[Threshold]

Originally Posted by Nymeria (To Delerak): Ignored.

Originally Posted by misao (To Delerak): Eh, I hate ignoring people, but really, after reading all the unprovoked attacks that he seems to so greatly favour, I think the advice someone gave me to ignore Delerak was pretty sound. I have done the same.

That was my suggestion, though I think at least one other person offered the same advice.

I think you will both find that these forums are significantly more pleasant, interesting, and intellectually worthwhile with Delerak ignored.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by Nymeria MUSH has: say <message> "<message> Says <message> out loud. The message will be enclosed in double-quotes.

Most Diku muds are much the same, except enclosed in single quotes (and with ' as an alias for say).

Some muds also take punctuation and smileys from the say text and use it to replace 'say' with things like 'ask', 'state', 'smile', etc.

Yell and shout are commonly available commands that work much like say, except with longer range.

Originally Posted by Nymeria pose <action pose> :<action pose> Displays your name followed by the statement you posed.

Diku has 'emote' (with , as a shortcut) that works the same way.

Originally Posted by Nymeria semipose <action pose> ;<action pose> Displays your name followed by the statement you posed without any space between.

Some Diku muds have a separate command for this, some support it as part of the regular emote command (by omitting the space if the first character of the argument is non-alphabetic), others don't support it.

Originally Posted by Nymeria @emit <text> \ <text> Displays exactly what you type in <text>. On some MUSHes, this is more or less the standard roleplay command, with say and pose used very infrequently. It does not insert your name anywhere, but good MUSH etiquette is to always indicate who is the source of an emit unless you are doing scene-setting emits.

Diku muds have 'recho' (room echo) that does the same, and 'echo' which broadcasts to the whole mud, but these commands are only available to admin.

Some muds have variations of emote that allow you to freely display a message as long as it contains your name - or else they append your name in brackets at the end. Some emote commands can also be targeted, so that the grammar is rearranged to display appropriate messages to the user, their target, and others in the room.

Some RPIs have fairly complex emote commands that allow you to reference multiple things at once.

[Nymeria]

Originally Posted by KaVir Diku muds have 'recho' (room echo) that does the same, and 'echo' which broadcasts to the whole mud, but these commands are only available to admin. Some muds have variations of emote that allow you to freely display a message as long as it contains your name - or else they append your name in brackets at the end. Some emote commands can also be targeted, so that the grammar is rearranged to display appropriate messages to the user, their target, and others in the room. Some RPIs have fairly complex emote commands that allow you to reference multiple things at once.

One big differences then would be the general lack of targetting poses. You can use "page <name>=<message>" for long-distance communication, but it is almost always an OOC command. There is also a "whisper <name>=<message>" command which works in the same room and may or may not be seen as OOC.

Players can set a "nospoof" flag on themselves which will append the name of the originating player or object to any message, for those who are concerned about unattributed emits.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by Nymeria One big differences then would be the general lack of targetting poses.

I'd say that the majority of Diku muds don't support targeting with the 'emote' command, but it does seem to be quite common among the heavily RP-oriented games.

Diku muds (and most other muds) also have socials, which are predefined emotes (grin, laugh, clap, dance, etc) that can optionally be targeted. The use of socials instead of emotes tends to be frowned upon in some of the more RP-oriented muds.

Some muds also allow socials and speech to be combined in some way or another, so that you can (for example) grin and talk in a single message.

Originally Posted by Nymeria You can use "page <name>=<message>" for long-distance communication, but it is almost always an OOC command. There is also a "whisper <name>=<message>" command which works in the same room and may or may not be seen as OOC.

The Diku equivalents would be "tell <name> <message>" and "whisper <name> <message>" respectively.

[Delerak]

Originally Posted by KaVir Some RPIs have fairly complex emote commands that allow you to reference multiple things at once.

Yes.

 Emoting  	(Communication)

Emoting is a vital form of communication used in role-playing on Armageddon MUD. These commands are used for expressing oneself visually, as opposed to verbally. They allow you to type in an action, and everyone else in the same room or area as your character will see your character's short description followed by what you typed. This is most often used to express feelings, gestures, and creating images.

There are four different types of emotes that you can do in Armageddon.

Emote/Pemote (Emote/Possessive Emote):

This is the standard emote commands that shows to everyone in the room with you. The 'P' in pemote stands for possessive emote, and adds an apostrophe followed by an s ('s) after your short description.

HEmote/PHEmote (Hidden Emote/Possessive Hidden Emote):

This type of emote should only be used for small gestures that would only be noticed by those who are watchful. The possessive version should be used in the same fashion, and formats the same as pemote.

