What are the differences between a MUD and a MUSH?
 

Please, please stay away from the RPI argument here, thank you. :)

Detailed answers are appreciated, not just 'a MUD has coded combat and a MUSH doesn't' (which is probably wrong anyway).

Re: What are the differences between a MUD and a MUSH?
 

"MUD" is the genus and "MUSH" is one of the species within that genus. You'll find a bit of history at among other places. There's also a "MUD tree" article at that links to descriptions of the various code bases.

Other than that, though, what you're likely going to get in response to your question are statements like "a MUD almost always has coded combat, while some MUSHes don't." While I'm not a coder, from what I know the forms and contents of various types of games are determined in part by the elements included in their basic code packages and in part by the conventions that have grown up around games built on those packages based on the earliest and most typical use of each. For example, I know of no reason why MUCK games have to be "furry" games, and yet they almost always are, likely because FurryMUCK was one of the first games using the MUCK code base.

Re: What are the differences between a MUD and a MUSH?
 

My experience is almost entirely with MUSHes, though I did play a few MUDs for a couple of months before getting into MUSHes instead, so I can't guarantee that what I write about MUDs is entirely correct. However, based on discussions over the years with players who have been active on both MUDs and MUSHes, I think the following things can generally be said:

* MUD codebases appear to generally be held to be more versatile and able to support complex systems for combat, economy, crafting, etc.

* MUDs generally make use of more coded systems. You get plenty of MUSHes with coded combat of varying levels of complexity (the most fleshed-out combat system on a MUSH that I have encountered is what Elendor MUSH has), and you get some with coded economy and coded crafting. But you also get a lot of MUSHes without any systems at all or with very basic dice-rolling systems to simulate rolls in table-top gaming. I only know of a couple of games that has a fully code-dependent setup with economy, crafting, and all of that.

* Because there are less coded systems on most MUSHes, you don't generally have anything to do on your own. There are no mobs to kill or quests to perform to gain experience, and there are generally no crafting systems for learning new tasks and creating objects to sell and so on. 99% of the time you are dependent on having someone else to play with on a MUSH.

* This is of course a question of degrees, but in my experience roleplay on MUSHes and roleplay on roleplay MUDs tends to be quite different (for some examples of MUSH roleplay, here's a link to our ). One thing I have never seen on a MUSH, for example, is pre-determined emotes. There also tends to be more focus on character development (writing backgrounds, personas, etc) on MUSHes. But that is not true for all MUSHes and probably not for all MUDs either.

Re: What are the differences between a MUD and a MUSH?
 

I hope not to derail my own thread, but I'd like to interject here to state that I read some of the logs that were on that site and loved them, Nymeria. :)

Following that, I'm considering giving the Blood of Dragons MUSH a try, but I'm afraid I haven't read R.R. Martin's series before. Would that be a problem?

Re: What are the differences between a MUD and a MUSH?
 

As jackal59mo2 stated, a MUSH is a type of MUD. Or more precisely, MUSH is a derivative of TinyMUD, which is the parent of one of the three main families of MUD. TinyMUDs usually tend to be more socially oriented than other types of MUD, and typically have less support for coded mechanics (such as combat).

The other two main families are DikuMUD and LPMud, both of which tend to be more game-oriented. DikuMUD is primarily hardcoded, and provides you with a fully working game out-of-the-box, which is perhaps one of the reasons why it's proven so popular. LPMud (which also drew inspiration from TinyMUD) usually requires more work to get started, but has its own powerful scripting language, which provides certain advantages in the long term.

All three of the above MUD families were inspired by AberMUD, which was the first popular open source MUD. AberMUD was inspired by MIST, which was a derivative of the original Multi-User Dungeon (aka MUD), named after the single-player game Dungeon (more commonly known today as Zork).

There are hundreds of different MUD codebases available today, but the majority of them still belong to one of the three main families.

Re: What are the differences between a MUD and a MUSH?
 

Glad you liked them, misao. :) We'd like to think we have a pretty good group of players.

That said, I looked over your other thread (on looking for an RP-focused MUD), and I do have to note that we're not a big game, not even by MUSH standards. You mentioned having found Firan too small in terms of playerbase, and we're a good deal smaller. Firan, being one of the few MUSHes that actually does offer coded economy and crafting, is actually pretty large as far as non-adult MUSHes go.

But you're certainly more than welcome to check us out. :) What we tend to recommend to players who haven't read the books is that they pick up one of our Cameos (time-limited characters for testing out the game with) or a previously played character that is fully CharGenned.

Re: What are the differences between a MUD and a MUSH?
 

In my experience, MUSHes try to tell a story and that's it. They don't support any code enhancements beyond a few minor things here and there. They don't support actual combat code, or anything that affects the characters, it's just a huge chat room and when there isn't any "roleplay" going on, they just idle where you can't find them so people don't stay in-character at all times either. I've found the RP on Mushes to be fairly stagnant as well because they only roleplay when everybody gets together in big groups. Solo-RP is nonexistent and you can't really effect the game world because like I said before, nothing is coded. No skills or anything.

