Roleplaying
Ola Håkansson
I was wondering if any of you Admin out there have any experience of
Roleplaying, and if, what is your ideas and tips how I should make my
MUD a great Roleplaying Mud.
-Ola Hakansson
Threshold Online RPG
Wow. You are opening a pretty massive can of worms here. =)
This is NOT a comprehensive list. However, I think these are all important
things for a roleplaying mud:
1) PK - a good roleplaying mud does not create ridiculous artificial
distinctions between PCs and NPCs like disallowing PK. Further, PK is the
ultimate means of settlings disputes between players. Removing this cuts the
heart out of roleplaying.
2) Strict rules on communication - It is very hard to have RP if people can
walk into a tavern where people are roleplaying and say "Anyone know where I
can download those Pamela Lee vids?"
3) Require RP - Rp is all or nothing. Either you are a roleplaying mud or not.
People that do not want to roleplay need to find a hack n slash mud. This
doesn't mean you shouldnt have stuff to entertain people when they are in a
hack n slash mood, but pure hack n slashers should be eliminated. They end up
being high level and it really hurts the environment if the most powerful
players in the game dont roleplay.
4) Players should have a large number of ways to "control" the society. You
should set up things like legal systems, ecnomies, etc. where the players are
able to take the offices of control. I think this makes the world feel more
real when players control major functions of society.
There are many more important things. I hope that gets you started (and gets
others started as well =) )
-Aristotle@Threshold
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
VISIT THRESHOLD ONLINE! High Fantasy Role Playing Game!
Player run clans, guilds, businesses, legal system, nobility, missile
combat, detailed religions, rich, detailed roleplaying environment.
http://www.threshold.counseltech.com
telnet://threshold.counseltech.com:23
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Marian Griffith
> I was wondering if any of you Admin out there have any experience of
> Roleplaying, and if, what is your ideas and tips how I should make my
> MUD a great Roleplaying Mud.
I am not an admin on any mud but I too am interested in this question.
About a year ago (I think) a great debate on this very subject raged on
this newsgroup and I have dedicated a website to roleplaying muds as a
result (partially) of that debate. You may find some ideas that you can
use on your own projects in it.
http://www.iaehv.nl/users/gryphon/index.html
Hopes this helps
Marian
--
Yes - at last - You. I Choose you. Out of all the world,
out of all the seeking, I have found you, young sister of
my heart! You are mine and I am yours - and never again
will there be loneliness ...
Rolan Choosing Talia,
Arrows of the Queen, by Mercedes Lackey
Richard Woolcock
Threshold Online RPG wrote:
>
> In article <3513E253...@unforgettable.com>, "Ola Håkansson" <ho...@unforgettable.com> wrote:
> >I was wondering if any of you Admin out there have any experience of
> >Roleplaying, and if, what is your ideas and tips how I should make my
> >MUD a great Roleplaying Mud.
>
>
> This is NOT a comprehensive list. However, I think these are all important
> things for a roleplaying mud:
>
> 2) Strict rules on communication - It is very hard to have RP if people can[snip]
> 3) Require RP - Rp is all or nothing. Either you are a roleplaying mud or not.[snip]
> 4) Players should have a large number of ways to "control" the society. You[snip]
> There are many more important things. I hope that gets you started (and gets
> others started as well =) )
Here are a couple more:
5) A strong theme, otherwise its very difficult to actually roleplay! This
can be an existing theme (WoT for example ;) or a made up one. If you use
an existing theme then try to pick one that isn't being overused already.
If you make up a theme, it will require a fair bit of work to make sure it
is detailed enough.
6) Some way to strongly separate IC and OOC stuff. For example in my new
mud, each player logs on with an OOC name, and gets given an IC name.
The global channels and tell use the OOC name, while the other channels
use the IC name. This creates an interesting affect where OOC stuff is
almost like a separate talker which sits on top of the IC game.
KaVir.
Niilo Paasivirta
Richard Woolcock <Ka...@dial.pipex.comNOSPAM> wrote:
>Threshold Online RPG wrote:
>> 1) PK - a good roleplaying mud does not create ridiculous artificial[snip]
>> 2) Strict rules on communication - It is very hard to have RP if people can[snip]
>> 3) Require RP - Rp is all or nothing. Either you are a roleplaying mud or not.[snip]
>> 4) Players should have a large number of ways to "control" the society. You[snip]
>Here are a couple more:
>5) A strong theme, otherwise its very difficult to actually roleplay! This
> can be an existing theme (WoT for example ;) or a made up one. If you use
I hope you did not mean Wo_D_, because there are far too many of them
already. There are plenty of other, unused themes. Who says it even
has to be a theme made by someone else.
>6) Some way to strongly separate IC and OOC stuff. For example in my new
> mud, each player logs on with an OOC name, and gets given an IC name.
Yes, the easiest way is actually to forget MUDs and put up a MUSH
without autocombat:
7) Remove automatic combat completely and require "Storytellers" or
such who run all fights, if there are any.
--
<a href="http://www.jyu.fi/%7Enp/index.html"> Niilo Paasivirta </a>
Marian Griffith
In article <6f0t9g$p0u$1...@usenet51.supernews.com>, Threshold Online RPG
<URL:mailto:thre...@counseltech.com> wrote:
> In article <3513E253...@unforgettable.com>, "Ola Håkansson" <hoax@unforgettable.
> com> wrote:
> >I was wondering if any of you Admin out there have any experience of
> >Roleplaying, and if, what is your ideas and tips how I should make my
> >MUD a great Roleplaying Mud.
> Wow. You are opening a pretty massive can of worms here. =)
*grin*, but that does not mean it is not a worthwile topic to discuss.
> This is NOT a comprehensive list. However, I think these are all important
> things for a roleplaying mud:
> 1) PK - a good roleplaying mud does not create ridiculous artificial
> distinctions between PCs and NPCs like disallowing PK. Further, PK is the
> ultimate means of settlings disputes between players. Removing this cuts the
> heart out of roleplaying.
In all honesty, this is silly. There is no reason at all to -require- PK
in a roleplaying game. I agree completely with your assessment that the
distinction between player and monster should be as little as possible,
but this does not imply that players should happily go bash each other
on the head.
I also can not agree with your claim that fighting other players is the
ultimate means of settling disputes. If anything it is more likely to
increase the animosity between players rather than 'settle' an argument.
It has been a while since disagreements were settled by a duel to the
death in reality, and for good reason.
While not muds, there are plenty of roleplaying games on the net that do
not allow any significant combat between players. In fact, many games do
not have any provisions for combat and are still very much roleplaying
games. We may be talking about different styles of roleplaying here of
course. The classical D&D style of roleplaying and the cooperative story
telling style. Note however that even in D&D players did not generally
settle their differences by a fight to the death.
> 2) Strict rules on communication - It is very hard to have RP if people can
> walk into a tavern where people are roleplaying and say "Anyone know where I
> can download those Pamela Lee vids?"
This is imperative. I am even uncertain about providing means for out of
character communication, but thruth to be told, players likely will find
ways of doing this anyway.
> 3) Require RP - Rp is all or nothing. Either you are a roleplaying mud or
> not. People that do not want to roleplay need to find a hack n slash mud.
> This doesn't mean you shouldnt have stuff to entertain people when they
> are in a hack n slash mood, but pure hack n slashers should be
> eliminated. They end up being high level and it really hurts the
> environment if the most powerful players in the game dont roleplay.
I am unconvinced by this argument, even if you are in part right about
things. I think that a true roleplaying game should attempt to discoura-
ge combat for the sake of combat (or for advancement). Again this leads
us to the different styles of roleplaying games, and that is why I don't
disagree with you but are only unconvinced.
The safest way to strengthen roleplaying is by eliminating levels and by
making advancement in the game dependent on roleplaying. Fighting mon-
sters has little to do with roleplaying, so it should not (directly) be
rewarded by advancement. Just exactly how this can be achieved is quite
another question though some other systems have been tried.
> 4) Players should have a large number of ways to "control" the society. You
> should set up things like legal systems, ecnomies, etc. where the players are
> able to take the offices of control. I think this makes the world feel more
> real when players control major functions of society.
This I think is where you approach what truly makes a roleplaying game.
I have no better advise to give than this: diversify your game and your
game goals, and ensure that players can not control every aspect of the
game.
> There are many more important things. I hope that gets you started (and gets
> others started as well =) )
Marian
(visit Whirl's Roleplaying pages at http://www.iaehv.nl/users/gryphon/)
Matt Chatterley
On 22 Mar 1998, Niilo Paasivirta wrote:
> Richard Woolcock <Ka...@dial.pipex.comNOSPAM> wrote:
> >Threshold Online RPG wrote:
> >> 1) PK - a good roleplaying mud does not create ridiculous artificial[snip]
> >> 2) Strict rules on communication - It is very hard to have RP if people can[snip]
> >> 3) Require RP - Rp is all or nothing. Either you are a roleplaying mud or not.[snip]
> >> 4) Players should have a large number of ways to "control" the society. You[snip]
>
> >Here are a couple more:
> >5) A strong theme, otherwise its very difficult to actually roleplay! This
> > can be an existing theme (WoT for example ;) or a made up one. If you use
>
> I hope you did not mean Wo_D_, because there are far too many of them
> already. There are plenty of other, unused themes. Who says it even
> has to be a theme made by someone else.
He meant WoT as in Wheel of Time (Robert Jordan). This is also Richard
being cheeky, because WoT was the subject of some recent flamage. Picking
a theme already in existance is popular among a lot of people - its like
the ultimate extension of Fan-fiction in a lot of ways. You are of course
right in that one should not overlook the possibility of creating a theme;
but one should not forget the amount of extra work involved either (and
this may often put people off).
> >6) Some way to strongly separate IC and OOC stuff. For example in my new
> > mud, each player logs on with an OOC name, and gets given an IC name.
>
> Yes, the easiest way is actually to forget MUDs and put up a MUSH
> without autocombat:
I'll ignore the 'mud' issue in order to keep the peace. :)
> 7) Remove automatic combat completely and require "Storytellers" or
> such who run all fights, if there are any.
I don't think this is necessarily a requirement, infact, requiring Judging
of combat can cause difficulties at times. Ensuring that combat balances
out as reasonable for players, and operates in a way that does not
prohibit roleplaying (or which requires some), is probably even more
desirable.
--
Regards,
-Matt Chatterley
Spod: http://user.super.net.uk/~neddy/spod/spod.html
Richard Woolcock
Niilo Paasivirta wrote:
>
> Richard Woolcock <Ka...@dial.pipex.comNOSPAM> wrote:
> >Threshold Online RPG wrote:
> >> 1) PK - a good roleplaying mud does not create ridiculous artificial[snip]
> >> 2) Strict rules on communication - It is very hard to have RP if people can[snip]
> >> 3) Require RP - Rp is all or nothing. Either you are a roleplaying mud or not.[snip]
> >> 4) Players should have a large number of ways to "control" the society. You[snip]
>
> >Here are a couple more:
> >5) A strong theme, otherwise its very difficult to actually roleplay! This
> > can be an existing theme (WoT for example ;) or a made up one. If you use
>
> I hope you did not mean Wo_D_, because there are far too many of them
> already. There are plenty of other, unused themes. Who says it even
> has to be a theme made by someone else.
As I said, it CAN be a made up theme, but that will require a lot of work. The
'WoT' theme I refer to is 'Wheel of Time', an annoyingly common theme. I am
intrigued about your claim that there are far too many WoD muds, as - apart from
my own mud - the only WoD based non-MUSH I have seen was some Circle mud which
had the four basic classes renamed to "Vampire", "Werewolf", "Changling" and
"Mage", and was stock in all other regards.
> >6) Some way to strongly separate IC and OOC stuff. For example in my new
> > mud, each player logs on with an OOC name, and gets given an IC name.
>
> Yes, the easiest way is actually to forget MUDs and put up a MUSH
> without autocombat:
The only problem with this situation is that it would - for lack of a better
word - suck. If I want to have some storyteller telling me when I hit and
when I miss, I'll get some friends together and have a proper roleplaying
game. Computers are far faster at determining outcomes to situations than
people are, so why not use that factor?
> 7) Remove automatic combat completely and require "Storytellers" or
> such who run all fights, if there are any.
I assume this is a joke?
KaVir.
Richard Woolcock
Marian Griffith wrote:
>
> In article <6f0t9g$p0u$1...@usenet51.supernews.com>, Threshold Online RPG
> <URL:mailto:thre...@counseltech.com> wrote:
[snip]
> > 1) PK - a good roleplaying mud does not create ridiculous artificial
> > distinctions between PCs and NPCs like disallowing PK. Further, PK is the
> > ultimate means of settlings disputes between players. Removing this cuts the
> > heart out of roleplaying.
>
> In all honesty, this is silly. There is no reason at all to -require- PK
> in a roleplaying game. I agree completely with your assessment that the[snip]
While I agree that PK should *not* be required, it is vital that PK *is*
permitted. Artificial restraints on players detract from the atmosphere
of the game. Too much PK will ruin the atmosphere however, so it would
be quite reasonable to code in penalties for killing (either players or
mobs), such as (eg WoD theme) loss of Humanity. One of the things I have
in the works (still!) in a witness system (its been on hold for a while now).
This means that if you want to kill a player, you have to make sure nobody
sees you - and if that player should somehow manage to escape, you're in
real trouble...
Out of interest, should 'permanent death' be part of a roleplaying game?
[snip]
> > 3) Require RP - Rp is all or nothing. Either you are a roleplaying mud or
> > not. People that do not want to roleplay need to find a hack n slash mud.
> > This doesn't mean you shouldnt have stuff to entertain people when they
> > are in a hack n slash mood, but pure hack n slashers should be
> > eliminated. They end up being high level and it really hurts the
> > environment if the most powerful players in the game dont roleplay.
>
> I am unconvinced by this argument, even if you are in part right about
> things. I think that a true roleplaying game should attempt to discoura-
> ge combat for the sake of combat (or for advancement). Again this leads
> us to the different styles of roleplaying games, and that is why I don't
> disagree with you but are only unconvinced.
I agree in this case, however there is no reason why combat cannot be a part
of the mud, particularly for political reasons (killing your clan/cult/etc
leader so that you can take their place) or for quest-style reasons (taking
on an Assassination/Bounty Hunting job). I was even considering such things
as 'plotting' a murder (ie you cannot kill someone outright, you have to
plot their demise for a few days, giving them a chance to find out). This
would be too restrictive though, I feel.
> The safest way to strengthen roleplaying is by eliminating levels and by
> making advancement in the game dependent on roleplaying. Fighting mon-
> sters has little to do with roleplaying, so it should not (directly) be
> rewarded by advancement. Just exactly how this can be achieved is quite
> another question though some other systems have been tried.
Unless the killing is for a specific reason, such as the examples I gave
above. Certainly there are other ways to reward experience - I posted
something about this a while back.
[rest snipped]
KaVir.
cimri
Marian Griffith wrote:
>
> Aristotle, aka Threshold Online RPG wrote:
>
> > "Ola Håkansson" <ho...@unforgettable.com> wrote:
>
> > ><question about encouraging RP>
<SNIP>
sounds like a troll to me!
> > 2) Strict rules on communication - It is very hard to have RP if people can
> > can download those Pamela Lee vids?"
>
> This is imperative. I am even uncertain about providing means for out of
> character communication, but thruth to be told, players likely will find
> ways of doing this anyway.
>
I'd also chime in here: just make incentives related to this. Or,
in the general sense, reward those who do what you want. These
rewards could take many forms, though the best are of course the
rewards given by the playing community to each other based on
behavioral norms you have set up. I've seen a player community
swarm quite nicely against those who upset proper norms. This
can have a dark side in cliquishness and a closed society, but
that's people for ya, ain't it?
> > 3) Require RP - Rp is all or nothing. Either you are a roleplaying mud or
> > not. People that do not want to roleplay need to find a hack n slash mud.
> > <SNIP> pure hack n slashers should be
> > eliminated. They end up being high level and it really hurts the
> > environment if the most powerful players in the game dont roleplay.
>
> I am unconvinced by this argument, even if you are in part right
<SNIP>
Once again, 'elimination' of hack-and-slashers is, I think, a poor
substitute for giving incentives, positive and negative, for the
behavior. Let the game system, and the players, through rewards
and punishments, make it so pure hack-and-slash-ers miss out on all
the good stuff.
Perhaps the townfolk/npcs only respond well to folk with a certain kind
of reputation, and this kind of reputation is only gained by acting in
concert with others within the context of some player-run organization,
and so forth. Lotsa possibilities here which _allow_ virtually any
behavior, but encourage and give incentives to the kind you wish
as the admin.