SEmote/PSEmote (Silent Emote/Possesive Silent Emote):

Use this emote to indicate that your emote does not make any sound. It will only be shown to those who can see you, so it can be safely used while hidden or invisible. The possessive version of this command follows the same usage and pattern as other possesive emotes.

Command Emotes:

Many commands allow you to use a special syntax to include an emote before or after the normal output for the command. See 'help command emotes' for more details.

All emote commands support a small language which allows you to refer more effectively to other characters and objects around you. Precede any character's keyword with a tilde (~) to insert that character's sdesc in your emote.

Precede a character's keyword with a % to insert the possessive form of that character's short description into your emote.

Likewise, precede a keyword with a !, ^, or # to substitute the gendered objective (him/her), possessive (his/her) pronouns, and the nomitive pronoun (he/she) respectively. In tabular form:

              Symbol    Reference         Target Sees
              ------    ---------         -----------
                ~       (sdesc)           you
                !       him/her           you
                %       (sdesc)'s         your
                ^       his/her           your
                #       he/she            you
                &       himself/herself   yourself
                =       (sdesc)'s         yours
                +       his/hers          yours

The best way to learn how to use emote is to watch other people, and to experiment with emote when no other PCs are around (use NPCs as your models). See help emote examples", for some examples that can be of use.

 Command Emotes  	(General)

Several commands allow you to provide an additional emote to the output of the command.

Syntax:
    <command> (pre-emote) <arguments> [post-emote]

    Example:
    > sit -nodding with dwarf (his eyes glancing towards ~elf) 
    Nodding, you sit at a long table, his eyes glancing towards the elf.

    Both the pre-emote and post-emote are optional.

    Multiple options exist for specifying a command emote. A one-word 
    emote, like "nodding", can be specified with a preceding dash, like 
    -nodding. More complex emotes can be enclosed in parantheses (), 
    square brackets [], or asterisks **.

    You can specify command emotes anywhere in the arguments to a command. 
    If you include parenthesis () and square brackets in the same command, 
    the parenthesis will always be considered pre-emote and square brackets 
    the post-emote, regardless of where they appear in the arguments.

    Examples:

    > say -gruffly Got any spice? 
    Gruffly, you ask, in sirihish, 'Got any spice?"

    > say [in a low voice] You got any spice? 
    In a low voice, you ask, in sirihish: 'You got any spice?'

    > north *limping heavily*

    > look elf (with contempt) 
    With contempt, you look at the elf.

    > look elf [with contempt] 
    You look at the elf, with contempt.

    > look elf with contempt 
    You look at the elf.

[Orrin]

Originally Posted by Delerak The point of roleplaying is not to coordinate anything out-of-character.

Have you ever played D&D or some other pen and paper RPG? If so, did you just sit at a table at home with your rulebooks hoping some friends would drop by for some roleplaying, or did you arrange when and where to meet them in advance? How is this different from players on a MUSH using OOC communication to arrange where and when to roleplay a scene?

[Delerak]

Originally Posted by Orrin Have you ever played D&D or some other pen and paper RPG? If so, did you just sit at a table at home with your rulebooks hoping some friends would drop by for some roleplaying, or did you arrange when and where to meet them in advance? How is this different from players on a MUSH using OOC communication to arrange where and when to roleplay a scene?

It's exactly the opposite. When you're meeting for D&D you have to meet up to play at all. The internet changes that. With the internet you can login to a virtual world and be right inside the game. Also, you do meet up to roleplay but the good players never swapped too much information out-of-character. I never talked to my friend in the hall about killing off another character. We would need to do that in-character with the dungeonmaster there so they can roll for listen and see if they overhear us talking about.

I never called my buddy and told him the entire life history of my characters I was currently playing or anything like that. When we got together they could glean what they wanted from the character that I was playing.

D&D is also more of a social event. It's not exactly a game with mechanics that can police itself. You have a dungeonmaster that polices roleplay on the spot.

[MudMann]

Delerak may be blunt, and sometime downright obnoxious, but he does give the impression (sometimes) he knows what he is talking about and can often keep a thread going with some interesting points. I agree totally with his points made in this thread for example.

Deciding ahead of time what you want to do in a roleplaying session (and I dont mean what time are you meetings etc), and then doing it is stage-acting. Throwing yourself into a character, and responding to events as they happen in-character is roleplaying.

To ignore someone as they have a contrasting viewpoint is ridiculous, to ignore someone as everyone advises you to is just being a sheep.

