A Discussion of what makes a good RP MUD
Bill
Not the rules of the IMMs but the rules of how the world works.
2: Pantheon of Gods or a Single God.
A single God may not bee good. A pantheon of Gods with varied
alignments that strive for mastery and control. Dragonlance is a good
example of this.
3: History of the world till the time it starts on the MUD.
What has happened in the world. Personally I think that a vague
history with key points along the way would be best to start and as
time goes by the key points can be expanded.
4: What is happening present time.
Wheel of Time is the battle of Armegeddon(SP) getting closer. What
is happening in your world that is world shaking if anything. It can
be a localized issue or total world encompassing. Is there a
War like in Wheel of Time and Dragonlance happening. There can
still be minor regional issues for the players to work on.
5: Classes/Groups that are divided on the lines of the Gods.
Wheel of Time is great for this. Gleeman, Asha'man, Whitecloaks
Aes Sedai.
6: Remeber that there are no new concepts to use.
Hero VS Evil that is what it is all about in RP. You may be an
Evil Hero vs Good as well. All is possible but the basic concept
still is there. It is how the story is told. Why do people like
Wheel of Time, it is because of the storytelling. What is the
difference between a rich Bard and a poor Bard, why it is the
ability to properly entertain the people.
7: Remeber that there is no new concepts to use.
I know I am repeating this but it bears repeating. It is almost
impossible to create a new concept. You can write a good story and
present it to the players to expand upon.
8: When all is said and done the code should not stop the RP.
Is it worthwhile to have a 100 room road from one zone to another?
If the RP is the main aim of the MUD then it doesnt matter. Let the
Hack and Slashers have fun but dont limit the RPers actions
through code. I have never and will never agree with the concept
that someone needs to support RP with code ability. With a good group
of consistent IMMs watching over the MUD most of the time this
will not be a problem. Someone will not be able to start a Super
Powerful character in RP. After all those of you who can RP
effectively will be able to tell the good powerful RPer from the
Munchkin wannabe.
9: Quests should not be code or for whoever is on at the moment.
When you run a quest for the MUD and only the people online at the
time benefit you are cutting into your RP and risking that someone
will play favorites. A limited quest is going to alienate those
who arent there when it happens and there will be accusations of
favoritism. I am not saying dont do it. What I am saying is come up
with a plot. One that needs a couple IMMs to play characters and
pass out information and leave clues. The beggar in the corner starts
screaming about the Light Master. A couple days later a child walks
into a bar and says beware the Light Master is coming.
A week goes by and nothing people comment and some find out about
both incidents and start to wonder. A man walks into town collapses
and starts babbling a prophecy of the return of the Light Master.
More people become aware and start RPing about what it could be.
What or who is this light master. An NPC running the Bards College
unearths an old book that talks about this Light Master. Those who
prefer RP will see what I would be doing here. All this will be
set in the rules of the world.
10: Police people for names that are not consistent with the world.
Create guidlines and rules about names and what they mean. One
character I had was named Chance. This is consistent with a fantasy
world since it could easily be what the parents thought when he was
born. Problems arose that the Priest told my parents that there was
no chance of them having a child. When I was born they thought it
appropriate that Chance was my name as I was there only chance at
a child. If someone has a name and they have a good story
explaining why it is valid let it go. Most of you good RPers know
what a BAD name would be. Mr AOL over here with Joe542 or any
person with a number in their name. Book names are tough. With
Wheel of Time MUDs I cannot see any variations on the name Rand.
Randthor and others if I think about it would not be good.
I think that is my start at a discussion and hopefully there will be a
MUD out there that wants to be RP that will think about these ideas.
Maybe some that are considering something that might be negative to RP
will reconsider after reading this.
Bramage
--
Fraternally
William Lessard
Ezekiel Bates Lodge AF&AM Attleboro Mass
Wayne Lodge #112 F&AM Michigan
Master Mason
Humble (usually) student of life
Do one good selfless act for a fellow human every day
Taoist
Federal Law allows for compensation of upto $500 per unsolicited E-mail.
Any person or company sending me e-mail solicitng any service or product
agrees
to this per e-mail charge of $500.
Brad
news:3A21D2FD...@bastardclan.com...
> 1: A world with the rules laid out.
> 2: Pantheon of Gods or a Single God.
> 3: History of the world till the time it starts on the MUD.
> 4: What is happening present time.
> 5: Classes/Groups that are divided on the lines of the Gods.
> 6: Remeber that there are no new concepts to use.
> 7: Remeber that there is no new concepts to use.
> 8: When all is said and done the code should not stop the RP.
> 9: Quests should not be code or for whoever is on at the moment.
> 10: Police people for names that are not consistent with the world.
I don't really think most of this has much to do with RPing, really.
First off, RPing is not dependent upon the codebase or the genre or even the
rules. These things just structure how the RPing is done. Some may be more
beneficial than others, but I don't think they define what makes a good RP
MUD. So that gets rid of numbers 1, 2, 5, 8, and 9.
Second, I've personally thought up quite a few different possible concepts
for my mud that don't revolve around good vs. evil. So 6 and 7 aren't true.
What's left is 3, 4, and 10. I agree, implementing time (not just a
counter, but a true concept of time in a mud) is important, and policing
inappropriate behavior (not necessarily names) is important.
I think what makes a good RPing MUD is simply the story. Everything should
revolve around this story, so you take out the elements that are harmful to
this (such as inappropriate behavior) and you add in things that are helpful
(such as having time--you can't really have a story without time after all).
- Brad
Alan Schwartz
Bill <bramag...@bastardclan.com> writes a very interesting
set of principles for design of RP muds, which I hereafter quote
from and comment on:
>1: A world with the rules laid out.
A consistent world is important to giving characters a sense of their
place in the world.
>2: Pantheon of Gods or a Single God.
This is important to some themes, but not necessary for RP in general.
>3: History of the world till the time it starts on the MUD.
>4: What is happening present time.
Again, this provides a sense of setting that players can use to
enhance their RP.
>5: Classes/Groups that are divided on the lines of the Gods.
Although Gods aren't important, I think very strong arguments can
be made for the need for the players to feel that their characters
have ties to other characters. Muds will strong group/faction loyalties
and cultures and intra- and well as inter-group roleplaying opportunities
are often excellent for RP. As Bill noted, there are some media-based
themes that easily support this because the world is divided into
strongly cultured groups that don't let outsiders very far into their
mysteries and practices.
>6: Remeber that there are no new concepts to use.
>7: Remeber that there is no new concepts to use.
Well, this is an empirical question, so I'll skip it. :)
>8: When all is said and done the code should not stop the RP.
I'd say even more strongly that code should *support* RP whereever
possible. Now, it should be said that I'm used to RPing on games that
usually don't have coded combat (or, when they do, it's often
of the "game compares stats, tells the players what the final outcome
of the fight will be, and the players are to RP it out themselves").
But every piece of code on a serious RP game should be examined
with the questions "will this motivate players to RP, or to
'game the system'? Does this make RPing more difficult?"
Huge worlds, though thematic, can certainly make it harder to run into
someone to RP with.
>9: Quests should not be code or for whoever is on at the moment.
The same questions should be applied to quests, which needn't
be directly essential to RP.
>10: Police people for names that are not consistent with the world.
If you're doing that, police people for *behavior* that's not consistent
with the world. Better yet, promote a culture in which players
strive to be IC and police themselves and each other.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Javelin@M*U*S*H (mush.pennmush.org 4201) | Alan Schwartz
Paul@DuneMUSH | dune...@pennmush.org
Javelin@Belgariad, and elsewhere | PennMUSH Server Maintainer
=-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
PennMUSH God's Guide: http://www.pennmush.org/~alansz/guide.html
PennMUSH Source: ftp://ftp.pennmush.org/pub/PennMUSH/Source
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
KaVir
Bill <bramag...@bastardclan.com> wrote:
>
[snip]
> 1: A world with the rules laid out.
> Not the rules of the IMMs but the rules of how the world works.
So a Matrix/13th Floor/ExistenZ style of mud where "everything is not
as it seems" couldn't be a roleplaying mud?
> 2: Pantheon of Gods or a Single God.
> A single God may not bee good.
So a mud based on a real-world religion couldn't be a roleplaying mud?
> A pantheon of Gods with varied alignments that strive for mastery and
> control. Dragonlance is a good example of this.
Ah, so roleplaying muds have to be fantasy based?
> 3: History of the world till the time it starts on the MUD.
So a post-apocalyptic mud where history is unknown, or a mud based on a
similar concept to the movie "Dark City", couldn't be a roleplaying mud?
> 5: Classes/Groups that are divided on the lines of the Gods.
So a roleplaying mud must have both religion and character classes?
> 6: Remeber that there are no new concepts to use.
> Hero VS Evil that is what it is all about in RP.
A roleplaying mud must be about good vs evil? There can be no shades
of grey? Games like "Vampire the Masquerade", which deal with the
constant struggle to retain ones humanity, are not roleplaying games?
> 8: When all is said and done the code should not stop the RP.
So you cannot have roleplaying in a mud which has automated combat?
KaVir.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Bill
>
> I don't really think most of this has much to do with RPing, really.
>
Your opinion as such as this is all my opinion.
> First off, RPing is not dependent upon the codebase or the genre or even the
> rules. These things just structure how the RPing is done. Some may be more
> beneficial than others, but I don't think they define what makes a good RP
> MUD. So that gets rid of numbers 1, 2, 5, 8, and 9.
>
Not needed?
1: Okay no rules. There is no gravity there is no races that have
certain abilities or different abilities the world is just a blob.
By leaving this out maybe you dont understand what I was commenting
about.
Rules in this case define the world. Maybe I should have said A defined
world setting.
2: True there doesnt necessarily have to be any god or gods but it helps
the IMMs to create a setting and a theme to follow.
5: Okay no classes, No groups we are all a bunch of mindless blobs with
no rhyme or reason to even exist.
8: Cool lets put in code that makes people want to hack and slash and
ignore the RP aspects we are trying to create.
9: Again maybe you missed my discussion of the concept behind the
statement. I am against having little quests for jack and joe and
leaving out John because he isnt on. I am commenting on the overall
theme.
> Second, I've personally thought up quite a few different possible concepts
> for my mud that don't revolve around good vs. evil. So 6 and 7 aren't true.
>
Okay what are they. I bet I can name 5 books written in the last 100
years that use your concepts. It isn't the concept it is the STORY
TELLING that sells. Goodkind and Jordan have written similar stories yet
they both sell very well. Neither concept is new. Doomed Hero in
Jordan's book, Hero and savior in GoodKind.
> What's left is 3, 4, and 10. I agree, implementing time (not just a
> counter, but a true concept of time in a mud) is important, and policing
> inappropriate behavior (not necessarily names) is important.
I wasnt talking about time as in ticks or how long an hour is. I am
talking a Timeline. Look at the Bible, it has a timeline that you can
follow and base your faith if you are Christian. We know first Genesis
then Moses then the flood then Jesus and a bunch of stuff in between and
since.
>
> I think what makes a good RPing MUD is simply the story. Everything should
> revolve around this story, so you take out the elements that are harmful to
> this (such as inappropriate behavior) and you add in things that are helpful
> (such as having time--you can't really have a story without time after all).
>
If you re-read what I posted you will see that these are elements of the
story. With what you have shown me here as your opinion I would most
likely find a MUD based on it as bland. No gods competeing for control.
What are your concepts? IS it Medieval or is it Gangster. I can think of
many concepts that are not related to GOD/GODS. I cannot think of any RP
theme that doesnt pit good vs evil in some way.
When you break any RP related story of Science Fiction, Horror, Fantasy
and some others down to the base concept it is Good VS Evil.
I would like to hear about a good RP theme that was not good vs evil.
Also this is all my opinion not fact and therefore not wrong.
Bill
John Ruiz
> [snip]
>
> > 1: A world with the rules laid out.
> > Not the rules of the IMMs but the rules of how the world works.
>
> as it seems" couldn't be a roleplaying mud?
I think you take the definition of 'rules' a bit far. Consider that the
Matrix quote "some rules can be bent; others can be broken" can be
considered a 'rule' of the matrix.
> > 2: Pantheon of Gods or a Single God.
> > A single God may not bee good.
>
> So a mud based on a real-world religion couldn't be a roleplaying mud?
I agree. single god, many gods, no gods. whatever.
