From MUDs to MUSHes: FAQs, etc for the players
 

The thread discussing the differences between MUSHes and MUDs have made me ponder something. Namely how to better help out new players who show up at a MUSH and have played MUDs before but not MUSHes. The assumption would be that they fall into one of these two categories:

1) they logged onto a MUSH without specifically looking for a MUSH and/or without knowing its different from a MUD
2) they came looking specifically for a MUSH to try it out

What sort of information do they need? If a FAQ is added specifically for MUD players, what things are they likely to want to know? Are there any commands are common to most MUDs that it would be good to make a MUSH alias for, or at least have a coded response when they try the command to tell them what else to try?

On the whole, I guess the information would mainly be useful for those who fall into the second group, as my impression is that those from the first group rarely find that MUSHes sound interesting to them. Still, its good to know what sort of things to point out to help them make their decision.

For the purpose of this discussion, I am lumping together TinyMUSH, TinyMUX and PennMUSH in the MUSH category, and considering everything else other than MUCK and MOO as MUDs.

Re: From MUDs to MUSHes: FAQs, etc for the players
 

Maybe this thread will help both sides have a better understanding of the vast differences between the two.

Here's some questions that a typical "MUDder" might ask, when first checking out a mush. This for a typical RP-encouraged/enforced level-based diku-esque mud:

1. Where's my levels?
1a. No levels? Well then what happens when you gain exp points?
1b. No exp points? Then how do I measure getting older/more influential/more Lordly/gain my Master title?
2. How do I put on my eq? Where do you buy armor and weapons?
2a. No eq? Am I supposed to walk around naked and/or defenseless? No armor/weapons? How do I defend myself or kill people then?
3 Do you have a map of the land so I can figure out where I want to go hunting?
3a. No hunting? Then how am I supposed to get better and train ranks in skills?
3b. No ranks in skills? No coded skills? Then how do I know if I'm getting better at doing something?
3c. Well how does anyone ELSE know I'm getting better at doing something? What if I -want- to go adventuring the world that your game has created? Don't I need to have some protection against the elements, against raiders, against exhaustion? What about food and water? How does the game accommodate for all of these situations?
3d. No game world? A grid? What does that MEAN exactly? How do I navigate it, how would I roleplay spending half a day trudging up the mountains to the peak and camping out to gaze at the sky, without coded mountains, peaks, skies, and wood to make a campfire?
4. So you're saying we pose all this? What's to stop anyone from posing that they kill you all and win all your loot, if none of it is coded and everything is posed? How do you know that I -didn't- kill your character? How do you know that I -didn't- just break into your un-coded apartment and steal your furniture and sell it at the furniture pawn shop? And where's all my coins for my efforts?

Re: From MUDs to MUSHes: FAQs, etc for the players
 

The problem is there's a great deal of variation between different types of mud, so you'd really need to be more specific in order to provide any meaningful detail. Even Jazuela's comparison of Diku vs MUSH doesn't hold true for all Diku derivatives (many are levelless, etc - I've even seen a couple that handled combat through emotes/poses).

Such an FAQ would be pretty useful, but I'm not sure how you could best go about it. Perhaps it might be better handled as a list of features, broken down into subsections describing which approaches are taken by different codebases?

Re: From MUDs to MUSHes: FAQs, etc for the players
 

Thanks, Jazuela. :)

Its a good point, KaVir. I guess one would either have to try to find broader categories/questions to use for the comparisons, or structure it more. And, as you say, structuring wouldn't be easy.

So the differences between codebases are large enough that there's not much in the way of common commands that someone would try when they first come onto a new game?

Re: From MUDs to MUSHes: FAQs, etc for the players
 

Well you'll find most muds have certain basic commands - "who" to show who's online, "quit" to leave the game, "help" to view help topics, etc. The output can vary, but the general functionality is usually fairly consistant. But when you start moving into the more game-specific commands, there tends to be more variation.