Forums are about open discussion, it appears topmudsites no longer supports this. If you ignore someone who contributes (frequently I might add) to a discussion... then that discussion becomes useless and will soon die in a collective patting on the back and how great it is we all agree.. and threads will soon become nothing more than statements with loads of invisible replies / counter arguments / discussion you will never see.

Top Mud Sites has always been about interesting and mature discussion with some SERIOUS heat and opposing standpoints, which is why I still follow it after not being a mudder for quite some time.. now I see it has degenerated into something different.

Delerak may have left me fuming and eager to post in defense / attack to something he has said, but people who ignore someone and then tell everyone about it like its a good thing leave a bad taste in my mouth, especially when they have just disagreed (albeit bluntly) with something you have said.

[Orrin]

Originally Posted by Delerak When you're meeting for D&D you have to meet up to play at all. The internet changes that. With the internet you can login to a virtual world and be right inside the game.

In a MUSH there may well be no game beyond interacting with other characters, so yes you DO have to meet up to play at all.

Originally Posted by Delerak I never talked to my friend in the hall about killing off another character.

If it's your view that all OOC communication is bad then you have to support that by addressing the real examples that people in this thread have given of MUSH players using OOC communication effectively, such as arranging when and where to roleplay or to provide consent for actions, for example. I'm pretty sure nobody here has advocated that players collude like that to the detriment of others.

Originally Posted by Delerak D&D is also more of a social event. It's not exactly a game with mechanics that can police itself. You have a dungeonmaster that polices roleplay on the spot.

So a lot like many MUSHes then.

Originally Posted by MudMann Forums are about open discussion, it appears topmudsites no longer supports this. If you ignore someone who contributes (frequently I might add) to a discussion... then that discussion becomes useless and will soon die in a collective patting on the back and how great it is we all agree.. and threads will soon become nothing more than statements with loads of invisible replies / counter arguments / discussion you will never see.

It's very difficult to have open discussion with Delerak when he refuses to accept as valid any other view than his own. It's obvious he enjoys the style of roleplay found on RPI games, and that's great. Unfortunately he seems completely unable to accept that some people enjoy different forms of roleplaying or that people can roleplay happily in games without all the features of an RPI.

[Nymeria]

Originally Posted by MudMann Delerak may be blunt, and sometime downright obnoxious, but he does give the impression (sometimes) he knows what he is talking about and can often keep a thread going with some interesting points. I agree totally with his points made in this thread for example. Deciding ahead of time what you want to do in a roleplaying session (and I dont mean what time are you meetings etc), and then doing it is stage-acting. Throwing yourself into a character, and responding to events as they happen in-character is roleplaying.

Neither you, nor Delerak, nor anyone else, get to decide exactly what roleplaying is. There's a huge variety of approaches. What about published campaigns for table-top games that lay out a lot of details of what will happen? What of MUSHes that work with canon material and play out some known scenes? Neither of these scenarios impy that everything each player does is fixed and pre-determined, even if some of the elements will be.

Originally Posted by MudMann To ignore someone as they have a contrasting viewpoint is ridiculous, to ignore someone as everyone advises you to is just being a sheep.

I would not ignore someone with a contrasting viewpoint who was expressing it a bit more politely. Someone who constantly puts off my viewpoint as worthless or wrong I don't see a need to have a discussion with when it is turning an otherwise interesting and enjoyable discussing into something less pleasant.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by Orrin Originally Posted by Delerak D&D is also more of a social event. It's not exactly a game with mechanics that can police itself. You have a dungeonmaster that polices roleplay on the spot. So a lot like many MUSHes then.

Is it really the case that many MUSHes are run like tabletop games? I was under the impression that in a MUSH it was typically the players who (self-)policed the roleplaying and created their own stories, with the staff creating and directing the overall plots in the background and only stepping in when necessary.

I've played Mind's Eye Theatre LARP games that worked much like that, where you could sometimes play an entire evening without needing a referee (unless you were heavily involved in a major plotline). The roleplaying was more like improvised acting, and focused much more on interaction between the players.

But in my experience, tabletop RPGs are a different style of game entirely, with the GM telling the story as the players progress. The roleplaying I've encountered in such games is more like interactive storytelling, with the players each playing the role of one of the major characters in the story, and the GM creating the plots, setting the scenes and playing the NPCs.

