Veterans of Roleplay Intensive MUDs
 

A thread on roleplay brought to light the following and so I created this thread for some discussion on the topic. Please feel free to chime in if you have information or comments. The original thread is here:



Are there players out there that have stopped roleplaying because of a lack of quality in current "RPI" style MUDs. I had thought several new versions of these games were coming out like and if so can more information be talked about on them? And to branch out, what would would you (the reader) consider the best or worst RPI style game?

Re: Veterans of Roleplay Intensive MUDs
 

Three of the present eight members of the RPMUD Committee used to play RPIs but don't anymore. Of the staff of TSOY, the RPI I've been working on developing since 2005, four of my five staff are former RPI players who have given up on the existing ones and don't even play MUDs at all any more as a result (one of the motivations in starting and persisting in keeping TSOY alive despite our trials and tribulations is the hope of providing a RPI that will appeal to the veterans of the genre who have since left it in frustration). I can think of a several other former players and admins who've turned their back on RPIs, most on MUDs altogether. These don't even take into account the natural process of life dragging people away from MUDding due to jobs, family, children, etc. Each of the people I've mentioned so far voluntarily quit RPIs and MUDs in general. As a result, you're going to find it very difficult to get them to post responses. Even if they were still playing MUDs it would be hard since none of the individuals I've listed had accounts here even when they were still playing. It's been my experience that most RPI players don't really integrate themselves into the greater MUD community as they're interested in that particular type of MUD or even just a particular game rather than MUDs as a whole.

Jason aka Falco

Re: Veterans of Roleplay Intensive MUDs
 

Thanks for the update and comments. I hope things go better for the community as I think one of the hugest benefits to our community is the diversity and ability to meet many nitches in the the gaming community that the larger commercial games can't. This might be a bit advertising'esque, but perhaps you could post a bit more on TSOY and the features that will bring back some of the hardcore players of the past.

Re: Veterans of Roleplay Intensive MUDs
 

While I've not turned my backs on MUDs in general, I will say that I've been without a home MUD for quite some time and, after giving some of my old favorites numerous tries before finally being repelled again for the same old reasons that Prof's mentioned, I don't think that is going to change anytime soon.

I've heard about the number of new games opening up but therein is the problem: they are all still in Beta or Alpha. And a few of the rising stars, while excellent games that I will gladly support, just don't suit me because they don't offer the kind of experience that I personally want on a day-to-day basis.

Like Prof, I'm spending my time these days working on a MUD of my own or contributing to community services. Unfortunately, my game is in a much earlier stage, as I'm still just trying to write the base code and get the place set up for more streamlined development. I don't see the project going the way of [insert dead MUD here], because there's much more on the line than just my fancy with owning a MUD, but I also don't see it popping up in any listings any time soon.

I do know that I have a few different main goals than Prof's TSOY. While we are still technically going after the same audience and overlap in a few major features, we are still offering different things.

Re: Veterans of Roleplay Intensive MUDs
 

That sounds very promising. Feel free to list your goals and features as they come to pass. I like the idea of making a platform that will return some of the Veteran roleplayers back to the fold.

Re: Veterans of Roleplay Intensive MUDs
 

I disagree with some of what Prof has said above. While real life and general disatisfaction with some RPIs have certainly driven off many great roleplayers/players over the years (the same could be said for any genre of MUD, by-the-by), there are always just-as-great players finding the genre and stepping up to become the RPI veterans of today and tomorrow. Additionally, I'd challenge the concept that the best RPIs of today cannot hold a candle to the worst (or any) RPIs of the past. Shadows of Isildur had a hay-day in the old days of Osgiliath and Minas Morgul - and then another hay-day during the year of 2009 in which the Mines of Moria and Northlands existed; unfortunately, those areas are now closed. I cannot speak to the olden days of ARM, but it still remains a quality game.

Beyond that - to plug my own project, Atonement RPI, we achieved things in ALPHA that RPIs have only been able to shallowly promise for years. The ability for players to have complete control over the destiny of the entire gameworld, create society themselves from the ground-up (literally - they all played amnesiacs) through organic roleplay, a sophistication of code and building that allowed for immersiveness on levels far beyond the capabilities of previous games - and a society built upon mutual respect between players and staff, without the corruption and selfish administration that has chased off many great players from other RPIs.

Infact, a lot of the old veterans who quit playing other RPIs were some of the most active and supportive members of our community during our ALPHA campaign.

Despite calling the first four months of play on Atonement "ALPHA-phase", I fully believe that we were able to do things that RPIs have only dreamed about being able to do in the past. BETA will be even more improved, in every way imaginable.

The challenge for the RPI community is not to allow apathy to cause us to stop taking chances, stop creating new games - and to re-integrate itself with the rest of the MUDing community. There's really no experience in any game, text-based or not, which is similar to an RPI. As long as there continues to be energetic new creators to re-imagine what RPIs are capable of, I really do not fear for the genre and its niche.

Re: Veterans of Roleplay Intensive MUDs
 

I like what you said here. It sounds quite positive. I know delays, upgrades, and modifications can take a long time and estimating dates on MUD building is normally very difficult to determine with any accuracy, but when do you think you will cross into BETA?

Re: Veterans of Roleplay Intensive MUDs
 

I think the steady decline of the size of the mud community has led to a scramble for players across all server types, and out of fear of losing precious newbies games are dumbed down, which in turn makes the veterans lose interest as it's all about them newbies, instead of what the actual players want.