>
> > A pantheon of Gods with varied alignments that strive for mastery and
> > control. Dragonlance is a good example of this.
>
> Ah, so roleplaying muds have to be fantasy based?
>
realize that he was simply giving an 'example' - this need not be the
'rule.' Also, because of the point just before this, i don't think that
religion is a *must* in a good role playing MUD.
> > 3: History of the world till the time it starts on the MUD.
>
> So a post-apocalyptic mud where history is unknown, or a mud based on a
> similar concept to the movie "Dark City", couldn't be a roleplaying mud?
I agree with the point KaVir is trying to make, but not totally. In KaVir's
case, it may not be known how the apocalypse began, or even ended, would you
not be able to ascertain with certainty that one took place? I am only
playing devil's advocate here; understand that I agree with the point, just
not the exception that you brought forth. :)
> > 5: Classes/Groups that are divided on the lines of the Gods.
>
> So a roleplaying mud must have both religion and character classes?
again, I agree.
> > 6: Remeber that there are no new concepts to use.
> > Hero VS Evil that is what it is all about in RP.
>
> A roleplaying mud must be about good vs evil? There can be no shades
> of grey? Games like "Vampire the Masquerade", which deal with the
> constant struggle to retain ones humanity, are not roleplaying games?
This is the reason why I replied at all. I definitely agree with your point
here. The RP MUD I am working on touches on the question of how to define
what is right and what is wrong while being forced to make choices in life
while struggling with the answer to what is good-bad/right-wrong. Although
I think that Evil vs Good (or visa versa) can make for excellent RP, so can
themes like "Vampire the Masquerade."
> > 8: When all is said and done the code should not stop the RP.
>
> So you cannot have roleplaying in a mud which has automated combat?
I have no comment on this topic. I have opinions, but not enough facts to
go on. I would need to do more research and think a little more in-depth
about it before I'd be willing to wager an opinion.
> KaVir.
>
Melchior@Everon
Jon A. Lambert
> > A single God may not bee good.
>
And pantheons are rare in sci-fi literature. Bill pre-supposes
a fantasy theme.
> > A pantheon of Gods with varied alignments that strive for mastery and
> > control. Dragonlance is a good example of this.
>
> Ah, so roleplaying muds have to be fantasy based?
Yeah I guess so. ;-)
> > 3: History of the world till the time it starts on the MUD.
>
> So a post-apocalyptic mud where history is unknown, or a mud based on a
> similar concept to the movie "Dark City", couldn't be a roleplaying mud?
Well the apocalypse itself is the history. I think well-developed
settings help role-play quite a bit, because the player has a better
idea of where and how to develop a character that "fits" in within the
theme. Yet I'm loath to put the onus on "a history" because there are
a number of other ways to develop a setting.
> > 5: Classes/Groups that are divided on the lines of the Gods.
>
> So a roleplaying mud must have both religion and character classes?
>
Yeah this is a bit too specific. Where does our noble tailor and
tavern keeper fit into this "class" thing? (ie. warrior/fighter/
mage/thief) That's why I prefer professions instead of classes.
Having a profession or occupation enhances the depth of a character.
In Cyberpunk and Vampyre, characters have a "cover" or "profession"
they must maintain. In most fantasy, the characters often have
professions they maintain or leave behind, and it's quite hard to
nicely pin down the "class" of many characters in fantasy. The class
abstraction wears thin for me. I think these sorts of arbitrary
restrictions are often a hindrance to role-playing.
> > 6: Remeber that there are no new concepts to use.
> > Hero VS Evil that is what it is all about in RP.
>
> A roleplaying mud must be about good vs evil? There can be no shades
> of grey? Games like "Vampire the Masquerade", which deal with the
> constant struggle to retain ones humanity, are not roleplaying games?
Well I'm gonna disagree with both of you. First Kavir. Yes everything
boils down to struggles of good vs. evil. In Vampyre losing your
humanity is the evil characters fight against. More particularly the
struggle to retain empathy. Empathy vs non-empathy is your good vs
evil struggle. However it is an individual struggle, a more private
battle. The same is true to a lesser extent in Cyberpunk which also
sets the stage for empathy vs. non-empathy cinflict for some character
types.
Second Bill. Your use of HERO implies that good role-playing must
involve heroic struggles. Major evil vs. Major good. Heroic fantasy
is just a subset of role-play styles. Indeed a great deal of popular
fantasy, like Middle Earth and Wheel of Time, involve heroic events and
struggles. However that does neglect what we call low fantasy or dark
fantasy, like that popularized in the novels of Dick, Gibson, Rice and
Lem. The difference here is the emphasis put on individual struggles
as opposed to the emphasis put on individual relationships to major
background events. I suppose I prefer role-playing the former myself.
I'm assuming you prefer the heroic style.
The same role-playing style preferences are present among gaming
groups in the paper & pencil world of RPGs. Some gaming systems
support certain styles better than others.
> > 8: When all is said and done the code should not stop the RP.
>
> So you cannot have roleplaying in a mud which has automated combat?
>
Actually I believe one of the major obstacles in trying to run a
role-playing game that doesn't dissolve into Hack-N-Slash/Diablo/
Mario bros. type play is the notion of "automated advancement". :-)
--
--* Jon A. Lambert - TychoMUD Email:jlsy...@NOSPAM.ix.netcom.com *--
--* Mud Server Developer's Page <http://tychomud.home.netcom.com> *--
--* If I had known it was harmless, I would have killed it myself.*--
Myles L Skinner
Jon A. Lambert <jlsy...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> Yet I'm loath to put the onus on "a history" because there are
> a number of other ways to develop a setting.
To say nothing of the fact that there is no such thing as "a history". :)
There's nothing worse than seeing a long list of names and dates presented
as a history. That's boring enough when it's world history; it's an absolute
snore when it's presented as some fictional MUD 'history'.
ms
--
Covenant MUD: "Under Development for Fewer than One Hundred Years!"
Bill
>
> In article <3A21D2FD...@bastardclan.com>,
> Bill <bramag...@bastardclan.com> wrote:
> >
>
>
> > 1: A world with the rules laid out.
> > Not the rules of the IMMs but the rules of how the world works.
>
>
Why not?
> > 2: Pantheon of Gods or a Single God.
> > A single God may not bee good.
>
> So a mud based on a real-world religion couldn't be a roleplaying mud?
>
Re-read what I wrote... I did not say IT COULDNT I said it MAY NOT.
> > A pantheon of Gods with varied alignments that strive for mastery and
> > control. Dragonlance is a good example of this.
>
> Ah, so roleplaying muds have to be fantasy based?
>
Ah so you have to just be one of those people tearing apart an arguament
rather than adding other points. Should I keep answering you just so you
can try and beat down my opinion?
> > 3: History of the world till the time it starts on the MUD.
>
> So a post-apocalyptic mud where history is unknown, or a mud based on a
> similar concept to the movie "Dark City", couldn't be a roleplaying mud?
>
Read above.
> > 5: Classes/Groups that are divided on the lines of the Gods.
>
> So a roleplaying mud must have both religion and character classes?
>
Read above. You are not adding anything intelligent here. This is not
ALT.FLAME.MUDS.
> > 6: Remeber that there are no new concepts to use.
> > Hero VS Evil that is what it is all about in RP.
>
> A roleplaying mud must be about good vs evil? There can be no shades
> of grey? Games like "Vampire the Masquerade", which deal with the
> constant struggle to retain ones humanity, are not roleplaying games?
>
In this case it is worth an answer.
That is still a Good VS Evil concept. Humanity is the good and failing
and becoming a Vampire totally is Evil. Think it through rather than
just being contradictory.
> > 8: When all is said and done the code should not stop the RP.
>
> So you cannot have roleplaying in a mud which has automated combat?
>
> KaVir.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Read above. Did I say it couldnt. No I just said that code should not
stop RP or supplant it. Moment in Tyme rules of the MUD. You must be
able to back up your RP with code. So if I make level 2 and do nothing
but RP and I am on there for many months and RP that I have become a
very good swordsman I cannot still RP Swordplay if I cannot back it up
with code. This is an example of code interfering with RP.
Otis Viles
Skinner) wrote:
>There's nothing worse than seeing a long list of names and dates presented
>as a history. That's boring enough when it's world history; it's an absolute
>snore when it's presented as some fictional MUD 'history'.
Would "myths and legends" be preferable, along with the occasional writings of
a much reknowned sage and historian?
--
Otis Viles: Mudder, RPGer, KMFDM fan, Internet Oracle Priest
dr...@speakeasy.org, http://www.daestroke.com/cierhart/
dr...@daestroke.com, http://stormclouds.daestroke.com/
Making iDirt 1.82 a safer place, one bug at a time.
Blane Bramble
>
> If you re-read what I posted you will see that these are elements of the
> story. With what you have shown me here as your opinion I would most
> likely find a MUD based on it as bland. No gods competeing for control.
> What are your concepts? IS it Medieval or is it Gangster. I can think of
> many concepts that are not related to GOD/GODS. I cannot think of any RP
> theme that doesnt pit good vs evil in some way.
Lost colony/exploration. Players can be human colonists or (alien)
native life forms. Neither is good, neither is evil. Plenty of role-play
scope, and players can even choose to be "good" or "evil" characters,
but the game doesn't revolve around a good v evil struggle.
> When you break any RP related story of Science Fiction, Horror, Fantasy
> and some others down to the base concept it is Good VS Evil.
Books tend to use it because it is an easily identifiable concept (and
it sells). Doesn't mean it has to be like that though.
> I would like to hear about a good RP theme that was not good vs evil.
See above.
Blane.
KaVir
Bill <bramag...@bastardclan.com> wrote:
> KaVir wrote:
> >
> > In article <3A21D2FD...@bastardclan.com>,
> > Bill <bramag...@bastardclan.com> wrote:
> > >
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > 1: A world with the rules laid out.
> > > Not the rules of the IMMs but the rules of how the world works.
> >
> > So a Matrix/13th Floor/ExistenZ style of mud where "everything is
> > not as it seems" couldn't be a roleplaying mud?
> >
>
> Why not?
Because the rules are not laid out. The "rules" of reality can be
twisted, changed or broken.
> > > 2: Pantheon of Gods or a Single God.
> > > A single God may not bee good.
> >
> > So a mud based on a real-world religion couldn't be a roleplaying
> > mud?
>
> Re-read what I wrote... I did not say IT COULDNT I said it MAY NOT.
Very well. What about sci-fi muds which have no gods or religions?
> > > A pantheon of Gods with varied alignments that strive for mastery
> > > and control. Dragonlance is a good example of this.
> >
> > Ah, so roleplaying muds have to be fantasy based?
> >
>
> Ah so you have to just be one of those people tearing apart an
> arguament rather than adding other points. Should I keep answering
> you just so you can try and beat down my opinion?
You presented your opinions as fact. In turn, I presented you with
scenarios in which your points do not apply. You wanted discussion?
Discuss my counterpoints.
> > > 3: History of the world till the time it starts on the MUD.
> >
> > So a post-apocalyptic mud where history is unknown, or a mud based
> > on a similar concept to the movie "Dark City", couldn't be a
> > roleplaying mud?
>
> Read above.
Read above.
> > > 5: Classes/Groups that are divided on the lines of the Gods.
> >
> > So a roleplaying mud must have both religion and character classes?
> >
>
> Read above. You are not adding anything intelligent here. This is not
> ALT.FLAME.MUDS.
I am countering your points. Giving your opinions and then flaming
people who disagree with them is not a good way to have a meaningful
discussion.
> > > 6: Remeber that there are no new concepts to use.
> > > Hero VS Evil that is what it is all about in RP.
> >
> > A roleplaying mud must be about good vs evil? There can be no
> > shades of grey? Games like "Vampire the Masquerade", which deal
> > with the constant struggle to retain ones humanity, are not
> > roleplaying games?
>
> In this case it is worth an answer.
> That is still a Good VS Evil concept. Humanity is the good and failing
> and becoming a Vampire totally is Evil. Think it through rather than
> just being contradictory.
What about a "soap" mud, where each player takes on the role of an
everyday person in a fictional setting? Would this not be roleplaying?
> > > 8: When all is said and done the code should not stop the RP.
> >
> > So you cannot have roleplaying in a mud which has automated combat?