> The safest way to strengthen roleplaying is by eliminating levels and by
> making advancement in the game dependent on roleplaying. Fighting mon-
> sters has little to do with roleplaying, so it should not (directly) be
> rewarded by advancement. Just exactly how this can be achieved is quite
> another question though some other systems have been tried.
>
AAK! Levels sure do seem to be getting short shrift here, for reasons
unclear to me. Levels are by definition at least somewhat arbitrary,
but so is the judgment of effective rp, no?
AND, levels do quantify a real life thing (this one is more experienced
than that one at doing 'x'). It is simply _amazing_ what experience
in RL really does -- and please don't think I am trying to condescend
here, because I am not. I'm a bit older and I'm surprised over and
over again to see how much value there is in plain old general-purpose
experience. Levels are _one_ (note: not _the only_) way to try to
represent this, and not a bad one as far as I can see.
And certainly levels are in no way the enemy to roleplay. I've seen
systems with levels which had the best RP I've ever seen.
I suspect that my dear esteemed colleague Marian simply wishes to
avoid the combat=experience formula, and in that I heartily agree.
Combat = 'combat experience' yes, and should be so rewarded. This
mostly plays into the current spate of skill-based systems (use the
skill to rise in the skill) and that's fine with me, though they
have their own weaknesses as has been discussed frequently here.
As for making RP the only rewardable activity, this is a fine idea
which I think has generally broken down in any attempt _I_ have ever
seen to implement it. I'd be interested in reading some actual
success stories if they can actually be related while avoiding the
'mine is bigger than yours' syndrome and the usual smattering of
'I have done it, and you are worthless if you have not' remarks!
> > 4) Players should have a large number of ways to "control" the society. You
> > should set up things like legal systems, ecnomies, etc. where the players are
> > able to take the offices of control. I think this makes the world feel more
> > real when players control major functions of society.
>
<SNIP>
> diversify your game and your game goals
<SNIP>
Here at last Marian hits a home run (note for non-baseball-literates:
a home run is 'A Good Thing'). I am in complete agreement. Diversify
both the ways of attaining things, and the number of things to be
attained, and have more fun.
This does not mean eliminate the value of combat. Just make it one
of MANY other things to get good at, with the proper things that you
get when you are good at something. Trading prowess, writing prowess,
adulation of the massses, control of the schedule of the city guard,
control of the judge's list of who is to be tried, access to the
King's ear and he owes you a favor or three, oh, what fun!
Heck, in many of these muds money is virtually irrelevant. Social
standing doesn't matter at all. Your history with a certain NPC
is forgotten, and your history with and influence over a certain
group (e.g. all shopkeepers) is not kept track of. Pity.
Jay // Cimri
Marian Griffith
In article <3515B1...@dial.pipex.comNOSPAM>, Richard Woolcock
<URL:mailto:Ka...@dial.pipex.comNOSPAM> wrote:
> Marian Griffith wrote:
> > In article <6f0t9g$p0u$1...@usenet51.supernews.com>, Threshold Online RPG
> > <URL:mailto:thre...@counseltech.com> wrote:
I am also replying to Cimri, but since I am going to say mostly the same
things I do this in this post rather than repeating myself. Contrary to
common believe I do not like to hear myself talk quite that much ;)
> > > 1) PK - a good roleplaying mud does not create ridiculous artificial
> > > distinctions between PCs and NPCs like disallowing PK. Further, PK is the
> > > ultimate means of settlings disputes between players. Removing this
> > > cuts the heart out of roleplaying.
> > In all honesty, this is silly. There is no reason at all to -require- PK
> > in a roleplaying game. I agree completely with your assessment that the
[snip]
> While I agree that PK should *not* be required, it is vital that PK *is*
> permitted. Artificial restraints on players detract from the atmosphere
> of the game.
I did, and do no, rule out player-player fights entirely even though I do
not generally play muds that allow this (for personal reasons). However I
do feel that it is vastly overrated as a game feature or mechanism and is
likely to upset things more than it settles.
> Too much PK will ruin the atmosphere however, so it would
> be quite reasonable to code in penalties for killing (either players or
> mobs), such as (eg WoD theme) loss of Humanity.
In a peacefull game even a little player killing may ruin the atmosphere.
There is no optimal point. I have played games that disallowed attacking
other players except for certain areas. As a result most players became
friendly and cooperative. And extremely upset by the rare occurence of pk
in the game. Yet compared to other games with a more pro pk attitude the
occurence of pk was next to non-existing.
> One of the things I have
> in the works (still!) in a witness system (its been on hold for a while now).
> This means that if you want to kill a player, you have to make sure nobody
> sees you - and if that player should somehow manage to escape, you're in
> real trouble...
If you really want to allow players to fight each other then you ought to
have mechanisms in the game itself that discourage it not through fear of
being discovered but because it will make playing the game harder. If you
need other players to survive you are going to be a lot more carefull a-
bout your reputation with them than when you can attack somebody and more
or less ignore the consequences (like the townguard attacking you a few
times).
> Out of interest, should 'permanent death' be part of a roleplaying game?
> [snip]
This depends to a large extend on the type of roleplaying you are trying
to achieve in your game.
> > > 3) Require RP - Rp is all or nothing. Either you are a roleplaying mud or
> > > not. People that do not want to roleplay need to find a hack n slash mud.
> > > This doesn't mean you shouldnt have stuff to entertain people when they
> > > are in a hack n slash mood, but pure hack n slashers should be
> > > eliminated. They end up being high level and it really hurts the
> > > environment if the most powerful players in the game dont roleplay.
> > I am unconvinced by this argument, even if you are in part right about
> > things. I think that a true roleplaying game should attempt to discoura-
> > ge combat for the sake of combat (or for advancement). Again this leads
> > us to the different styles of roleplaying games, and that is why I don't
> > disagree with you but are only unconvinced.
> I agree in this case, however there is no reason why combat cannot be a part
> of the mud, particularly for political reasons (killing your clan/cult/etc
> leader so that you can take their place) or for quest-style reasons (taking
> on an Assassination/Bounty Hunting job). I was even considering such things
> as 'plotting' a murder (ie you cannot kill someone outright, you have to
> plot their demise for a few days, giving them a chance to find out). This
> would be too restrictive though, I feel.
Perhaps I should have been more clear. I did not mean to imply that I think
that combat does not belong on a roleplaying game, only that it should not
be the only thing you can do. The latter would encourage players to go out
and fight and shifts focus immediately to gaining power and levels. This is
very restrictive to a roleplaying environment. Of course you may focus your
game on character advancement but in that case you are creating a game that
is hardly different from the average mud (as far as underlying principles
are concerned).
> > The safest way to strengthen roleplaying is by eliminating levels and by
> > making advancement in the game dependent on roleplaying. Fighting mon-
> > sters has little to do with roleplaying, so it should not (directly) be
> > rewarded by advancement. Just exactly how this can be achieved is quite
> > another question though some other systems have been tried.
Responding to Cimri:
Levels, as you find them on muds are a direct measure of -strength- and as
such they are restricitve to roleplaying. If you want to encourage players
to assume roles you must give them roles to play. On muds they only get a
level and a profession, and only one course of action. Ideally in roleplay
the power of a character is relative, i.e. a swordsman can be good enough
to defeat any opponent ( his skill level is very high) but this does not
mean he can go out and do so. Other powers within the gameworld would pre-
vent that, like the need to have somebody to pay for his lodging and food.
Misbehaviour from the part of the fighter would damage the reputation of
his patron and likely results in being tossed out. Without food and shel-
ter the fighting capabilities won't do him much good.
So you have a difference between absolute power within a profession, which
can be expressed by skill levels, and relative power within the game world
which could be expressed by rank. Players can improve their skill levels,
but need other players to improve their ranking. (by hiring guards the pa-
tron can improve -his- rank). And of course things get really interesting
if playes can have several rankings at the same time. E.g a player could
be a cityguard with a certain rank within that organisation, have a social
status and be a guildmember with a rank there as well). Every action will
affect those rankings.
Marian
Jon A. Lambert
On Sun, 22 Mar 1998 12:27:46 +0000, Marian Griffith spaketh...
>In article <6f0t9g$p0u$1...@usenet51.supernews.com>, Threshold Online RPG
><URL:mailto:thre...@counseltech.com> wrote:
>
>> 1) PK - a good roleplaying mud does not create ridiculous artificial
>> distinctions between PCs and NPCs like disallowing PK. Further, PK is the
>> ultimate means of settlings disputes between players. Removing this cuts the
>> heart out of roleplaying.
>
>In all honesty, this is silly. There is no reason at all to -require- PK
>in a roleplaying game. I agree completely with your assessment that the
>but this does not imply that players should happily go bash each other
>on the head.
Even many mushes with no automated combat allow PK. How about
adjudicated PK or PK by mutual consent?
It's the automated one-sided player driven mechanism you oppose, no?
That was a mouthful. ;)
>I also can not agree with your claim that fighting other players is the
>ultimate means of settling disputes.
Yes it is the "ultimate" and most final way of resolving disputes.
If it is the only way, then the game is poorly designed for roleplay.
>If anything it is more likely to
>increase the animosity between players rather than 'settle' an argument.
This is an OOC/IC separation problem. It happens in FRP ftf play also.
If players hold animosity across characters or game sessions they are
no longer role-playing. If they are no longer role-playing they are
either going to get booted from the game or forced to play a loyal
and loving friend of the character that killed them for awhile. :)
>It has been a while since disagreements were settled by a duel to the
>death in reality, and for good reason.
Yes, but... Is the reality of "our" times relevant to a mud theme
set in the year 200 BC or 3023 AD, a mythical universe or on
planet X in the galaxy Q-5?
>While not muds, there are plenty of roleplaying games on the net that do
>not allow any significant combat between players. In fact, many games do
>not have any provisions for combat and are still very much roleplaying
>games. We may be talking about different styles of roleplaying here of
>course. The classical D&D style of roleplaying and the cooperative story
>telling style. Note however that even in D&D players did not generally
>settle their differences by a fight to the death.
Agreed. Killing should have consequences appropriate to the theme.
"If one should kill a cat in Ithaca, they shall be put to death"
"If one should kill a woman in Ithaca, they must pay the father or
husband a fine not less than 50 goats or sheep"
Sounds silly and horrible? There are stranger worlds to RP in than
historical Earth. ;)
>> 4) Players should have a large number of ways to "control" the society. You
>> should set up things like legal systems, ecnomies, etc. where the players are
>> able to take the offices of control. I think this makes the world feel more
>> real when players control major functions of society.
>
>This I think is where you approach what truly makes a roleplaying game.
>I have no better advise to give than this: diversify your game and your
>game goals, and ensure that players can not control every aspect of the
>game.
>
My head is nodding so much, I just gave myself whiplash. :)
--
--/*\ Jon A. Lambert - TychoMUD Email:jlsy...@nospam.ix.netcom.com /*\--
--/*\ Mud Server Developer's Page <http://www.netcom.com/~jlsysinc> /*\--
--/*\ "Everything that deceives may be said to enchant" - Plato /*\--
Holly Sommer
Ola Håkansson wrote:
: I was wondering if any of you Admin out there have any experience of
: Roleplaying, and if, what is your ideas and tips how I should make my
: MUD a great Roleplaying Mud.
I'd say developing a solid, evolvable theme for the game. This
could be a pre-existing one (like, based on novels), a derivitive
of a pre-existing one, or one which you concoct on your own.
Also, I' say that structuring your world so that the players are
contributing to it, somehow, rather than just existing in it. A
dynamic world is one in which players feel they have a greater
part, and that encourages roleplay.
This can manifest in allowing the economy to be dictated by players
(shopowners, tavernkeeps, etc. are PCs), giving (limited) access to
the ability to build (construct bridges, buildings, weapons, etc.),
or even letting players decide what type of local government will
reign in which part of the world (provided it is within the theme
of the game).
Just my $.02
-Holly
cimri
Hello again all you admin readers!
<synopsis>
Marian Griffith wrote:
The safest way to strengthen roleplaying is by eliminating
levels and by making advancement in the game dependent on
roleplaying. Fighting monsters has little to do with
roleplaying, so it should not (directly) be rewarded. . . .
I responded, in brief:
- levels are no more arbitrary than judgment of RP
- 'level of experience' really does quantify a real and
useful thing
[note: all other things being equal, pick the more experienced
person if there's a choice EVEN if the general experience is
not directly related to the function in question.]
- levels are in no way the enemy to RP (roleplay).
- maybe Marian means combat is not, or should not be,
the only way to gain experience. If so, I agree.
- a system which tries ONLY to reward RP somehow has always
failed in any attempt I've seen to do it.
Marian again responded:
- levels measure strength and are restrictive to RP.
- If you want to encourage players to assume roles you must
give them roles to play.
- on muds they get a level, a class, and one thing gets them more
[presumably, killing/fighting]
- ideally there should be many forms of power, such as money
or reputation or things that require other people to gain,
perhaps several different measures.
<end of synopsis>
We finally get back to what I am writing here:
Levels measure one kind of power, yes, and it would be very nice to
model many forms of power besides proficiency in various activities
or professional pursuits. My favorite things to give people attainment
and power in, besides combat alone:
- influence over groups (maybe you get to be buddies with the
trader's guild in a particular city, and so they give you
little tips about what's coming available before it hits the
shops; or maybe you know the capt. of the guard, and arrange
for him to 'detain' someone you really don't like, etc).
- favors with the king
- reputation in various forms (might get you better or worse
treatment, or foster the creation of favors)
- loyalty from a particular group, which would imply the use
of some of their time, which would THEN imply, let's say,
using that time to smear someone by spreading rumors, or
squashing rumors, or whatever.
In this it appears we agree: give 'em all plenty to do, and multiple
methods for attaining power, and multiple forms of power.
Let them be able to become master traders, master weavers, etc.
And so it appears you are arguing against the unidimensional aspect
of the power which levels portray.
Nevertheless, levels are NOT antithetical to RP in many cases, and
certainly do not have to be. I have seen notable cases where levels
were used and where RP was still king.
Hmm, brekkus is ready! More later, my distinguished colleague Marian
and all you other readers.
Jay//Cimri
John Adelsberger
Niilo Paasivirta (n...@kanto.cc.jyu.fi) wrote:
: I hope you did not mean Wo_D_, because there are far too many of them
: already. There are plenty of other, unused themes. Who says it even
: has to be a theme made by someone else.
WoT is Wheel of Time. It is a series of books by Robert Jordan, and is
even more overused as a mud theme than is WoD.
: >6) Some way to strongly separate IC and OOC stuff. For example in my new
: > mud, each player logs on with an OOC name, and gets given an IC name.
: Yes, the easiest way is actually to forget MUDs and put up a MUSH
: without autocombat:
1. 'Autocombat' is very useful for some things, and useless for others.
2. A MUSH is a mud.
3. MUSH as a server is pathetic. I'd rather emulate the look and feel of
a MUSH server on almost anything than actually run that PoS.
--
John J. Adelsberger III
j...@umr.edu
"Civilization is the process of setting man free from men."
- Ayn Rand
Nightshade
j...@ultra2.cc.umr.edu (John Adelsberger) wrote:
>WoT is Wheel of Time. It is a series of books by Robert Jordan, and is
>even more overused as a mud theme than is WoD.
I'd want some numbers before I'd believe that, given the number of WoD
MU**s out there.
>1. 'Autocombat' is very useful for some things, and useless for others.
>2. A MUSH is a mud.
This may be accurate in a certain sense, but since people in practice
mean very different animals these days when refering to the two,
making this argument is at best being a linquistic purist.
Richard Woolcock
Nightshade wrote:
>
> j...@ultra2.cc.umr.edu (John Adelsberger) wrote:
>
> >WoT is Wheel of Time. It is a series of books by Robert Jordan, and is
> >even more overused as a mud theme than is WoD.
>
> I'd want some numbers before I'd believe that, given the number of WoD
> MU**s out there.
There are lots of WoD MUSHes, and lots of WoT MUDs. Does anyone know any
half decent WoD MUDs that I could take a look at (godwars muds don't count,
as they are only semi-WoD)?
> >1. 'Autocombat' is very useful for some things, and useless for others.
> >2. A MUSH is a mud.
>
> This may be accurate in a certain sense, but since people in practice
> mean very different animals these days when refering to the two,
> making this argument is at best being a linquistic purist.
A MUSH is a mud, a MUD is a mud, a MUSH is *not* a MUD.