The problem with tabletop games is that you really need a GM to do anything, and that's difficult to organise online unless you're a group of friends who arrange to meet up at specific times (and even then, you can't just play whenever you like). Many muds try to reduce this problem by automating as many of the GM's tasks as possible - in some cases, the mud itself becomes the GM, creating adventures and controlling the NPCs.

But it was my understanding that the MUSH-style muds usually take an approach more like the LARP games, focusing primarily on player interaction and therefore reducing the need for GMs, so that the players could play without a specific GM (or even without any GM at all). I realise not all MUSHes work like this, but I'm talking in very general terms. Have I misunderstood the way MUSHes are usually run?

[Orrin]

Originally Posted by KaVir But it was my understanding that the MUSH-style muds usually take an approach more like the LARP games, focusing primarily on player interaction and therefore reducing the need for GMs, so that the players could play without a specific GM (or even without any GM at all). I realise not all MUSHes work like this, but I'm talking in very general terms. Have I misunderstood the way MUSHes are usually run?

I think that's the norm for most MUSHes, and while I'm certainly no expert on MUSH or MUSH style games I have encountered those where certain actions (particularly combat) are referee'd.

My point to Delerak was that in a MUSH you don't necessarily have coded mechanics for every occasion so outcomes have to be determined by other means, whether through collaboration between players or via a GM or referee and this is almost impossible without some kind of OOC communication. It is roleplaying in the tabletop tradition; essentially social and collaborative where players work together for the enjoyment of all.

[MudMann]

Originally Posted by Nymeria Neither you, nor Delerak, nor anyone else, get to decide exactly what roleplaying is. There's a huge variety of approaches. What about published campaigns for table-top games that lay out a lot of details of what will happen? What of MUSHes that work with canon material and play out some known scenes? Neither of these scenarios impy that everything each player does is fixed and pre-determined, even if some of the elements will be. I would not ignore someone with a contrasting viewpoint who was expressing it a bit more politely. Someone who constantly puts off my viewpoint as worthless or wrong I don't see a need to have a discussion with when it is turning an otherwise interesting and enjoyable discussing into something less pleasant.

No we dont get to decide such a broad definition.. but we can have strong opinions.. but on THIS forum we get to express our opinion. Delerak made one comment on this thread, and not even in response to something you said, you dimissed his opinion as bull**** (oh so sorry, you were being polite and said bovine manure) and ignored him. So who is the one being impolite, dismissive and judging the comments of others as worthless?

If you had not ignoreed him, alsmost immediatly after he clairified quite clearly
<quote>Everybody has their opinion on what roleplaying is. Fine. But it's fairly safe to say that there is no debate on what metagaming is inside a roleplaying game.
</quote>

Which is the point he was trying to make. Never at any point did he dismiss what you said as worthless. Effectivly what you are saying is that everything you say is valid, and anyone who disagrees is wrong and worthless.. so much so they are ignored.

MY OPINION, and my decision on what a role playing game is, is that we are given a stage, props, and maybe a catalyst in the form of an event and then we roleplay how our characters deal with that situation. Whether this be table top gaming, MUD's or MUSH's or whatever. In table top gaming we are given a module and a path for a story, but a good DM (or is it GM now) lets the players find their own way.. so really the outcome is not decided you are just given guide on how it should.

If you take this one step further and decide who will do what, in what order, or even play out a known situation in which you know the full outcome, you are acting in a piece of fiction and taking a 'role' in a play.. yes,, its role playing but similar to how acting can be called role playing... but not how I see a role playing game where I make it up as I go along with no conception of the ending or where the story can go.

Summary of my opinion - Where everything but the players actions and responses are undetermined... this to me is a role playing game regardless of the engine behind it (mud, mush, muck, tabletop). A game where "players" (not NPC's) actions are predetermined.. this is playing a role... is it a game? I dunno? Both roleplaying... obsolutly.

And this is the point I think Delerak was trying to make, (though he has no issue speaking for himself... and I still dont like him) ..albeit in a sarcastic manner.

If you start a thread, please have the decency to listen to everyones opinion. This discussion only started to get unpleasant when you made it so Nymeria with your dismissals and ignoring. Up until then this was all good.

[Nymeria]

Originally Posted by MudMann If you start a thread, please have the decency to listen to everyones opinion. This discussion only started to get unpleasant when you made it so Nymeria with your dismissals and ignoring. Up until then this was all good.

I found it got unpleasant with Delerak's responses. Hence, I decided I did not want to deal with them any longer.

