplay. Which is fine for those that want that, but some people want something else, such as combat-oriented characters and want a realistic character that HAS in-character power to kill another person if it comes down to it. What good would Jaime Lannister be if he didn't have a maxxed out weapon skill such as Swords and Parry, etc. He was a beast, and rightfully so. What about Gregor? I mean, how can I honestly take a Gregor-type character seriously when you don't have a strength stat, and Gregor's isn't off the charts.

Well, Elendor's orc cultures stand as a pretty strong example of combat-oriented characters on a MUSH.

As for Jaime ... he doesn't exactly spend all his time fighting, does he? There's a lot more to him. Gregor, sure, he's pretty much just for combat, and I wouldn't actually approve such a character as a PC. Too one-dimensional and combat-twinkish. Works in a book, not on a serious roleplay game.

Originally Posted by Delerak The one good thing I can think about MUShes is it would be a good place to start out for somebody who likes to sit around and just talk. Good for the so-called tavern-sitters, and/or socialites of muds which are all too common and a much needed aspect in the roleplaying community. What would the tavern be like if it were empty all the time?

Whereas of course the combat twinks are incredibly important? Seriously.

Originally Posted by Delerak Anyway, we've kind of debated this to the point of exhaustion, and I guess we just have to agree that everything we're talking about is relative to the person in question. My issue with MUSHes still stand. They don't have the tools to make the roleplay believable and in-character. It's just too much like a big chat-room full of people that want to socialize as themselves instead of get in-character.

Yes, lets put an end to this, because frankly, your arrogance is pretty unsavory.

[Delerak]

Originally Posted by Nymeria As for Jaime ... he doesn't exactly spend all his time fighting, does he? There's a lot more to him. Gregor, sure, he's pretty much just for combat, and I wouldn't actually approve such a character as a PC. Too one-dimensional and combat-twinkish. Works in a book, not on a serious roleplay game.

That's ridiculous. One of the best characters I've ever encountered was a Tor Warlord, Iakovitzes. He was a huge combat-oriented character with many Gregor mannerisms and was one of the most memorable characters. Countless people would come here and back me up on this.

Your mentality is proving me right. It works in a book but not on a serious roleplay game? If it can work in a book, it can work on the game. I assure you, I've seen it work.

Whereas of course the combat twinks are incredibly important? Seriously.

Yes they are. You need both. Having just one type of roleplayer gets old fast. Real fast. When you have a clan dedicated just to combat, such as the T'zai Byn mercenaries, you get more flavor. The socialite tavern-sitters have to deal with these powerful PCs coming into the bars and starting brawls, etc. It's reality, you can't just sit around and enjoy life sometimes.

[prof1515]

Originally Posted by Nymeria One additional thought, since Ide brought up the issue of writing quality. Perhaps one could compare MUD roleplay and MUSH roleplay in terms of one favouring the quality of the simulation and one favouring the quality of the writing?

That might be true except of course that MUSHers are no more likely to be better writers than RP MUDders. In my experience, quite the opposite has been true. The main difference I've seen with MUD and MUSH emote/poses is that the latter tend to be longer and quite often feature proportionally more errors in grammar and spelling. I've seen far more run-on sentences, unnecessary comma splices, inappropriate vocabulary and poor spelling on MUSHes than I have RP MUDs. This is possibly because they try to cram far too much into a pose rather than divide it up into specific actions. They also tend to labor over making their poses some sort of literary masterpiece when it just turns out a florid and convoluted mess. Longer does not equal better.

That's not to say that many RP MUDders are any better to say nothing of some of your H&S players. There are people with good writing skills and there are people with poor writings skills in every game whether it's MUD or MUSH. It's just been my observation that the only real difference I've seen between the "quality" of writing on RP MUDs versus MUSH is that the latter tend to make more errors. On average the RP on MUDs reminds me of watching a run-of-the-mill television show while the RP on MUSHes is more like a badly-written, unpublishable book.

Jason
(Waiting for someone to take this as some sort of insult instead of the personal observation that it is)

[Nymeria]

Originally Posted by prof1515 That might be true except of course that MUSHers are no more likely to be better writers than RP MUDders. In my experience, quite the opposite has been true. The main difference I've seen with MUD and MUSH emote/poses is that the latter tend to be longer and quite often feature proportionally more errors in grammar and spelling. I've seen far more run-on sentences, unnecessary comma splices, inappropriate vocabulary and poor spelling on MUSHes than I have RP MUDs. This is possibly because they try to cram far too much into a pose rather than divide it up into specific actions. They also tend to labor over making their poses some sort of literary masterpiece when it just turns out a florid and convoluted mess. Longer does not equal better.