That's about all I can say. I've never played a RPI because I don't care too much about soft fiction genres, which unfortunately most MUDs fall under.

Re: Veterans of Roleplay Intensive MUDs
 

We also need to take into account how hard it is to hold onto veterans.

If games don't change, then they stagnate. They will either be great stand-alone games that you can explore until you get tired and leave, or they will be as great as they always were, but fall behind in comparison to newer games (How great is Doom? It's still great, but I'm not going to play it through again, I'll play something newer with more features and better UI)

So that means adding in new features, and updating game design. And isn't it the case that we can't please all the players all the time?

So what we end up doing is layering more features and systems on top of an existing game, making it more and more complicated. This is great for the veterans, it keeps things fresh for them, and continues to give them opportunities for advancement. It's not great for the new players, the ones who now arrive find a more complex game, and have a larger barrier of entry before they can compete with the existing players - they have a harder time as a new arrival than the veterans did.

So if we want to keep the game "equally easy" for a new person to join as it was when the veterans first joined, we need to simplify some things, give 'easy ins' for the new arrivals, etc. - which leads to veterans feeling that things are dumbed down.

No win situation? Not quite. It's quite possible to add more systems & options without adding to the complexity for a new player.
Imagine a scenario where a new player can be a ranger, with a fully functional hunting system. You add the ability for new (and old) players to be miners, with a fully functional mining system. It's not really any harder for a new player, since if they choose to be a ranger or a miner, they still only have one system to learn. They need to make a choice of which career, but it's pretty obvious what sort of activities they will be looking at.

But it's still hard to get that right. How will mining impact the game economy? Will profit from digging up gold be balanced well against profit from killing animals? Will you just be splitting the player-base between twice as much area as before (especially with less players where the player-base should be consolidated...) and so on. It's possible to get it right. Just not easy.

And every time you make a mistake, you'll risk loosing players. But you also risk loosing players if you don't take the risks and chances.

Re: Veterans of Roleplay Intensive MUDs
 

What MUDs do you play? Do you have a home MUD?

Also, what's a soft fiction genre? Surely there is nothing soft fiction about Lord of the Rings, right?

Re: Veterans of Roleplay Intensive MUDs
 

I played Mortal Realms until it went down late 1999, after that I've played about a dozen or so MUDs, typically getting bored within a year and moving on.

I agree that the Lord of the Rings is hard fantasy, though it has some soft edges, like dragons, ents, rare minor magic, obscure magical powers (like in Gandalf's case), mithril, immortal races, wraiths, and there's probably more, though I think that's most of it.

A good Tolkien mud would keep those (imo) to a minimum, but I wouldn't be surprised if most add much more magic, mithril, and implausible beings than the books allow for.

Re: Veterans of Roleplay Intensive MUDs
 

What is your opinion of "Magic Lite" settings?

As in, they have those "soft fantasy" elements, but the magic fades in the background in comparison to "normal technology"

The sort of setting where you can throw a fireball, or summon food. But most people would find it more convenient to fire a crossbow, or bake a loaf of bread.

Is that the sort of thing that you're after? Or would the ability to throw the fireball at all, even if it comes up rarely, already be the deal-breaker?

(My questions are motivated by not really understanding what you mean by "hard fantasy" - since Lord of the Rings, as you point out, is full of fantastical elements. Giant spiders, dragons, something crazy at every turn... I don't really see the distinction between that & most muds, aside from the lack of magical powers that the primary characters carry with them, and even then, there's a significant number with quasi-magical power, and others with actual-magic)

(Would true "hard fantasy" be a fantasy story set in a realistic medieval world, with no magic, but still swashbuckling adventure? Like "The Princess Bride"? Or am I on the wrong track?)

Re: Veterans of Roleplay Intensive MUDs
 

I was wondering the same thing actually since in my experience and understanding "Hard Fantasy" is usually along the same vein as "Hard SciFi" only with a fully fleshed out fantasy world, generally they're low magic as well but that may just be a personal preference. I can't name of as many things that I consider "Hard Fantasy" as I can "Hard SciFi" but I'd think Tolkien would count, as would I believe The Wheel of Time books, just not neccessarily games based on either of those. For a game that I'd consider "Hard Fantasy" I'd suggest DartMUD which is possibly the most fully realized world I've ever come across, magic is fairly rare, and death is oftentimes permanent. If it had the playerbase of some of the larger MUD's out there it'd probably be one of the best games anywhere.

Sorry for the blurb there though, didn't mean to go off topic like that.

Re: Veterans of Roleplay Intensive MUDs
 

Magic is not so much the problem as its ramifications. Imagine someone figures out how to teleport and it proves to be fairly easy to be taught to most people. In your typical soft setting most people can teleport, which is wonderful, and business continues as usual.

In a hard setting the ability to teleport would dramatically change the world. How do you deal with crime and prisoners? How do you stop illegal immigration or the import of drugs? A butterfly effect would ensue and the challenge of hard fiction is to make it logically sound, which is easiest if you closely model the real world.

The Lord of the Rings is fairly low on magic compared to D&D which most MUDs seem to be modeled after. I never managed to get passed the first chapter of The Wheel of Time and the only fantasy authors I like are Tolkien, Zelazny, and Rowling, other than those I primarily read science fiction and generally avoid fantasy.