[Nymeria]

Originally Posted by KaVir But it was my understanding that the MUSH-style muds usually take an approach more like the LARP games, focusing primarily on player interaction and therefore reducing the need for GMs, so that the players could play without a specific GM (or even without any GM at all). I realise not all MUSHes work like this, but I'm talking in very general terms. Have I misunderstood the way MUSHes are usually run?

It varies with the game genre. World of Darkness MUSHes do, as far as I know, use a fair bit of GMing. The MUSHes I've played on, based on various fantasy books, generally do not as they come out of a slightly different tradition.

[misao]

Originally Posted by MudMann Delerak may be blunt, and sometime downright obnoxious, but he does give the impression (sometimes) he knows what he is talking about and can often keep a thread going with some interesting points. I agree totally with his points made in this thread for example. Deciding ahead of time what you want to do in a roleplaying session (and I dont mean what time are you meetings etc), and then doing it is stage-acting. Throwing yourself into a character, and responding to events as they happen in-character is roleplaying.

You evidently haven't -tried- this style of roleplay either, have you? -Nobody- plans stuff to the point of 'acting out a script'. You -still- do respond to events as they happen in-character, except that you have a basic framework to start off with. How it ends it entirely up to the characters and their actions in the roleplay. Newsflash: Just because you agree with someone doesn't mean he's right or 'knows what he's talking about'.

To ignore someone as they have a contrasting viewpoint is ridiculous, to ignore someone as everyone advises you to is just being a sheep. Forums are about open discussion, it appears topmudsites no longer supports this. If you ignore someone who contributes (frequently I might add) to a discussion... then that discussion becomes useless and will soon die in a collective patting on the back and how great it is we all agree.. and threads will soon become nothing more than statements with loads of invisible replies / counter arguments / discussion you will never see.

Delerak has not responded to a single thread of mine without insult or personal attacks; neither has he stayed on topic in ANY thread I have read (except for the RPI/realism ones, because that is what he tries to turn every thread into). There is a line between 'contrasting viewpoints' and 'being a jackass', and it isn't exactly very fine either -- most people learn where it lies by the time they reach seven years of age or so. Ignoring someone just because someone advises you to is being a sheep -- ignoring someone because someone advised you to and you find solid reason to is simply accepting good advice. There are many people on these forums with contrasting viewpoints. Why is it just Delerak that so many people ignore? You might want to ask him this, not us.

Delerak may have left me fuming and eager to post in defense / attack to something he has said, but people who ignore someone and then tell everyone about it like its a good thing leave a bad taste in my mouth, especially when they have just disagreed (albeit bluntly) with something you have said.

Sorry, next time I'll post a 'every MU* except Armageddon does not have roleplay' thread, and -then- I'll ignore him (since he'll be agreeing with me). That any better?

[MudMann]

Originally Posted by misao You evidently haven't -tried- this style of roleplay either, have you? -Nobody- plans stuff to the point of 'acting out a script'. You -still- do respond to events as they happen in-character, except that you have a basic framework to start off with. How it ends it entirely up to the characters and their actions in the roleplay. Newsflash: Just because you agree with someone doesn't mean he's right or 'knows what he's talking about'. Sorry, next time I'll post a 'every MU* except Armageddon does not have roleplay' thread, and -then- I'll ignore him (since he'll be agreeing with me). That any better?

Ignoring your constructive dripping sarcasm (and responding with a little of my own), the fact I agreed with his statements this time does not mean I think he is always 100% right. i just happen to agree with his opinion in the context of the current conversation. A lot of the disagreements on TMS are due to contrasting viewpoints over issues that have no definitive answer.

You are quite correct in your assumption, I have not played a MUSH, I prefer to keep my 'game' in RPG and want a system of improvment in place that is not purely 'real life' personal. But one thing I like to do is switch off the OOC and play out everything IC. When someone wants to discuss the scenario OOC, it annoys me. Unless of course it is after the event.

The majority of the posters here indicate this does happen a lot in MUSH's.

If by basic framework, you mean what I have already quoted.. place, event, props.. that fair enough.. however if the framework includes how a character will respond to a certain thing.. then no. I however was just responding to some of the situation quoted in this very thread.. where some one indicated they "act out scenarios"'.

I have been in mud's where some people plan what will approximatly transpire between the characters on OOC channels, and then 'slip on their costume' and do it.. and I cannot see the fun in this at all.

My bugbear here is I just do not see the point in ignoring someone, no matter how annoying. It was not Delerak who steered this thread away from its original topic, a simple re-read will see that this is where the conversation had steered towards.

There are a million ways to constructivly deal with an issue in a debate.. slamming the door in someones face / gaggin them is not one of them, especially when some people respond properly to that partricualr person, and you only get half a conversation.