KaVir.
Threshold Online RPG
In article <6f2gh3$b...@kanto.cc.jyu.fi>, n...@kanto.cc.jyu.fi (Niilo Paasivirta) wrote:
>Yes, the easiest way is actually to forget MUDs and put up a MUSH
>without autocombat:
MUSHes are dying fast dude. They are snuggling up with BBSes 6 feet under.
>7) Remove automatic combat completely and require "Storytellers" or
> such who run all fights, if there are any.
Yeah, making things totally unrealistic is a great way to encourage
roleplaying. Sorry, but BAD, LOW TECH CODE is not a plus when it comes to
creating a roleplaying world.
Just because MUSHes are so low tech that they cannot HANDLE anything like
combat does not mean that it is a good thing.
I'm sure generals wish they could just write a cool story, send it in to some
'storyteller' and avoid the nastiness of an actual war.
Threshold Online RPG
In article <6f6jv1$f18$1...@usenet54.supernews.com>, Night...@dark.night.com (Nightshade) wrote:
>j...@ultra2.cc.umr.edu (John Adelsberger) wrote:
>>WoT is Wheel of Time. It is a series of books by Robert Jordan, and is
>>even more overused as a mud theme than is WoD.
>
>I'd want some numbers before I'd believe that, given the number of WoD
>MU**s out there.
The fact that you ask this is further proof that you are clueless about
mudding.
The best proof of course is that you think a good computer game is an IRC chat
room with advanced emotes.
Threshold Online RPG
In article <ant2212460b0Ky&5...@gryphon.knoware.nl>, Marian Griffith <gry...@iaehv.nl> wrote:
>In article <6f0t9g$p0u$1...@usenet51.supernews.com>, Threshold Online RPG
>in a roleplaying game. I agree completely with your assessment that the
>distinction between player and monster should be as little as possible,
>but this does not imply that players should happily go bash each other
>on the head.
I didnt say they HAVE to kill other players, I said the OPTION must exist. If
your world does not allow players to kill each other then it is a totally
bogus, fake, silly, ridiculous world. If PK is not allowed, then your entire
game world is an absurd joke.
>> 3) Require RP - Rp is all or nothing. Either you are a roleplaying mud or
>> not. People that do not want to roleplay need to find a hack n slash mud.
>> This doesn't mean you shouldnt have stuff to entertain people when they
>> are in a hack n slash mood, but pure hack n slashers should be
>> eliminated. They end up being high level and it really hurts the
>> environment if the most powerful players in the game dont roleplay.
>
>I am unconvinced by this argument, even if you are in part right about
>things. I think that a true roleplaying game should attempt to discoura-
>ge combat for the sake of combat (or for advancement). Again this leads
>us to the different styles of roleplaying games, and that is why I don't
>disagree with you but are only unconvinced.
Combat is fun. Why eliminate it?
As for the actual point, if you want a good roleplaying mud you cannot have
people running around talking about Madonna and the Chicago Bulls. That
totally kills the mood.
>The safest way to strengthen roleplaying is by eliminating levels and by
>making advancement in the game dependent on roleplaying. Fighting mon-
>sters has little to do with roleplaying, so it should not (directly) be
>rewarded by advancement. Just exactly how this can be achieved is quite
>another question though some other systems have been tried.
Eliminate levels? Why would you want to do something so incredibly
unrealistic. Life is about levels, rank, hierarchy, etc. Just about verything
we have in life has ranks. Hierarchy at work, the family (parents, oldest kid,
middle kid, youngest kid, etc), school (freshman, sophomore, junior, senior,
etc.), military (private, corporal, sergeant, lieutenant, etc).
Life has levels. Removing them is bogus.
Threshold Online RPG
In article <3515B1...@dial.pipex.comNOSPAM>, Richard Woolcock <Ka...@dial.pipex.comNOSPAM> wrote:
>> > distinctions between PCs and NPCs like disallowing PK. Further, PK is the
>> > ultimate means of settlings disputes between players. Removing this cuts
>> > the heart out of roleplaying.
>>
>> in a roleplaying game. I agree completely with your assessment that
>
>
>permitted. Artificial restraints on players detract from the atmosphere
>of the game.
I still cannot see how people think I said "PK should be required". I said PK
must be allowed. I never said people must be forced to kill each other.
*boggle*
However, back to the main point, if you don't allow PK then you shouldn't let
players kill anything. If they can kill Bob the NPC then they should be able
to kill Bob the PC.
Threshold Online RPG
In article <6f3s54$s...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>, jlsy...@spammenot.ix.netcom.com (Jon A. Lambert) wrote:
>Yes it is the "ultimate" and most final way of resolving disputes.
>If it is the only way, then the game is poorly designed for roleplay.
Absolutely. If PK is the only way for players to resolve disputes then your
system gets boring fast. There should be a lot of other means of competition
in order to make KILLING truly dramatic, extreme, and exciting.
Nightshade
thre...@counseltech.com (Threshold Online RPG) wrote:
>In article <6f6jv1$f18$1...@usenet54.supernews.com>, Night...@dark.night.com (Nightshade) wrote:
>>j...@ultra2.cc.umr.edu (John Adelsberger) wrote:
>>>WoT is Wheel of Time. It is a series of books by Robert Jordan, and is
>>>even more overused as a mud theme than is WoD.
>>
>>I'd want some numbers before I'd believe that, given the number of WoD
>>MU**s out there.
>The fact that you ask this is further proof that you are clueless about
>mudding.
>The best proof of course is that you think a good computer game is an IRC chat
>room with advanced emotes.
I don't consider MUSHing a computer game except in the vaguest terms.
It's an freeform RPG done by remote. I sometimes wouldn't mind having
a more rigorous set of numbers and some combat system coding on the
ones I'm on, but the fact you feel obliged to tell someone else what
they are required to be looking for tells me how clueless _you_ are.
Richard Woolcock
Threshold Online RPG wrote:
>
> In article <3515B1...@dial.pipex.comNOSPAM>, Richard Woolcock <Ka...@dial.pipex.comNOSPAM> wrote:
> >Marian Griffith wrote:
> >> In article <6f0t9g$p0u$1...@usenet51.supernews.com>, Threshold Online RPG
> >> > 1) PK - a good roleplaying mud does not create ridiculous artificial
> >> > distinctions between PCs and NPCs like disallowing PK. Further, PK is the
> >> > ultimate means of settlings disputes between players. Removing this cuts
> >> > the heart out of roleplaying.
> >>
> >> In all honesty, this is silly. There is no reason at all to -require- PK
> >> in a roleplaying game. I agree completely with your assessment that
> >
> >
> >While I agree that PK should *not* be required, it is vital that PK *is*
> >permitted. Artificial restraints on players detract from the atmosphere
> >of the game.
>
> I still cannot see how people think I said "PK should be required". I said PK
> must be allowed. I never said people must be forced to kill each other.
> *boggle*
My statement was intended to back up yours, which Marian had apparently
misinterpretted.
> However, back to the main point, if you don't allow PK then you shouldn't let
> players kill anything. If they can kill Bob the NPC then they should be able
> to kill Bob the PC.
And Bob the newbie, who thinks "this sucks" and never plays again.
Discuss.
KaVir.
Richard Woolcock
Threshold Online RPG wrote:
>
> In article <ant2212460b0Ky&5...@gryphon.knoware.nl>, Marian Griffith <gry...@iaehv.nl> wrote:
> >I am unconvinced by this argument, even if you are in part right about
> >things. I think that a true roleplaying game should attempt to discoura-
> >ge combat for the sake of combat (or for advancement). Again this leads
> >us to the different styles of roleplaying games, and that is why I don't
> >disagree with you but are only unconvinced.
>
> Combat is fun. Why eliminate it?
>
> As for the actual point, if you want a good roleplaying mud you cannot have
> people running around talking about Madonna and the Chicago Bulls. That
> totally kills the mood.
Agreed, but people WILL want to talk about OOC stuff, and it is thus important
to supply them with a means to do this.
> >The safest way to strengthen roleplaying is by eliminating levels and by
> >making advancement in the game dependent on roleplaying. Fighting mon-
> >sters has little to do with roleplaying, so it should not (directly) be
> >rewarded by advancement. Just exactly how this can be achieved is quite
> >another question though some other systems have been tried.
>
> Eliminate levels? Why would you want to do something so incredibly
> unrealistic. Life is about levels, rank, hierarchy, etc. Just about verything
> we have in life has ranks. Hierarchy at work, the family (parents, oldest kid,
> middle kid, youngest kid, etc), school (freshman, sophomore, junior, senior,
> etc.), military (private, corporal, sergeant, lieutenant, etc).
>
> Life has levels. Removing them is bogus.
I disagree. Life is more of a skill-based system; how many people do you know
who are better/worse than you at EVERYTHING? Ego aside, I suspect not many.
KaVir.
David Skidmore
On Tue, 24 Mar 1998, Richard Woolcock wrote:
If people are truely roleplaying, then what reason would they have for
killing someone who just got there? In my somewhat limited experience,
player-killing is not that big a problem as long as everyone role-plays.
Consider this: What percentage of our current population(globaly, yes, but
it really doesn't matter) has actually killed another human being?
Shouldn't this percentage be somewhere near the percentage of players who
have killed others of their species, whether PC or not? I'll admit that a
great many more killings occur on MUDs because more people are in a
position to do so. i.e. they're stronger, skilled in some type of
fighting, and well equipped to rip others to shreds. My question is,
Why?? You could say that most non-RP MUDs are also RP, but they're all
RP'ing homicidal maniacs. I believe you shouldn't be prevented by the
code from killing someone, but that there should be some IC way of
handling it, like having all sentient mobs yell for help, as well as PC's,
perhaps have a town guard come after them, etc. Perhaps, if the
conditions are right, they could be caught and forced to spend a certain
amount of time in "jail" or something. Newbies should be aware of what
they're getting into, and if they are killed by another player( again I
state that it really shouldn't happen ), but should they happen to get
killed, it's they're own problem if they choose to give up the game. I
don't see newbies being killed by other players as a big problem, it just
should not happen that often, if ever. I don't think those who wish to
play evil chars that go around killing everyone would last very long, as
sooner or later, a group of more highly skilled, stonger players will come
along and imprison/slay them for their crimes. If combat is so important
on a MUD, then newbies are more likely to die from mobs than from other
players.
> Discuss.
>
> KaVir.
--Raptor, who thinks combat should not be quite as important in life,
unless one is hoping to join the town guard, or be a mercenary.
David Skidmore
On Tue, 24 Mar 1998, Richard Woolcock wrote:
> Threshold Online RPG wrote:
> >
> > In article <ant2212460b0Ky&5...@gryphon.knoware.nl>, Marian Griffith <gry...@iaehv.nl> wrote:
> > >I am unconvinced by this argument, even if you are in part right about
> > >things. I think that a true roleplaying game should attempt to discoura-
> > >ge combat for the sake of combat (or for advancement). Again this leads
> > >us to the different styles of roleplaying games, and that is why I don't
> > >disagree with you but are only unconvinced.
> >
> > Combat is fun. Why eliminate it?
Eliminate, who said eliminate? Marian said that combat for combat's sake
should be discouraged, and I tend to agree. She also stated that combat
should not be the meter for advancement, and again, I agree. Also,
perhaps one could change "combat" to something else, perhaps not requiring
death? Like people currently do in dojos around the world, fighting for
points or until one of them is in a "critical hit" situation, where the
next hit would kill them. THen again, this should only affect your status
among others who participate, and perhaps increase your skill in this
area, so that if someone jumps you in a dark alley, you can defend
yourself.
> >
> > As for the actual point, if you want a good roleplaying mud you cannot have
> > people running around talking about Madonna and the Chicago Bulls. That
> > totally kills the mood.
>
> Agreed, but people WILL want to talk about OOC stuff, and it is thus important
> to supply them with a means to do this.
I agree that some people will want to talk about OOC stuff. I do _not_
agree that it is important for me to provide them a way to do it. People
should come to an RP MUD to RP, not to discuss how their favorite
basketball team is doing in the Final Four. There should be a way for
players to _briefly_ discuss commands/syntax, instead of spending lots of
time dancing around the issue IC. There should also prolly be someplace
to leave notes that concern OOC topics, like if someone has to be away for
a while, or topics concerning the engine/code.
>
> > >The safest way to strengthen roleplaying is by eliminating levels and by
> > >making advancement in the game dependent on roleplaying. Fighting mon-
> > >sters has little to do with roleplaying, so it should not (directly) be
> > >rewarded by advancement. Just exactly how this can be achieved is quite
> > >another question though some other systems have been tried.
> >
> > Eliminate levels? Why would you want to do something so incredibly
> > unrealistic. Life is about levels, rank, hierarchy, etc. Just about verything
> > we have in life has ranks. Hierarchy at work, the family (parents, oldest kid,
> > middle kid, youngest kid, etc), school (freshman, sophomore, junior, senior,
> > etc.), military (private, corporal, sergeant, lieutenant, etc).
> >
> > Life has levels. Removing them is bogus.
>
> I disagree. Life is more of a skill-based system; how many people do you know
> who are better/worse than you at EVERYTHING? Ego aside, I suspect not many.
I agree, KaVir. Even to the extent that Aristotle and others have gone to
"explain" the levels that exist in life, they don't correspond to
MUD-levels at all, not in any meaningful way. I have much higher computer
skills than most of the people in this lab, does that make me higher in
"level"? Some of them may be able to lay me out in a single attack,
should they be higher than me in "level"? Others may be able to embarress
me with the how much better they can play an instrument, does that make
them higher in "level" than me? I think "levels" are a completely
inadequate measure of a player's worth. Their ability in their own
skills, the one's they deem to be important, should determine their worth,
not how well they can swing an axe or sword, if they don't care much for
fighting. I have a paladin, who is able to cast a wide range of spells.
Why should the fact that she just laid to waste 250 evil sea elves
determine that she should now be able to create portals into other parts
of the world? She never knew how to do this before, and she hasn't even
read any books on the subject. She just all the sudden knows how, since
she slew all those creatures. How does that make sense in real life?
Levels simply do not make sense. "Wow, I've killed enough things to
become level 30, now I can brew potions!" Yeah, sure, that makes sense...
> KaVir.
--Raptor
Holly Sommer
Michael G. Willey wrote:
> Ironically enough, you prove yourself clueless about MUDding in the
> same sentence. What is any MUD but an extension of the concept of
> IRC, with a few nifty extras coded in? Certainly you have bits of
> code focused on simulating locations, monetary transactions, combat,
> and other features (so do MUSHes and related codebases), but the main
> focus of a role-playing environment is the communication between
> players. I believe you have purported in the past to be somewhat
> familiar with role-playing environments, haven't you?...
IRC? Feh, that's a luxury! MUDs (oops, scuse me "muds" ;) are just extensions
of sockets code. Why... in my day, we only had write - not any fancy talk, ytalk,
telnet or IRC. You people are spoiled!
-Holly
Threshold Online RPG
In article <6f92k0$hh8$1...@usenet47.supernews.com>, Night...@dark.night.com (Nightshade) wrote:
>I don't consider MUSHing a computer game except in the vaguest terms.
>It's an freeform RPG done by remote. I sometimes wouldn't mind having
>a more rigorous set of numbers and some combat system coding on the
>ones I'm on, but the fact you feel obliged to tell someone else what
>they are required to be looking for tells me how clueless _you_ are.
You got things out of order. The person I responded to said COMBAT was what
made a game NON-ROLEPLAYING.
As you also seemed to agree, MUSHes aren't really much of a game. They are
just a communication medium like a chat room. By the logic of the person I
responded to, you could run a GREAT RPG over a conference call. I really fail
to see how that would be much of a true 'game'.
Threshold Online RPG
In article <351895...@dial.pipex.comNOSPAM>, Richard Woolcock <Ka...@dial.pipex.comNOSPAM> wrote:
>Threshold Online RPG wrote:
>> As for the actual point, if you want a good roleplaying mud you cannot have
>> people running around talking about Madonna and the Chicago Bulls. That
>> totally kills the mood.
>
>Agreed, but people WILL want to talk about OOC stuff, and it is thus important
>to supply them with a means to do this.
I agree. Also, having a place for OOC allows people to get to know each other
in a social way, and they feel more a part of the mud as a whole. Threshold
has get togethers that wouldn't be possible if people didn't have a way to
chat OOC and make friends.
>> Life has levels. Removing them is bogus.
>
>I disagree. Life is more of a skill-based system; how many people do you know
>who are better/worse than you at EVERYTHING? Ego aside, I suspect not many.