I guess I'm one of those people for who things have to make sense. I'm not entirely sure why I like the Harry Potter books, Rowling fails at creating hard fiction, but she gets points for trying.

So (imo) the hardness of fiction is the logical soundness of the scientific and fantastic theories, as well as these having a logically sound impact on the universe.

Re: Veterans of Roleplay Intensive MUDs
 

I had no clue what you were talking about until you wrote this last blurb. In this case Ursala LeQuinn with "A Wizard of Earthsea" is probably my favorite author and book (albeit short) in terms of sound, well developed magic.

Tolkien (imho) blows in this respect as his books have superb historical, descriptive narrative, and lineage information (similar to the bible) but his magic thread is weak in the extreme and follows no set bounderies, rhyme, or reason. Example: in the Hobbit, Gandolf is hiding in a tree lighting pinecones on fire to fend off these wolves like some 2nd class boyscout and later on is casting spells to make demons pause. I mean what the hell, he just jump 50 levels? Where is the Dungeon Master controlling this massive cheater with the 8 pair of 20-sided dice up his sleeve?

Re: Veterans of Roleplay Intensive MUDs
 

<de-rail>There have been many academic attempts to comprehend the laws of Magic in Middle-Earth. One of my favorite summary articles is below.


</de-rail>

I think that labeling RPIs as "soft-fiction" is over-generalizing the genre. On Atonement, for instance, there is a lot of thought put into the science of the fiction - as well as its reprecussions; it's actually one of the game's main themes. On Shadows of Isildur, there is a reasonably low amount of unexplained "magic" in the game, but of course, with a high-turnover amongst its Storyteller Administrators, consistency can become an issue there on rare occasion. Ultimately, though, an RPI is more likely to take a "harder" approach [than other MUDs] to fiction because of its attempt to create immersion and a foundation of (subjective) realism in its roleplay.

Re: Veterans of Roleplay Intensive MUDs
 

Thanks for the insight DonathinFrye and my appologies for bending this topic off the rail, so to speak.

Re: Veterans of Roleplay Intensive MUDs
 

I'd have to agree, though the RPI genre remains somewhat elusive to me. I think hard fiction is better suited for a MUD where being in character is mandatory as to not break the immersion for others, but roleplay itself, most notably the pressure for one to be sociable at all times, is not the main focus of the game.

Atonement has an interesting setting, is it inspired by Heinlein's Orphans of the Sky?

Re: Veterans of Roleplay Intensive MUDs
 

Gotcha!

In fact, you hit on one of my own pet peeves too. Why do messengers even exist in D&D at all? Why don't the mage guilds just teleport the days mail to the other cities? Even if you've only got a fraction of the needed mages (say, one delivery each day, with seven cities you deliver mail to, you're still delivering the mail within a week. Much faster than (presumably) a messgener could get there by horse) - so you'd need an explanation. Maybe mages are proud and arrogant. But you still need to explain why the messengers don't sign up as apprentice mages. Or why the cities don't offer high enough fees to get past the mages arrogance. or...

And that's only talking about delivering mail! If a mage can make a magical whistle that is heard from miles away, why isn't that standard required adventuring gear? Heck, why is there even the concept of "an adventurer" or "levels" - that's just not how the real world works.

It drives me nuts when I read D&D inspired fiction, and they are exploring some cave and come across a magical fortress. YES, I know there is a spell to create that, and the insane wizard used it. But honestly, how many insane people really truly live in caves? And how many of them are able to become scholars at an exotic topic? And how many of those insane scholars will then take themselves away from society and any ability to learn more. It. Just. Makes. No. Sense.

*ahem*

Sorry.

So I guess I wholeheartedly agree. I just hadn't thought of it in terms of a category, I'd just considered it "well considered" or "badly considered" writing.

It's been something of a hobby for me to try to make my game internally consistent - we do have to break believability somewhat, because the players are the "special characters" - so even though only a small fraction of dead people are resurrected (in our setting) for the players characters, 100% of the time they get resurrected. Which leads to the unfortunate effect of them all acting like everyone gets resurrected. We have made "natural effects" of this, tough. For example, it's the church that does the resurrections, and they are extremely strict and picky about who they teach it to, to maintain their power. And they never, for example, resurrect someone that was legally executed for a crime.

The other way we've tried to make things sensible is to seriously limit the amount of magic that is handed to the players, and seriously limit the frequencies of NPCs with it.

Where I fall down, more than the magic, is in the believability of normal things. Players tend to be pretty accepting that it's possible to throw fireballs or summon skeletons. They rarely look too far, and see the seams where things don't quite fit together right. However, the ability to craft unlimited wheelbarrows? That seems to offend players more. "It's impossible to make that many wheelbarrows so quickly!" - they're right. But interesting that the one causes offence and the other doesn't.

But, yeah, since the game is political, we put a huge effort into enforcing consequences for player actions - which also includes things like law enforcement adapting to new abilities such as teleportation. (or, if teleportation is meant to be an old ability that the players are only now learning, we'd start with law enforcement already knowing how to deal with it before giving it to the players)

I tend to refer to this category of problems as "believability" - I don't care if it's realistic or not (it's not realistic for dragons to exist and breathe fire) - I care if it's believable that dragons fit into the world. If dragons exist, and can be tamed, then I would find it unbeliavable if armies didn't field them in battle, like elephants were historically used. So I'd want an explanations (dragons are pacifists and refuse to fight...) or I'd want that to be part of the game. If dragons are regularly used in battle, I'd expect the military medics to be good at treating burns and trauma from falls, and so on. - And I think those elements are really easy to build into the games, and adds a lot of richness. In this example, we wouldn't even need to put in an army or dragons. It's enough that a book that teaches a medic how to treat burns might come with an explanation that it's a military medic manual, and talks about how dragons on the battlefield lead to many burns and falls from height, and thus it explains how to treat them.