[misao]

If someone cannot constructively deal with an issue without sending personal insults at me and constantly bringing up off-topic stuff to bicker about, I -will- gag them. 'Debates' have rules, and one of them is no personal/childish ad hominem attacks. He is in no way 'debating'. Ignoring is my right as a forum user, and frankly I see no reason why I shouldn't use it as I see fit. As you can see, disagreements are not the issue -- I'm still responding to you.

[Newworlds]

Originally Posted by misao Delerak has not responded to a single thread of mine without insult or personal attacks; neither has he stayed on topic in ANY thread I have read (except for the RPI/realism ones, because that is what he tries to turn every thread into). There is a line between 'contrasting viewpoints' and 'being a jackass', and it isn't exactly very fine either

Misao, most members of this forum have come to this conclusion. When you have two posters like Delerak and Prof1515 you get this type of behaviour (and the constant RPI promos). The easiest way to deal with them is the wonderful ignore feature.

[prof1515]

Looking back over this thread, the main problem seems to be that Nymeria appears to be either ignorant of MUDs or deliberately relying on generalizations about H&S MUD in formulating the differences between RP on MUDs and MUSHes. I've seen good and bad examples on both (though personally I've never witnessed good examples on MUSHes, I have been shown logs which were good). Delerak's comments, as MudMann said, were a bit blunt but the beginning of any petty and rude behavior was in Nymeria's post.

When you have two posters like Delerak and Prof1515 you get this type of behaviour (and the constant RPI promos). The easiest way to deal with them is the wonderful ignore feature.

The only real troll I've spotted on the forums is Newworlds who posts unprovoked personal attacks like the above statement (after all, I wasn't even participating in this thread), repeatedly and deliberately misuses terms which have defined meaning, argues that they don't despite evidence that they do and then runs away from threads when he's proven wrong and continues the attacks in another thread (for example, this one). Every person I've discussed him with thinks he's a moron. Nevertheless, I don't block him and I wouldn't encourage anyone else to block him even though he rarely makes an intelligent or informed remark and my personal estimate of him is that he's petty, he's a liar, he's extremely under-educated and is also quite possibly suffering from slight mental retardation. Personally, I don't ignore him because occassionally he posts something which, while not perhaps valuable information, is not a personal attack. He's entitled to his ignorant, unintelligent, undereducated opinions. When he decides to share them rather than keep them to himself, rather than ignore him, I just counter his remarks. But why ignore someone who might make a constructive contribution some time?

Just something to think about,

Jason

[Newworlds]

Those educated, well thought out words of wisdom solidify my point. Good work. Another grand reason for people to put you on ignore. To keep from this thread being railroaded (which is normal for you) for those interested I've posted a full reply to his attack here:
RPI, RPE, and Roleplay

[Nymeria]

Originally Posted by prof1515 Looking back over this thread, the main problem seems to be that Nymeria appears to be either ignorant of MUDs or deliberately relying on generalizations about H&S MUD in formulating the differences between RP on MUDs and MUSHes. I've seen good and bad examples on both (though personally I've never witnessed good examples on MUSHes, I have been shown logs which were good). Delerak's comments, as MudMann said, were a bit blunt but the beginning of any petty and rude behavior was in Nymeria's post.

I have noted on a couple of occasions that yes, I know very little about MUDs of any flavour. This is why I started this thread, to avoid writing an incorrect faq and/or helpfile.

I tried for a good long while, as I see it, to discuss things with Delerak, even though my very first encounter with him on this forum basically amounted to him telling me I was wrong to run my game as MUSH and not a MUD because it didn't do the setting any justice. That was in an ad post and not a discussion, and I found it extremely rude.

In these two latest threads, he has kept making absolute statements, such as "If you're coordinating it, you're acting not roleplaying", and throwing around insults such as "MUSHers really know how to metagame".

So, no, I didn't start the rudeness.

[prof1515]

Originally Posted by Nymeria I have noted on a couple of occasions that yes, I know very little about MUDs of any flavour. This is why I started this thread, to avoid writing an incorrect faq and/or helpfile. I tried for a good long while, as I see it, to discuss things with Delerak, even though my very first encounter with him on this forum basically amounted to him telling me I was wrong to run my game as MUSH and not a MUD because it didn't do the setting any justice. That was in an ad post and not a discussion, and I found it extremely rude.