No, longer does not necessarily equal better ... but I really would have to say that 90% of MUDders whom I have encountered on MUSHes have made a very poor impression on me in terms of grammar, spelling and ability to portray a well-realized character. Long sequences of short, specific actions do not feel like roleplay to me.

But certainly, the fact that MUSHers write more doesn't mean they are automatically better at it. My impression, however, has always been that MUSHers generally care more about how something is said, as opposed to just getting the action out there. And I would really rather take someone getting a little too creative with their prose than just posing "So and so nods."

[jackal59mo2]

The one element that I haven't seen mentioned is leveling. In my experience, even those MUDs that claim to have leveless systems still have some sort of skill growth/advancement in place, which means that new characters start out less competent in coded areas (meaning both combat and skills on MUDs that have crafting/skill codes). This does have the advantage of discouraging combat twinks, but consider what other types of characters it discourages:

- The war-weary, world-weary mercenary who knows how to fight but is sick of it.
- The skilled blacksmith with a wife and three kids (and that other wife and two more kids in the next town over that he's scrambling to keep hidden).
- The prissy jeweler who can set a stone deftly but whose fussiness drives everyone up the wall.

Instead, you get to be:
- The young recruit.
- The blacksmith's apprentice.
- The jeweler's apprentice.
- The young barmaid/novice stablehand/etc.

In many cases, I've found that it's hard to realistically generate a character out of his or her teens without doing such gyrations as "my adult character trained to be a seamstress [which she won't do because I can't create her with a realistic level of code] but is now training to be a cook because she, uh, was traumatized by a spider and now has a mortal fear of thread."

Starting yet another apprentice just doesn't appeal to me, and starting an "experienced" character that can't use any of the coded systems a MUD offers because he can't be CGed at an age-appropriate level seems like a waste of time. If I wanted to play without using skill and/or combat code, I'd play someplace without those things. Moreover, the justification for having open or obscured leveling in a role playing game (which sometimes seems to be "you're a twink until proven to be O.K.") is frankly a little insulting. Maybe it's just that, since I have played D&D four times in thirty-some year, have never played video or computer games except for Civilization and the Myst series, and don't find leveling to be at all interesting, I'm just not the target audience for many MUDs.

[misao]

Eh, if anyone has ever found a MUD with an overall good quality of writing (not just a few isolated players), -please- do tell me! I've been looking for one for ages. I've tried quite a few and remain skeptical, although I do agree that there is nothing that makes such a thing impossible in MUDs.

No, Delerak, if the MUD in question is Armageddon, I -disagree-. I cannot even begin to fathom how you can consider the quality of writing there (not the quality of RP, we've beaten that damn horse to exhaustion indeed) on par with some of the MUSHes I've seen. Including Nymeria's logs. It's not about the length, yes, but a certain level of detail and style has to be there to be considered 'good writing' (not 'good roleplay'). Would you be too happy with a fiction book that you bought if it went 'A female dwarf smiles. A female dwarf says 'Greetings, traveller'. A female dwarf takes a swig from a mug of ale.'? The plot and character development and everything may be awesome, but that doesn't change the fact that it's not 'good writing quality'.

I agree that you don't need to have 'good writing quality' for 'good roleplay' to happen -- indeed, many MU*s acknowledge that they -don't- want you to write prose, but rather that they prefer you to sacrifice 'quality of writing' for speed and realism, to emulate real life instead of a storybook. But your claims are ludicrous. It's okay for your favourite genre to have some disadvantages, you know. Everything does. I applaud many people here for objectively listing the pros and cons of each category, and I have learnt a lot from them. You, however, seem to think that your favoured group of RPGs are the standard of perfection, and everything else isn't.

I have played RTS's for many years, and have even participated in and won a few tournaments. Yet I could list you without hesitation the disadvantages of such games compared to others. It's a hallmark of maturity to be able to do so, IMHO.

[Jazuela]

I don't know how long ago it was or the circumstances in which you tried Armageddon, Misao. But last I recall, most of the times when you'd come across your example, is when you come across a new player who doesn't know how to use the emote system yet.

Just to make sure we're on the same page, the example I'm referring to, from your post, is this:

Would you be too happy with a fiction book that you bought if it went 'A female dwarf smiles. A female dwarf says 'Greetings, traveller'. A female dwarf takes a swig from a mug of ale.'?