Interestingly, our game has *very* few mythological creatures. No dragons, griffins, etc. - there have been zombies a few times. Yet the players roleplay pretty well, and often play that their characters are superstitious, and believe in dragons and giants, etc. - it's nice, helps us make a world where it's believable that there are mysteries, and a zombie turning up is an amazing sight and not just "ah, the necromancer is at it again"

Re: Veterans of Roleplay Intensive MUDs
 

One of the things I liked about the is that they really tried to address what sort of impact a high prevalence of magic would have on society. In Eberron, high-level magic is very rare, while low-level magic is very common - primarily due to the (magical guilds, each with a monopoly on different areas of commerce) and the magewright NPC class (the idea being that most people in the world belong to the common NPC classes, with players being among the few who are exceptional enough to belong to PC classes).

Thus House Orien operates a postal service, and they will indeed use teleportation if the price is right - but teleportation is a higher level spell, and can't be used to transport large amounts, so most people would rely on other means such as the lightning rail (an elemental-powered train) or a House Lyrandar airship or elemental galleon. However if it's just a message you want to send, you could visit a local House Sivis enclave and use one of their speaking stones to instantly transmit a message.

It's the same with other things, such as the magical lanterns used throughout the continent, 'featherfall' tokens for those living in Sharn (City of Towers), etc. I think the author must have sat down with a list of all the low level spells and thought to himself "What would society be like if most people had access to these spells?"

Re: Veterans of Roleplay Intensive MUDs
 

Atonement's definitely inspired by good science-fiction, in general, though not really Orphans of the Sky. It's ALPHA setting was an original concept; though the storyline is entirely original, it has been most notably influenced by novels like The Stand, All that Rises Must Converge, Total Recall, The Stars My Destination, and a lot of Post Apocalyptic short fiction - and movies like Mad Max/Beyond Thunderdome.

Re: Veterans of Roleplay Intensive MUDs
 

I don't know. I've played Armageddon off and on for years. When I leave it has more to do with not having time to mud than any decline in quality. Like everything there are some peaks and valleys. Overall Armageddon has improved in more ways than it has declined.

I'll probably continue to try new RPI's as they come out. I like to support that sort of endeavor. I think that Don has done a really excellent job with Atonement.

I'll be interested to see the next generation of RPIs. I'll probably even try some of them.

Re: Veterans of Roleplay Intensive MUDs
 

Do you only play that genre when you have time or do you dabble into other MUDs as well? And thanks for the insight on your choices.

Re: Veterans of Roleplay Intensive MUDs
 

Yes, I only play RPI's. I've never been a very good gamer, unless you count bridge. For me, mudding is collaborative storytelling without the hard work of editing.
I don't like mushes for a few reasons a) I think mud code provides a more seamless and solid structure to work in
B) My writing style tends to be more terse than that I've seen on mushes
C) I think muds are scarier. The danger when it comes comes quickly.
D) I don't like ooc. I want my ooc communication completely partitioned from my immersive experience.

Of course I've only played one mush.

Re: Veterans of Roleplay Intensive MUDs
 

I started out on RPIs (SoI, Armageddon, Harshlands), but after a few years I found that I don't like them. In fact, I think they have limitations that make them less enjoyable for some people than other kinds of games.

The limitations of the code (especially the clumsy and limited speech/emote code) on the RPIs I played made "immersion" impossible for me. Having to justify eating for the third time in the middle of a scene, having to type in exact commands in order to see someone's misspelled text approximation of what "crafting" an object should look like, and not being able to slow actions down enough to emote something interesting and personal in the midst of the game's stock emits gets old very fast. I think that code is vital for conflict resolution, but for me attempts to code a simulation of reality on RPIs always come off as the worst of both worlds: not real enough to be believable, and not game-like and silly enough to be enjoyed just for themselves.

Also, in time I found the "no OOC" rules on most RPIs to be major irritants. They do not help people stay "immersed" in the game. Instead, those who want to cheat do it outside the game where they're less likely to be caught, while those who have trouble distinguishing play time from real life and their characters from themselves find institutional support for indulging in all sorts of whacked out self-insertion and OOC dramatics in response to IC events. Moreover, not being able to simultaneously interact with the player as well as the character takes out a lot of the fun for me. I still don't like a lot of OOC chatter, but a little bit of OOC communication at the time can make scenes more challenging and more enjoyable. At its best, there is more of a sense of playing for each other when you can have that sort of communication. RPIs--especially ones where the culture encourages "solo RP" for crafting/practicing in order to advance skills and levels--feel a lot more like playing by myself, but with additional "RP" restrictions that prevent me from just playing with the environment for the fun of it.