Life has both. Your boss might be worse at you in EVERYTHING, but he still
makes more money than you and he still has more power =)
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
thre...@counseltech.com (Threshold Online RPG) writes:
>Marian Griffith <gry...@iaehv.nl> wrote:
>>Threshold Online RPG writes:
>>>[PK must be doable]
>>In all honesty, this is silly. There is no reason at all to -require- PK
>>in a roleplaying game. I agree completely with your assessment that the
>>distinction between player and monster should be as little as possible,
>>but this does not imply that players should happily go bash each other
>>on the head.
>I didnt say they HAVE to kill other players, I said the OPTION must exist. If
>your world does not allow players to kill each other then it is a totally
>bogus, fake, silly, ridiculous world. If PK is not allowed, then your entire
>game world is an absurd joke.
multiple lives is absurd
eyes not adjusting to light levels is absurd
being visually aware of what is going on 360 degrees around you is absurd
not being able to climb a tree is absurd
not being able to hide behind a tree is absurd
Hell, between 50% and 95% of the implimentation on the dozen muds (diku and
lp) I have played on is absurd.
Forbidding PK and/or Pstealing is diddlysquat in comparison
>>The safest way to strengthen roleplaying is by eliminating levels and by
>>making advancement in the game dependent on roleplaying.
>Eliminate levels? Why would you want to do something so incredibly
>unrealistic. Life is about levels, rank, hierarchy, etc. Just about verything
>[snip]
>Life has levels. Removing them is bogus.
Levels as implemented in most muds, i.e. each person has a single "level",
are bogus.
Increasing hit points based on levels is bogus.
Limiting the maximum level of skill one can obtain based on a level is bogus.
Robert
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
jlsy...@spammenot.ix.netcom.com (Jon A. Lambert) writes:
>On Sun, 22 Mar 1998 12:27:46 +0000, Marian Griffith spaketh...
>>> 1) PK - a good roleplaying mud does not create ridiculous artificial
>>> distinctions between PCs and NPCs like disallowing PK. Further, PK is the
>>> ultimate means of settlings disputes between players. Removing this cuts
>>> the heart out of roleplaying.
>>In all honesty, this is silly. There is no reason at all to -require- PK
>>in a roleplaying game. I agree completely with your assessment that the
>>distinction between player and monster should be as little as possible,
>>but this does not imply that players should happily go bash each other
>>on the head.
>>I also can not agree with your claim that fighting other players is the
>>ultimate means of settling disputes.
>Yes it is the "ultimate" and most final way of resolving disputes.
>If it is the only way, then the game is poorly designed for roleplay.
It is only truely "ultimate" if there is only one life per character.
>>If anything it is more likely to
>>increase the animosity between players rather than 'settle' an argument.
>This is an OOC/IC separation problem. It happens in FRP ftf play also.
>If players hold animosity across characters or game sessions they are
>no longer role-playing.
In a true roleplaying game I would expect animosity to be held across
game sessions. And if the murder was witnessed it is not unreasonable
to create a new character who is a friend of the killed one to exact
revenge. Or to use an already existing one if there is some expectation
of a bond. (the two characters come from the same clan...)
Robert
Threshold Online RPG
In article <6fb9ff$5...@corn.cso.niu.edu>, mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu wrote:
>Forbidding PK and/or Pstealing is diddlysquat in comparison
Actually, at least some of the other things you listed can be explained verny
logically by magic or some other special power that is internally consistent.
PK restrictions creates a totally artificial distinction between NPCs and PCs.
Good muds REDUCE these distinctions because that is how you breathe life into
your NPCs.
Niilo Paasivirta
Threshold Online RPG <thre...@counseltech.com> wrote:
>Night...@dark.night.com (Nightshade) wrote:
>>I don't consider MUSHing a computer game except in the vaguest terms.
>just a communication medium like a chat room. By the logic of the person I
>responded to, you could run a GREAT RPG over a conference call. I really fail
>to see how that would be much of a true 'game'.
I think RPG means Role-Playing _Game_...
How is "computer game" defined? Is it "a game that is ran on a
computer"? Then a MUSH is a computer game. Can´t be possible.
So can you tell the Correct Definition for a Computer Game?
(I guess it is already defined correctly in LIMA mudlib, sorry
to ask...but I couldn´t reach the ftp server to download it.)
Anyway, since this group seems only to be for "MUD administration",
this will probably be my last posting here about MUSHes, and roleplaying.
You won´t see any more of my incorrect opinions here any more...
--
<a href="http://www.jyu.fi/%7Enp/index.html"> Niilo Paasivirta </a>
Nightshade
thre...@counseltech.com (Threshold Online RPG) wrote:
>In article <6f92k0$hh8$1...@usenet47.supernews.com>, Night...@dark.night.com (Nightshade) wrote:
>>I don't consider MUSHing a computer game except in the vaguest terms.
>>It's an freeform RPG done by remote. I sometimes wouldn't mind having
>>a more rigorous set of numbers and some combat system coding on the
>>ones I'm on, but the fact you feel obliged to tell someone else what
>>they are required to be looking for tells me how clueless _you_ are.
>You got things out of order. The person I responded to said COMBAT was what
>made a game NON-ROLEPLAYING.
No, you responded to me when I made a passing question about WoD/Wheel
of Time MUDs, and took the opportunity to blast me for being a MUSHer.
If that's not what you thought you were doing, perhaps you ought to
pay attention to who you're responding to. I did not make a single
comment about combat in MU**s until the post you quoted.
>As you also seemed to agree, MUSHes aren't really much of a game. They are
>just a communication medium like a chat room. By the logic of the person I
>responded to, you could run a GREAT RPG over a conference call. I really fail
>to see how that would be much of a true 'game'.
It depends on what you mean by a 'game". If it has rules (and the
MUSHes I'm on all do) and functions like a game, it's a game. It's
simply not a _software_ game. Would it be less of a game were I
rolling the dice manually rather than having the computer do it for
me? I have no objection to MUDs per se, but they're not my cup of
tea. For one thing, I don't really think they can handle the
vagueries of combat well enough for a full blown roleplaying game. I
think many of the MUSHes go too far in the opposite direction, but of
the two extremes, that's less destructive to the RP environment than
an overly mechanistic combat system that can't handle things outside
it's pervue.
Now if you're arguing that MUSHes are, for the most part not 'computer
games', okay. So?
Frosty
Nightshade wrote:
>
> It depends on what you mean by a 'game". If it has rules (and the
> MUSHes I'm on all do) and functions like a game, it's a game. It's
> simply not a _software_ game. Would it be less of a game were I
> rolling the dice manually rather than having the computer do it for
> me? I have no objection to MUDs per se, but they're not my cup of
> tea. For one thing, I don't really think they can handle the
> vagueries of combat well enough for a full blown roleplaying game. I
> think many of the MUSHes go too far in the opposite direction, but of
> the two extremes, that's less destructive to the RP environment than
> an overly mechanistic combat system that can't handle things outside
> it's pervue.
>
Frosty
> I agree, KaVir. Even to the extent that Aristotle and others have gone to
> "explain" the levels that exist in life, they don't correspond to
> MUD-levels at all, not in any meaningful way. I have much higher computer
> skills than most of the people in this lab, does that make me higher in
> "level"? Some of them may be able to lay me out in a single attack,
> should they be higher than me in "level"? Others may be able to embarress
> me with the how much better they can play an instrument, does that make
> them higher in "level" than me? I think "levels" are a completely
> inadequate measure of a player's worth. Their ability in their own
> skills, the one's they deem to be important, should determine their worth,
> not how well they can swing an axe or sword, if they don't care much for
> fighting. I have a paladin, who is able to cast a wide range of spells.
> Why should the fact that she just laid to waste 250 evil sea elves
> determine that she should now be able to create portals into other parts
> of the world? She never knew how to do this before, and she hasn't even
> read any books on the subject. She just all the sudden knows how, since
> she slew all those creatures. How does that make sense in real life?
> Levels simply do not make sense. "Wow, I've killed enough things to
> become level 30, now I can brew potions!" Yeah, sure, that makes sense...
But, we assume that while the character is not out killing sea elves,
that he/she might be learning these skills elsewhere or from someone
during their travels. It would make more sence, though, if only combat
skills were learned during combat and all that other stuff was learned
from a Sensei or something. That would make more sence, but I dont know
how it would affect gameplay..
Frosty
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu wrote:
> multiple lives is absurd
> eyes not adjusting to light levels is absurd
> being visually aware of what is going on 360 degrees around you is absurd
> not being able to climb a tree is absurd
> not being able to hide behind a tree is absurd
>
> Hell, between 50% and 95% of the implimentation on the dozen muds (diku and
> lp) I have played on is absurd.
>
> Forbidding PK and/or Pstealing is diddlysquat in comparison
>
But making the game MORE unrealistic sure dosn't help anything! In time
all this wonderful stuff you mentioned above will be implemented, but in
the meantime coders and admins are trying to make the games as realistic
as they can while still having good gameplay. Only giving each character
1 life would be more realistic, but fun? I dont think so.
M. Whittington
>PK restrictions creates a totally artificial distinction between NPCs and PCs.
>Good muds REDUCE these distinctions because that is how you breathe life into
>your NPCs.
>
>
>-Aristotle@Threshold
I couldn't agree more. I won't mention the name of our MUD, but I will say
that PK is entirely within the realm of possibility, and does from time to
time occur. We place no artificial restrictions on that or Pstealing. And,
each character gets one chance at life. Under some circumstances, a death
can be appealed (resurrections are quite rare). As for NPCs, we try to
describe them in terms that make it difficult to distinguish them from
the PCs. It is an ongoing project, but one which I think will enhance the
roleplay considerably. As we keep trying to impress on our players, NPCs
are people too, darn it.
There is only one thing which prevents a player from wantonly killing other
players in our little world, and that is that the killer can be killed by
the victim's friends/family/clansmen, IF it is discovered in the course of
the game that he is indeed the guilty party. And more than one "grand
adventure" has arisen from such behavior. We neither encourage nor dis-
courage PKilling and PStealing. Both are simply facts of life.
cimri
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu wrote:
<various things, mostly having to do with realism, are> absurd
Frosty answered:
. . . . make the games as realistic as they can while still
having good gameplay. Only giving each character one life
would be more realistic, but fun? I dont think so.
My interjections:
I appreciate the point that playability and 'logical consistency'
must both be taken into account. True true!
(I avoid the term realism to try to avoid that whole tiresome
realism debate we seem to go through here every now and then)
As for the one life (or permadeath) solution: actually, it's quite
exciting, and you can always start over again anyway, no? For
myself I prefer a longer life span, however that be accomplished,
but there's nothing like that heart pumping fear that all your
careful work of hours/days/months is now in jeopardy and you could
potentially lose it all.
Heck, combat even in non-permadeath games has a certain appeal
primarily because of the risk involved. You get excited as you
focus your energies to avoid dying and the subsequent loss in
eq or exp or whatever. Permadeath can intensify this greatly.
And if you know there is no challenge, no risk, well, things
get boring, or can.
Cheers, Jay // Cimri
Nicadeemous Tremhn Avifox
> As for the one life (or permadeath) solution: actually, it's quite
> exciting, and you can always start over again anyway, no? For
> myself I prefer a longer life span, however that be accomplished,
> but there's nothing like that heart pumping fear that all your
> careful work of hours/days/months is now in jeopardy and you could
> potentially lose it all.
>
Ever think about a deathlimit guideline? Like your deaths cann't excede
your level (Ok, this is resting in the topic of levels).
> Cheers, Jay // Cimri
>
Sorry for the spam.
cimri
KaVir, Richard Woolcock, and Aristotle, in their brave fight
against spam wrote various words more or less summarizable as:
- life has levels
- no it doesn't, it's more like skill-based
- no no, life is like both skill-based and level-based systems
and the phrase 'a single level' (apparently meaning using a single
value to express a complex set of attainments, experiences, powers,
and the like) was used, presumably to distinguish it from having
'many levels.'
</synopsis>
Like that fella from Fiddler on the Roof says: you are all right.
A working definition for the sake of discussion: I propose that 'level'
mean 'level of experience' and refer more or less to what we mean when
we say 'that person has a great deal of (or not much) experience.
Yes, level has been used as a single expression of power, where your
level expressed how good you were at everything, or at least how
good you were in the collection of powers and skills related to your
chosen profession. This is clearly silly, though I don't think any
where near as silly as most would have us believe. That is, though
I think there are better ways to do it, still, using level as a
single expression of power can be defended fairly well without
stretching too much.
And yes, the idea of HPs rising with level stretches things a bit too.
ALSO not as much as people would have us believe. For instance, it
is not that great a stretch to look at HP as some sort of expression
of one's ability to absorb/avoid/maneuver away from damage, not JUST
bodily physical damage. So as one 'rose in level' one gained more HP
which represented a certain experience reflected in combat survivability
through (for example) wiser use of maneuvers, or whatever. I do think
it makes more _sense_ to leave HP pretty much constant and to vary
your 'survivability' by adding in combat-related dodge or parry or
whatever skills. But rising HP with level is by no means totally
indefensible.
---
Okay, all that said, one could easily still have a skill-based system,
or at least a system which includes skills/abilities/etc which are
somehow increased in effectivenes through use or practice, and each
may be increased independently of the other, generally. And this
skill-based system could still use the idea of 'levels of experience.'
And this could still represent, in some meaningful way, an analog
to real life.
For example, I know people in my field that are wildly experienced,
much more than others, and I know people that are totally inexperienced,
and all sorts of folk in between. Some of the newbies to my field are
very good at one or two things, and know much more than, say, someone
very much more experienced. Still, their level of experience is a
real and approximate-able thing. And it's meaningful to use the
expression. Level of experience in this case refers, more or less,
to a sort of weighted average of all the skills attained, with a
random factor of sorts thrown in for just plain service time or
years of life.
Over and over again I've seen it -- more experienced people just do
better at things, even things where the less experienced people
(in the field) may have a few individual skills that exceed those
of the more experienced people. Okay, it might be arguable that
that just means the more experienced people have some obscure
'skills' at higher levels, but we just didn't know what they were,
like, hmm, "thinking on your feet about matters related to your
field" or "improvising jury-rigged solutions" or whatever. Fine.
Either way, levels of experience, or just levels, can be meaningful
as an expression of some sort of overall attainment, and levels are
not at all incompatible with skill-based OR roleplaying systems.
Or so I would happily assert.
Best to you all, Jay // Cimri
Nathan Fenenga Yospe
Frosty, is it true that on Wed, 25 Mar 1998 15:52:12 -0600, you posted to
rec.games.mud.admin:
: > I agree, KaVir. Even to the extent that Aristotle and others have gone to
: > "explain" the levels that exist in life, they don't correspond to
: > MUD-levels at all, not in any meaningful way. I have much higher computer
<snip>
: But, we assume that while the character is not out killing sea elves,
: that he/she might be learning these skills elsewhere or from someone
: during their travels. It would make more sence, though, if only combat
: skills were learned during combat and all that other stuff was learned
: from a Sensei or something. That would make more sence, but I dont know
: how it would affect gameplay..
Bad assumption... especially because everyone seems to learn the exact same
things in their travels at the exact same times... now, a skill system does
not just mean a "sensei" or something utterly generic like that... my word,
these stock mindsets are so ... so ... stock. Ugh. A skill system is one of
those either/or things if done well... combat skills, magic skills, any old
skill you might come up with... all are handleable in the same manner by an
arbitrary skill system. The concept is simple: skills are learned by a roll
or calculation or what have you when a character is exposed to a key... the
key can be a teacher, witnessing, or an accident when doing something close
to the new skill... skills are improved or weakened by related traits. That
means practice in related skills bleeds over... and using a skill only does
that particular skill and related skills any good.
--
Nathan F. Yospe - Aimed High, Crashed Hard, In the Hanger, Back Flying Soon
Jr Software Engineer, Textron Systems Division (On loan to Rocketdyne Tech)
(Temporarily on Hold) Student, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Physics Dept.
yospe#hawaii.edu nyospe#premier.mhpcc.af.mil http://www2.hawaii.edu/~yospe/
Jon A. Lambert
On 25 Mar 1998 16:22:38 GMT, mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu spaketh...
>
>jlsy...@spammenot.ix.netcom.com (Jon A. Lambert) writes:
>
>
>>Yes it is the "ultimate" and most final way of resolving disputes.
>>If it is the only way, then the game is poorly designed for roleplay.
>
>It is only truely "ultimate" if there is only one life per character.