>
> Read above. Did I say it couldnt. No I just said that code should not
> stop RP or supplant it. Moment in Tyme rules of the MUD. You must be
> able to back up your RP with code. So if I make level 2 and do nothing
> but RP and I am on there for many months and RP that I have become a
> very good swordsman I cannot still RP Swordplay if I cannot back it up
> with code. This is an example of code interfering with RP.
Bubba the Braggart spends many months talking to people about how great
he is at sword fighting. Boffo the Barbarian spends many months
butchering goblins, orcs and smurfs with his longsword.
Who would be the best swordsman?
IMO there is only one rule as to what makes a good roleplaying mud:
1) The players must roleplay.
Encourage them them to roleplay, bribe them to roleplay, ban them for
not roleplaying - it doesn't matter. Add a consistant world - or leave
a stock world in place. Create a fully automated mud - or just a
talker. Design a complex history - or don't bother. It's all up to
the players, not the staff, not the coders, not the builders.
Certain aspects of the mud may encourage roleplaying, or attract
roleplayers, but at the end of the day, it's all up to the players
themselves - they're the ones who have to play the roles.
Dark Ren
<<Mega-Snip of many good ideas>>
Indeed, that can all help. But let me tell you about some of the most
enjoyable RP that I'm currently in and will be in for some time.
Me and another player on a MUCK, locked away in a room. No change of
description and now need of all that that you listed above. We're RPing
a trip to Vegas and already we've run into troubles not even half way
there, each of us trading off chances to guide the story, creating NPCs
on the fly and making life difficult for each other.
All of that stuff is nice. But the number one thing you need is good
players and the motivation to guide a story somewhere. Everything else
just makes it a little easier to get done. There is no perfect formula
to make a successful game. Its a process that takes the right people
the right ideas and a little luck to meet the right people at the right
times.
--
I see the ghosts of navigators but they are lost
As they sail into the setting sun they'll count the cost
As their skeletons accusing emerge from the sea
The sirens of the rocks they beckon me
Ghost of the Navigator : Iron Maiden
Under Construction- Ironclaw MUX. Email for details.
Dark Ren - http://www.deja.com/my/pb.xp?member_name=darkren
Dark Ren
Bill <bramag...@bastardclan.com> wrote:
> If you re-read what I posted you will see that these are elements of
the
> story. With what you have shown me here as your opinion I would most
> likely find a MUD based on it as bland. No gods competeing for
control.
> What are your concepts? IS it Medieval or is it Gangster. I can think
of
*Chuckles* You're scope of good stories is very limited then. Not that
the black and white of good vs. evil isn't a good one. But there are
many ways to introduce shades of gray. One for example deals with Rifts
Earth. There is a coalition of human supremacists that are universally
thought evil. Though the evil tends to only stretch so far as the
military government. The citizens are simply sheep, cowed by the
fantastic stories of how evil nonhumans are. And you can play from the
Coalitions prospective as well, where who is good and evil shifts.
Anything not human is bad and the people who run the government are
patriots. Things look black and white from either side until you look a
little deeper where the gray starts to blend. And this is a setting
that can have gods, but the use of them is strictly optional. There are
enough mortals and minor supernaturals who want to rule the world. Gods
aren't needed and clear cut black and white isn't either.
Adding uncertainty is good when it comes to making players wonder who
is friend and foe. Perhaps have a high official turn out to be corrupt.
At first glance, he’s a person of virtue, but below there are skeletons
in his closet that slowly come to light to the players. But his public
reputation prevents them from confronting him directly as it would make
them seem murderers. Of course, this is more suited to political
intrigue rather than high adventure swords and sorcery.
> many concepts that are not related to GOD/GODS. I cannot think of any
RP
> theme that doesnt pit good vs evil in some way.
> When you break any RP related story of Science Fiction, Horror,
Fantasy
> and some others down to the base concept it is Good VS Evil.
>
> I would like to hear about a good RP theme that was not good vs evil.
See above. At the most basic, there is always a thread of good vs.
evil, but just what side you're on depends on perception and who is
good could be totally different below the mask. Example, my note about
RP lower in this thread.. where my character and another are on a trip
to Vegas. We've already killed two people, covering up the killings.
Sure they were self-defense, but do good guys cover up manslaughter?
But we're not exactly bad either. We don't kill for fun or look for
people to give us a reason to kill. But when push comes to shove, we'll
kill and act quite selfishly in covering up the aftermath.
Black and white, while fun, are overrated.
> Also this is all my opinion not fact and therefore not wrong.
>
> Bill
>
> --
> Fraternally
> William Lessard
> Ezekiel Bates Lodge AF&AM Attleboro Mass
> Wayne Lodge #112 F&AM Michigan
> Master Mason
> Humble (usually) student of life
> Do one good selfless act for a fellow human every day
> Taoist
> Federal Law allows for compensation of upto $500 per unsolicited E-
mail.
> Any person or company sending me e-mail solicitng any service or
product
> agrees
> to this per e-mail charge of $500.
>
--
KaVir
"Jon A. Lambert" <jlsy...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
[snip]
> > > 6: Remeber that there are no new concepts to use.
> > > Hero VS Evil that is what it is all about in RP.
> >
> > A roleplaying mud must be about good vs evil? There can be no
> > shades of grey? Games like "Vampire the Masquerade", which deal
> > with the constant struggle to retain ones humanity, are not
> > roleplaying games?
>
> Well I'm gonna disagree with both of you. First Kavir. Yes
> everything boils down to struggles of good vs. evil.
Does it though? What about a mud in which you take on the role of a
villager, such as "blacksmith", "baker", "innkeeper", etc - then spend
your time roleplaying out your profession and your interaction with
other villagers. Would that not be a roleplaying mud? Where is
the 'good vs evil' element in such a system?
http://www.kanga.nu/archives/MUD-Dev-L/1997Q3/msg01102.php
"Now suppose I arbitrarily decided that in chess the white side was
good and the black side was evil. Does this value set matter a whit
to those involved in the game? I would think not. The good and
evil aspect of the pieces have absolutely no in-game effect. Of
course the *cackling* of the black side's queen could provide some
social amusement. The lesson of chess is, that you cannot insert an
artificial value set unless you change the mechanics of the game
in order to make using that value set relevant. Then the nature of
the game would change" -- Jon A. Lambert (4 Sep 1997).
I would argue that while "good" and "evil" (both as abstract and
relative terms) almost invariably exist in games of all sorts, they are
not mandatory - nor even always desirable - to create a quality
roleplaying environment.
> > > 8: When all is said and done the code should not stop the RP.
> >
> > So you cannot have roleplaying in a mud which has automated combat?
>
> Actually I believe one of the major obstacles in trying to run a
> role-playing game that doesn't dissolve into Hack-N-Slash/Diablo/
> Mario bros. type play is the notion of "automated advancement". :-)
While such automated advancement as found in D&D and many other
pen&papers games might encourage hack and slash, it doesn't prevent
roleplaying in and off itself. Besides, I would argue that it isn't
the automation that is the problem, but rather the factors it takes
into account (ie killing things). If a new roleplaying game
called "boozing and debauchery" included an automated advancement
system for sexual conquests and imbibing vast quantities of alcohol, I
doubt there would be much "hack and slash".
KaVir.
Dark Ren
KaVir <ka...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> While such automated advancement as found in D&D and many other
> pen&papers games might encourage hack and slash, it doesn't prevent
> roleplaying in and off itself. Besides, I would argue that it isn't
> the automation that is the problem, but rather the factors it takes
> into account (ie killing things). If a new roleplaying game
> called "boozing and debauchery" included an automated advancement
> system for sexual conquests and imbibing vast quantities of alcohol, I
> doubt there would be much "hack and slash".
Hey now, I could get into a game like that. ;)
But yeah. Its a matter of how rewards are given. If you reward RP more
than hack-n-slash, you'll likely see a migration toward the better way
of getting ahead.
--
I see the ghosts of navigators but they are lost
As they sail into the setting sun they'll count the cost
As their skeletons accusing emerge from the sea
The sirens of the rocks they beckon me
Ghost of the Navigator : Iron Maiden
Under Construction- Ironclaw MUX. Email for details.
KaVir
> > First off, RPing is not dependent upon the codebase or the
> > genre or even the rules. These things just structure how
> > the RPing is done. Some may be more beneficial than others,
> > but I don't think they define what makes a good RP MUD. So
> > that gets rid of numbers 1, 2, 5, 8, and 9.
>
> Not needed?
> 1: Okay no rules. There is no gravity there is no races that
> have certain abilities or different abilities the world is
> just a blob. By leaving this out maybe you dont understand
> what I was commenting about.
Point 1 was not that there should BE rules, but that they should
be "laid out" to the players. I don't feel that it is necessary to
inform your player that your mud has gravity unless your theme suggests
it might not (eg a mud set on board a huge spaceship or spacestation).
For the same reason I would not inform my players about races, because
within my theme it is assumed that everyone is a human. I would also
not inform my players that the grass is green, the sky is blue, or that
water is wet - because once again, such things can be assumed by the
theme of my mud.
> Rules in this case define the world. Maybe I should have said
> A defined world setting.
In most cases this is good, yes. Of course you might decide to have a
mud in which everyone plays a godlike entity, creating their own world
and their own laws of reality. In such a case, a setting would not be
necessary. In other cases the world setting can be summed up under a
generic "stock" theme ("WoT", "WoD", etc).
> 2: True there doesnt necessarily have to be any god or gods
> but it helps the IMMs to create a setting and a theme to
> follow.
I would prefer the word "motivation" rather than "god" or "gods". It
helps the mud administrators to know the motivations behind their
players (be it money, religion, survival, revenge, or whatever) when
trying to create storylines.
> 5: Okay no classes, No groups we are all a bunch of mindless
> blobs with no rhyme or reason to even exist.
In my opinion classes are nothing more than artificial stereotypical
character concepts which act as a crutch for poor roleplayers and which
restrict good roleplayers. You want to play a warrior? No problem,
you can borrow my warrior-shaped cookie cutter.
> 8: Cool lets put in code that makes people want to hack and
> slash and ignore the RP aspects we are trying to create.
I feel that some aspects of mud design should be coded. I don't want
to play muds where Mr Newbie can walk around saying "I'm the greatest
warrior who ever lived" without being stamped on. When I play a
roleplaying game, I'm after roleplaying - but I'm also after a game. I
understand that some people disagree with my view - in fact some people
feel that anything more than a chat room restricts roleplaying - but I
want automation. I'm happy to let the mud decide the outcome of my
actions. Let the code handle the mechanics, the number crunching and
the results of my actions - it's the personality of my character I'm
interested in.
> 9: Again maybe you missed my discussion of the concept behind
> the statement. I am against having little quests for jack and
> joe and leaving out John because he isnt on. I am commenting
> on the overall theme.
Jack and Joe go on a quest, but John doesn't because he's not mudding
at the time. Too bad. Unfortunate for him. Perhaps it's unfair, but
I fail to see how it stops the mud from being a roleplaying mud.
> > Second, I've personally thought up quite a few different
> > possible concepts for my mud that don't revolve around good
> > vs. evil. So 6 and 7 aren't true.
>
> Okay what are they. I bet I can name 5 books written in the
> last 100 years that use your concepts.
So you agree then that it doesn't HAVE to revolve around good vs evil
(in fact your original claim was "Hero VS Evil").
> It isn't the concept it is the STORY TELLING that sells.
Sex sells as well. Does a roleplaying mud have to contain sex and/or
sexual references?
[snip]
> > I think what makes a good RPing MUD is simply the story.
> > Everything should revolve around this story, so you take
> > out the elements that are harmful to this (such as
> > inappropriate behavior) and you add in things that are
> > helpful (such as having time--you can't really have a
> > story without time after all).
>
> If you re-read what I posted you will see that these are
> elements of the story. With what you have shown me here
> as your opinion I would most likely find a MUD based on
> it as bland.
If anything is bland, it's "yet another fantasy mud". Don't you think
there enough of them already? If I read another "hero saves the world
from big evil bad guy, stopping along the way to collect magic sword
and rescue hot chick" story I think I'm going to throw up - whatever
happened to originality?
> No gods competeing for control. What are your concepts? IS
> it Medieval or is it Gangster. I can think of many concepts
> that are not related to GOD/GODS. I cannot think of any RP
> theme that doesnt pit good vs evil in some way. When you
> break any RP related story of Science Fiction, Horror,
> Fantasy and some others down to the base concept it is Good
> VS Evil. I would like to hear about a good RP theme that was
> not good vs evil.