Re: What are the differences between a MUD and a MUSH?
 

That is definitely not true for all MUSHes. Take Elendor, for example. Their combat system supports a wide array of weapons, and there are associated stats and skills (that can be trained up), and it can most certainly affect the outcome of battles and lead to the death of PCs. However, the system is never used on its own without roleplay.

While our CharGen includes setting stats and skills for all characters, our game does not have what I would call a full combat system (yet), but we do have coded systems for jousting and for melee combat in tourneys. These systems are used to determine the outcome of such events, so that can certainly affect the game. We also have skills that play into our rumor system, since social intrigues and politics are a big part of the setting, and there are many games (World of Darkness games, for example) that make use of +roll systems for a wide array of skills.

How much or how little you can affect the game world on a MUSH depends entirely on how it is setup. We follow known canon events on our game, so there's a limit to what can happen. But MUSHes that use original themes can allow quite a lot of changes at the hands of players.

Re: What are the differences between a MUD and a MUSH?
 

The problem for me is you have no power on a MUSH. You can't physically kill a character without intervention which is just silly. You can't shoot arrows, ride horses realistically, and all that jazz. Without code to support it the roleplay is very stagnant in my opinion and is on the level of a chat-room IRC roleplaying game really. Just my two cents though and I've visited plenty of MUSHes, they just don't cut it for me. Not enough realism.

Re: What are the differences between a MUD and a MUSH?
 

Sure you can kill people on a MUSH. There are plenty of non-consent MUSHes, I think most of the World of Darkness games fall into this category. You have to roleplay to do it, and it has to be ICly plausible, but plenty of people get killed via coded commands on this MUSHes as part of roleplay. And while Elendor isn't fully non-consent, plenty of characters have died there over the years when using the combat system. Which, btw, includes bows among the available weapons.

Coded mounts are uncommon, yes, because of how objects on MUSHes work, but I am not sure that its more realistic just because its code supported. Realism for me is about the quality of the poses, not the coded support. However, I do prefer that when there is coded support, it isn't too simplistic.

A MUSH isn't going to offer you the same things as a MUD, but "realism" is very much a subjective term in this discussion. Most MUSHers would say that MUDs are far less realistic than MUSHes because they do not require anything like the roleplay that a MUSHer is used to.

Re: What are the differences between a MUD and a MUSH?
 

You're assuming that players are not going to roleplay on a MUD the way they would on a MUSH? Just because you limit the code of the MUSH doesn't mean you're going to get people to roleplay anymore then they would on a MUD. It also depends on your definition of roleplay. To me, I can't roleplay unless I have code backing me up. How can my threat to choke you mean anything to a player if I can't actually make good on it? Or if I want to play a prank and throw something at them, I have to emote it, yet there is no code to support whether the object lands? Even if there is code to support some things, the code should support nearly every action you could take against another player.

For example, if I want to grab a player, there should be a command to grab them so they can't move. Of course they would make a save against this, and the code would do the work. You can roleplay as much as you want, but when the time comes for the actual grab to occur, the code is there for that. Far more realistic, far more fun, and far more like a real life encounter. MUShes are far too much like a fantasy realm where nothing can really happen unless a Dungeon Master comes around and says to roll a d20 and see who wins the dice toss. They just don't have that "real" feel to them because there is hardly any code backing up the exemplary roleplay of a player.

This applies to every mud though. Which is why I only play certain types of muds which I won't mention here.

Re: What are the differences between a MUD and a MUSH?
 

It depends very much on your definition of roleplay, yes. I do not call anything roleplay that includes pre-written or pre-coded emotes. That is my definition of roleplay, and probably that of most MUSHers, which is why they wouldn't consider MUD roleplay either "good" or "realistic". MUSHers tend to feel that if code has to determine the outcome of every action, you're not really playing a role. And that is what makes something "real" for a MUSHers, the fact that someone is really getting into their character.

But, certainly, a MUSH is far more about co-operative story telling than creating your own adventure.

Re: What are the differences between a MUD and a MUSH?
 

Exactly. You can't be a loner. You can't really do anything alone on a MUSH. You can't go out and hunt down NPCs and KILL them. Skin them for actual coded objects. Sell the objects for actual money. Use the money to buy an actual NPC -or- PC prostitute. Etc, etc, etc.

I don't think the movie industry would be as successful if they took out all the sets, the props, the death, the battles, etc, etc, etc. What makes us want to read a story or be a part of one is that we think we're there, I simply have a hard time believing in a story being told within a chat room like setting. When I know my character can die permanently to a stray arrow to the head, I take the roleplay far more serious. Any mistake you make could be your last. Any political coup you try could lead to the death of your PC at the hands of NPCs or other PCs. That's what makes realism so important in a roleplay enforced mud.

Re: What are the differences between a MUD and a MUSH?
 

A MUSH is a specific type of MUD (derived from TinyMUD as I described earlier), and any MUD can potentially replicate the features of any other MUD, so in theory a MUSH could indeed offer the same things as another type of MUD. You could make a MUSH look, feel and play exactly like SMAUG if you wished, although the value of doing so is rather debatable (it would be far easier just to download SMAUG to start with).