>
Agreed. In a game which allows reincarnation, death would be merely
a setback. Soul death and combat might then be the "ultimate" expression
of conflict. This may be deficient in many games. Just what would the
social/political/cultural effects be in a world where death was not final?
>
>>This is an OOC/IC separation problem. It happens in FRP ftf play also.
>>If players hold animosity across characters or game sessions they are
>>no longer role-playing.
>
>In a true roleplaying game I would expect animosity to be held across
>game sessions. And if the murder was witnessed it is not unreasonable
>to create a new character who is a friend of the killed one to exact
>revenge. Or to use an already existing one if there is some expectation
>of a bond. (the two characters come from the same clan...)
>
I probably should have left it at "across characters". Someone
specifically creating enemies and/or friends of certain characters
may not be RPing. Personally, I would require some justification
depending on how much IC knowledge is publically available about the
characters death.
--
--/*\ Jon A. Lambert - TychoMUD Email:jlsy...@nospam.ix.netcom.com /*\--
--/*\ Mud Server Developer's Page <http://www.netcom.com/~jlsysinc> /*\--
--/*\ "Everything that deceives may be said to enchant" - Plato /*\--
Richard Woolcock
Threshold Online RPG wrote:
>
> In article <351895...@dial.pipex.comNOSPAM>, Richard Woolcock <Ka...@dial.pipex.comNOSPAM> wrote:
> >Threshold Online RPG wrote:
> >> As for the actual point, if you want a good roleplaying mud you cannot have
> >> people running around talking about Madonna and the Chicago Bulls. That
> >> totally kills the mood.
> >
> >Agreed, but people WILL want to talk about OOC stuff, and it is thus important
> >to supply them with a means to do this.
>
> I agree. Also, having a place for OOC allows people to get to know each other
> in a social way, and they feel more a part of the mud as a whole. Threshold
> has get togethers that wouldn't be possible if people didn't have a way to
> chat OOC and make friends.
>
> >
> >who are better/worse than you at EVERYTHING? Ego aside, I suspect not many.
>
> Life has both. Your boss might be worse at you in EVERYTHING, but he still
> makes more money than you and he still has more power =)
So according to the example above, my boss has a higher status and wage than
me, but with lower everything else. Does this make him a level X boss,
compared to me being a level X+1 software engineer? What about another
software engineer of my level who is better at ADA than me, but worse at C?
A system based on only a single level wouldn't work here obviously, although
you could have things like 'C level', 'ADA level', 'status level', 'wage
level', etc...but surely that is what a skill-based system is?
KaVir.
Richard Woolcock
David Skidmore wrote:
>
> Eliminate, who said eliminate? Marian said that combat for combat's sake
> should be discouraged, and I tend to agree. She also stated that combat
> should not be the meter for advancement, and again, I agree. Also,
> perhaps one could change "combat" to something else, perhaps not requiring
> death? Like people currently do in dojos around the world, fighting for
> points or until one of them is in a "critical hit" situation, where the
> next hit would kill them. THen again, this should only affect your status
> among others who participate, and perhaps increase your skill in this
> area, so that if someone jumps you in a dark alley, you can defend
> yourself.
Now I like this "non-fatal combat" idea. Suppose death was highly
discouraged, but you could beat other players up? This could even give
you a social advantage over them (they're afraid of you), but you could
also get the reputation of being a bully. Apart from killing off the
'bad guys' (from your characters point of view), most combat would thus
just become a bit of a brawl, with accidental death being very rare, and
murder resulting in the law coming after you...
KaVir.
Jesse Moffat
As to what makes a good Roleplaying game.Its easy.Roleplayers...good
roleplayers.Good systems are good and can contribute to the RP atmosphere
but will always be a far second to roleplaying itself.
(begin rant)
One other thing.It really bothers me when people point to "real life" as
an example of why things( like PK ) should be a certain way in a mud.It is
of course good for a mud to be somewhat internally consistent.However a
mud is usually a FANTASY game not "real life".If I want real life I'll go
outside and check out the intense cutting edge graphics.If I want to live
a different life for a while I'll maybe want to experience a good RP
FANTASY mud not a text based "real life" simulator.Kinda reminds me of the
RPG those fantasy characters are playing in the 1st edition AD&D DMs
manual :)
(end rant)
--
Nightshade
Frosty <ho...@YoMomma.com> wrote:
Actually, I just want ones that fight back intelligently. :) Given
that I play on superhero mu**s mostly, I'd really like a good duke 'em
up with a gang of thugs more often...:)
A. Eschenburg
Threshold Online RPG <thre...@counseltech.com> schrieb im Beitrag
[SNIP]
:
:
: >> Life has levels. Removing them is bogus.
: >
: >I disagree. Life is more of a skill-based system; how many people do
you know
: >who are better/worse than you at EVERYTHING? Ego aside, I suspect not
many.
:
: Life has both. Your boss might be worse at you in EVERYTHING, but he
still
: makes more money than you and he still has more power =)
So he might have, but that power does only manifest in one way. He can fire
you.
So, the boss wouldnt necessarily have higher level than you, but would be
your
clan's leader, or your Guildmaster, or some position like that.
Basically, i dont thing levels are really the problem, but their use. If
you increase the
power of players by 200 % or more simply by letting them rise in levels,
that is not really
encouraging RP, because one has to spend some time (maybe a lot) just to
get the level
up. Why ? well there are two reasons :
a) in worlds where the levels are visible and ever present, most people are
respected "by level" only.
b) in case you really get into a situation where it leads to blow, it is
extremly hard to back your RP up if the other char can simply beat you and
force you to run. The greater the differences in
"real" power is between levels, the greater this risk is.
Which leads me to 2 sollutions :
a) hide the levels, at least from the others. Some players need a level
system to see their chars advance, so if you want to oblige them, tell them
their level, but dont make the persons level visible to anyone else. (give
it out on finger-info, who ect, or provide who-lists sorted by level)
b) give as little importance to levels as possible. That, to me includes no
level restricted equipment, level-independent skills ect.
Axel
Threshold Online RPG
In article <3519d...@news.victoria.tc.ca>, yd...@vtn1.victoria.tc.ca (Jesse Moffat) wrote:
>One other thing.It really bothers me when people point to "real life" as
>an example of why things( like PK ) should be a certain way in a mud.It is
>of course good for a mud to be somewhat internally consistent.However a
>mud is usually a FANTASY game not "real life".If I want real life I'll go
>outside and check out the intense cutting edge graphics.
Nice commonly used (abused) argument. However, the PK thing isn't as much an
argument of realism as it is that it really makes no sense to have totally
arbitrary distinctions between NPCs and PCs. If you want your NPCs to feel
lifelike, you have to make them as similar to PCs as possible. It is very easy
to allow players to attack each other. All you have to do is make sure it is
not abused. In other words, there is a very small cost for a HUGE gain in
making your NPCs more similar to PCs and thus more lifelike. This is a gain
that you simply cannot ignore if you want to make a viable RPG.
Alberto BARSELLA
cimri <cim...@gte.net> writes:
[...snip...]
> Permadeath can intensify this greatly.
> And if you know there is no challenge, no risk, well, things
> get boring, or can.
My experience with permanent death has been negative, very
negative. The mud was skill-based, i.e. in order to get a decent char
you need 50 hours spent repeating the same thing. Be it killing,
cooking or casting spells on mobs. I may like the excitement of the
risk, but not the 50 hours of boredom which follow.
Also, sometimes you get killed by things which are outside your
control, example: lag. In "realistic" muds you normally don't have
auto-combat, so if you are linkdead you are dead (add in another 50
hours to raise your skills again).
To someone who plans to add in permanent death I would suggest to
include also a way to generate characters which can be played from
minute #0, i.e. who already have "typical" skills for that world.
Bye,
Alberto
--
Alberto BARSELLA
PGP fingerprint = 13 3F 22 D2 0B 0A D3 25 F1 89 FE B5 82 AD 75 2A
** Beliefs are dangerous. Beliefs allow the mind to stop functioning.
A non-functioning mind is clinically dead. Believe in nothing... **
cimri
Jesse Moffat wrote: <heavily snipped>
>
> As to what makes a good Roleplaying game.Its easy.Roleplayers. <snip>
> It really bothers me when people point to "real life" as
> It is good for a mud to be somewhat internally consistent.
> However a mud is usually a FANTASY game not "real life".
Aristotle has already responded to the second part of your
post, Jesse, but I'd like to add something here too:
- yes, rp'ers do make the rp. quite so. and good systems
can contribute. quite right.
And so the argument/discussion/flamewar is typically about
systems because methods of creating good RP'ers are much
more difficult to find/discover/implement than methods to
create better or more useful systems.
- about appealing to real life. I would have to second aristotle
on this one. There is absolutely nothing about appealing to
real life which means we wish to _model_ real life in the mud.
It just means that someone has seen a system that works in
real life, and is using it as a basis for discussion. I see
absolutely nothing wrong with that.
You do mention internal consistency, and in this I think you
have touched on another reason why people bring up real life.
Nobody I've spoken to or read here honestly insists that
we implement reality. Of course this would mean that magic
systems would not be real, or whatever. Nobody means that.
They just mean, as far as I can tell, that the system needs
internal consistency, and a _feeling_ of accuracy -- the feeling
that the thing 'rings true.' This can be done for totally
unrealistic things, like magic systems or unusual senses
or attributes, and the appeal to 'realism' is still meaningful.
Cheers, Jay // Cimri
Andrew Pavlin
In article <6fc6c1$b...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>, jlsy...@spammenot.ix.netcom.com (Jon A. Lambert) writes:
> Agreed. In a game which allows reincarnation, death would be merely
> a setback. Soul death and combat might then be the "ultimate" expression
> of conflict. This may be deficient in many games. Just what would the
> social/political/cultural effects be in a world where death was not final?
Hmmm... H. Beam Piper did a nice analysis of such a world in the second novelette
of his SF anthology, "Paratime". In that story, he dealt with a world where
reincarnation was an acknowledged fact, and there was a religious schism between
the Statisticalists (who believed that a newly dead soul would involuntarily move
to the nearest and soonest available baby being born) and the Determinists (who
believed that a dead soul could choose when and where to reincarnate). _Very_
interesting ideas derived from that premise.
--
______________________________________________________________________________
Andrew Pavlin
Eastman Kodak Company, Office Imaging Division
901 Elmgrove Road, Bldg. 11
Rochester, NY 14653
______________________________________________________________________________
Greg Munt
On Wed, 25 Mar 1998, Nightshade wrote:
> No, you responded to me when I made a passing question about WoD/Wheel
> of Time MUDs, and took the opportunity to blast me for being a MUSHer.
> If that's not what you thought you were doing, perhaps you ought to
> pay attention to who you're responding to. I did not make a single
> comment about combat in MU**s until the post you quoted.
What's a MU**? And in what way is it comparable to a MU*?
And, are either of them anything like a MUSH?
--
Greg Munt, gr...@uni-corn.demon.co.uk; http://www.uni-corn.demon.co.uk/ubiquity/
"My ambition is surpassed only by my egotism."
Threshold Online RPG
In article <m3yaxxw...@mokulen.univ-lille1.fr>, Alberto BARSELLA <ish...@lsh01.univ-lille1.fr> wrote:
>My experience with permanent death has been negative, very
>negative. The mud was skill-based, i.e. in order to get a decent char
>you need 50 hours spent repeating the same thing. Be it killing,
>cooking or casting spells on mobs. I may like the excitement of the
>risk, but not the 50 hours of boredom which follow.
>Also, sometimes you get killed by things which are outside your
>control, example: lag. In "realistic" muds you normally don't have
>auto-combat, so if you are linkdead you are dead (add in another 50
>hours to raise your skills again).
That sounds like horrible design. If you are going to have permanent death, I
think you really need to make it so a player does not die through no fault of
their own. Someone should have to do something stupid, incredibly rash, etc to
get killed. Further, as you note, there really cannot be advancement via
enormous inputs of time because there is simply too much risk that everything
you "worked" for can be quickly and irrevocably "lost".
cimri
MU** (and MU*), as far as I can tell, are both attempts to create a
term referring to more than just a MUD, MUSH, MUSE, MUCK, MOO, MURPE,
and so forth. Sort of like saying "a Multi User <fill in the blank>
game."
Cheers! Jay // Cimri
J C Lawrence
I should note in advance that I'm a strong proponent of permdeath for
exactly the same reasons that Bartle is, but I won't so there!
Alberto BARSELLA <ish...@lsh01.univ-lille1.fr> wrote:
> My experience with permanent death has been negative, very
> negative. The mud was skill-based, i.e. in order to get a decent char
> you need 50 hours spent repeating the same thing. Be it killing,
> cooking or casting spells on mobs. I may like the excitement of the
> risk, but not the 50 hours of boredom which follow.
> Also, sometimes you get killed by things which are outside your
> control, example: lag. In "realistic" muds you normally don't have
> auto-combat, so if you are linkdead you are dead (add in another 50
> hours to raise your skills again).
> To someone who plans to add in permanent death I would suggest to
> include also a way to generate characters which can be played from
> minute #0, i.e. who already have "typical" skills for that world.
Another possibility is to design the game so that the average
life-span of *ANY* character, is (say) 30 hours before the flame-out:
Short, glorious, and over. The goal is then to make it as far as
possible before your critter dies of old age or <insert game
mechanic>.
--
J C Lawrence Internet: cl...@null.net
(Contractor) Internet: co...@ibm.net
---------(*) Internet: cl...@under.engr.sgi.com
...Honourary Member of Clan McFud -- Teamer's Avenging Monolith...
J C Lawrence
Threshold Online RPG <thre...@counseltech.com> wrote:
> That sounds like horrible design. If you are going to have permanent death, I
> think you really need to make it so a player does not die through no fault of
> their own. Someone should have to do something stupid, incredibly rash, etc to
> get killed. Further, as you note, there really cannot be advancement via
> enormous inputs of time because there is simply too much risk that everything
> you "worked" for can be quickly and irrevocably "lost".
Go play MUD2, _then_ tell me that these are flaws of permadeath.
Permadeath has been done, successsfully, for longer than LP or DIKU
have even existed as glowing phosphor in an editor.
Greg Munt
On Thu, 26 Mar 1998, cimri wrote:
> MU** (and MU*), as far as I can tell, are both attempts to create a
> term referring to more than just a MUD, MUSH, MUSE, MUCK, MOO, MURPE,
> and so forth. Sort of like saying "a Multi User <fill in the blank>
> game."
I know.
I was being sarcastic :)
Nightshade
Greg Munt <gr...@uni-corn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Thu, 26 Mar 1998, cimri wrote:
>> MU** (and MU*), as far as I can tell, are both attempts to create a
>> term referring to more than just a MUD, MUSH, MUSE, MUCK, MOO, MURPE,
>> and so forth. Sort of like saying "a Multi User <fill in the blank>
>> game."
>I know.
>I was being sarcastic :)
That wasn't a given. Three years ago I'd have had no idea.
Nightshade
Greg Munt <gr...@uni-corn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Wed, 25 Mar 1998, Nightshade wrote:
>> No, you responded to me when I made a passing question about WoD/Wheel
>> of Time MUDs, and took the opportunity to blast me for being a MUSHer.
>> If that's not what you thought you were doing, perhaps you ought to
>> pay attention to who you're responding to. I did not make a single
>> comment about combat in MU**s until the post you quoted.
>What's a MU**? And in what way is it comparable to a MU*?
>And, are either of them anything like a MUSH?
Just the usage I've seen among a lot of the MUSHing community. While
technically I suppose all of them are MUDs, the latter is associated
with coded combat D&D style games, which doesn't begin to describe a
lot of what's out there. MU** therefore covers all the MUDs, MUSHes,
MUX, MUSEs, MOOs (yes, I know, the abbreviation doesn't work there)
and so forth. I'm sure someone will find something to take issue with
in this paragraph, too...
Randy
On Thu, 26 Mar 1998, Richard Woolcock wrote:
> Threshold Online RPG wrote:
> >
> > In article <351895...@dial.pipex.comNOSPAM>, Richard Woolcock <Ka...@dial.pipex.comNOSPAM> wrote:
> > >Threshold Online RPG wrote:
> > >> As for the actual point, if you want a good roleplaying mud you cannot have
> > >> people running around talking about Madonna and the Chicago Bulls. That
> > >> totally kills the mood.
> > >
> > >Agreed, but people WILL want to talk about OOC stuff, and it is thus important
> > >to supply them with a means to do this.