Gangsters, the movie "Pitch Black", Alien vs Predator, Hellraiser 2 and
many other stories/movies have an "evil vs evil" theme to them. The
stereotypical "good vs evil" is - IMO - an outdated concept. People
are driven by different goals, different motives, and when those
motives collide the loser goes down in history as "evil". When you
read a book or watch a movie, you generally see the "bad guy" in a poor
light, simply because you don't understand his motives.
KaVir, who plays the "evil" side in games of Chess.
Dave Mittner
I look at it with the following thought: code gives parameters for the
RP and Immortals help guide the story through those parameters. It's
contradictive to say that the code doesn't help RP, then say that religions
are good. Without the code, the religious structure would struggle, if
started at all. I working on a MUD, to learn from more than anything, and
it's focus is going to be RP. The code will *hopefully* supply structures
for guilds, religions, nobility, and land management. These will allow the
player to interact with day-by-day events, while additionally guided by the
plot.
To help encourage RP, I've also removed a couple common aspects which
I believe reduces the players ability to mature and interact: levels and
classes. There will still be classes in a sense, but instead of the class
determining the skills, the skills will determine the class. The player
will start with the ability to take any path and change them later on.
Skills are forgotton if not used to prevent super characters from being
formed. Naturally, race will mildly affect the ability to use a skill.
The usage of equipment is based on stats rather than level. I pride myself
on my RP abilities. On one mud I was once the Grand Paladin, a religions
position and leader of two religions' paladin forces. The downside was that
I was only around level 30 out of 101 levels. It was very frustrating to
try to RP the battle between good and evil when most of the evil players
were 3 times higher than me in levels, and therefor stronger. I've been
anti-level since.
Character creation is also much more extensive on my MUD. You can select
everything from your age to your height and weight. Because of the detail,
strict guidelines will be in place and all submitted characters will have
their information sent to the immortals for approval. Not approval in a
sense that they'd email you back if your character passes, but they'll ask
you to change anything that isn't appropriate, or change it themselves.
I kind of question your concept of a quest. To me, the majority of quests
are side-plots to the main story. In that, code based quests seem to be the
best type, as anyone can do them at any time of the day. Immortal run
quests, like you said, are favoring those who are currently on line. The
mud should offer the same amount of action for every person, even if
they're the only one on. I hope to put in an externsive multi-part quest
engine, far surpassing the 'kill the mob' or 'find the item' genre. I hope
to have quests where you need to find several ingredients to a spell, or
parts of a weapon, etc. To aid you in the quest, there will be a random
chance of MOBs giving you additional information along the way. Although
rare, the towns may automatically place bounties on MOBs who have kills
players, etc. This really wouldn't be a quest, but something to do
none-the-less.
Umm...well I'll stop there. :P
Dave Mittner
Tearing apart an argument? ...Uhm Bill... go back and read your reply to
Brad.
Dave Mittner
> In article <3A2327D8...@bastardclan.com>,
> Bill <bramag...@bastardclan.com> wrote:
> > KaVir wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <3A21D2FD...@bastardclan.com>,
> > > Bill <bramag...@bastardclan.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > 1: A world with the rules laid out.
> > > > Not the rules of the IMMs but the rules of how the world works.
> > >
> > > So a Matrix/13th Floor/ExistenZ style of mud where "everything is
> > > not as it seems" couldn't be a roleplaying mud?
> > >
> >
> > Why not?
>
> Because the rules are not laid out. The "rules" of reality can be
> twisted, changed or broken.
>
> > > > 2: Pantheon of Gods or a Single God.
> > > > A single God may not bee good.
> > >
> > > So a mud based on a real-world religion couldn't be a roleplaying
> > > mud?
> >
> > Re-read what I wrote... I did not say IT COULDNT I said it MAY NOT.
>
> Very well. What about sci-fi muds which have no gods or religions?
>
> > > > A pantheon of Gods with varied alignments that strive for mastery
> > > > and control. Dragonlance is a good example of this.
> > >
> > > Ah, so roleplaying muds have to be fantasy based?
> > >
> >
> > Ah so you have to just be one of those people tearing apart an
> > arguament rather than adding other points. Should I keep answering
> > you just so you can try and beat down my opinion?
>
> You presented your opinions as fact. In turn, I presented you with
> scenarios in which your points do not apply. You wanted discussion?
> Discuss my counterpoints.
>
> > > > 3: History of the world till the time it starts on the MUD.
> > >
> > > So a post-apocalyptic mud where history is unknown, or a mud based
> > > on a similar concept to the movie "Dark City", couldn't be a
> > > roleplaying mud?
> >
> > Read above.
>
> Read above.
>
> > > > 5: Classes/Groups that are divided on the lines of the Gods.
> > >
> > > So a roleplaying mud must have both religion and character classes?
> > >
> >
> > Read above. You are not adding anything intelligent here. This is not
> > ALT.FLAME.MUDS.
>
> I am countering your points. Giving your opinions and then flaming
> people who disagree with them is not a good way to have a meaningful
> discussion.
>
> > > > 6: Remeber that there are no new concepts to use.
> > > > Hero VS Evil that is what it is all about in RP.
> > >
> > > A roleplaying mud must be about good vs evil? There can be no
> > > shades of grey? Games like "Vampire the Masquerade", which deal
> > > with the constant struggle to retain ones humanity, are not
> > > roleplaying games?
> >
> > In this case it is worth an answer.
> > That is still a Good VS Evil concept. Humanity is the good and failing
> > and becoming a Vampire totally is Evil. Think it through rather than
> > just being contradictory.
>
> What about a "soap" mud, where each player takes on the role of an
> everyday person in a fictional setting? Would this not be roleplaying?
>
> > > > 8: When all is said and done the code should not stop the RP.
> > >
> > > So you cannot have roleplaying in a mud which has automated combat?
> >
> > Read above. Did I say it couldnt. No I just said that code should not
> > stop RP or supplant it. Moment in Tyme rules of the MUD. You must be
> > able to back up your RP with code. So if I make level 2 and do nothing
> > but RP and I am on there for many months and RP that I have become a
> > very good swordsman I cannot still RP Swordplay if I cannot back it up
> > with code. This is an example of code interfering with RP.
>
> Bubba the Braggart spends many months talking to people about how great
> he is at sword fighting. Boffo the Barbarian spends many months
> butchering goblins, orcs and smurfs with his longsword.
>
> Who would be the best swordsman?
>
> IMO there is only one rule as to what makes a good roleplaying mud:
>
> 1) The players must roleplay.
>
> Encourage them them to roleplay, bribe them to roleplay, ban them for
> not roleplaying - it doesn't matter. Add a consistant world - or leave
> a stock world in place. Create a fully automated mud - or just a
> talker. Design a complex history - or don't bother. It's all up to
> the players, not the staff, not the coders, not the builders.
>
> Certain aspects of the mud may encourage roleplaying, or attract
> roleplayers, but at the end of the day, it's all up to the players
> themselves - they're the ones who have to play the roles.
>
> KaVir.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
I completely agree. A near-death MUD that I was on offered VERY little
structure to encourage RP and the immortals were always invis by some
stupid policy. So the MUD lacked guidelines and direction. A friend of mine
posted a story of visions he had. I followed his lead and had my own. The
next thing I knew, we had created the first, and only conflict in the land
- and the only source of large scale RP. It was the classic good vs evil,
but that's often the easiest to start in an RP-less mud. As time passed,
different shades of gray popped in to the overall picture. Unfortunatly my
friend was screwed over and he left, and the remaining RP'ers (like 3 of
them) weren't enough to bring others into the fold and the RP died out once
again.
Alan Schwartz
>In article <8vv00s$81d$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net>,
>Jon A. Lambert <jlsy...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> a number of other ways to develop a setting.
>
>To say nothing of the fact that there is no such thing as "a history". :)
This is a great point that's often ignored.
If you have a bunch of different groups on a mud, each group probably
has its own "history" of the world -- its own point of view on
the events of the period. To take an obvious example from US history,
the Civil War, the War Between the States, and the War of Northern
Aggression may all refer to the same events to different groups
of people.
It would be interesting, once a player chooses a group on a mud,
to have them only receive that group's version of history.
Dark Ren
ala...@tala.mede.uic.edu (Alan Schwartz) wrote:
> Myles L Skinner <mski...@joxer.acsu.buffalo.edu> writes:
> >In article <8vv00s$81d$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net>,
> >Jon A. Lambert <jlsy...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Yet I'm loath to put the onus on "a history" because there are
> >> a number of other ways to develop a setting.
> >
> >To say nothing of the fact that there is no such thing as "a
history". :)
>
> This is a great point that's often ignored.
>
> If you have a bunch of different groups on a mud, each group probably
> has its own "history" of the world -- its own point of view on
> the events of the period. To take an obvious example from US history,
> the Civil War, the War Between the States, and the War of Northern
> Aggression may all refer to the same events to different groups
> of people.
>
> It would be interesting, once a player chooses a group on a mud,
> to have them only receive that group's version of history.
>
Quite correct. That is something I've yet to consider, though I would
think some might see it as too complex, not only from the stand point
of the admins having to make two versions of the same events, but from
the player standpoint. I would think most are used to having a single
history.
Perhaps a better way might be to give a general 'world' history if
there is a major faction or country that the game is set upon, then add
to that the slants that a faction has when its joined. I would think
that even the factions know the more widely accepted history. They just
don't believe it.
--
I see the ghosts of navigators but they are lost
As they sail into the setting sun they'll count the cost
As their skeletons accusing emerge from the sea
The sirens of the rocks they beckon me
Ghost of the Navigator : Iron Maiden
Under Construction- Ironclaw MUX. Email for details.
Myles L Skinner
>
> Sex sells as well. Does a roleplaying mud have to contain sex and/or
> sexual references?
Must...not...respond...
"I think that before we can even have this discussion, we have to atleast
define what is meant by 'contain sex and/or sexual references'. I think most
people would agree..."
Er, sorry. Sorry.
ms (sorry)
Myles L Skinner
Otis Viles <dr...@speakeasy.org> wrote:
>On 27 Nov 2000 23:21:34 -0500, mski...@joxer.acsu.buffalo.edu (Myles L
>Skinner) wrote:
>> There's nothing worse than seeing a long list of names and dates presented
>> as a history. That's boring enough when it's world history; it's an absolute
>> snore when it's presented as some fictional MUD 'history'.
>
> Would "myths and legends" be preferable, along with the occasional writings
> of a much reknowned sage and historian?
That would be one good approach, yes. History is made up of stories, after
all. Actually, to be really technical about it, history is comprised of the
stories we construct from available evidence.
All it would take is a document or two with debatable authorship and
questionable reliability.
Actually that sounds like just about any document. :) Put them in a museum,
or a library, or on a web site, and let people draw some of their own
conclusions.
There will always be facts, like some king was coronated in such a year, or
this war lasted from 1815-18, or similar. But timelines aren't histories and
my personal view is that most timelines aren't even terribly interesting by
themselves.
ms
Bill
> > >
> > > In article <3A21D2FD...@bastardclan.com>,
> > > Bill <bramag...@bastardclan.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > 1: A world with the rules laid out.
> > > > Not the rules of the IMMs but the rules of how the world works.
> > >
> > > So a Matrix/13th Floor/ExistenZ style of mud where "everything is
> > > not as it seems" couldn't be a roleplaying mud?
> > >
> >
> > Why not?
>
> twisted, changed or broken.
>
Actually the rules are very specific for the World of the Matrix.
1: The world is dead with no life other than Zion. The sun is no longer
nourishing the physical world.
2: For survival the machines have enslaved the world. They still live
within the laws/physics of the world. Though it is argued that people
cannot produce the power that they need that is a side discussion and
not about RP.
3: The rules IN the Matrix are laid out. They are designed to mimic the
real world. The AIs can change them to a point and so can outside
agencies but not as well.
4: ONE - ONE person can manipulate the Matrix from inside. Effectively
rewriting the rules locally.
5: Everyone else is bound by the rules and can only bend them slightly.
> > > > 2: Pantheon of Gods or a Single God.
> > > > A single God may not bee good.
> > >
> > > So a mud based on a real-world religion couldn't be a roleplaying
> > > mud?
> >
> > Re-read what I wrote... I did not say IT COULDNT I said it MAY NOT.
>
> Very well. What about sci-fi muds which have no gods or religions?