One final thing about supposedly keeping OOC completely out of the game: If I find out on a MUSH or MUX that almost every one of the powerful and influential characters in the game is the alt of a staff member and that each member of staff has three, four, or more alts, experience tells me that I want to run for the door as fast as I can. Because there's not that sort "OOC secrecy" on those games, I can usually find out pretty quickly if that's the case; frequently, I can find out without even logging in. However, it was only when I became staff on an RPI after nine months of playing that I discovered that was the case and that one of the main staff duties was to hang around invisible in public areas waiting for swat people for whispering OOC stuff like "I'm going to go out and fight the X later, want to come?" to each other. That's not the atmosphere in which I want to play, and it's the one that IC/OOC separation can foster. At least on more open games, problems are much less easily hidden and not justified under some rubric of "immersion" or "role playing."

I know play on much more lightly coded MUSHes/MUXes (with some brief forays into heavily coded MOOs like Hell just for the fun of it), and I have a hard time imagining going back to the restrictions of an RPI MUD.

Re: Veterans of Roleplay Intensive MUDs
 

That's interesting. I didn't think any of those games had that lame eat you are hungry code.

This is why some limited OOC channels are available on NWA which are completely tunable so if you want you don't have to hear any OOC chatter at all. I have found that no OOC channels or communication at all leads directly to IRC clients and all those players use that instead which is basically the same thing. This is an ongoing argument about such limitations, but if you think about it, in a game, you have to have some methods or areas of breaking character to fix problems or deal with issues. Even in theater there is a backstage.

This happens alot. The fast way to find the truth in a permadeath game is look at who has never died and bingo you've got your answer.

Re: Veterans of Roleplay Intensive MUDs
 

This is the unfortunate reality. I remember about 13 years ago when ICQ first became popular I said this would be a huge negative for roleplaying in MUDs. A few players argued vehemently against me, saying it was no different than people being able to pick up the telephone and call each other. Wow, how wrong they were.

Once you acknowledge and accept the fact that real time OOC communication is inevitable and unavoidable, it is better to support it INSIDE the game rather than force them to go outside. At least if they use it inside the game they might feel at least SOME motivation to keep it reasonable. Once you've sent them off to fend for themselves via IRC or IM, there is nothing to motivate them to keep it to a minimum or only to important OOC stuff. Then they start using it to outright determine the course of IC events.

Furthermore, having OOC chat channels really helps build community in the long run. It gives people a way to make friends with their fellow gamers even if their characters are enemies in game.

Re: Veterans of Roleplay Intensive MUDs
 

It seems quite a few posts in this thread aren't really relating to the original topic so I'm just going to skip through them to try and find relevant ones.

One of the great disadvantages of the RPIs was the steep learning curve. However, one of the great advantages was the pool of veteran players and staff who knew a lot about the games and were able to assist new players through the learning period and transition them into the game. Inevitably good staff drift off for a variety of reasons as do good players but when the rate of departure far exceeds the influx of suitable replacements, you start to see a decline in the quality of instruction. Some players inevitably try to learn for themselves and while a few are successful, others are not. However, without anyone to

A few months back a friend sent me a link to the forums of one of the RPIs and asked if the information provided in a discussion was correct. I had to tell them that it was not. Worse, the incorrect information supplied to a new player was given by a staff member and a "leading" player. Just to be sure that things hadn't changed in-game since I'd played years ago, I dug around a bit on their site and found that the critical information pertaining to the question was still the same as it had been. In other words, the information provided to the new player by both a staff member and their clan leader was incorrect.

And being on staff during that time I can tell you it wasn't all it appeared to be. In fact, one of the reasons I resigned from staff was due to the increasingly immature playerbase. Sure there were players who were a joy to work with but there were also a torrent of twinks. But new players weren't the only problem. While the vast majority of my fellow staff members ranged from above average to excellent, there were also a few who were at best incompetant. Through a few old timers I've kept up on SoI over the years and some have even on occassion mentioned the identities of new staff though I'll be vague so as not to embarass them. While most have been unknown to me I've heard grumbling about a couple and at least one that shocked the hell out of me because while I was on staff this person was known as pretty much an incompetant twink. When I inquired if they'd matured I was told, "Not really." How, I asked, could they have made it on staff then? "The others were even worse," was the reply.

This is pretty much the exact same thing seen in the example I gave above. Good staff and players leave and if they do so in great enough numbers you end up with replacements who are not up to snuff but are the best that can be found. Compound this over years and you begin to see a marked decline.

I don't know much about the Northlands but I find the claim about Moria to be suspect. The majority of former players and staff that I've talked to have cited the opening of Moria as low point of SoI. Mines of H&Sia, Mines of More H&S, Mines of Meh, Mines of Horrible are just a few of the nicknames I've heard for that area. Reasons for why this area was so bad have varied. Some have said that the staff running it weren't up to the challenge. Others have said that concept itself was the opposite of RPI, focusing on combat far too much which only further catered to H&Sers.

However, some have defended the design and staffing and cited the immaturity of the playerbase as the reason while others have said pretty much the same but charged that had the staffing been better they might have been able to deal with the unfortunate results. In any case, the verdict I've encountered in regard to Moria has been overwhelmingly negative and thus I find your citation of it as a heyday would only apply in regard to popularity or playerbase figures but those are not good indicators of quality RP.

Arm has always been a mixed bag. Some of the best RP in some areas and little better than H&S in others. I've heard good things about the proposed Arm II or reboot or whatever it'll end up being so maybe that will turn out better.