Most Diku muds usually have a very similar command set to each other, although even then the similarity depends on how closely related the codebases are (eg ROM and Envy are very similar, but SMAUG and Silly have quite a few differences).

But when you compare Diku with LP, for example, you'll find the differences much more noticable - to the point that the players of one frequently dislike the other because it feels so unfamiliar. Likewise, comparing Diku or LP with Morder (which was actually inspired by Scepter of Goth, rather than the original MUD that inspired Diku, LP and MUSH) would also reveal a lot of differences. The same would hold true with many custom muds.

Re: From MUDs to MUSHes: FAQs, etc for the players
 

Do those commands tend to be lower case, or case optional? Because WHO, QUIT and LOGOUT are case sensitive on MUSH. Though if anyone types "who", we do have it telling them to use WHO instead.

Re: From MUDs to MUSHes: FAQs, etc for the players
 

Commands aren't usually case-sensitive, at least not in the muds I'm familiar with.

Re: From MUDs to MUSHes: FAQs, etc for the players
 

Many mushes don't make quit and who case sensitive, though I'm not sure if this is compiled in the codebase or added once the game is running.

The standard commands across all muds seem to be help, quit, who, and say.

While it's true that not all muds (excluding mushes) are the same, I think in general muds (meaning DIKU, LP, and even custom muds that are similar in features or goals), and mushes each have their own feel.

For example, even though God Wars 2 and 4 Dimensions are totally different, they have a similar 'feel' in my opinion, and you could say the same for Firan MUX and MPUG (one a code-heavy RP mush and one a social mush). However those two sets of muds/mushes would also feel very different from each other, so I think a general mud/mush FAQ has value.

I think the danger of a FAQ like that is it intends to reinforce the notion that you only can make a certain kind of game in a certain kind of codebase. So some acknowledgement of that issue would be good to include in such a FAQ.

Re: From MUDs to MUSHes: FAQs, etc for the players
 

HUGE differences. I mean enormous. Big enough that if you don't know of them, it's very clear that you've never played any game outside your own codebase.

As KaVir suggests, even different games -within- the same codebase can have remarkably different syntax/commands.

However, there are some things that are "typical" and are likely to be known across a good variety of games. If you want to help mudders get used to mush-style, it'll probably be helpful to know what you're dealing with. So without further ado, here's a few common commands. Most of them do what they sound like they do:

kill (critter)
inv(entory)
eq(uipment)
exp(erience)
stat(us)
skills
score
look (in some games you can look in the exit directions and see coded results, eg. look east, shortened to l e)
emote (aka "act" or em or :)
craft
prep/cast (magic spells)
forage
train
parry
talk*
tell*
ooc
hide
sneak (walking silently)
hunt (for footprints)
search (for hidden items/exits)

These two can be either IC devices, or OOC "channels" depending on the mud. In Armageddon and Shadows of Isildur, talk is the command you use to have a conversation at a table, with other people sitting at the same table. In this way, people who are standing up, or sitting somewhere else in the room, won't hear the conversation unless they are actively "listening" - which is a coded skill that gives them a chance of overhearing/eavesdropping. Tell is how you talk to someone specific. As in, "tell sue Hello"

Re: From MUDs to MUSHes: FAQs, etc for the players
 

PennMUSH (which is what I run) has no option for making those commands other than case sensitive, though yes, I seem to recall that TinyMUSH and/or TinyMUX may have added it. Probably also some of the other derivates, like Rhost.

Good point, yeah.

Heh, yeah, not since 95, when I played a couple of muds for two months before finding MUSHes. Don't remember at all what they were. :)

Thanks, that's a good list to work from to make some dummy commands that point people to what they should be using. Talk and tell in particular probably cause a lot o issues, since its a common problem that people don't figure out how to speak on the channels or contact a person.