> >
> > I agree. Also, having a place for OOC allows people to get to know each other
> > in a social way, and they feel more a part of the mud as a whole. Threshold
> > has get togethers that wouldn't be possible if people didn't have a way to
> > chat OOC and make friends.
> >
> > >> Life has levels. Removing them is bogus.
> > >
> > >I disagree. Life is more of a skill-based system; how many people do you know
> > >who are better/worse than you at EVERYTHING? Ego aside, I suspect not many.
> >
> > Life has both. Your boss might be worse at you in EVERYTHING, but he still
> > makes more money than you and he still has more power =)
>
> So according to the example above, my boss has a higher status and wage than
> me, but with lower everything else. Does this make him a level X boss,
> compared to me being a level X+1 software engineer? What about another
> software engineer of my level who is better at ADA than me, but worse at C?
> A system based on only a single level wouldn't work here obviously, although
> you could have things like 'C level', 'ADA level', 'status level', 'wage
> level', etc...but surely that is what a skill-based system is?
>
> KaVir.
>
It would seem to me that your bosses higher status and wage would more
closely approximate level, while your languange capabilities would be
comparable to skills. This is also why a nonlevel-based skill system can
is more reasonable in some ways (ie. a higher level character could have
fewer skills and be less proficient at them than a lower level one).
Randy
Michael D. Brown
> So according to the example above, my boss has a higher status and wage than
> me, but with lower everything else. Does this make him a level X boss,
> compared to me being a level X+1 software engineer? What about another
> software engineer of my level who is better at ADA than me, but worse at C?
> A system based on only a single level wouldn't work here obviously, although
> you could have things like 'C level', 'ADA level', 'status level', 'wage
> level', etc...but surely that is what a skill-based system is?
>
> KaVir.
Skill-based systems...that is definitely an interesting Role Playing
concept. Not to mention one that I've only seen implemented well once
(Daggerfall). Is there a DF mud around...I think a good implementation of
the DF rules would make a very well-rounded mud.
Howard Roark
On Thu, 26 Mar 1998 18:43:20 GMT, thre...@counseltech.com (Threshold
Online RPG) wrote:
>In article <m3yaxxw...@mokulen.univ-lille1.fr>, Alberto BARSELLA <ish...@lsh01.univ-lille1.fr> wrote:
>>My experience with permanent death has been negative, very
>>negative. The mud was skill-based, i.e. in order to get a decent char
>>you need 50 hours spent repeating the same thing. Be it killing,
>>cooking or casting spells on mobs. I may like the excitement of the
>>risk, but not the 50 hours of boredom which follow.
>>Also, sometimes you get killed by things which are outside your
>>control, example: lag. In "realistic" muds you normally don't have
>>auto-combat, so if you are linkdead you are dead (add in another 50
>>hours to raise your skills again).
>
>That sounds like horrible design. If you are going to have permanent death, I
>think you really need to make it so a player does not die through no fault of
>their own. Someone should have to do something stupid, incredibly rash, etc to
>get killed. Further, as you note, there really cannot be advancement via
>enormous inputs of time because there is simply too much risk that everything
>you "worked" for can be quickly and irrevocably "lost".
Since RP dikus are on my mind at the moment, I'll respond here by
noting that the concept of having to invest scads of hours into a PC's
"advancement" while running the constant risk of having all your work
lost due to an untimely (perm)death is pretty much the standard way
things are done on Harshlands MUD, and I'm assuming on Armageddon as
well, even though I've not spent enough time on Armag to be able to
comment precisely. Anyway, on Harshlands, this concept actually seems
to work, in that it makes a player feel as though they've got a lot to
lose (which they do, in a sense), and thus heightens the involvment
in the RP experience, and its "realism". Sure, it's annoying to lose
a PC you've spent hours and hours developing and getting used to,
and I guess the way things work there isn't for everyone, but the way
a lot of players seem to see it is that no matter how "good" and fun
to play your dear departed PC was, there's always an even better one
waiting to come out of your imagination...and besides, PC deaths in
a permadeath, involving environment like Harshlands can launch all
sorts of RP, say, players who were close to the dead PC can play out
the shock of the loss when they find out, or the friends/family/clan
of the PC can organize and trying to find/punish whoever was
responsible for the death, if anyone.
So while such a system might be appaling to some (I know I've had a
few moments where it's driven me nuts), it can actually be a positive
thing for a game as a whole, giving it a more involving, engrossing
feel, and lending a game a unique flavor. At least in my opinion :)
David Skidmore
I've thought about it...Makes leveling ALOT less often of an event than it
is on any combat-intensive MUDs I've seen. I'm not sure I like the DF
spell system, but the style of combat(freeform, not diku autofighting) I
am planning to implement in my pet project. I'm not sure all of the
features of the Daggerfall system would make good sense from a text-based
game interface.
However, from what I hear, the sequal to Daggerfall (Elder Scrolls 3) is
supposed to have multi-player support...*cackle*
--Raptor
michael...@abnamro.com
In article <6fc1ta$2...@news.Hawaii.Edu>,
And having implemented a skill system very much like you're describing, I can
tell you that it works, wonderfully.
>
> Nathan F. Yospe - Aimed High, Crashed Hard, In the Hanger, Back Flying Soon
> Jr Software Engineer, Textron Systems Division (On loan to Rocketdyne Tech)
> (Temporarily on Hold) Student, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Physics Dept.
> yospe#hawaii.edu nyospe#premier.mhpcc.af.mil http://www2.hawaii.edu/~yospe/
>
>
Mike Willey, the once and future Mickelian@Dreamshadow
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
thre...@counseltech.com (Threshold Online RPG) writes:
>mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu wrote:
>>Forbidding PK and/or Pstealing is diddlysquat in comparison
>Actually, at least some of the other things you listed can be explained very
>logically by magic or some other special power that is internally consistent.
Ok, lets have a look...
>>multiple lives is absurd
>>eyes not adjusting to light levels is absurd
>>being visually aware of what is going on 360 degrees around you is absurd
>>not being able to climb a tree is absurd
>>not being able to hide behind a tree is absurd
Good luck.
When you write a mud background story that believably explains away
most of the above I'll write one that explains away PK not being
allowed. (in point of fact I could write either of those background
stories, but then again my definition of "believable" may be different
than yours. hmmmm thieves may be a problem though...<sigh>)
>PK restrictions creates a totally artificial distinction between NPCs and PCs.
IYO
>Good muds REDUCE these distinctions because that is how you breathe life into
>your NPCs.
I agree, but IMHO a PK ban or lack thereof doesn't add or subtract a great
deal from the believability of the "lifelikeness" of NPCs. A decent
"Eliza" program :) would help a lot. Or simply putting in more
NPCs and having them band together (appropriately) in times of trouble.
FWIW:
If my mud ever gets off the ground it will
have hooks for PK limitations, but start with a natural consequences
model of limiting PK (and limiting NPK).
have multiple lives (well explained in the background story)
eyes that will adjust to light levels
360 degree visual awareness (in theory this isn't too much of a
problem, lacking a gigabyte of VM...)
be able to hide behind a tree
climbing a tree is up in the air :)
Robert
Writing in spurts
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
>>jlsy...@spammenot.ix.netcom.com (Jon A. Lambert) writes:
>>>Yes it is the "ultimate" and most final way of resolving disputes.
>>>If it is the only way, then the game is poorly designed for roleplay.
>>It is only truely "ultimate" if there is only one life per character.
>>
>
>Agreed. In a game which allows reincarnation, death would be merely
>a setback. Soul death
ooooooooo, shades of the Jhereg series (or however you spell it)
Rare, expensive, ?proscribed? weapons that /do/ cause permanent death...
>and combat might then be the "ultimate" expression
>of conflict. This may be deficient in many games. Just what would the
>social/political/cultural effects be in a world where death was not final?
In my planned mud:
=====
When a person dies their spiritual self goes into the ethereal plane.
For as long as there have been priests all sentient beings have been
given 7 chances each to fulfill their lives, but only within their
natural lifespan.
[]the most chances anybody can have is 7*7 or 49.
When a person is reincarnated EndPts, FatPts, HPs, Mana are all set at
(1-age/(natural lifespan))*(normal max)
=====
So a 20 yo human would have 1-(20/70)=71% of normal HPs when reincarnated,
and a 70 yo human would have 0% of normal HPs (i.e. be dead)
This deals (in part) with the population problems caused by non-death.
Lack of perm. death makes murder problematic, not impossible, just more
difficult, esp. if you want the person to stay out of the way permanently
(e.g. you want to inheret (sp?)).
"An eye for an eye, a life for a life"
OTOH if a murderer is hanged and you don't have control of where
that murderer is reincarnated....
Life w/o parole looks pretty good here :)
On one hand death's impact is diminished, otoh everybody (human) expects
to live to at least 70 yo, so shortening that life expectancy may be
viewed with more harshness than normal murder?
>>>This is an OOC/IC separation problem. It happens in FRP ftf play also.
>>>If players hold animosity across characters or game sessions they are
>>>no longer role-playing.
>>In a true roleplaying game I would expect animosity to be held across
>>game sessions. And if the murder was witnessed it is not unreasonable
>>to create a new character who is a friend of the killed one to exact
>>revenge. Or to use an already existing one if there is some expectation
>>of a bond. (the two characters come from the same clan...)
>I probably should have left it at "across characters". Someone
>specifically creating enemies and/or friends of certain characters
>may not be RPing.
Agreed. I like the idea of being able to play different characters
but I am bothered by the idea of having the same person using their
different characters help each other.
>Personally, I would require some justification
>depending on how much IC knowledge is publically available about the
>characters death.
As I tried to express above (requiring a witness) I agree.
Robert
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
Frosty <ho...@YoMomma.com> writes:
>mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu wrote:
>
>> multiple lives is absurd
>> eyes not adjusting to light levels is absurd
>> being visually aware of what is going on 360 degrees around you is absurd
>> not being able to climb a tree is absurd
>> not being able to hide behind a tree is absurd
>>
>> lp) I have played on is absurd.
>>
>> Forbidding PK and/or Pstealing is diddlysquat in comparison
>>
>all this wonderful stuff you mentioned above will be implemented, but in
>the meantime coders and admins are trying to make the games as realistic
>as they can while still having good gameplay. Only giving each character
>1 life would be more realistic, but fun? I dont think so.
bear with me... (or not)
Just in case anybody is slow on the uptake today :), the following is an
expression of opinion, not of fact.
I see no value to having a population of PKers, i.e. of people who
specialize in killing other players. PK needs to be restricted.
The best way of doing this is by restricting killing in general,
by the consequences of killing, not by hardcoding "you can't attack
that person".
Very few muds do this and I think that is because it is quite difficult
to do, esp. using existing codebases. Having hardcoded PK restrictions
(PK guilds etc) is at least as artificial as banning it altogether and
IMO encourages PKing.
Given the general status of muds I think that calling banning PKing
absurd is absurd. Imperfect? yup.
And no, I don't advocate limiting characters to one life.
Robert
Marian Griffith
> cimri <cim...@gte.net> writes:
> > Permadeath can intensify this greatly.
> > And if you know there is no challenge, no risk, well, things
> > get boring, or can.
> My experience with permanent death has been negative, very
> negative. The mud was skill-based, i.e. in order to get a decent char
> you need 50 hours spent repeating the same thing. Be it killing,
> cooking or casting spells on mobs. I may like the excitement of the
> risk, but not the 50 hours of boredom which follow.
At least that could be an encouragement to do some roleplaying. Rather
than risking to lose those fifty hours of work, you and your opponent
deal with your differences by talking to each other ;) Maybe even have
some stylised 'fight' without ever actually crossing blades.
Marian
--
Yes - at last - You. I Choose you. Out of all the world,
out of all the seeking, I have found you, young sister of
my heart! You are mine and I am yours - and never again
will there be loneliness ...
Rolan Choosing Talia,
Arrows of the Queen, by Mercedes Lackey
Jon A. Lambert
On 27 Mar 1998 15:48:47 GMT, mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu spaketh...
>
>When you write a mud background story that believably explains away
>most of the above I'll write one that explains away PK not being
>allowed. (in point of fact I could write either of those background
>stories, but then again my definition of "believable" may be different
>than yours. hmmmm thieves may be a problem though...<sigh>)
>
You're right of course. It can be explained, done convincingly and well
within thematic context for good roleplay. Imagine a more successful
and global experiment than that contained in Crichton's "Terminal Man"
where implants were used to suppress violent behavior. Or the release
of large quantities of mood altering psychotropic drugs over specific
cities like Lem's "Futurological Congress". Or perhaps it has been
discovered how to program/enspell all humans with something similar to
Asimov's "Three laws of robotics".
I think it's much better than "You can't do that here." or "MURDER is
not allowed here. Type help PKILL for more information."
--
--/*\ Jon A. Lambert - TychoMUD Email:jlsy...@nospam.ix.netcom.com /*\--
--/*\ Mud Server Developer's Page <http://www.netcom.com/~jlsysinc> /*\--
--/*\ "Everything that deceives may be said to enchant" - Plato /*\--
Jon A. Lambert
On 27 Mar 1998 16:20:54 GMT, mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu spaketh...
Does the person reincarnate into an adult body?
If so, how does one explain potential time conflicts?
Do they inherite physical characteristics from there previous
body? Hair color, race, physical skills?
Do they retain any memory of their previous life, mental skills,
given name, etc.?
How about social position? Would guilds, religious organizations
wait and look for the reincarnated member to restore them to
a previously held position?
Just some random thoughts... :)
Richard Woolcock
Marian Griffith wrote:
[snip]
> At least that could be an encouragement to do some roleplaying. Rather
> than risking to lose those fifty hours of work, you and your opponent
> deal with your differences by talking to each other ;) Maybe even have
> some stylised 'fight' without ever actually crossing blades.
Hey does anyone remember the insult-fighting on Monkey Island? Now
that would make an interesting addition to combat in a mud...
KaVir.
Sauron
Threshold Online RPG wrote:
>
> In article <6f2gh3$b...@kanto.cc.jyu.fi>, n...@kanto.cc.jyu.fi (Niilo Paasivirta) wrote:
> >Yes, the easiest way is actually to forget MUDs and put up a MUSH
> >without autocombat:
>
> MUSHes are dying fast dude. They are snuggling up with BBSes 6 feet under.
>
> >7) Remove automatic combat completely and require "Storytellers" or
> > such who run all fights, if there are any.
>
> Yeah, making things totally unrealistic is a great way to encourage
> roleplaying. Sorry, but BAD, LOW TECH CODE is not a plus when it comes to
> creating a roleplaying world.
>
> Just because MUSHes are so low tech that they cannot HANDLE anything like
> combat does not mean that it is a good thing.
I'm sorry but this is simply ridiculous. Just because standard MUSH
distributions do NOT come with a built in combat system so lazy people
such as yourself don't need to learn simple MUSHcode (or god forbid this
little known language called C) to create a combat system that is unique
to your envioronment and greatly complements your current world is
reason for you to flame the code? Besides there are many varied combat
systems that are in general distribution for various MUSH codebases.
Quite simply, I doubt your opinion holds much water here. Someone who
has NOT developed their own server that is run on well over 100 sites
and who hasn't been developing code for years on end has little right to
call MUSHes bad, low-tech code.
-Sauron
David Skidmore
I plan on making combat less of a death oriented thing, so that two people
could fight(whether PC's or not) without having to kill each other. Now, once
you have one, there may be some kind of command to finish them off, should you
want to, but it'll be different than the normal combat sequence, so others
will be more likely to notice if you actually killed them, rather than just
fighting till you had them pinned, or whatever.
--Raptor
P.S. That does sound like an interesting idea... I'm not sure how best to go
about it, but it would be interesting...
Ed Murphy
J C Lawrence wrote:
>Another possibility is to design the game so that the average
>life-span of *ANY* character, is (say) 30 hours before the flame-out:
>Short, glorious, and over. The goal is then to make it as far as
>possible before your critter dies of old age or <insert game
>mechanic>.
ParanoiaMUD, anyone?
--
Ed Murphy <fo...@bayside.net>
http://www.bayside.net/users/ford/
"Don't tell me what I already know." -Richard Feng
The Wildman
On Sat, 28 Mar 1998 17:57:37 -0500, Wildman's eyes rolled up in his head and
froth dripped from his fangs when David Skidmore <dss...@osfmail.isc.rit.edu>
said the following fighting words:
>
>I plan on making combat less of a death oriented thing, so that two people
>could fight(whether PC's or not) without having to kill each other. Now, once
>you have one, there may be some kind of command to finish them off, should you
>want to, but it'll be different than the normal combat sequence, so others
>will be more likely to notice if you actually killed them, rather than just
>fighting till you had them pinned, or whatever.