In Armageddon, there is a detailed and sometimes complex dynamic emoting system - where the above is -more likely- to look like this:

Kicking out a chair from under the bar beside her, the female dwarf says to you, in southern-accented sirihish, "Have a seat, tell me how's the storm been? I haven't been out all week."

The female dwarf takes a sip from her chipped ceramic mug, then licks her lips free of the froth.

And...
All this is done with special symbols, so that it is dynamic. That means, the other people in the bar see...
Kicking out a chair from under the bar beside her, the female dwarf says to the red-headed man, in sirihish, "Have a seat...blah blah blah..."

Note that the if everyone is from the south except the red-headed man, then everyone will see "sirihish" - they won't see a special accent because to a southerner, southern-accented sirihish isn't an accent at all. It's normal. And, if it's an elf looking on, who doesn't speak sirihish at all, the elf would see what the dwarf is doing, but it'd end up like this:

...the female dwarf says to the red-headed man, in an unknown language, "Mufr e peyk, sarg pl blah blah blah etc."

It is a difficult system to learn, and definitely not suitable to every taste. Plus the combat system is a slowed-down and improved version of the original diku, which isn't agreeable to everyone. But at least, those who are used to diku combat, would feel comfortable with it since it's something they're used to. The nice thing, is that combat isn't necessary to gain influence in the game world. Not so nice, is that if you don't know how the combat system works, and someone tries to kill your character, you will be ill-equipped to know what to do to defend yourself. Things like "draw sword" and "hold shield" and "etwo" and "flee west" aren't necessarily intuitive. Nicer though, is that there are help files for everything. Less nice, is that the help files aren't cross-referenced or organized intuitively. More nice, is that the staff who writes these help files welcome improvements and suggestions and "fixes" from the player base.

Most mushes are -primarily- storytelling, with very little adventuring or coded physical conflict resolution (aka a combat system), if any. Some RP muds are -primarily- adventuring, with no storytelling, and some are just PK and mob-killing with no adventuring or storytelling. But most..are a combination. I think that's really the main difference between the average mush and the average mud, aside from the code itself. In summary, I feel the main difference is in the emphasis.

[Delerak]

Originally Posted by misao No, Delerak, if the MUD in question is Armageddon, I -disagree-. .... ..... .... so, IMHO.

You're an idiot. I would be resorting to ad hominem if it weren't true. The quality of writing depends on the player, the clan you're in.. there are so many factors involved you have to know certain things before playing a certain character. Armageddon isn't one dimensional, it allows for tons of different characters, and players to play the MUD.

If you know that some great writers are playing in Clan X, then you can go to join them. Or you can try to attract players to you and your clan by showing what a great writer and emoter you are.

Either way, you're still daft for thinking the obviously little amount of time you've spent on a mud can tell you anything about something like a player's writing which would be harder to encounter considering Arm averages 70 players a night at peak.

If we were to go by that mantra I would say that MUSHes are completely devoid of ANY roleplay when I login. I've spent 5-6 hours on BoD looking for roleplay. No that isn't the norm? Well that's fine, I'm not going to judge BoD and say that they have absolutely no roleplay. I'm going to make the assumption that they have very few players which is fine. The same way you can't judge Arm and say they have no good writers. In fact many of the players and staff are aspiring writers in the real world. I've had the chance to publish a book of my own which was really fun.

Just out of curiosity what have you written? Are you published?

[Nymeria]

Originally Posted by Delerak If we were to go by that mantra I would say that MUSHes are completely devoid of ANY roleplay when I login. I've spent 5-6 hours on BoD looking for roleplay. No that isn't the norm? Well that's fine, I'm not going to judge BoD and say that they have absolutely no roleplay.

If we assume something close to prime time (that is, when there are Americans awake and about, because that will matter a lot on a smaller MUSH), I would say its pretty unusual to spend 5-6 hours looking for roleplay ... unless by looking for roleplay you mean wandering the grid looking for someone to bump into without using any commands to see where people actually are (like +where). That's just not how Blood of Dragons, or many other MUSHes, are setup to function.

Originally Posted by Delerak Just out of curiosity what have you written? Are you published?

I am amused by how someone always, eventually, brings this up in a discussion of good writing quality. Considering how many absolutely atrocious books that are published, it doesn't exactly say anything. It could mean someone is a good writer, but it could also mean very little.

And I say that as one half of the pair (together with my partner and co-Admin of Blood of Dragons) who is writing the ASoIaF worldbook together with GRRM.