Re: From MUDs to MUSHes: FAQs, etc for the players
 

Some good suggestions from Jazuela, alhough once again, when adding them to an FAQ I'd stress that they don't apply to all muds (for example of the 21 commands she listed, my mud has only 8).

Here are some other commands that are often (but certainly not always) found in muds:

north/south/east/west/up/down (movement)
chat or gossip (communication)
commands (list all commands)
get/drop/give (transfer equipment)
wear/wield/remove (use equipment)
eat/drink (for muds with food and drink)

Re: From MUDs to MUSHes: FAQs, etc for the players
 

I'm not sure about BoD, Nymeria, but in the very first MUSH that I played, virtually every damn command had to be prefixed by some symbol, usually + or @ (I think that was part of the TinyMUX codebase). I found that extremely boggling, especially when we were expected to use +help, as the conventional 'help' yielded a boggling lot of building commands instead of real game help files!

Other than the obvious code-based things that the rest pointed out (and which I'm not very well-versed in), I think an explanation of the culture would be very useful (sadly I've never seen it in any FAQ). If someone mainly plays MUDs they probably would not even think to page someone to schedule RP, or about the possibility of discussing plots OOCly before heading into them. Also, they should be encouraged to read the logs to better understand the RP style of the MUSH. And... I find that more MUD players than MUSH players tend to powerpose; perhaps it's due to the thinking that if the code allows them to do it, it should be fair to do it. It might also be due to the abundance of preset emotes in MUDs such as 'slap', 'hug', etc. Regardless, I think that's an area that should be explained clearly.

Re: From MUDs to MUSHes: FAQs, etc for the players
 

Yes, this is standard. @ is used for most built-in commands (i.e, hardcoded). They are documented with "help". + is used for commands added in what MUSH calls softcode, and those are generally documented with "+help". Relatively few MUSH admin mess with the hardcode, so those commands are pretty much always left as-is. The + for softcode is such a standard that most everyone uses it.

This is a good way of looking at it, talking about the differences in cultures. That's probably more crucial than code, apart from the basic commands for actually communicating with someone.

Re: From MUDs to MUSHes: FAQs, etc for the players
 

Also, I would definitely recommend mentioning about what it -means- to organize RP events in advance. To the typical RP-mud type person, it would be considered cheating to talk OOCly with people to discuss how a scene is going to be played out, and how the results will effect everything else, all before the RP starts. The whole point of roleplay, in a non-MUSH-style RP mud, is to discover what happens, when it happens. You don't tell Sue oocly, that your character Amos is gonna murder her character. You just log in, and do it. It is cooperative storytelling, but much more like live-action and much less like tabletop. You tell the story WHILE the story is being told. You don't talk about how you will tell the story. That kinda negates the purpose of telling the story. If you've already determined what's gonna happen, and how it will happen, then there's really no need for it to happen at all. It's like reading the last chapter of murder mystery.

In most RP MUD type games, organizing the scenes OOCly in advance of the actual scene is considered cheating, and could get you in trouble with the staff if it was discovered you were doing it.

You'd also want to explain about turn-based roleplay - because this is a phenomena not normally seen in RP-MUD type games.

And, you'll want to explain about the time of things. I've heard of mushes where someone will log on and type out a scene..then log out for supper..and an hour later, someone else will type out a scene..and the first guy comes back the next day and discovers that 3 more people have added to his story. In other words, actual real-time interaction is completely optional, there doesn't ever have to be any interaction at all.

That's in some of those games; I know this isn't typical. But it really is one of those things that people who play only RP MUD type games probably would never have even heard of and give you funny looks if you mentioned it. If you compared it to BBS games they -might- be familiar.

Re: From MUDs to MUSHes: FAQs, etc for the players
 

Oh yes, do emphasize on the '+help', that would be the most important command by far. And probably no MUD players would even think of using +help; I know I wasted quite a bit of time wondering wtf 'help' was talking about!