Re: What are the differences between a MUD and a MUSH?
 

The best MUDs are the ones that take from multiple codebases, multiple mud features and settings. Putting it together to form a hybrid which is original and at the same time as things that still make it original. I assume when you put in the card game WAR for GW2 you had inspiration from another card game?

Re: What are the differences between a MUD and a MUSH?
 

Delerak, when will you accept that RP 'quality' is subjective? I find MUSH RP 'quality' (leaving issues about playerbase size, lack of PC-driven plots, etc, aside) far higher and less chatroom-like than the emotes that I see in your favourite MUD (the one that you tried to tout in my completely unrelated post). Fully fleshed-out sentences with a high level of detail are of 'higher quality' to me than simple nods, hugs, jumps. But I accept that it may not be to others. And I do not sling MUDs that do not conform to my standards as "roleplaying", or chatroom-like.

I do agree with your points that do actually have substance (as opposed to being just ad hominem attacks), such as the lack of code, though. I suppose that would be a defining difference in my opinion.

Nymeria, I'm not complaining about the lack of characters online in FiranMUX. More about the lack of people doing anything other than just sitting there. I guess that's a major disadvantage of MUSHes. I do hope to find one that isn't like that.

Re: What are the differences between a MUD and a MUSH?
 

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

You'll find all types of people at muds and mushes, some are very good emoters (posers whatever), and some can't emote for ****. Some don't even speak english as their first language so I don't expect them to emote well, but I do expect them to remain in-character, else they can get in trouble with the staff for doing stupid things like using OOC to argue about something. OOC is used very limited by somebody who is truly staying in-character.

I could argue my point all day but I've argued this point before many times before I never get anywhere with certain threads so whatever.

Re: What are the differences between a MUD and a MUSH?
 

In general, I think when codebases come up for discussion on a MUSH, people tend to use lowercase "mud" to refer to the game family, and MUSH and MUD to refer to the groupings within that family.

But yes, looking purely at the codebase, you can probably run a MUSH-style game on a MUD or a MUD-style game on a MUSH. I guess it would be clearer to talk about the differences between MUSH-style games and MUD-style games.

Misao,

Fair enough regarding the difficulty of finding roleplay even on a relatively busy MUSH. :) MUSH culture seems to be more social than MUD culture in that players often connect when they are at work or otherwise unable to play so that they can chat with people OOCly.

Re: What are the differences between a MUD and a MUSH?
 

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

Re: What are the differences between a MUD and a MUSH?
 

They reinforce -your- opinion of RP. To me, RP is playing the part of a character in a story, writing his life story with other people. How is it of 'a lower standard' than yours? RP stands for Role-Play. Code can help or hinder, but it is definitely not the only means by which RP can be achieved.

Have you never seen those RP forums that existed before the time even MUDs became popular? During the era of email-chess games? Would you call the entire genre false?

Re: What are the differences between a MUD and a MUSH?
 

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

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

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

Re: What are the differences between a MUD and a MUSH?
 

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

Re: What are the differences between a MUD and a MUSH?
 

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

Re: What are the differences between a MUD and a MUSH?
 

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

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

Re: What are the differences between a MUD and a MUSH?
 

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

Re: What are the differences between a MUD and a MUSH?
 

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

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

Re: What are the differences between a MUD and a MUSH?
 

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

Re: What are the differences between a MUD and a MUSH?
 

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

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

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

Re: What are the differences between a MUD and a MUSH?
 

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

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

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

Re: What are the differences between a MUD and a MUSH?
 

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

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

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

Re: What are the differences between a MUD and a MUSH?
 

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

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

Re: What are the differences between a MUD and a MUSH?
 

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

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

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

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

Re: What are the differences between a MUD and a MUSH?
 

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

Re: What are the differences between a MUD and a MUSH?
 

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

Re: What are the differences between a MUD and a MUSH?
 

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

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

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

Re: What are the differences between a MUD and a MUSH?
 

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

Re: What are the differences between a MUD and a MUSH?
 

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

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

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

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

Re: What are the differences between a MUD and a MUSH?
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: What are the differences between a MUD and a MUSH?
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: What are the differences between a MUD and a MUSH?
 

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

Re: What are the differences between a MUD and a MUSH?
 

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

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

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

Re: What are the differences between a MUD and a MUSH?
 

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

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

Re: What are the differences between a MUD and a MUSH?
 

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

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

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

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

Re: What are the differences between a MUD and a MUSH?
 

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

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

Take care,

Jason

Re: What are the differences between a MUD and a MUSH?
 

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

Re: What are the differences between a MUD and a MUSH?
 

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

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

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

Re: What are the differences between a MUD and a MUSH?
 

Ide,

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

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

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

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

Re: What are the differences between a MUD and a MUSH?
 

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

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

Re: What are the differences between a MUD and a MUSH?
 

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

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

Just as my opposing opinion is.

Re: What are the differences between a MUD and a MUSH?
 

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