>
How about your ideas rather than playing confrontationalist man.
I have been putting forth ideas and thoughts you just nay say
everything. WHy dont you try putting forth your theories and Ideas.
> > > > A pantheon of Gods with varied alignments that strive for mastery
> > > > and control. Dragonlance is a good example of this.
> > >
> > > Ah, so roleplaying muds have to be fantasy based?
> > >
> >
> > Ah so you have to just be one of those people tearing apart an
> > arguament rather than adding other points. Should I keep answering
> > you just so you can try and beat down my opinion?
>
> You presented your opinions as fact. In turn, I presented you with
> scenarios in which your points do not apply. You wanted discussion?
> Discuss my counterpoints.
>
I never said they were fact. You assumed. If you were to think
intelligently I TITLED this "A DISCUSSION OF WHAT MAKES A GOOD RP MUD"
Inherent in the title is that what I put forth is only opinion not fact.
> > > > 3: History of the world till the time it starts on the MUD.
> > >
> > > So a post-apocalyptic mud where history is unknown, or a mud based
> > > on a similar concept to the movie "Dark City", couldn't be a
> > > roleplaying mud?
> >
> > Read above.
>
> Read above.
>
Try adding to the discussion instead of just playing the childish "IS
NOT" game.
> > > > 5: Classes/Groups that are divided on the lines of the Gods.
> > >
> > > So a roleplaying mud must have both religion and character classes?
> > >
> >
> > Read above. You are not adding anything intelligent here. This is not
> > ALT.FLAME.MUDS.
>
> I am countering your points. Giving your opinions and then flaming
> people who disagree with them is not a good way to have a meaningful
> discussion.
>
You are just being confrontational.
> > > > 6: Remeber that there are no new concepts to use.
> > > > Hero VS Evil that is what it is all about in RP.
> > >
> > > A roleplaying mud must be about good vs evil? There can be no
> > > shades of grey? Games like "Vampire the Masquerade", which deal
> > > with the constant struggle to retain ones humanity, are not
> > > roleplaying games?
> >
> > In this case it is worth an answer.
> > That is still a Good VS Evil concept. Humanity is the good and failing
> > and becoming a Vampire totally is Evil. Think it through rather than
> > just being contradictory.
>
> What about a "soap" mud, where each player takes on the role of an
> everyday person in a fictional setting? Would this not be roleplaying?
>
> > > > 8: When all is said and done the code should not stop the RP.
> > >
> > > So you cannot have roleplaying in a mud which has automated combat?
> >
> > Read above. Did I say it couldnt. No I just said that code should not
> > stop RP or supplant it. Moment in Tyme rules of the MUD. You must be
> > able to back up your RP with code. So if I make level 2 and do nothing
> > but RP and I am on there for many months and RP that I have become a
> > very good swordsman I cannot still RP Swordplay if I cannot back it up
> > with code. This is an example of code interfering with RP.
>
> Bubba the Braggart spends many months talking to people about how great
> he is at sword fighting. Boffo the Barbarian spends many months
> butchering goblins, orcs and smurfs with his longsword.
>
> Who would be the best swordsman?
>
Bubba as he has been role-playing. Boffo has just been code leveling and
has no clue what Role-play is though he probably has some loaded dice
and is good at ROLL play.
> IMO there is only one rule as to what makes a good roleplaying mud:
>
> 1) The players must roleplay.
>
> Encourage them them to roleplay, bribe them to roleplay, ban them for
> not roleplaying - it doesn't matter.
I dont believe in banning. I would prefer to walk the line between RP
and Code. Where RP is encouraged and Code is there for the players who
want to level. Maybe some of the levelers will try their hand at RP and
learn more and enjoy.
Add a consistant world - or leave
> a stock world in place. Create a fully automated mud - or just a
> talker. Design a complex history - or don't bother. It's all up to
> the players, not the staff, not the coders, not the builders.
>
To properly role-play you need a THEME/SETTING. Drop a stock Circle MUD
out and people will have no encouragement to RP. If you want pure RP a
MUSH or MOO is more suited to it.
> Certain aspects of the mud may encourage roleplaying, or attract
> roleplayers, but at the end of the day, it's all up to the players
> themselves - they're the ones who have to play the roles.
If it is stock what is the attraction? If you dont have a Theme or
setting what is the attraction to role-play. RP is based on a theme and
or setting that gives the RPer a framework to create in their mind what
their character is. Cyberpunk gives the players a neo-gothic post
nihilistic world to base their players on. AD&D gives us a Bubblegum
Fanatasy Medievil RP world. If you do not present some basic plot and
theme to the MUD you wont get RP. How many Midgaards can there be.
Bill
>
>
> *Chuckles* You're scope of good stories is very limited then. Not that
> the black and white of good vs. evil isn't a good one. But there are
> many ways to introduce shades of gray. One for example deals with Rifts
> Earth. There is a coalition of human supremacists that are universally
> thought evil. Though the evil tends to only stretch so far as the
> military government. The citizens are simply sheep, cowed by the
> fantastic stories of how evil nonhumans are. And you can play from the
> Coalitions prospective as well, where who is good and evil shifts.
> Anything not human is bad and the people who run the government are
> patriots. Things look black and white from either side until you look a
> little deeper where the gray starts to blend. And this is a setting
> that can have gods, but the use of them is strictly optional. There are
> enough mortals and minor supernaturals who want to rule the world. Gods
> aren't needed and clear cut black and white isn't either.
>
I have yet to see cut and dried Black and white. You can boil down each
side and find the core that is cut and dried. With a major in Philosophy
here goes. Hitler was not Evil. Why? Because he did not think that what
he was doing was Evil, he thought he was doing something good for the
world and himself. Many people believed otherwise and fought against him
and won. Was Hitler evil? To me he was. To some he wasnt. White
Supremeist(SP) think he was good and his ideas good. There was grey in
there too. Hitler did do some good. He pulled his country out of a major
depression. He helped to raise the standard of living for most of the
German People. Was Hitler Evil?
It depends on who you talk to. I think he was and he deserved the vilest
death you could imagine.
In Rifts we have the same thing. It is a perspective issue. Since the
average MUD RP player thinks in the Judeo-Christian concepts of Good and
Evil it is easy to create a good vs evil world where most everyone can
agree what is good and evil. I have played everything from a Chaotic
Evil Cleric to a Lawful Good Paladin in AD&D. Though I didnt play a
Neutral Druid. It is perspective on the Good VS Evil. I could kill
someone and in my mind my perspective was that I was doing good. Most
likely I would be considered Insane to believe I was doing good.
Son of Sam is an example of this.
> Adding uncertainty is good when it comes to making players wonder who
> is friend and foe. Perhaps have a high official turn out to be corrupt.
> At first glance, he’s a person of virtue, but below there are skeletons
> in his closet that slowly come to light to the players. But his public
> reputation prevents them from confronting him directly as it would make
> them seem murderers. Of course, this is more suited to political
> intrigue rather than high adventure swords and sorcery.
>
Not always political intriuge. This is an old concept. The "good" person
gets the help of others to actually do evil. 20,000 Leagues under the
Sea. Captain Nemo is portrayed as Evil but in the end the good guys find
out he is just a good person that is mis-guided.
> > many concepts that are not related to GOD/GODS. I cannot think of any
> RP
> > theme that doesnt pit good vs evil in some way.
> > When you break any RP related story of Science Fiction, Horror,
> Fantasy
> > and some others down to the base concept it is Good VS Evil.
> >
> > I would like to hear about a good RP theme that was not good vs evil.
>
> See above. At the most basic, there is always a thread of good vs.
> evil, but just what side you're on depends on perception and who is
> good could be totally different below the mask. Example, my note about
> RP lower in this thread.. where my character and another are on a trip
> to Vegas. We've already killed two people, covering up the killings.
> Sure they were self-defense, but do good guys cover up manslaughter?
> But we're not exactly bad either. We don't kill for fun or look for
> people to give us a reason to kill. But when push comes to shove, we'll
> kill and act quite selfishly in covering up the aftermath.
>
> Black and white, while fun, are overrated.
>
> > Also this is all my opinion not fact and therefore not wrong.
> >
I should have said. This is my opinion and not fact therefore Neither
Right nor Wrong.
Bill
> necessary. In other cases the world setting can be summed up under a
> generic "stock" theme ("WoT", "WoD", etc).
>
I think that we have now understood what we are both talking about here
is the same thing. Theme, Concept, whatever that gives the basic setting
for the RP.
> > 2: True there doesnt necessarily have to be any god or gods
> > but it helps the IMMs to create a setting and a theme to
> > follow.
>
> I would prefer the word "motivation" rather than "god" or "gods". It
> helps the mud administrators to know the motivations behind their
> players (be it money, religion, survival, revenge, or whatever) when
> trying to create storylines.
>
IN RP just as in a Movie you have to provide the Motivation for the
Players. They have to know going in that this is a Cyberpunk Genre and
therefore will create a concept in their character based on this.
> > 5: Okay no classes, No groups we are all a bunch of mindless
> > blobs with no rhyme or reason to even exist.
>
> In my opinion classes are nothing more than artificial stereotypical
> character concepts which act as a crutch for poor roleplayers and which
> restrict good roleplayers. You want to play a warrior? No problem,
> you can borrow my warrior-shaped cookie cutter.
>
You are going too far to the edge. What do you call a man who plays a
Flute and carries a Sword. What do you call a man that you see that just
carries a sword and wears heavy Armor? Labels are necessary. You need to
pose a structure that the player can you as a basis for his character.
In the first I would call that man a Bard. The second a Warrior. What do
you call a man in leather armor with long delicate hands wearing only a
dagger. Well I can think of two answers. Mage or Thief.
> > 8: Cool lets put in code that makes people want to hack and
> > slash and ignore the RP aspects we are trying to create.
>
> I feel that some aspects of mud design should be coded. I don't want
> to play muds where Mr Newbie can walk around saying "I'm the greatest
> warrior who ever lived" without being stamped on. When I play a
> roleplaying game, I'm after roleplaying - but I'm also after a game. I
> understand that some people disagree with my view - in fact some people
> feel that anything more than a chat room restricts roleplaying - but I
> want automation. I'm happy to let the mud decide the outcome of my
> actions. Let the code handle the mechanics, the number crunching and
> the results of my actions - it's the personality of my character I'm
> interested in.
>
Jakyb and Carno Fight
This section using something like Emote.
j: Jakyb pulls a longsword from the sheath at his side with his left
hand. With his right he withdraws a stilleto. Balancing on the balls of
his feet he eyes Carno.
c: Carno unslings his shield and unhooks his great axe from his back.
Swinging it to loosen up some he stands ready facing Jakyb.
j: Jakyb feints with his stilleto and follows with his longsword.
c: Carno allows the stilleto to brush off his shield and attempts to tie
up the longsowrd with his axe while swinging in for a shield bash.
j: Jakyb gets caught in Carno's axe momentarily but backs up before the
shield can land. His footing is off and he cannot respond with anything
solid.
c: Carno presses the attack his axe coming down towards Jakyb's leg.
j: Jakyb moves but not fast enough. A slight line of blood is clear on
his left leg. By holding position he is able to bring his stilleto
behind the shield and thrusts towards Carno.
c: Carno is unprepared of the fast stilleto and feels its length bury
itself in his stomach.
This can go on and is fun. As long as before actual combat the
contestants/players decide who wins. Yes some prep but hey it is RP and
the fun is in the actions.
Code.
j Attack Carno - You swing at Carno and miss.
c: Attack Jakyb - you swing at Jakyb and miss.
j: Attack Carno - You swing and hit for 10 points damage
c: Attack Jakyb - you swing and hit for 2 points damage.
Yes lets have code. No control just let them swing till one dies.
> > 9: Again maybe you missed my discussion of the concept behind
> > the statement. I am against having little quests for jack and
> > joe and leaving out John because he isnt on. I am commenting
> > on the overall theme.
>
> Jack and Joe go on a quest, but John doesn't because he's not mudding
> at the time. Too bad. Unfortunate for him. Perhaps it's unfair, but
> I fail to see how it stops the mud from being a roleplaying mud.
>
I didnt say it stopped it from being RP but wouldnt it be better to have
Imm 1 make a character/MOB and go lay hints around. Let people start to
hear stories and begin to do something about it. Quick little quests are
good occasionally but get the whole mud in on something. The little
quests can be subject to abuse. Allow for others to have a part in
something. Maybe a quest that will last a couple months that more of the
MUD can participate in. That was what I was/am getting at.