Re: From MUDs to MUSHes: FAQs, etc for the players
 

People who have played MOOs might be familiar with using @ symbol; people who have been "builders" for MOOs definitely would be familiar with it.

help, with no symbol, is the "typical" method of accessing help menus in muds, as a player. In some games, gmhelp or @help would give access to staff-only help files, and on occasion, a mud would even have it set up so that @help opens up a help-file creation process for staff members who need to add new help files to the list.

But from the player perspective, you'd think - well this guy is already at a disadvantage, since he's looking for help in the first place. Why make it more complex than it needs to be? Just make help be the syntax to access help files.


So you might see the player type:
help
and he would get this:

What would you like help on? You can type >help subject or help complex_subject. You can also find help files categorized as follows:

combat movement communication skills crafting
wholist credits gameworld flora_fauna

and the player might already know he's trying to find out how to kill something and he'd type
help kill

or maybe he is trying to find out the syntax, because kill isn't working, so he'd type
help combat

which would give him a list of various combat help files, including attack.

and then he'd type
help attack
and see the actual file, including the syntax and how it's used, with cross-references to related help files.

At any point during this, he could just type
help attack
and get the attack file.

But if he's not sure what the file is called, then he has the opportunity to check different categories which are provided to him by typing help with no for-or-aft arguments.

Re: From MUDs to MUSHes: FAQs, etc for the players
 

Now that you mention this, I think that it would be nice for MUDs (which are mainly nonconsensual) to put up a FAQ about this for those of us who come from MUSHes or consent MU*s as well! :) When I returned from over a year of playing consent MUSHes to a nonconsensual MUD, and played a thief character for the first time, it took me a while to get used to /not/ informing the person oocly before thieving from them. :p It took even longer for me to not feel guilty about not emoting any hints as to what is going on; it just felt like oocly cheating someone for your character to chat happily with them while feeling for their pockets (even though there was a coded chance of them discovering you, of course).

Re: From MUDs to MUSHes: FAQs, etc for the players
 

Erm, what you are describing *is* consensual. By playing the game, you consent to the roleplay. By logging in, you consent to whatever your character will experience. It is consented to by virtue of the fact that you have chosen to play. There are certain caveats - in some games, torture scenes must be consented to OOCly. In some games, the players (not the characters) must consent oocly to sexual roleplay. In Armageddon, both torture and sexual RP need consent, however if consent is -not- given, the enactor can "fade to black" and assume that the situation has taken place, without the detailed roleplay. Rape is the only exception - if someone does -not- consent to that, then the enactor must let go and accept that the rape never happened. These are all OOC devices though, exceptions to the rule. The rule is, when you log in, you are your character, and you are expected to accept whatever happens to your character. Any exceptions to this rule are notated in the game docs.

Re: From MUDs to MUSHes: FAQs, etc for the players
 

Big difference here, I see. On a MUSH, consent is generally understood as something that has to be explicitly given for each situation. Consent by logging in would be considered a non-consent environment for a MUSHer.

There's been lots of good suggestion, I really appreciate that. Some way of making the existence of +help more evident is clearly needed, and also some discussion of how OOC communication generally is a much bigger part of MUSHes. Not always, though. There are those that run pretty strict IC/OOC separation and never plan out scenes, though they still have active OOC channels and will schedule things.

Re: From MUDs to MUSHes: FAQs, etc for the players
 

Yes. I am saying that this should be explained if ever a MUSH-to-MUD faq is coined up, because it's just not how MUSH players look at it. In fact, the paragraph above would be perfect for a help file. :)

Re: From MUDs to MUSHes: FAQs, etc for the players
 

It seems pretty obvious. I mean, if you walk into a peanut factory, you consent to being exposed to peanuts. You don't need a sign to warn you "warning - this building contains peanuts."