As I said, "looking back over this thread" the initiation of attitude seemed to stem from you. Delerak was responding to misao's statement which was an example of metagaming. Whether he was rude in another thread or not, your response to him in this thread was initiated with attitude (the "bovine manure" and "ignored").

In these two latest threads, he has kept making absolute statements, such as "If you're coordinating it, you're acting not roleplaying", and throwing around insults such as "MUSHers really know how to metagame".

Well, it's not really an insult considering that a good number of MUSHers do metagame. The same applies to MUDders though as a good number of them frequently do as well.

I also don't know that Delerak was making an absolute statement that all MUSHers metagame but rather that the example given by misao appeared to be metagaming.

So, no, I didn't start the rudeness.

It may not have been your intention, but it seemed to me like you did. If you didn't, you did escalate it to dismissiveness based not on any failure on his part to prove his point but rather your dislike, whether warranted or not, of Delerak himself.

Either way, it would probably be a good idea to try and get the discussion back on track by posting some of your work thus far on the FAQ. With any luck, further discussion will focus on that from here on out.

What form do you intend to do it in? Will it be categorized (code differences, IC/OOC, etc.) or just in the form of a bunch of questions?

Jason

[Nymeria]

Originally Posted by prof1515 As I said, "looking back over this thread" the initiation of attitude seemed to stem from you. Delerak was responding to misao's statement which was an example of metagaming. Whether he was rude in another thread or not, your response to him in this thread was initiated with attitude (the "bovine manure" and "ignored").

That's your perception. I don't share it. I saw plenty of rudeness from Delerak.

Originally Posted by prof1515 Well, it's not really an insult considering that a good number of MUSHers do metagame. The same applies to MUDders though as a good number of them frequently do as well. I also don't know that Delerak was making an absolute statement that all MUSHers metagame but rather that the example given by misao appeared to be metagaming.

I am highly dubious that it was not intended as an insult or as a blanket statement about MUSHers, considering Delerak's track record.

Originally Posted by prof1515 It may not have been your intention, but it seemed to me like you did. If you didn't, you did escalate it to dismissiveness based not on any failure on his part to prove his point but rather your dislike, whether warranted or not, of Delerak himself.

I escalated because his style of discussion, which I saw no further reason to engage with since I found it disruptive.

Originally Posted by prof1515 Either way, it would probably be a good idea to try and get the discussion back on track by posting some of your work thus far on the FAQ. With any luck, further discussion will focus on that from here on out. What form do you intend to do it in? Will it be categorized (code differences, IC/OOC, etc.) or just in the form of a bunch of questions?

I've taken notes, but not really worked on organizing them yet. The concerns raised about a FAQ becoming too generalizing has made me consider whether it would really be doable to construct a helpful FAQ comparing MUDs in general to MUSHes in general. I will probably start by writing some articles specifically focusing on what MUD players might need to know about my own game, and then I'll see how they can be made more universal.

I think code differences probably should be handled by someone who actually knows more about the backend, whereas my own interest are more towards the social/cultural side.

[prof1515]

Originally Posted by Nymeria That's your perception. I don't share it.

No doubt, but acting on a perception sometimes is creates a self-fulfilling effect.

I escalated because his style of discussion, which I saw no further reason to engage with since I found it disruptive.

And yet by escalating it, you're contributing to the disruption.

I've taken notes, but not really worked on organizing them yet. The concerns raised about a FAQ becoming too generalizing has made me consider whether it would really be doable to construct a helpful FAQ comparing MUDs in general to MUSHes in general. I will probably start by writing some articles specifically focusing on what MUD players might need to know about my own game, and then I'll see how they can be made more universal.

Perhaps the category method would allow you to break down the differences easier. For example, differences in code capabilities (as opposed to syntax) could be addressed MUD category by MUD category. Hence a standard RPE (Role-Play Enforced MUD not necessarily having any code differences from a H&S, just an enforced policy of role-play) might have many more differences from a MUSH in regard to pose/emote capabilities than a RPI would.

I think code differences probably should be handled by someone who actually knows more about the backend, whereas my own interest are more towards the social/cultural side.

Well there's the behind-the-scenes differences in code as well as the visible differences such as input syntax. Still, I can understand your hesitation. I consider myself a code'tard and typically try to avoid contributing to the code mechanics side of things if there are others with a greater capability present. To each their strengths, right?

Jason

[Newworlds]

Originally Posted by Nymeria That's your perception. I don't share it. I saw plenty of rudeness from Delerak. I think code differences probably should be handled by someone who actually knows more about the backend, whereas my own interest are more towards the social/cultural side.