Not yet having tried your game (I've learned from experience that beta, to say nothing of alpha, doesn't always present a fair representation of what a game will be like, especially after such a short development time, so I'd rather see it with the kinks worked out) but I can say I've never heard "complete control over the destiny of the entire gameworld" uttered by RPIs as a goal. Quite the contrary, while many PCs are often classified as the "special exceptions" characters on RPIs have always been part of a larger, well-developed world and thus complete control was not a reasonable or desireable expectation much less a goal.

What exactly is that supposed to mean? "Organic role-play"? I think I see what you're trying to say but that's not really anything difficult to achieve.

I commend you if you can maintain this because that's been one of the great factors in driving off veteran RPI players, myself included.

I've had similar responses with regard to TSOY. A couple veteran players who have left RPIs for a few years now routinely message me asking about our progress while a few others that I hadn't even heard from in half a decade came out of the woodwork to inquire about TSOY. But that's just it. "Old veterans who quit playing other RPIs" is the very problem

I'd take a completely different view of the situation. The problem is not RPIs failing to take chances, it's RPIs taking chances with the elements which made them appealing to their niche in order to attract a wider playerbase. The same philosophies that I criticized about SoI when I was on staff there continue to be prevalent today, namely the belief that more players means a better game or a more lax enforcement of the gameworld. More good players means a better game. A character application and a pulse isn't enough. Likewise, bending the game to accomodate a player or character, whether as a result of staff showing favoritism or simply not employing quality control, turns off those who play their characters within the game setting and with respect for it.

Re: Veterans of Roleplay Intensive MUDs
 

The RPIs were never that large to begin with but the increase in their popularity in the last decade really is on account of exactly what you said, the dumbing down and lowering of standards.

"Playability" used to be a catch-phrase I despised (and still do) because it was used to justify all sorts of things in the name of broadening appeal. My position has always been that it's better to retain one good player than to gain ten poor ones at their expense. Sadly that position seems to have been increasingly the minority viewpoint.

Re: Veterans of Roleplay Intensive MUDs
 

I think the above statement is pretty valid, but the questions I have are how do you define a good player, and where does this leave new players who start out as poor players but might one day become good players if provided with some guidance early on? Older, more experienced players will constantly drift away over time. Where do their replacements come from?

Re: Veterans of Roleplay Intensive MUDs
 

This is very true. Community is important on an ooc level in a game. When you invite people over to play table top D&D you don't ask them to remain in character the entire night from the time they walk into the house (or do you?).

Re: Veterans of Roleplay Intensive MUDs
 

This is a huge argued point as well and very difficult to determine. For an RPI I supposed it is defined by who can follow the exact rules the game dictates. I define a good player by how much their roleplay contributes to the community vs. how much their roleplay contributes to themselves.

Re: Veterans of Roleplay Intensive MUDs
 

"The sort of setting where you can throw a fireball, or summon food. But most people would find it more convenient to fire a crossbow, or bake a loaf of bread.

Is that the sort of thing that you're after? Or would the ability to throw the fireball at all, even if it comes up rarely, already be the deal-breaker?"

How about throwing a fireball to bake a loaf of bread?! J/k

Jennifer

Re: Veterans of Roleplay Intensive MUDs
 

In brief response to Prof's points:

1) When I speak to the hay-day of the Mines of Moria, I mean further along in its life, after the Northlands staff took it over. That is when it acquired greater regulation and began to attract better roleplayers. I will not disagree with being disappointed in its opening; I was chief amongst the staff with this train of thought at the time, which is why I took it over and changed it from the ground up. As with Angost, or with Atonement ALPHA, I suppose you would've had to played there to see for yourself.

2) It's a shame you didn't give Atonement's ALPHA-phase a shot. ALPHA didn't mean that it had a ton of kinks in it; rather, it meant that it was just the first step in our implementation of a vastly superior RPI Engine. Even as it was that early on in development, it was still far more advanced than other current RPIs in the way of code. I will not judge its roleplay and story here, because I experience obvious bias in my own work. :p I think that you should give BETA a go, once we open this Fall.

3) I don't think that you have to dumb down a game to attract players, and I don't think that you want to alienate newbies. As you suggested, the greatest help that you can give is to teach newbies and guide them along a path that will improve their roleplaying ability and general enjoyment of the game. That's what our staff does; we take an interest in our new players and their growth. We managed this even with our respectably-sized playerbase during ALPHA, and some of our newbies (who had never played an RPI before) were able to really immerse and enjoy themselves. My goal is to not "dumb down" Atonement and to avoid being elitist towards newcomers. So far, so good.

4) I do suppose we have two different views of what direction the genre should move in. My problem with the "old way of thinking" is that it favors an attitude where "veteran" players are more valuable than up-and-coming players. My experience tells me that this attitude leads to apathy, which causes projects, storylines and roleplay to eventually stagnate and not get accomplished. It's the attitude that I see in some burnt-out ex-admins/admins from other games, and it worries me. I can understand the point-of-view, but I just don't see how the problem can be solved from that point-of-view. That is why, if nothing else, I bring a fresh perspective to the cabal of veteran admins in the genre.

Re: Veterans of Roleplay Intensive MUDs
 

^ Just convinced me to try out your game once it opens (even though I was already thinking about it).

A+.

Re: Veterans of Roleplay Intensive MUDs
 

RPI's aren't what they used to be. None of them have the old feel of storytelling to them in my opinion. I remember when Armageddon used to enforce roleplaying but nowadays it just seems like it's not mandatory but encouraged.