If you go to a nudist beach, you should expect that you will encounter naked people and further, that if you show up to this nudist beach wearing clothes, then YOU will be the exception and you might be asked to either remove your clothing, or remove yourself. The consent is implied by virtue of the fact that you show up, and the place has a sign telling you that it IS a nudist camp. It doesn't need to tell you that nudist means you consent to nudity.

When you ask for hot coffee at a restaurant, you are consenting to receiving hot coffee, which - is hot. You don't need to be offered, or sign a waiver consenting to receiving hot coffee. How many of you read that "warning: hot coffee is hot" on the coffee cups anymore? It was hillarious when that moron got her settlement, but she was a moron. Mudders, I like to think, are marginally more intelligent.

But really. If you log in to a *roleplaying* game, you shouldn't need a disclaimer warning you that you are about to experience roleplaying and that you are consenting to it. If the theme of the game is "murder, death, betrayal," then you shouldn't need to give consent to being killed, dying of other causes, or betrayed. If the game is based on Sukie Stackhouse and werewolves, then it's a given you're gonna encounter some blood and gore and pretty unpleasant scenes. You shouldn't need to be asked to give consent for it.

The fact that MUSHes require consent for roleplaying, is what should be noted. It is a roleplaying game. By definition, this requires roleplaying. Consent to roleplay in a roleplaying game isn't necessary. By virtue of the fact that you are playing it, you have already given implicit consent.

Re: From MUDs to MUSHes: FAQs, etc for the players
 

That's all well and good Jazuela, but there's roleplaying, and then there's roleplaying ;). It seems that the topic of consent is treated quite differently on many MUSHes to the way it is on many MUDs. I don't think it's very useful to try and establish which approach is correct for such a subjective thing.

You could say there are two very distinct styles of roleplaying. The first is what you might call MUD style, where consent is implied and gameplay is often competitive. A key feature is that one player's roleplay may negatively impact another's and this is often where coded systems come into play. This style of roleplay takes a lot from earlier console RPGs and there's a lot of emphasis on character development, solo play and simulation.

The second style you could call MUSH style roleplaying where consent is a key feature of roleplay and players often arrange plots and scenes ahead of time. There is little emphasis on competition and coded systems are rarely used to resolve disputes, rather players are expected to reach a consensus themselves. This style of roleplay has more in common with tabletop RPGs where roleplaying is seen as a collaborative activity among friends.

Obviously there will be MUDs that favour the second style and vice versa, as well as games which blend elements of both, but I think most people will recognise these two distinct styles.

Re: From MUDs to MUSHes: FAQs, etc for the players
 

'Roleplaying' in itself says nothing about the OOC approach to it. Sure, if I go to a coffee house, I would expect hot coffee, but depending on which house I go to, I might not be expecting it to be plonked on my table if I didn't order it! Violence, betrayal, etc, can all happen with OOC discussion as well.

Your point of view is evidently that of a MUDder... I'm sure someone who's mainly played MUSHes would be quite skeptical about why OOC discussion might be forbidden in certain MUDs as well. That's why Nymeria is asking this question; because he wants to help them acquaint themselves to MUSH-style play. It wouldn't hurt for MUDs to do the same as well if they foresee many MUSHers trying them out.

Re: From MUDs to MUSHes: FAQs, etc for the players
 

That's really ingenious. A few months back I was involved in a violent confrontation in a bar. I totally should have stopped to ask the guys to coordinate it with me rather then jump me. You know because then I would have had a heads-up to what was going to happen and I could have changed the outcome. Makes perfect sense. MUSHers really know how to metagame.

Re: From MUDs to MUSHes: FAQs, etc for the players
 

Maybe if the people involved were your friends and you were only infact "roleplaying" a violent confrontation, rather than actually having one, it might well have been appropriate to coordinate things in advance. I think it's obvious that isn't your preferred way to roleplay, but you can't argue that there are plenty of people who enjoy that style of play.