> > > Second, I've personally thought up quite a few different
> > > possible concepts for my mud that don't revolve around good
> > > vs. evil. So 6 and 7 aren't true.
> >
> > Okay what are they. I bet I can name 5 books written in the
> > last 100 years that use your concepts.
>
> So you agree then that it doesn't HAVE to revolve around good vs evil
> (in fact your original claim was "Hero VS Evil").
>
My original example not claim was hero vs evil. The guy down the street
who takes care of his wife and his children is an everyday hero.
Superman is a HERO. I did not explain far enough. Then again this was
created to promote discussion on the concepts.
> > It isn't the concept it is the STORY TELLING that sells.
>
> Sex sells as well. Does a roleplaying mud have to contain sex and/or
> sexual references?
Doesnt have to contain. Personally I would not want people on a MUD
having CyberSex. When you get into specifics it boils down to personal
choice. Though in some instances Innuendo of sex might promote a story
line.
>
> [snip]
>
> > > I think what makes a good RPing MUD is simply the story.
> > > Everything should revolve around this story, so you take
> > > out the elements that are harmful to this (such as
> > > inappropriate behavior) and you add in things that are
> > > helpful (such as having time--you can't really have a
> > > story without time after all).
> >
> > If you re-read what I posted you will see that these are
> > elements of the story. With what you have shown me here
> > as your opinion I would most likely find a MUD based on
> > it as bland.
>
> If anything is bland, it's "yet another fantasy mud". Don't you think
> there enough of them already? If I read another "hero saves the world
> from big evil bad guy, stopping along the way to collect magic sword
> and rescue hot chick" story I think I'm going to throw up - whatever
> happened to originality?
>
There is no original story it is how you tell it. Your statements and
mine taken literally into a MUD are poor and bland.
It is in the telling. Not the basics that an IMM has to consider in how
it is presented.
> > No gods competeing for control. What are your concepts? IS
> > it Medieval or is it Gangster. I can think of many concepts
> > that are not related to GOD/GODS. I cannot think of any RP
> > theme that doesnt pit good vs evil in some way. When you
> > break any RP related story of Science Fiction, Horror,
> > Fantasy and some others down to the base concept it is Good
> > VS Evil. I would like to hear about a good RP theme that was
> > not good vs evil.
>
> Gangsters, the movie "Pitch Black", Alien vs Predator, Hellraiser 2 and
> many other stories/movies have an "evil vs evil" theme to them. The
> stereotypical "good vs evil" is - IMO - an outdated concept. People
> are driven by different goals, different motives, and when those
> motives collide the loser goes down in history as "evil". When you
> read a book or watch a movie, you generally see the "bad guy" in a poor
> light, simply because you don't understand his motives.
>
Pitch Black - Symbolism of a Mans epiphany and struggle not to care. The
evil are the creatures of the night, a mirror of the criminal.
Until it became dark his plan was to escape and possibly kill everyone
so as to stay free. Committing murder for freedom from the Law of the
Land (this is an expression not mean as literal here).
As above with Hitler. From the stance of our side he was Evil from his
he was Good. The good vs evil is to create a setting based on shared
agreed upon concepts. Is the Pope good or evil. Why? What perspective
are you speaking from for your answer?
Bill
> While such automated advancement as found in D&D and many other
> pen&papers games might encourage hack and slash, it doesn't prevent
> roleplaying in and off itself. Besides, I would argue that it isn't
> the automation that is the problem, but rather the factors it takes
> into account (ie killing things). If a new roleplaying game
> called "boozing and debauchery" included an automated advancement
> system for sexual conquests and imbibing vast quantities of alcohol, I
> doubt there would be much "hack and slash".
>
I think "hack n slash" in the automated case is NOT literal. It is the
euphamism for advancing to a set point through repitisous(SP) actions in
the enviroment presented.
Under that definition yes you could "hack n slash" in your presented MUD
concept.
Dark Ren
> > IMO there is only one rule as to what makes a good roleplaying
mud:
> >
> > 1) The players must roleplay.
> >
> > Encourage them them to roleplay, bribe them to roleplay, ban
them for
> > not roleplaying - it doesn't matter.
>
> I dont believe in banning. I would prefer to walk the line between
RP
> and Code. Where RP is encouraged and Code is there for the
players who
> want to level. Maybe some of the levelers will try their hand at RP
and
> learn more and enjoy.
While I don't belive in banning either, I am of the frame of mind to
encourage RP over code. In the MU* I'm making, all the combat
code will be there for is to do the accounting for the players and
give them the results to RP out. Hopefully, that will eliminate power
posing. And those who mutually wish to free form may.
Although in the game I'm making, combat is a secondary thing. I
plan to have more rewards for RP than combat and plan to have
staff generated combat be less than common. Although, that's
what I've been exposed to and prefer right off the bat.
> Add a consistant world - or leave
> > a stock world in place. Create a fully automated mud - or just a
> > talker. Design a complex history - or don't bother. It's all up to
> > the players, not the staff, not the coders, not the builders.
> >
>
> To properly role-play you need a THEME/SETTING. Drop a stock
Circle MUD
Nope. As stated elsewhere, I've been able to Rp on a MUCk with
no stable theme defined, by defaulting the implied modern theme
to the real world, me and those involved tossing in whatever we
liked. Theme is not necessary in general. Only where the staff and
players care about a regulated setting. There are MU*s with no
defined setting at all, save implied.
> out and people will have no encouragement to RP.
No, people not already inclined to RP seriously or who tend to be
followers won't be inclined to RP. People who want to RP.. who
really want to will find a way. Its like force of nature. You can't stop a
determined player from RPing.
>If you want pure RP a MUSH or MOO is more suited to it.
Or MUX, my current server. Perhaps even MUCK.
> > Certain aspects of the mud may encourage roleplaying, or
attract
> > roleplayers, but at the end of the day, it's all up to the players
> > themselves - they're the ones who have to play the roles.
>
> If it is stock what is the attraction? If you dont have a Theme or
> setting what is the attraction to role-play.
Personal desire. And those with the desire will invariably attract
followers, given enough fresh minds to latch onto.
> RP is based on a theme and
> or setting that gives the RPer a framework to create in their mind
And it doesn't have to be that well developed if that's the staff's
prerogative. Some things are assumed, such as the basic laws of
physics and the rest can be generally pointed at by saying..
Fantasy... or Modern.. or Horror.. just point. Of course, some like to
define a setting in more specific terms. I know I will with my game
as I have some specific ideas. But its not that necessary if you're
not the type to rule with an iron fist. ;) And you certainly don't require
a well defined theme to have fun.
> what their character is. Cyberpunk gives the players a neo-gothic
> post nihilistic world to base their players on. AD&D gives us a
> Bubblegum Fanatasy Medievil RP world. If you do not present
Not necessarily. An industrious GM could radically alter any setting
to suit his needs. Why not make a D&D game into a Xanth type of
setting, full of puns and general silliness. Or have a Cyberpunk
game with the tech and such, in a world where the victorian era
never went out of style. Outrageous, but thought provoking ideas,
yes? Maybe no.
> some basic plot and
> theme to the MUD you wont get RP. How many Midgaards can
> there be.
--
I see the ghosts of navigators but they are lost
As they sail into the setting sun they'll count the cost
As their skeletons accusing emerge from the sea
The sirens of the rocks they beckon me
Ghost of the Navigator : Iron Maiden
Under Construction- Ironclaw MUX. Email for details.
Dark Ren
mindless
> > > blobs with no rhyme or reason to even exist.
> >
> > In my opinion classes are nothing more than artificial
stereotypical
> > character concepts which act as a crutch for poor roleplayers
and which
> > restrict good roleplayers. You want to play a warrior? No
problem,
> > you can borrow my warrior-shaped cookie cutter.
> >
>
> You are going too far to the edge. What do you call a man who
plays a
> Flute and carries a Sword. What do you call a man that you see
that just
> carries a sword and wears heavy Armor? Labels are necessary.
You need to
> pose a structure that the player can you as a basis for his
character.
> In the first I would call that man a Bard. The second a Warrior.
What do
> you call a man in leather armor with long delicate hands wearing
only a
> dagger. Well I can think of two answers. Mage or Thief.
No, he could be a lean swashbuckler, more interested in speed
than protection. Or a traveling merchant of a more militant variety
who likes to protect himself.
Not quite.. I've been in free formed RP where the outcome wasn't
determined. And my lower level character managed to outwit and
defeat a higher level due to tactical thinking and a little luck.
> Code.
>
> j Attack Carno - You swing at Carno and miss.
> c: Attack Jakyb - you swing at Jakyb and miss.
> j: Attack Carno - You swing and hit for 10 points damage
> c: Attack Jakyb - you swing and hit for 2 points damage.
>
> Yes lets have code. No control just let them swing till one dies.
Ick.. if I wanted the above, I'd play Diablo 2. Actually, I do. ;)
--
I see the ghosts of navigators but they are lost
As they sail into the setting sun they'll count the cost
As their skeletons accusing emerge from the sea
The sirens of the rocks they beckon me
Ghost of the Navigator : Iron Maiden
Under Construction- Ironclaw MUX. Email for details.
KaVir
Bill <bramag...@bastardclan.com> wrote:
> KaVir wrote:
> >
> > In article <3A2327D8...@bastardclan.com>,
> > Bill <bramag...@bastardclan.com> wrote:
> > > KaVir wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <3A21D2FD...@bastardclan.com>,
> > > > Bill <bramag...@bastardclan.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > [snip]
> > > >
> > > > > 1: A world with the rules laid out.
> > > > > Not the rules of the IMMs but the rules of how the world
> > > > > works.
> > > >
> > > > So a Matrix/13th Floor/ExistenZ style of mud where "everything
> > > > is not as it seems" couldn't be a roleplaying mud?
> > >
> > > Why not?
> >
> > Because the rules are not laid out. The "rules" of reality can be
> > twisted, changed or broken.
>
> Actually the rules are very specific for the World of the Matrix.
The Matrix cannot be explained, you have to see it for yourself. As
such the rules shouldn't be "laid out" before the players. The one
person (Neo) who can "shape reality" itself does so because he knows
the inner workings - this would be akin to the coder, who knows how the
code itself works, and can change it at will.
[snip insults, let's try and keep this on-topic okay?]
> > I am countering your points. Giving your opinions and then flaming
> > people who disagree with them is not a good way to have a meaningful
> > discussion.
>
> You are just being confrontational.
I am presenting you with situations in which your points do not apply
because I do not believe that your points DO apply to all roleplaying
muds.
> > Bubba the Braggart spends many months talking to people about how
> > great he is at sword fighting. Boffo the Barbarian spends many
> > months butchering goblins, orcs and smurfs with his longsword.
> >
> > Who would be the best swordsman?
>
> Bubba as he has been role-playing. Boffo has just been code leveling
> and has no clue what Role-play is though he probably has some loaded
> dice and is good at ROLL play.
I disagree with this point. If Bubba the Braggart just spends his time
telling people how great he is at sword fighting, the only thing he
should be good at is verbal skills. Boffo on the other hand has been
working on his fighting skills and this should be reflected by his
fighting ability. Of course fighting ability doesn't have to relate to
kill count - for example on Harshlands my character went to some
sparing fields with a friend he's made (IC) and they practiced fighting
with wooden swords. However I do feel that your ability should reflect
your skills used, and I've yet to see a roleplaying game that treats
this issue differently. Even systems like WoD which don't reward
killing at all suggest that you don't let someone improve an ability
unless they've actually been using it.
> > IMO there is only one rule as to what makes a good roleplaying mud:
> >
> > 1) The players must roleplay.
> >
> > Encourage them them to roleplay, bribe them to roleplay, ban them
> > for not roleplaying - it doesn't matter.
>
> I dont believe in banning. I would prefer to walk the line between RP
> and Code. Where RP is encouraged and Code is there for the players who
> want to level. Maybe some of the levelers will try their hand at RP
> and learn more and enjoy.
What about those troublemakers who refuse to roleplaying? They do
exist, believe me - and you'll find yourself forced to make a
decision. You cannot have a mud in which everyone roleplays unless you
are willing to weed out the troublemakers.
> > Add a consistant world - or leave
> > a stock world in place. Create a fully automated mud - or just a
> > talker. Design a complex history - or don't bother. It's all up to
> > the players, not the staff, not the coders, not the builders.