>
>--Raptor
>
>P.S. That does sound like an interesting idea... I'm not sure how best to go
>about it, but it would be interesting...
>
>
is unconscious - the person standing would have to keep hitting them to kill
them. (Of course, hungry animals would do this anyway) Additionally, one
could continue to hit the corpse - try and get resurrected when you've been
torn into a million pieces by a pack of wolves! :D
Of course, this bleeds into that perm-death/no-perm-death thread, which I'd
rather avoid.
--
The Wildman
Threshold Online RPG
In article <6fjofs$c...@newsops.execpc.com>, Sauron <dl...@kusd.kusd.edu> wrote:
>I'm sorry but this is simply ridiculous. Just because standard MUSH
>distributions do NOT come with a built in combat system so lazy people
>such as yourself don't need to learn simple MUSHcode (or god forbid this
>little known language called C)
Hey moron. Try reading the group before you start getting personal with such
silly flames that make you look ridiculous.
I am the SOLE programmer and admin on my mud and I wrote my lib from scratch.
Is that what you consider lazy? I didn't download some stock shit, slap in
some areas, and call it a mud. Further, why would I want to use that kludge of
a language you call MUSHcode when I can use something that is actually
functional and useable like C and/or LPC?
>Quite simply, I doubt your opinion holds much water here. Someone who
>has NOT developed their own server that is run on well over 100 sites
>and who hasn't been developing code for years on end has little right to
>call MUSHes bad, low-tech code.
You really should know who you are flaming before you start spewing bullshit.
I *did* write my mudlib *AND* my own combat code.
Get a clue moron. MUSH is low tech code that is designed for making advanced
chat room. It might be passable at that, but that is where its utility
ceases. If anyone wants something more advanced, there are far superior ways
to go about creating it.
Sauron
Threshold Online RPG wrote:
>
> In article <6fjofs$c...@newsops.execpc.com>, Sauron <dl...@kusd.kusd.edu> wrote:
> >I'm sorry but this is simply ridiculous. Just because standard MUSH
> >distributions do NOT come with a built in combat system so lazy people
> >such as yourself don't need to learn simple MUSHcode (or god forbid this
> >little known language called C)
>
> Hey moron. Try reading the group before you start getting personal with such
> silly flames that make you look ridiculous.
>
> I am the SOLE programmer and admin on my mud and I wrote my lib from scratch.
> Is that what you consider lazy? I didn't download some stock shit, slap in
> some areas, and call it a mud. Further, why would I want to use that kludge of
> a language you call MUSHcode when I can use something that is actually
> functional and useable like C and/or LPC?
Pardon me, but YOU should learn what you're talking about before
flaming. Wrinting a mudlib is VERY different than writing a server from
scratch, and IMHO a trained monkey could write a mudlib. Besides,
PennMUSH is written in straight C so you don't even have to use the
MUSHcode, perhaps taking a minute or two to actually read a post before
flaming about it would actually convince people to take you seriously
for once.
> >Quite simply, I doubt your opinion holds much water here. Someone who
> >has NOT developed their own server that is run on well over 100 sites
> >and who hasn't been developing code for years on end has little right to
> >call MUSHes bad, low-tech code.
>
> You really should know who you are flaming before you start spewing bullshit.
> I *did* write my mudlib *AND* my own combat code.
>
> Get a clue moron. MUSH is low tech code that is designed for making advanced
> chat room. It might be passable at that, but that is where its utility
> ceases. If anyone wants something more advanced, there are far superior ways
> to go about creating it.
Obviously you are NOT at all familiar with "other ways" of going about
it considering you're sitting here boasting about writing a mudlib and
combat code and flaming those people who have taken a significant amount
of time to make a very useful server.
-Sauron
John Adelsberger
Threshold Online RPG (thre...@counseltech.com) wrote:
: PK restrictions creates a totally artificial distinction between NPCs and PCs.
I don't mean to be rude, but you're allowing your notion of a mud to interfere
with your thinking - a mud could well have mortal NPCs and immortal PC
deities who cannot be killed.
--
John J. Adelsberger III
j...@umr.edu
"Civilization is the process of setting man free from men."
- Ayn Rand
Nathan Alexander Simington
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu wrote:
[with regards to realism -- snipped list of future features to program]
> eyes that will adjust to light levels
I believe TorilMUD has something comparable to this, at least for mobs,
and I'm sure I've seen it for items/room descs some place too...
Nathan
John Adelsberger
Sauron (dl...@kusd.kusd.edu) wrote:
: Pardon me, but YOU should learn what you're talking about before
: flaming. Wrinting a mudlib is VERY different than writing a server from
: scratch, and IMHO a trained monkey could write a mudlib.
Maybe on a MUSH; I don't know what those PoS servers refer to as 'lib,' if
they use the term at all. An LPC mudlib, however, you will not find
written by trained monkeys - even trained humans mostly fail. In fact,
I suspect that all the decent ones out there have been written by people
whose programming skills are at a professional level, whereas I've yet
to see a MUSH that wasn't run by college freshmen who were given space
on a grad student's machine. MUSH as a codebase is outdated, ugly, has
a piss poor internal language, is inefficient beyond belief, and uses
an archaic database that can only support, at most, a few thousand
objects. MudOS(the current leader of the LP crowd) has an excellent
internal language, is up to date in most respects, can be compiled to
be downright gorgeous at the interface level, can be incredibly
efficient, and can support as many objects as you have disk for, with
a working set as large as you have memory for.
: Besides,
: PennMUSH is written in straight C so you don't even have to use the
: MUSHcode, perhaps taking a minute or two to actually read a post before
: flaming about it would actually convince people to take you seriously
: for once.
Ooh, another hardcoded piece of shit. Who cares? Go tell the dick-u
crowd.
: > >Quite simply, I doubt your opinion holds much water here. Someone who
: > >has NOT developed their own server that is run on well over 100 sites
: > >and who hasn't been developing code for years on end has little right to
: > >call MUSHes bad, low-tech code.
MUSHes are bad, low-tech code. I have every right to say it. You may
disagree, but this is because you have no clue what the competition can
do; you are in the same position as a Mac geek trying to compare MacOS
to Unix: clueless. You talk about numbers of users as though this is
related to quality; by your logic, Windows 3.1 and 95 are the best software
ever created.
: Obviously you are NOT at all familiar with "other ways" of going about
: it considering you're sitting here boasting about writing a mudlib and
: combat code and flaming those people who have taken a significant amount
: of time to make a very useful server.
You obviously don't know what mudlib means on an LP. Suffice it to say
that Aristotle's written more code BY HIMSELF than PennMUSH consists of
IN TOTAL, and that a SMALL FRACTION of it could be used to emulate
PennMUSH COMPLETELY with a few cosmetic changes(and a mushcode
interpreter, if you want that, which would be almost trivial in LPC.)
I would suggest you get yourself directly to someplace like Idea Exchange
or Lima Bean and do some serious reading so you can at least begin to
comprehend your folly.
Threshold Online RPG
In article <351ef...@news.cc.umr.edu>, j...@ultra3.cc.umr.edu (John Adelsberger) wrote:
>Sauron (dl...@kusd.kusd.edu) wrote:
>: Pardon me, but YOU should learn what you're talking about before
>: flaming. Wrinting a mudlib is VERY different than writing a server from
>: scratch, and IMHO a trained monkey could write a mudlib.
>
>Maybe on a MUSH; I don't know what those PoS servers refer to as 'lib,' if
>they use the term at all. An LPC mudlib, however, you will not find
>written by trained monkeys - even trained humans mostly fail. In fact,
>I suspect that all the decent ones out there have been written by people
>whose programming skills are at a professional level, whereas I've yet
>to see a MUSH that wasn't run by college freshmen who were given space
>on a grad student's machine. MUSH as a codebase is outdated, ugly, has
>a piss poor internal language, is inefficient beyond belief, and uses
>an archaic database that can only support, at most, a few thousand
>objects. MudOS(the current leader of the LP crowd) has an excellent
>internal language, is up to date in most respects, can be compiled to
>be downright gorgeous at the interface level, can be incredibly
>efficient, and can support as many objects as you have disk for, with
>a working set as large as you have memory for.
>
>disagree, but this is because you have no clue what the competition can
>do; you are in the same position as a Mac geek trying to compare MacOS
>to Unix: clueless. You talk about numbers of users as though this is
>related to quality; by your logic, Windows 3.1 and 95 are the best software
>ever created.
I was going to respond to Sauron, but I really do not see how I could say it
any better than it was said in the above paragraphs.
>You obviously don't know what mudlib means on an LP. Suffice it to say
>that Aristotle's written more code BY HIMSELF than PennMUSH consists of
>IN TOTAL, and that a SMALL FRACTION of it could be used to emulate
>PennMUSH COMPLETELY with a few cosmetic changes(and a mushcode
>interpreter, if you want that, which would be almost trivial in LPC.)
That is part of what I find so funny about his flames of me that I don't know
anything about coding and that I have probably never coded before. PENNMush is
a gross hack piece of crap that any LPmudlib programmer could duplicate far
more efficiently if he ever wanted to do such a silly thing.
Maybe he/she would want to program a MUSH area inside his mud =)
Nathan Fenenga Yospe
Ed Murphy, is it true that on Sat, 28 Mar 1998 21:51:53 -0800, you posted
to rec.games.mud.admin:
: J C Lawrence wrote:
: >Another possibility is to design the game so that the average
: >life-span of *ANY* character, is (say) 30 hours before the flame-out:
: >Short, glorious, and over. The goal is then to make it as far as
: >possible before your critter dies of old age or <insert game
: >mechanic>.
: ParanoiaMUD, anyone?
Working on it, though I'll have to avoid the trademarked name... No, it's a
different one, much simpler than Physmud++...
--
John Adelsberger
I posted one flame of this, but the guy is so incredibly stupid that I'm
going to do it again.
Sauron (dl...@kusd.kusd.edu) wrote:
: I'm sorry but this is simply ridiculous. Just because standard MUSH
: distributions do NOT come with a built in combat system so lazy people
: such as yourself don't need to learn simple MUSHcode (or god forbid this
: little known language called C)
I'll bet money Aristotle is a harder working and more knowledgable
programmer than you are. We're talking about a guy who, presumably,
has written _megabytes_ of code for his game. I don't think a MUSH
can even support that much code without collapsing under its own
weight - the database you guys use sucks _that badly._ :-)
: Besides there are many varied combat
: systems that are in general distribution for various MUSH codebases.
All of them that I've seen sucked wind and gave change.
: Quite simply, I doubt your opinion holds much water here. Someone who
: has NOT developed their own server that is run on well over 100 sites
: and who hasn't been developing code for years on end has little right to
: call MUSHes bad, low-tech code.
MUSHes are bad, low tech code. The database in use is workable but not
particularly scalable, the internal scripting language is the worst I've
ever seen(it reminds me of abortions like Intercal and Befunge,) and
they consume resources like they were going out of style. In addition,
they are not at all object oriented, and one can usually adapt a talker
to do everything a given MUSH does in about a week's worth of work.
In addition, MUSHes suffer because bad code generally has bad users, and
as a result, I've yet to see a MUSH whose staff could spell words longer
than 4 characters with any kind of reliability.
Look at Cold as an example of a conceptually similar server(in some ways)
that doesn't blow goats. Actually, as the only example of which I'm
aware. Frankly, the database approach has very few benefits and a great
deal of drawbacks, especially as opposed to an LP style object per file
hierarchical 'filesystem database.' It requires more code(which means
more complexity, probably for admins/coders as well as for designers of
the server itself,) it confers zero speed, reliability, and functionality
advantages, it isn't nearly as scalable in the general case(yes, you could
backend it to oracle; if you do this, I don't want to know:) and it almost
certainly means you can't use existing tools to manipulate game objects
under development(tools like, say, vi?:-) Cold gets around most of this,
but in point of fact, it doesn't derive any particular benefit from its
database as opposed to an LP style, and it is vastly more complex. And
hey, Cold is as good as it gets, just about, unless of course you want
to do something like clawrence's time travel mud:-) (No, you can't do
what he's doing on a MUSH. Please post about how you did it in half
an hour, b/c I'd like to see him flame you too:-)
A. Eschenburg
The Wildman <wildman-s...@microserve.net> schrieb im Beitrag
<slrn6hr8eg.9vg.w...@foobar.net>...
: On Sat, 28 Mar 1998 17:57:37 -0500, Wildman's eyes rolled up in his head
:
If you ask me, the player should be able to "preset" wether he wants to go
on trying to kill his enemy once that is helpless.. though you might want
to
introduce a few possibilities for those that actually refrain from
killing.. like
tieing the helpless player up, or robbing him blind ect. That might give
them
an incentive to refrain from killing after all.
Axel
John Adelsberger
Distribution:
A. Eschenburg <esc...@harlie.han.de> wrote:
: If you ask me, the player should be able to "preset" wether he wants to go
: on trying to kill his enemy once that is helpless.. though you might want
: to introduce a few possibilities for those that actually refrain from
: killing..
The point that occurs to me is that there should be a chance of killing
whether you mean to or not; a single good hit(accidental or otherwise)
can kill someone, even with bare hands, not to mention bladed weapons
and so forth. Also, for some themes, this won't make sense(if you
hit him with the subtac nuke mortar round, he's _most likely_ dead...:-)
That said, thanks, you've just added something else to my combat system.
Hehe...
cmel...@techindex.co.uk
In article <351ec...@news.cc.umr.edu>,
j...@ultra5.cc.umr.edu (John Adelsberger) wrote:
>
> Threshold Online RPG (thre...@counseltech.com) wrote:
>
> : PK restrictions creates a totally artificial distinction between NPCs and
PCs.
> I don't mean to be rude, but you're allowing your notion of a mud to
interfere
> with your thinking - a mud could well have mortal NPCs and immortal PC
> deities who cannot be killed.
Then at least describe them as such instead of making them out to be normal
humans etc.
> --
> John J. Adelsberger III
> j...@umr.edu
>
> "Civilization is the process of setting man free from men."
>
> - Ayn Rand
>
Roger Christie
John Adelsberger wrote:
>
the usual bullshit.
>
I can assure you of two things John, at least with respect to
PennMUSH.
Not only are the primary developers extremely talented and
more than competent, they aren't arrogant assholes. A quality you
ought to strongly consider cultivating.
> Maybe on a MUSH; I don't know what those PoS servers refer to as 'lib,' if
> they use the term at all. An LPC mudlib, however, you will not find
> written by trained monkeys - even trained humans mostly fail. In fact,
> I suspect that all the decent ones out there have been written by people
> whose programming skills are at a professional level, whereas I've yet
> to see a MUSH that wasn't run by college freshmen who were given space
> on a grad student's machine. MUSH as a codebase is outdated, ugly, has
> a piss poor internal language, is inefficient beyond belief, and uses
> an archaic database that can only support, at most, a few thousand
> objects.
Tell it to the mushes with 20,000+ objects you pathetic creep.
No one cares that you don't like mushes, in fact, I consider it
a badge of honor that you wouldn't be caught dead associating with
the likes of us. But you can lose the lies and misinformation.
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
jlsy...@spammenot.ix.netcom.com (Jon A. Lambert) writes:
>mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu spaketh...
>>jlsy...@spammenot.ix.netcom.com (Jon A. Lambert) writes:
>>> Just what would the
>>>social/political/cultural effects be in a world where death was not final?
>>
>>In my planned mud:
>>=====
>>When a person dies their spiritual self goes into the ethereal plane.
>>For as long as there have been priests all sentient beings have been
>>given 7 chances each to fulfill their lives, but only within their
>>natural lifespan.
>>
>>[]the most chances anybody can have is 7*7 or 49.
>>
>>When a person is reincarnated EndPts, FatPts, HPs, Mana are all set at
>>(1-age/(natural lifespan))*(normal max)
>>=====
>Does the person reincarnate into an adult body?
>Do they inherite physical characteristics from there previous
>body? Hair color, race, physical skills?
>Do they retain any memory of their previous life, mental skills,
>given name, etc.?
>How about social position? Would guilds, religious organizations
>wait and look for the reincarnated member to restore them to
>a previously held position?
>Just some random thoughts... :)
That's what I like about this place, all the trouble makers who make you
think :)
I knew the answers to the above questions, but now I have to work out
the details...