Re: From MUDs to MUSHes: FAQs, etc for the players
 

If you're coordinating it, you're acting not roleplaying. The point of roleplaying is not to coordinate anything out-of-character. That's simply metagaming. If I'm memorizing lines for a play it's not roleplaying, it's stage acting. If I'm assuming a role given to me at Improv or while we're out at a restaurant eating, then it's roleplaying. I can do anything on the fly, I don't plan any of it.

Re: From MUDs to MUSHes: FAQs, etc for the players
 

Like Orrin points out, many MUSHes are less competitive than many MUDs, and focus far more on co-operation between players. That co-operation rarely (if ever) gets to the level of scripting every stage of a scene. But yes, there's often some OOC co-operation, to make sure everyone's enjoying the scene and things are flowing smoothly. But there are degrees of consent on MUSHes, from full consent to no consent, and degrees of IC and OOC separation. Though none, I would say, go as far as an RPI apparently does.

Bovine Manure.

You don't get to define what roleplaying is. There are different styles. You stick to yours, I will stick to mine. And if you call my style "acting", well, I can think of a good word for you style too. "Rollplaying".

Ignored.

Re: From MUDs to MUSHes: FAQs, etc for the players
 

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.

Back to the topic, I've noticed that MUDs tend to use 'emote' more (and sometimes :, ;, or any variant of the above), whereas for MUSHes it's always : ('emote' doesn't work)? I'm not sure if this is just due to the limited codebases I've encountered, though.

Re: From MUDs to MUSHes: FAQs, etc for the players
 

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.



Either way, MUSHes obviously metagame if they are planning scenes ahead of time. Saying you have the discipline and elite awesomeness ability not to use the information gained by speaking OOCly about a scene is pointless. Anybody can say that. If that were true you also wouldn't need to have your little OOC meetings about the scene in advance. The very fact that you're having the coordinated meeting for roleplay defeats your entire argument of stating that you won't use the information gained. If you aren't going to use it you wouldn't have had the meeting in the first place.

Re: From MUDs to MUSHes: FAQs, etc for the players
 

MUSH has:

say <message>
"<message>

Says <message> out loud. The message will be enclosed in double-quotes.

pose <action pose>
:<action pose>

Displays your name followed by the statement you posed.

semipose <action pose>
;<action pose>

Displays your name followed by the statement you posed without any space between.

@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.

Re: From MUDs to MUSHes: FAQs, etc for the players
 

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.

Re: From MUDs to MUSHes: FAQs, etc for the players
 

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.

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

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.

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.

Re: From MUDs to MUSHes: FAQs, etc for the players
 

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.

Re: From MUDs to MUSHes: FAQs, etc for the players
 

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.

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

Re: From MUDs to MUSHes: FAQs, etc for the players
 

Yes.

Re: From MUDs to MUSHes: FAQs, etc for the players
 

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?

Re: From MUDs to MUSHes: FAQs, etc for the players
 

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.

Re: From MUDs to MUSHes: FAQs, etc for the players
 

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.

Re: From MUDs to MUSHes: FAQs, etc for the players
 

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.

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.

So a lot like many MUSHes then.

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.

Re: From MUDs to MUSHes: FAQs, etc for the players
 

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.

Re: From MUDs to MUSHes: FAQs, etc for the players
 

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?

Re: From MUDs to MUSHes: FAQs, etc for the players
 

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.

Re: From MUDs to MUSHes: FAQs, etc for the players
 

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.

Re: From MUDs to MUSHes: FAQs, etc for the players
 

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

Re: From MUDs to MUSHes: FAQs, etc for the players
 

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.

Re: From MUDs to MUSHes: FAQs, etc for the players
 

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'.

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.

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?

Re: From MUDs to MUSHes: FAQs, etc for the players
 

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.

Re: From MUDs to MUSHes: FAQs, etc for the players
 

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.

Re: From MUDs to MUSHes: FAQs, etc for the players
 

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.

Re: From MUDs to MUSHes: FAQs, etc for the players
 

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.

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