>
> To properly role-play you need a THEME/SETTING.
No, that's the point - a skilled roleplayer can roleplay anywhere!
Sure a theme/setting helps, but so do many other things (many of which
vary from player to player - eg refuse to play muds with global
channels, others refuse to play muds WITHOUT them). Roleplaying is not
an attribute of the mud, it is an attribute of the people who play it.
> > Certain aspects of the mud may encourage roleplaying, or attract
> > roleplayers, but at the end of the day, it's all up to the players
> > themselves - they're the ones who have to play the roles.
>
> If it is stock what is the attraction? If you dont have a Theme or
> setting what is the attraction to role-play. RP is based on a theme
> and or setting that gives the RPer a framework to create in their
> mind what their character is. Cyberpunk gives the players a neo-
> gothic post nihilistic world to base their players on. AD&D gives us
> a Bubblegum Fanatasy Medievil RP world. If you do not present some
> basic plot and theme to the MUD you wont get RP. How many Midgaards
> can there be.
The point is that you can only encourage roleplaying - and that is done
through game mechanics. The precise line varies from player to
player. You obviously think that MUSHes and MOOs are the ideal point -
but some people find even those too restrictive, while others find that
they provide insufficient support. Just like there is no "best mud",
there is no perfect way to encourage RP. There are no hard and fast
rules. There are generalisations that apply to the common themes, but
these are not definative.
KaVir
> > > blobs with no rhyme or reason to even exist.
> >
> > In my opinion classes are nothing more than artificial stereotypical
> > character concepts which act as a crutch for poor roleplayers and
> > which restrict good roleplayers. You want to play a warrior? No
> > problem, you can borrow my warrior-shaped cookie cutter.
> >
>
> You are going too far to the edge. What do you call a man who plays a
> Flute and carries a Sword. What do you call a man that you see that
> just carries a sword and wears heavy Armor? Labels are necessary. You
> need to pose a structure that the player can you as a basis for his
> character. In the first I would call that man a Bard. The second a
> Warrior. What do you call a man in leather armor with long delicate
> hands wearing only a dagger. Well I can think of two answers. Mage or
> Thief.
Ah yes, but there is a distinct difference between labelling a
character according to their skills and defining a character's skills
according to their label. Put another way:
Bubba is strong and tough, has lots of armour and a sword, and is
skilled in combat THEREFORE Bubba is a warrior. This makes sense.
Bubba is a warrior, THEREFORE Bubba is strong and tough, has lots of
armour and a sword, and is skilled in combat. This is a cookie-cutter
character and limits roleplaying IMO.
The skills should define the character, not the other way around.
> > > 8: Cool lets put in code that makes people want to hack and
> > > slash and ignore the RP aspects we are trying to create.
> >
> > I feel that some aspects of mud design should be coded. I don't
> > want to play muds where Mr Newbie can walk around saying "I'm the
> > greatest warrior who ever lived" without being stamped on. When I
> > play a roleplaying game, I'm after roleplaying - but I'm also after
> > a game. I understand that some people disagree with my view - in
> > fact some people feel that anything more than a chat room restricts
> > roleplaying - but I want automation. I'm happy to let the mud
> > decide the outcome of my actions. Let the code handle the
> > mechanics, the number crunching and the results of my actions -
> > it's the personality of my character I'm interested in.
>
> Jakyb and Carno Fight
>
> This section using something like Emote.
[snip combat]
> This can go on and is fun. As long as before actual combat the
> contestants/players decide who wins. Yes some prep but hey it is RP
> and the fun is in the actions.
Fun for you maybe, but I'd prefer to automate the combat. When I
roleplay in pen & paper games my GM never lets me decide whether or not
I'm going to win a fight, instead dice are rolled. Admittedly the GM
might occasionally fudge the dice (to make sure the storyline isn't
ruined by a rogue roll) but it's still a lot more exciting than simply
deciding the outcome.
> Code.
>
> j Attack Carno - You swing at Carno and miss.
> c: Attack Jakyb - you swing at Jakyb and miss.
> j: Attack Carno - You swing and hit for 10 points damage
> c: Attack Jakyb - you swing and hit for 2 points damage.
>
> Yes lets have code. No control just let them swing till one dies.
Comparing a good emoted combat to a bad automated combat is hardly
fair. How would you like it if I compared emoted:
emote hits Carno
Bubba hits Carno.
emote hits Carno
Bubba hits Carno.
emote hits Carno
Bubba hits Carno.
emote chops Carnos head off!!!!!
Bubba chops Carnos head off!!!!!
emote OWNZ U D00D!!!
Bubba OWNZ U D00D!!!
To automated:
You clenched your right hand into a fist.
Kavir coils his legs beneath him, ready to spring.
Kavir leaps up into the air.
Your jab misses Kavir.
You duck.
Kavir strikes you with a jumping side kick!
Kavir lands back on his feet.
Kavir meditates.
Kavir ducks.
You draw your right hand back to your side.
Kavir slowly circles you, moving warily.
You meditate.
Kavir sweeps you off your feet.
You crash to the floor.
You flip back up to your feet.
Kavir strikes you with a spinning side kick!
Kavir's clumsy punch misses you.
Kavir's clumsy punch misses you.
You slowly circle Kavir, moving warily.
Kavir raises his guard with his right hand.
Kavir's clenched his left hand into a fist.
You meditate.
You clenched your left hand into a fist.
Kavir strikes you with a left jab!
You raise your guard with your left hand.
You move your left hand into a hard blocking position.
Kavir strikes you with a left hook!
You fall to the floor, unconscious!
Both systems have their advantages and disadvantages. Both can be used
either to promote or to hinder roleplaying.
> > > No gods competeing for control. What are your concepts? IS
> > > it Medieval or is it Gangster. I can think of many concepts
> > > that are not related to GOD/GODS. I cannot think of any RP
> > > theme that doesnt pit good vs evil in some way. When you
> > > break any RP related story of Science Fiction, Horror,
> > > Fantasy and some others down to the base concept it is Good
> > > VS Evil. I would like to hear about a good RP theme that was
> > > not good vs evil.
> >
> > Gangsters, the movie "Pitch Black", Alien vs Predator, Hellraiser 2
> > and many other stories/movies have an "evil vs evil" theme to
> > them. The stereotypical "good vs evil" is - IMO - an outdated
> > concept. People are driven by different goals, different motives,
> > and when those motives collide the loser goes down in history
> > as "evil". When you read a book or watch a movie, you generally
> > see the "bad guy" in a poor light, simply because you don't
> > understand his motives.
>
> Pitch Black - Symbolism of a Mans epiphany and struggle not to care.
> The evil are the creatures of the night, a mirror of the criminal.
> Until it became dark his plan was to escape and possibly kill everyone
> so as to stay free. Committing murder for freedom from the Law of the
> Land (this is an expression not mean as literal here).
Why are the creatures the evil ones? They are simply animals, nothing
more. The humans are the intruders, after all. If you walked into a
Lion's den, would the Lioness be "evil" for attacking you? Or would
she simply be defending her cubs from a possible threat?
> As above with Hitler. From the stance of our side he was Evil from his
> he was Good. The good vs evil is to create a setting based on shared
> agreed upon concepts. Is the Pope good or evil. Why? What perspective
> are you speaking from for your answer?
Precisely my point. Good and evil are purely subjective. What is good
to one person might be evil to another. A better argument would be to
say that there should be conflict to ENCOURAGE roleplaying - "good vs
evil" is the most simply form of this, but it could be human against
elf, clan against clan, beer drinkers against lager drinkers or
anything else. The conflict might be violent, or just friendly
competition (the beer drinkers and lager drinkers have a daily drinking
contest).
Conflict is NOT required for roleplaying, but it's a very good method
of drawing people into the storyline IMO.
KaVir.
Bill
>
> While I don't belive in banning either, I am of the frame of mind to
> encourage RP over code. In the MU* I'm making, all the combat
> code will be there for is to do the accounting for the players and
> give them the results to RP out. Hopefully, that will eliminate power
> posing. And those who mutually wish to free form may.
Not to take away from your arguement but this was started as a
discussion of MUDs. MUX, MOO, MUSH and a couple others are a different
discussion. MUSH compared to MUD is apples to oranges different
enviroment.
> > Add a consistant world - or leave
> > > a stock world in place. Create a fully automated mud - or just a
> > > talker. Design a complex history - or don't bother. It's all up to
> > > the players, not the staff, not the coders, not the builders.
> > >
> >
> > To properly role-play you need a THEME/SETTING. Drop a stock
> Circle MUD
>
> Nope. As stated elsewhere, I've been able to Rp on a MUCk with
> no stable theme defined, by defaulting the implied modern theme
> to the real world, me and those involved tossing in whatever we
> liked. Theme is not necessary in general. Only where the staff and
> players care about a regulated setting. There are MU*s with no
> defined setting at all, save implied.
>
> > out and people will have no encouragement to RP.
>
> No, people not already inclined to RP seriously or who tend to be
> followers won't be inclined to RP. People who want to RP.. who
> really want to will find a way. Its like force of nature. You can't stop a
> determined player from RPing.
>
> >If you want pure RP a MUSH or MOO is more suited to it.
>
> Or MUX, my current server. Perhaps even MUCK.
>
> > > Certain aspects of the mud may encourage roleplaying, or
> attract
> > > roleplayers, but at the end of the day, it's all up to the players
> > > themselves - they're the ones who have to play the roles.
> >
> > If it is stock what is the attraction? If you dont have a Theme or
> > setting what is the attraction to role-play.
>
> Personal desire. And those with the desire will invariably attract
> followers, given enough fresh minds to latch onto.
>
> > RP is based on a theme and
> > or setting that gives the RPer a framework to create in their mind
>
> And it doesn't have to be that well developed if that's the staff's
> prerogative. Some things are assumed, such as the basic laws of
> physics and the rest can be generally pointed at by saying..
> Fantasy... or Modern.. or Horror.. just point. Of course, some like to
> define a setting in more specific terms. I know I will with my game
> as I have some specific ideas. But its not that necessary if you're
> not the type to rule with an iron fist. ;) And you certainly don't require
> a well defined theme to have fun.
>
Okay. You have your bare room. That is your MUD. What insentive do I
have to play on yours rather than on Joe's RP MUD which has a history
and theme and concept that I can picture myself into. Okay so I need
some props. Even with your earlier description of the trip to vegas you
created imagery that was beyond the bare room. There was a story and a
goal for the characters. There were concepts introduced into it. I have
been roleplaying for 25 years. I have yet to RP in any format that there
wasnt some sort of theme/setting and overall concept that gave me a
framework to create my persona.
> > what their character is. Cyberpunk gives the players a neo-gothic
> > post nihilistic world to base their players on. AD&D gives us a
> > Bubblegum Fanatasy Medievil RP world. If you do not present
>
> Not necessarily. An industrious GM could radically alter any setting
> to suit his needs. Why not make a D&D game into a Xanth type of
> setting, full of puns and general silliness. Or have a Cyberpunk
> game with the tech and such, in a world where the victorian era
> never went out of style. Outrageous, but thought provoking ideas,
> yes? Maybe no.
>
Most definately but the point is a frame of reference for the player to
create his character. How many people do you think will stay in your
bare room and create a role-play enviroment on their own without getting
bored and going somewhere with a little more defined framework.
Bill
ell I can think of two answers. Mage or Thief.
>
> than protection. Or a traveling merchant of a more militant variety
> who likes to protect himself.
>
Your answer supports my arguement. Just because it looks like a duck and
quacks like a duck does not mean it is a duck. Your cookie cutter is
only valid on those without imagination and RP ability.
> > Jakyb and Carno Fight
> >
> > This section using something like Emote.
> > This can go on and is fun. As long as before actual combat the
> > contestants/players decide who wins. Yes some prep but hey it
> is RP and
> > the fun is in the actions.
>
> Not quite.. I've been in free formed RP where the outcome wasn't
> determined. And my lower level character managed to outwit and
> defeat a higher level due to tactical thinking and a little luck.
>
The point is and you again seem to validate my arguement that Code
should not be the determining factor for combat in an RP MUD. As below
there is no tatics. There is rote attacks.
> > Code.
> >
> > j Attack Carno - You swing at Carno and miss.
> > c: Attack Jakyb - you swing at Jakyb and miss.