You don't really find any the RPI's enforcing roleplaying because nobody wants to step on the player's toes and offend them. I think this is because they don't want to lose players. For example Arm's pbase is way bigger than it used to be but anybody who has played since the mid 90's can tell you that even though you run into players more often you don't run into as much storytelling.

I don't know maybe it's just my pessimistic viewpoint but nobody wants to "define" what good roleplaying is. And if you login to an RPI and never emote and just go around killing NPCs because you're a "hunter" then you won't get in trouble. I think that's wrong.

Re: Veterans of Roleplay Intensive MUDs
 

I think what you are asking for is more of a MUSH than a MUD. I mean, the most fun I see happening is groups of 5 or 10 players of all types and guilds going out on large adventures and roleplaying through the whole thing. Camping, protecting, healing, strategizing, and telling stories. All in character. All based on racial (elf/gnome, etc) histories. All religious, political, and social. This is roleplay at it's finest and what I expect on NWA or any RP enforced game.

If you are simply asking for emotes and stories, then MUSH is what comes to mind to me.

Re: Veterans of Roleplay Intensive MUDs
 

To approach the question on OOC chat channels and their affect on roleplay:

I agree that it is naive to believe that just because there are no OOC chat channels on a MUD means that nobody is sharing in-game information out-of-character. For me, I prefer an RPI to minimize OOC communication in the game to improve immersion for the players who are interested in staying entirely in-character. And just because OOC communication happens outside of a game client does not mean that it is impossible to investigate when problems arise. We make our position on what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior OOCly clear on Atonement, and a lot of it is common sense. The sort of gossip mongering and meta-gaming that can hurt roleplay is impossibly obvious to experienced staff members. We even offer an Atonement chat client on the website (which is, of course, logged). However, for top-notch immersion, I really do think that keeping OOC off of the game client makes a big difference in creating the sort of atmosphere that RPIs attempt.

As to any burnt-out ex-veteran RPI players who disagree with the way other games have gone over time, I challenge you to give Atonement a real shot. It is an entirely different experience than the other mainstream RPIs.

Re: Veterans of Roleplay Intensive MUDs
 

I see zero difference in an Atonement chat client and an chat channel on the game that may or may not be used as the player decides. In fact, I find a chat client even more disruptive as you are fully invested in an alternative window for jumping back and forth.

Would it not qualify as fully immersive if a player could tune every channel out in the game whether it be OOC or IC channels as a player sees fit? To me this is letting the player decide what they can or cannot handle.

Certainly you wouldn't ask a player to disconnect their phone, turn off the tv, don't answer their front door, ignore everyone around them, and put cotton in their ears prior to logging on to your game, lest something distract their immersion, right?:p

Re: Veterans of Roleplay Intensive MUDs
 

We have players that do not browser hop, talk on chat-clients or watch television while they roleplay. For the sake of their immersion, I find it better to use an Atonement chat client. Every player can choose their own level of distractions no matter the design, but a personal preference for myself (and most RPI players) is to keep what happens in the MUD Client screen as immersive as possible.

Re: Veterans of Roleplay Intensive MUDs
 

I strongly agree, here.

I do not like chat channels in the same window as my game client when I am on a game for roleplaying. It's easy to get distracted, and it takes time to remove it when I'm cleaning up logs. I also find that sometimes another player will get interested in the chatter going on in the game and instantly forget they're in the middle of a session with me -- and it kind of puts the breaks on roleplaying, moreso than if they had to have a separate client open.

I also wanted to comment on the assertion that adding chat channels to a game would serve to keep players from running to outside messengers to trade game secrets. People who intend to cheat are going to do it anyway. You adding a channel to your game won't convince them not to do it, as a result, the only thing you've accomplished is creating a avenue for OOC chatter. This can be good if you want to provide a space for players to kick back and get to know each other, but it's also not really a necessary (or even wanted) feature of RPI-typed games.

Re: Veterans of Roleplay Intensive MUDs
 

Is there a reason you cannot just tune out?

Moreso? How in the heck is that possible? At least if the OOC chat is in the same window, they can SEE the other people tapping their feet, chatting, or whatever. If they tab out to another window they stop paying attention COMPLETELY to their MUD window.

I'm sorry, but this just makes no sense at all.

I can understand someone just deciding to be stubborn and insist it is better this way or that they just like it better this way. But you simply cannot argue that it results in less OOC chat, because IM clients are too widespread. And you definitely cannot argue that it is less of a distraction, because tabbing out to another program draws someone's attention away far more.


That's true. But there are a lot of people who would never cheat without an outside impetus. Once they start talking to people OFF your game, that outside negative peer pressure can kick in. And don't say "yeah but that's rare", because I've dealt with hundreds of customers that have been sucked into cheating in this exact manner.

Re: Veterans of Roleplay Intensive MUDs
 

Like Threshold said below, if you tune out of the ooc channels there is total immersion without another chat window around. If your players don't use the chat window it is exactly the same as tuning out of an ooc channel, I would think. In both instances both players have zero chat or ooc distraction.

Re: Veterans of Roleplay Intensive MUDs
 

I think an analogy previously brought up can be extended.

Mud + OOC chat in client = tabletop RPG
Mud + OOC chat somewhere other than client = live action RPG

When you're playing live action, you're wearing your costume, you're carrying your fake bludgeon of doom, you're holding the polished runestone of death and descruction, and you're not reaching into the fridge for a beer while the kobold swarm is descending.