I see no reason to justify yourself Nymeria. You came in with some real discussion and were sideswiped. Some are above this type of behaviour, others are not.

As for MUSH/MUD differences. They are many, but the difficulty is in finding an expert in two relatively globally enjoyable games that are more generic. One MUSH and one MUD. And then exploring the differences that way. Otherwise you begin an argument over the differences between two MUSHes and two MUDs in the middle of the evaluation.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by Nymeria I think code differences probably should be handled by someone who actually knows more about the backend, whereas my own interest are more towards the social/cultural side.

Surely the code definition is the easy part?

MUSH is a codebase derived from TinyMUD. Any mud derived from MUSH is a MUSH (as well as a TinyMUD). Likewise, any mud derived from MOO is a MOO, any mud derived from ROM is a ROM, any mud derived from SMAUG is a SMAUG, and so on.

Or is that not what you meant?

[Nymeria]

Originally Posted by KaVir Surely the code definition is the easy part? MUSH is a codebase derived from TinyMUD. Any mud derived from MUSH is a MUSH (as well as a TinyMUD). Likewise, any mud derived from MOO is a MOO, any mud derived from ROM is a ROM, any mud derived from SMAUG is a SMAUG, and so on. Or is that not what you meant?

Well, I guess you'd have that in there for those who want to know, but players would probably be more interested in how it affects what they can or can't do, with some also wanting to know a bit about the underlying mechanics.

For example, my understanding (which could be all wrong) is that players on non-MUSH codebases generally don't have many options for coding things unless they get promoted to that sort of access? Whereas on a MUSH, anyone can do things in softcode, though there are limits to what players without the Royal or Wizard flags can do. On the other hand, on a MUSH you frequently have game admin who don't know anything about modifying the actual server code.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by Nymeria Well, I guess you'd have that in there for those who want to know, but players would probably be more interested in how it affects what they can or can't do, with some also wanting to know a bit about the underlying mechanics.

Sure, but as different types of mud can immitate each other it's very difficult to categorise them purely by feature. I therefore think it might be helpful to start out the FAQ with a clear definition that can't really be disputed - if you state something like "MUSH refers to a group of codebases derived from TinyMUD", then afterwards you can describe the variants of MUSH (TinyMUSH, PernMUSH, PennMUSH) elaborate on what sort of features they typically offer (compared both to other members of the TinyMUD family and to other types of mud entirely), and discuss the sort of audiences they're usually aimed at.

Originally Posted by Nymeria For example, my understanding (which could be all wrong) is that players on non-MUSH codebases generally don't have many options for coding things unless they get promoted to that sort of access? Whereas on a MUSH, anyone can do things in softcode, though there are limits to what players without the Royal or Wizard flags can do.

From what I recall, it's the same with MOO (and although I'm speculating here, by extension I would presume the same is true of POO, CoolMUD and possibly even ColdMUD). There's no technical reason why an LPMud couldn't be set up the same way either, and although I'm not aware of any that are, I don't think it would be a good idea to base the definition of MUSH on the default status of a single flag.

Originally Posted by Nymeria On the other hand, on a MUSH you frequently have game admin who don't know anything about modifying the actual server code.

Well the same is true of almost all muds (usually only a small number of dedicated admin work on the server code). In the LPMud family (which was also inspired by TinyMUD), the server is separate from the mudlib, and it's perfectly possible to radically customise your game without ever touching the server code.

Many of the more modern DikuMUDs also have their own scripting languages, which provide enough functionality to perform a fair amount of content customisation.

Some of the more modern codebases also offer embedded languages (for example NakedMUD), while others are written entirely in interpreted languages and can be modified on the fly.

[Veela]

Hello All,

I was really excited to see that someone was going to give a non-newbie Mudder (but clueless none-the-less) a place to learn about other RP options out there. So I log on and start looking for the FAQ's. Instead I was told that most discussions are blocked unless you register. So I did, taking about another five minutes of my lunch break. Then i finally get here only to find sniping about discourtesy and no real help about definitions and distinctions between MUD and MUSHes. I might be able to find it if I scroll down through all the harping back and forth in posts but frankly my lunch hour is half over and it no longer seems important enough to look up. I am sure that your conflict needs resolved to your satisfaction, however could you do it NOT in the section that is supposed to be giving out information. Because bluntly this was a monumental waste of my time and any other person's who came looking for some answers and insight.


I feel the need to apologize to any other person searching for information on this topic that has to read MY sniping. But maybe it will save you time and hassle and you can look somewhere else for actual FAQ's.


Veela