In the simplest case, Joe dies and is immediately reincarnated his
"old" body (body only, not possessions) dissolves, that matter is
sucked into the etherial plane and follows the soul back into the
material plane.
"Death shock" will drop skills somewhat.
The question is: what happens when the original body has been seriously
dismembered/eaten in the meantime?
Perhaps a more serious drop in hit/endurance/ ... points or even of primary
characteristics ...
A question: What does "remort" mean?
I am looking for a different word from "reincarnation" to use, as that
implies rebirth as an infant, and (at least temporary) loss of memory
of previous life.
Any suggestions?
Robert
michael...@abnamro.com
In article <6fjofs$c...@newsops.execpc.com>,
Sauron <dl...@kusd.kusd.edu> wrote:
>
> Threshold Online RPG wrote:
> >
Paasivirta) wrote:
> > >Yes, the easiest way is actually to forget MUDs and put up a MUSH
> > >without autocombat:
> >
> > MUSHes are dying fast dude. They are snuggling up with BBSes 6 feet under.
> >
> > >7) Remove automatic combat completely and require "Storytellers" or
> > > such who run all fights, if there are any.
> >
> > Yeah, making things totally unrealistic is a great way to encourage
> > roleplaying. Sorry, but BAD, LOW TECH CODE is not a plus when it comes to
> > creating a roleplaying world.
> >
> > Just because MUSHes are so low tech that they cannot HANDLE anything like
> > combat does not mean that it is a good thing.
>
> distributions do NOT come with a built in combat system so lazy people
> such as yourself don't need to learn simple MUSHcode (or god forbid this
> to your envioronment and greatly complements your current world is
> systems that are in general distribution for various MUSH codebases.
> has NOT developed their own server that is run on well over 100 sites
> and who hasn't been developing code for years on end has little right to
> call MUSHes bad, low-tech code.
>
>
Nah, Ari's just a big fan of stock code. If it doesn't come with the server,
it must be impossible... ;-)
michael...@abnamro.com
In article <6fkkat$j9q$1...@usenet51.supernews.com>, Aristotle, the
ultimate guru of MUSH code wrote:
>
> In article <6fjofs$c...@newsops.execpc.com>, Sauron <dl...@kusd.kusd.edu>
wrote:
> >distributions do NOT come with a built in combat system so lazy people
> >such as yourself don't need to learn simple MUSHcode (or god forbid this
> >little known language called C)
>
> silly flames that make you look ridiculous.
Hey moron. Try reading the group before you start getting personal with such
silly flames that make you look ridiculous.
>
> I am the SOLE programmer and admin on my mud and I wrote my lib from
scratch.
> Is that what you consider lazy?
Well, then, you certainly would be opposed to someone else doing the same in
another codebase.
> I didn't download some stock shit, slap in
> some areas, and call it a mud. Further, why would I want to use that kludge
of
> a language you call MUSHcode when I can use something that is actually
> functional and useable like C and/or LPC?
First, if this person plans on writing a combat system from scratch in a
codebase that doesn't support it currently, that hardly qualifies as scratch.
(And we *all* know that *nobody* has *ever* downloaded a scratch LP or Diku
library and 'slapped in some areas'. New areas would be too much work.)
Further, using LPC as an example of the *opposite* of kludgy languages is
simply brilliant on your part. I cannot argue. We have never had poor code
floating in our collective libraries; we've never kludged on new code over old
that didn't quite fit right. In fact, there has never been a bug in the
entire history of LPC. We are supreme. We are godlike. Anyone disagreeing
with Aristotle is simply and completely wrong.
>
> >Quite simply, I doubt your opinion holds much water here. Someone who
> >has NOT developed their own server that is run on well over 100 sites
> >and who hasn't been developing code for years on end has little right to
> >call MUSHes bad, low-tech code.
>
> You really should know who you are flaming before you start spewing
bullshit.
> I *did* write my mudlib *AND* my own combat code.
And your server is run on how many sites? One? (Arguably two, but that is
being debated in another thread)
>
> Get a clue moron. MUSH is low tech code that is designed for making advanced
> chat room. It might be passable at that, but that is where its utility
> ceases. If anyone wants something more advanced, there are far superior ways
> to go about creating it.
Get a clue moron. Try it before you slam it. I have. I preferred LPC, as it
is infinately closer to the programming languages I am familiar with. I
didn't like LISP, either, but that doesn't stop it from having useful
applications.
>
> -Aristotle@Threshold
>
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> VISIT THRESHOLD ONLINE! High Fantasy Role Playing Game!
> Player run clans, guilds, businesses, legal system, nobility, missile
> combat, detailed religions, rich, detailed roleplaying environment.
>
> http://www.threshold.counseltech.com
> telnet://threshold.counseltech.com:23
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
John Adelsberger
Threshold Online RPG (thre...@counseltech.com) wrote:
: just a communication medium like a chat room. By the logic of the person I
: responded to, you could run a GREAT RPG over a conference call. I really fail
: to see how that would be much of a true 'game'.
Actually, the key is in what the game is. It may not be a game in the sense
of a set of mechanics, but it might be a very enjoyable game in a wider
sense; a role playing game really isn't a set of mechanics; its a story.
John Adelsberger
Roger Christie (rchr...@spinach.xylogics.com) wrote:
: Not only are the primary developers extremely talented and
: more than competent, they aren't arrogant assholes. A quality you
: ought to strongly consider cultivating.
On the contrary, I am very deliberately cultivating my arrogance.
: Tell it to the mushes with 20,000+ objects you pathetic creep.
Ooh... 20,000+... I'll have more than that in my hometown in all likelihood
you loser. My _players_ will likely _own_ more objects than that.
By an order of magnitude, perhaps.
: No one cares that you don't like mushes
I do. At least one other poster does. Apparently, _you_ don't. Learn
to cope.
: But you can lose the lies and misinformation.
If you mean that I should quit pointing out that you are running mediocre
games on servers with crappy scripting languages and piss poor databases,
I will not. If you mean that I missstated the number of obs a 'modern'
mush can support, I may have - it may be that instead of being amazingly,
utterly, insanely, ridiculously insufficient in power, the newer ones are
only amazingly, utterly, insanely insufficient.
Roger Christie
John Adelsberger wrote:
>
> Roger Christie (rchr...@spinach.xylogics.com) wrote:
>
> : Not only are the primary developers extremely talented and
> : more than competent, they aren't arrogant assholes. A quality you
> : ought to strongly consider cultivating.
>
> On the contrary, I am very deliberately cultivating my arrogance.
Then shut up and take it when other folks identify you for the total
jerk that you are, since you claim to revel in it.
Be interesting to see how long that attitude lasts in the real world
though.
>
> : Tell it to the mushes with 20,000+ objects you pathetic creep.
>
> Ooh... 20,000+... I'll have more than that in my hometown in all likelihood
> you loser. My _players_ will likely _own_ more objects than that.
> By an order of magnitude, perhaps.
>
> : No one cares that you don't like mushes
>
> I do. At least one other poster does. Apparently, _you_ don't. Learn
> to cope.
Yeah, your siamese twin Aristotle. Birds of a feather.
>
> : But you can lose the lies and misinformation.
>
> If you mean that I should quit pointing out that you are running mediocre
> games on servers with crappy scripting languages and piss poor databases,
> I will not. If you mean that I missstated the number of obs a 'modern'
> mush can support, I may have - it may be that instead of being amazingly,
> utterly, insanely, ridiculously insufficient in power, the newer ones are
> only amazingly, utterly, insanely insufficient.
You wouldn't know a mediocre game, or roleplaying for that matter, if
it up and bit you on the ass.
Threshold Online RPG
In article <352007...@spinach.xylogics.com>, Roger Christie <rchr...@spinach.xylogics.com> wrote:
>John Adelsberger wrote:
>> Roger Christie (rchr...@spinach.xylogics.com) wrote:
>>
>> : Not only are the primary developers extremely talented and
>> : more than competent, they aren't arrogant assholes. A quality you
>> : ought to strongly consider cultivating.
>>
>> On the contrary, I am very deliberately cultivating my arrogance.
>
>though.
Good logic- since we all know there is no such thing as a successful person
that is arrogant. *roll eyes*
>> : Tell it to the mushes with 20,000+ objects you pathetic creep.
>>
>> Ooh... 20,000+... I'll have more than that in my hometown in all likelihood
>> you loser. My _players_ will likely _own_ more objects than that.
>> By an order of magnitude, perhaps.
>
>Yeah, your siamese twin Aristotle. Birds of a feather.
Nice attempt to dodge the issue. This doesn't change the fact that MUSHes are
weak, pathetic little toy programs that consider 20,000 objects a miracle. I
just checked and Threshold is right now on object #1169816. Yes MUSHboy, that
is over a million. And, running under 22% memory usage (128 megs heh)
>You wouldn't know a mediocre game, or roleplaying for that matter, if
>it up and bit you on the ass.
Just because he disagrees with you and can prove it he doesn't know anything
about roleplaying? Great argument! =)
Look dude. Nobody forced you to use that low tech piece of crap known as MUSH.
If you wanted something more powerful, you could use it. If you do not want or
need something powerful, then that is fine. But don't pretend that MUSH code
*is* powerful when the truth is that its quite weak.
Threshold Online RPG
In article <6foudv$vrf$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, michael...@abnamro.com wrote:
>In article <6fkkat$j9q$1...@usenet51.supernews.com>, Aristotle, the
>ultimate guru of MUSH code wrote:
>>
>> In article <6fjofs$c...@newsops.execpc.com>, Sauron <dl...@kusd.kusd.edu>
>wrote:
>> >I'm sorry but this is simply ridiculous. Just because standard MUSH
>> >distributions do NOT come with a built in combat system so lazy people
>> >such as yourself don't need to learn simple MUSHcode (or god forbid this
>> >little known language called C)
>>
>> Hey moron. Try reading the group before you start getting personal with such
>> silly flames that make you look ridiculous.
>
>Hey moron. Try reading the group before you start getting personal with such
>silly flames that make you look ridiculous.
At least my flame was original. I didn't copy someone else's =)
Further, it was personal when he foolishly tried to claim I was a
"lazy programmer".
>Further, using LPC as an example of the *opposite* of kludgy languages is
>simply brilliant on your part. I cannot argue. We have never had poor code
>floating in our collective libraries; we've never kludged on new code over old
>that didn't quite fit right. In fact, there has never been a bug in the
>entire history of LPC. We are supreme. We are godlike. Anyone disagreeing
>with Aristotle is simply and completely wrong.
I have no idea where you are getting this. I never said LP style code was the
best thing in the universe. However, it is a helluva lot more powerful than
MUSH, and it has a lot more capability for exapansion and variety.
>And your server is run on how many sites? One? (Arguably two, but that is
>being debated in another thread)
Ok, by your logic, Windows95 is the best OS on the planet since it is running
on the most computers.
The fact that I don't want to give away my lib for free has no relevance on
whether or not my code is more advanced than MUSH.
>Get a clue moron. Try it before you slam it. I have. I preferred LPC, as it
>is infinately closer to the programming languages I am familiar with. I
>didn't like LISP, either, but that doesn't stop it from having useful
>applications.
I have tried it. Maybe you should take your own advice. MUSH is very weak,
featureless code that is nearly impossible to make significant alterations and
expansions of.
Take your own advice and don't blindly flame me because you have some kind of
bone to pick. Stick to the issue. The issue is the fact that MUSH code is very
simple, low tech, and has limited utility.
Threshold Online RPG
In article <6fosp7$u92$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, michael...@abnamro.com wrote:
>In article <6fjofs$c...@newsops.execpc.com>,
> Sauron <dl...@kusd.kusd.edu> wrote:
>> I'm sorry but this is simply ridiculous. Just because standard MUSH
>> distributions do NOT come with a built in combat system so lazy people
>> such as yourself don't need to learn simple MUSHcode (or god forbid this
>> Quite simply, I doubt your opinion holds much water here. Someone who
>> has NOT developed their own server
>>
>>
>
>Nah, Ari's just a big fan of stock code. If it doesn't come with the server,
>it must be impossible... ;-)
I couldn't quite figure out what you meant with that last statement. My
opinion is that things *SHOULDN'T* come with the server. People should write
them on their own and make them original and interesting.
The fact is that MUSHes are very low tech, and use a very weak database system
in order to deal with the game. There is simply no way you could produce
anything comparable with a MUSH that you could much easier program in an LP or
even a DIKU.
John Adelsberger
michael...@abnamro.com wrote:
Let me point out that the combination of overusing sarcasm and your utter
inability to do sarcasm well don't bode well for you abandoning the day
job before moving on...
: Further, using LPC as an example of the *opposite* of kludgy languages is
: simply brilliant on your part. I cannot argue. We have never had poor code
: floating in our collective libraries; we've never kludged on new code over old
: that didn't quite fit right. In fact, there has never been a bug in the
: entire history of LPC. We are supreme. We are godlike. Anyone disagreeing
: with Aristotle is simply and completely wrong.
My LP setup suffers from none of these problems. It is elegant. It is
clean. It is even fast and scalable. I can't say that for MUSHes, in
any incarnation, ever, period, end of statement.
: And your server is run on how many sites? One? (Arguably two, but that is
: being debated in another thread)
He's probably proud of the fact that its so limited in use. I would be.
Stock crap is just that.
: Get a clue moron. Try it before you slam it. I have. I preferred LPC, as it
: is infinately closer to the programming languages I am familiar with. I
: didn't like LISP, either, but that doesn't stop it from having useful
: applications.
I played a couple MUSHes, a MOO, and a MUSE. They all are very similar,
and they all suck. The last lets everyone code, so I've coded on them
too. That sucks too. They suck. Period.
Roger Christie
Threshold Online RPG wrote:
>
> In article <352007...@spinach.xylogics.com>, Roger Christie <rchr...@spinach.xylogics.com> wrote:
> >John Adelsberger wrote:
> >> Roger Christie (rchr...@spinach.xylogics.com) wrote:
> >>
> >> : Not only are the primary developers extremely talented and
> >> : more than competent, they aren't arrogant assholes. A quality you
> >> : ought to strongly consider cultivating.
> >>
> >> On the contrary, I am very deliberately cultivating my arrogance.
> >
> >Be interesting to see how long that attitude lasts in the real world
> >though.
>
> Good logic- since we all know there is no such thing as a successful person
> that is arrogant. *roll eyes*
I have yet to see any evidence of John's 'talent' or 'success', beyond
his success at being utterly antisocial and pathological. I can
assure you however that his attitude wouldn't get him very far
at most of the companies I've worked at. No matter how good he was.
>
> >> : Tell it to the mushes with 20,000+ objects you pathetic creep.
> >>
> >> Ooh... 20,000+... I'll have more than that in my hometown in all likelihood
> >> you loser. My _players_ will likely _own_ more objects than that.
> >> By an order of magnitude, perhaps.
> >
> >Yeah, your siamese twin Aristotle. Birds of a feather.
>
> Nice attempt to dodge the issue. This doesn't change the fact that MUSHes are
> weak, pathetic little toy programs that consider 20,000 objects a miracle. I
> just checked and Threshold is right now on object #1169816. Yes MUSHboy, that
> is over a million. And, running under 22% memory usage (128 megs heh)
All of which begs the issue that he claims a MUSH couldn't handle
more than 'a few thousand' objects, which is bullshit, plain and simple.
No amount of backtracking now can erase that. And then of course
theres the question of what in god's name you /need/ more than
a million objects for.
>
> >You wouldn't know a mediocre game, or roleplaying for that matter, if
> >it up and bit you on the ass.
>
> Just because he disagrees with you and can prove it he doesn't know anything
> about roleplaying? Great argument! =)
I have no problem with disagreement. There is a difference between
disagreement and pathogical antisocial behavior. John doesn't
disagree, he assaults.
I'm not sure what the his 'proving' that he disagrees with me
has to do with anything.
>
> Look dude. Nobody forced you to use that low tech piece of crap known as MUSH.
Nobody forced you to be an asshole either, but you manage quite
sucessfully. Dude.
> If you wanted something more powerful, you could use it. If you do not want or
> need something powerful, then that is fine. But don't pretend that MUSH code
> *is* powerful when the truth is that its quite weak.
I have used and do use other things. In point of fact, I like LP,
I just don't like the general MUD obsession mobs, monsters, classes,
races, levels, etc etc. I also like Genesis/Cold, probably better than
anything else thats out there right now.
None of which alters the fact that it doesn't take a roadmap to see
that you have absolutely no knowledge of the current state of the
various MUSH servers.
I might point out that, since you're so fond of whining about stock
MUDs, there /are/ no stock mushes.