It's also a psychological seperation between OOC and IC. Just knowing that the game HAS chat channels and I'm not a part of them, causes a blip in my enjoyment level, because I know that these chats are in game. I -know- this. I -know- that it's likely that everyone who isn't responding, is too busy chatting over the chat channel to bother playing their role.

When the chat is done outside the game, I have absolutely no way of knowing what the players are doing. I could assume they're on one of a dozen different chat clients or IMs. I could assume they're writing up their character report. I could assume they're taking the dog for a walk, or making supper, or picking up their toddler who just fell. But the psychological connection will have that divider. I won't know. I won't be *given* the assumption, by the game, that they're all in the game's chat. I won't be given that assumption, because that game doesn't HAVE a chat. I can then freely continue in my ignorance, not really knowing a damned thing about what people are doing when they suddenly ignore a scene.

As Threshold said, he's encountered hundreds of customers who enjoy their chats outside the game, and he even has in-game chats. So he's proven to himself, that people are gonna do that anyway. It doesn't matter if there's in-game chat. People who want to chat outside the game, will. No amount of in-game option is going to change that.

Re: Veterans of Roleplay Intensive MUDs
 

I should have explained that more fully.

When someone has to go and open a fully separate client to chat, they do so because they have the very specific intent of chatting. While I can't speak for other players, for me, this makes me slightly more aware of my time spent between the chat client and the game client, because I am forced to literally choose which of the two I pay attention to.

When a channel is just a part of the game, tunable or not, it's extremely easy to ignore the content of the chat -- until something catches your eye. This is when channels become the most distracting, because then you'll be trying to juggle your responses between the chatter and the gameplay.

A separate client furthermore enables you to "leave" the chat (by switching windows to the game), finish what you're doing, and come back to still have it neat and orderly and (mostly) on-topic. This works vice-versa, as I can't tell you how many times I've lost my place in a game or forgot what I was doing because of a temporary explosion in chatter. If you're forced to tune out a channel, you're no longer able to be a part of it in most cases.

Essentially, it has to do with time management and subconscious attention, and how aware (or not) a player is.

Jaz's expansion on the slight psychological effects of even HAVING a channel at all really hits the nail on the head.

Re: Veterans of Roleplay Intensive MUDs
 

You missed the point there.

If you don't have any sort of built in OOC outlet, you push people to the off game methods that are far more damaging to your game.

People are going to talk OOC no matter what. To whatever extent you can mitigate the damage the better. You can mitigate it by supporting it in game, in a way that can be totally tuned out. In this manner it is almost like a pressure valve that lets off some of that OOC steam in a safe, non-cheating manner.

Re: Veterans of Roleplay Intensive MUDs
 

Uh, not really. Do you have a browser open? There's your chat client. Facebook, gmail, etc. have made it so you don't even need a standalone IM client any more.

None of this changes the fact that when someone is tabbed out to their chat window, they can't see what is going on in the game at all, and thus they are FAR MORE distracted. They are physically distracted as well as mentally.

I think this is the real reason right here, and honestly this strikes me as just stubbornness. At some point, some people decided "OOC channels = bad, m'kay" and they don't want to budge regardless of the reality of the situation.

Here's the unfortunate truth: Every single game has OOC chat channels. I don't like it, but its the sad reality we've been living in ever since ICQ. Whether its AIM, Facebook, Gmail, or "[chat]" in game, you have them. Anyone who thinks they don't have ooc channels in their game is just being ignorant of the reality of the internet. In the end, every game has OOC channels whether they like them or not. The difference is whether you maintain SOME level of control and discipline over them (in game) or just let people go crazy and do whatever abuse they want (out of game).

Re: Veterans of Roleplay Intensive MUDs
 

Maybe I'm just paranoid, but I'm much more comfortable with OOC that I can see. I believe that the players who know each other IRL or via other IM type - out of game channels have an advantage over players who are new to a game, don't know the other players and aren't willing to go out of game to IM with them to meet them.

And it seems like a lot of the folks in RPI type games know each other beyond the game, so I can understand why they don't care if the game supports OOC. They don't need it to.

Now, I don't expect RPIs to change. They have a set of guidelines that they want to follow and I can respect that. I personally don't see the advantage, but if it works for them, that's cool. But, if a set of guidelines was hurting the game by making it harder for new players to get involved or if the games seem to stagnate as old players lose interest, then maybe it is time to consider what really makes a difference and what doesn't.

Funny thing though. The first thing I do on a game that has OOC channels is turn them off. I don't like using them and really hate the spam they generate, but I like to know they are there for those who want to use them. Sort of the same way I feel about hobbits.

Re: Veterans of Roleplay Intensive MUDs
 

Completely subjective and has no bearing in reality. If you have to go to the bathroom you don't wet yourself just to not step away from your game and you don't put on a costume to play your MUD, so let's be realistic here.

Again, this is silly. This is like being angry because you know someone is playing while on the phone, watching tv, reading a book, eating, looking at forums, chatting on an outside IRC. All things people do when playing MUDs regardless of the genre or whether they are RPE or not.

Re: Veterans of Roleplay Intensive MUDs
 

I agree with this. If this is your games guidelines I'm all for it, however, taking a position that it is better to have an secondary chat client than a chat channel is simply subjective and personal choice rather than actually better for immersive roleplay.