> > j: Attack Carno - You swing and hit for 10 points damage
> > c: Attack Jakyb - you swing and hit for 2 points damage.
> >
> > Yes lets have code. No control just let them swing till one dies.
>
> Ick.. if I wanted the above, I'd play Diablo 2. Actually, I do. ;)
>
Again my arguement that Code should not be required to support RP
combat. I play D2 as well and Tribes and a few other games.
Bill
> > Actually the rules are very specific for the World of the Matrix.
>
> The Matrix cannot be explained, you have to see it for yourself. As
> such the rules shouldn't be "laid out" before the players. The one
> person (Neo) who can "shape reality" itself does so because he knows
> the inner workings - this would be akin to the coder, who knows how the
> code itself works, and can change it at will.
You either are ignoring or missing my point.
The REAL WORLD of the Matrix what would be the IMM side is set down as
to how it works. That is unchangeable or you will upset people who have
been playing for awhile. Most of what I posted was a suggestion comments
for the IMMS. NOT the players. They players will log in and play more or
less. Your arguement is more from the Player side than the IMM/IMP
spell.
>
> [snip insults, let's try and keep this on-topic okay?]
>
> > > I am countering your points. Giving your opinions and then flaming
> > > people who disagree with them is not a good way to have a meaningful
> > > discussion.
> >
> > You are just being confrontational.
>
> I am presenting you with situations in which your points do not apply
> because I do not believe that your points DO apply to all roleplaying
> muds.
>
I never said they applied to all. Again read the title. DISCUSSION.
You are say "BUT BUT BUT" WHAT IF. I have been answering what I want and
trying to get you to form full arguements not just contradictions and
challenges of what I said. Learn to argue and discuss properly.
Instead of asking "WHY" all the time. Pose your side of it and present
your thoughts and Ideas. It gets tiresome to answer WHY all the time. I
know I used to piss my mother off almost 20 years ago doing it.
> > > Bubba the Braggart spends many months talking to people about how
> > > great he is at sword fighting. Boffo the Barbarian spends many
> > > months butchering goblins, orcs and smurfs with his longsword.
> > >
> > > Who would be the best swordsman?
> >
> > Bubba as he has been role-playing. Boffo has just been code leveling
> > and has no clue what Role-play is though he probably has some loaded
> > dice and is good at ROLL play.
>
> I disagree with this point. If Bubba the Braggart just spends his time
> telling people how great he is at sword fighting, the only thing he
> should be good at is verbal skills. Boffo on the other hand has been
> working on his fighting skills and this should be reflected by his
> fighting ability. Of course fighting ability doesn't have to relate to
Since you did not present specific definitions of your people I used
mine. Bubba has been talking and acting like he knows what he is doing.
Boffo has been typing "kill monster" and therefore hasnt a clue how to
RP a swordfight. At least Bubba might have a chance of RPing.
> kill count - for example on Harshlands my character went to some
> sparing fields with a friend he's made (IC) and they practiced fighting
> with wooden swords. However I do feel that your ability should reflect
> your skills used, and I've yet to see a roleplaying game that treats
> this issue differently. Even systems like WoD which don't reward
> killing at all suggest that you don't let someone improve an ability
> unless they've actually been using it.
>
It is not the GAME that promotes kill to advance it is the person
running the game. You could create situation as a GM that never gives
the option of killing for points. Instead you as the GM reward RP
actions. Again everything I posted is from the point of view of the
Implementors of the MUD and the Immortals responsibilities. Not what the
players are doing in the MUD. Other than some policing.
> > > IMO there is only one rule as to what makes a good roleplaying mud:
> > >
> > > 1) The players must roleplay.
> > >
> > > Encourage them them to roleplay, bribe them to roleplay, ban them
> > > for not roleplaying - it doesn't matter.
> >
> > I dont believe in banning. I would prefer to walk the line between RP
> > and Code. Where RP is encouraged and Code is there for the players who
> > want to level. Maybe some of the levelers will try their hand at RP
> > and learn more and enjoy.
>
> What about those troublemakers who refuse to roleplaying? They do
> exist, believe me - and you'll find yourself forced to make a
> decision. You cannot have a mud in which everyone roleplays unless you
> are willing to weed out the troublemakers.
>
I think I have been clear that I would deal with people who
intentionally disrupt those that want to RP. You can never be there 24/7
but you can do your best.
> > > Add a consistant world - or leave
> > > a stock world in place. Create a fully automated mud - or just a
> > > talker. Design a complex history - or don't bother. It's all up to
> > > the players, not the staff, not the coders, not the builders.
> >
> > To properly role-play you need a THEME/SETTING.
>
> No, that's the point - a skilled roleplayer can roleplay anywhere!
> Sure a theme/setting helps, but so do many other things (many of which
> vary from player to player - eg refuse to play muds with global
> channels, others refuse to play muds WITHOUT them). Roleplaying is not
> an attribute of the mud, it is an attribute of the people who play it.
>
Would you want to take the time to RP on a MUD that was stock Circle out
of the BOX with no additions of any type. How much fun is RPing in
Midgaard? With all the miriad zones that dont even have a central theme
for the MUD. Or maybe use Envy and have medievil and far future zones.
Would you sit there an RP or would you prefer a MUD with at least a
basic theme that the existing zones follow.
A roleplaying enviroment is the MUD and the IMP/IMMs. This is the
setting and theme that gives you the framework to create your character.
You may have a concept of type and I know a few people that will have a
10 page history of the character before even creating one but the MUD is
the enviroment that either helps or hinders RP.
> The point is that you can only encourage roleplaying - and that is done
> through game mechanics. The precise line varies from player to
> player. You obviously think that MUSHes and MOOs are the ideal point -
No I never said that. I specifically aimed this discussion at MUDs and
ignored the world of MOO/MUSH/MUX.
> but some people find even those too restrictive, while others find that
> they provide insufficient support. Just like there is no "best mud",
> there is no perfect way to encourage RP. There are no hard and fast
> rules. There are generalisations that apply to the common themes, but
> these are not definative.
And I did not make specific statements. I made comments presented ideas
I did not say this was the RULES to a RP MUD. I said this was a
discussion. Which you are finally doing rather than just try to get me
to answer your questions.
John Daniels
Hash: SHA1
On 29/11/00 1:39 am, in article 3A245E35...@bastardclan.com, Bill
<bramag...@bastardclan.com> wrote:
>
> Your answer supports my arguement. Just because it looks like a duck and
> quacks like a duck does not mean it is a duck. Your cookie cutter is
> only valid on those without imagination and RP ability.
>
So if you have imagination, why do you need classes?
All a class does is give you a little box to squeeze your character into.
I want to play a character who can really kick some <generic monster> arse.
But he's also learned how to pick a lock (and perhaps, when times are lean,
a pocket).
He likes to sing, and often entertains his fellow travellers around the
campfire.
But his day job is still sticking the pointy end of a sword into things.
So he's got to be a warrior.
But warriors don't pick pockets, right?
A warrior can't take singing skills, or learn to play the <genric campfire
instrument>.
And if they can do that, then what's the point of classes in the first
place?
Classes help those who can't think up even the most basic character concepts
by themselves, but these are the people who are 'without imagination' and
will produce cookie-cutter characters.
I would definitely say that classes of any shape or description are not
necessary to have good RP. Good RPers are necessary to have good RP. Good
classes are necessary to make the most 31337 character and 'win' the game
(ie: defeat the quests/kill the mobiles/whatever).
- --
- From address bounces, use john at wibbble dot org dot uk
John Daniels
PGP Public Key:
http://www.wibbble.plus.com/public.key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOiRlaX93T0cHCvI/EQJinQCgoIc4s9hhxE7OdF7q0RV1wbegOaIAoJHD
eDlECHb/4PR551mVeJJ8NpP6
=6Omk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Aleriel
Bill <bramag...@bastardclan.com> wrote in message
news:3A245D0E...@bastardclan.com...
> Dark Ren wrote:
> >
> > While I don't belive in banning either, I am of the frame of mind to
> > encourage RP over code. In the MU* I'm making, all the combat
> > code will be there for is to do the accounting for the players and
> > give them the results to RP out. Hopefully, that will eliminate power
> > posing. And those who mutually wish to free form may.
>
> Not to take away from your arguement but this was started as a
> discussion of MUDs. MUX, MOO, MUSH and a couple others are a different
> discussion. MUSH compared to MUD is apples to oranges different
> enviroment.
But the concept of RP is the same, no? Even on a MUX, MOO, MUSH, or whatever
of the same type you could code combat, economy, etc., which may, or may
not, hinder RP. You could pretty much code /everything/. The main difference
between a MUSH-like game and MUD (on a very basic level) is that a MUD
already has most stuff coded and you'd have to remove/add things to suit
your world. And on a MUSH you only add.
--
Aleriel
aleriel (at) hedgemaze (dot) org
"Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial."
rr...@lanminds.com
wrote:
>
>It is not the GAME that promotes kill to advance it is the person
>running the game. You could create situation as a GM that never gives
>the option of killing for points. Instead you as the GM reward RP
>actions. Again everything I posted is from the point of view of the
>Implementors of the MUD and the Immortals responsibilities. Not what the
>players are doing in the MUD. Other than some policing.
>
The problem with only rewarding RP is that there are times that the
imms aren't on. What happens if someone does really good RP and there
is no one in authority there to see it? And who defines good RP? If
someone does something entirely in character, but that disrupts the
general story that you are trying to promote, should they be rewarded
or punished?
If you reward people for some code-based things, then you still have
the opportunity to advance even if the imms aren't around.
Kira Skydancer
rr...@lanminds.com
wrote:
>Dark Ren wrote:
>> > RP is based on a theme and
>> > or setting that gives the RPer a framework to create in their mind
>>
>> And it doesn't have to be that well developed if that's the staff's
>> prerogative. Some things are assumed, such as the basic laws of
>> physics and the rest can be generally pointed at by saying..
>> Fantasy... or Modern.. or Horror.. just point. Of course, some like to
>> define a setting in more specific terms. I know I will with my game
>> as I have some specific ideas. But its not that necessary if you're
>> not the type to rule with an iron fist. ;) And you certainly don't require
>> a well defined theme to have fun.
>>
>
>Okay. You have your bare room. That is your MUD. What insentive do I
>have to play on yours rather than on Joe's RP MUD which has a history
>and theme and concept that I can picture myself into.
>
One incentive is that you are free to create your character without
the limitations imposed by Joe's framework. A minimalist approach to
the framework allows the players to be more involved in the process.
Back in my pen-and-paper days, the player was supposed to develop
their family background, including some idea about the town they grew
up in, their childhood, the kind of people who lived there, etc.
There is more opportunity to RP in doing that than in being told
"Elves live in cities located in this particular part of the world,
with these particular traits, and these kinds of opportunities."
Kira Skydancer
Aleriel
news:3a247dc2...@nntp.lanminds.com...
> On 29 Nov 2000 02:02:03 GMT, Bill <bramag...@bastardclan.com>
> wrote:
>
> The problem with only rewarding RP is that there are times that the
> imms aren't on. What happens if someone does really good RP and there
> is no one in authority there to see it? And who defines good RP? If
> someone does something entirely in character, but that disrupts the
> general story that you are trying to promote, should they be rewarded
> or punished?
A system could be implemented where a player must send logs to the
imms/wizards in order to receive a reward for RP. Or some kind of voting
system could be done where players vote for those people RPing with whom
they enjoyed most. I personally favor the former, even though reading some
logs just drives me up the wall. :)
I think both RP and code-based rewards should be present because essentially
those are just two different ways of practicing a skill or something. Of
course, code-based rewards are pretty much limited to raising/lowering
skills or attributes or whatever else might be affected by the code, while
RP provides more choices. For example, through RP someone could become a
part of a secret organisation, advance in social status, gain more weight in
IC world by not being the strongest, or better armed, but by just being ICly
wittier than others, or just having good manipulation skills, etc. All that
can be achieved through RP, while code kinda limits the possibilities.
Alan Schwartz
Bill <bramag...@bastardclan.com> writes:
>Dark Ren wrote:
>>
>> While I don't belive in banning either, I am of the frame of mind to
>> encourage RP over code. In the MU* I'm making, all the combat
>> code will be there for is to do the accounting for the players and
>> give them the results to RP out. Hopefully, that will eliminate power
>> posing. And those who mutually wish to free form may.
>
>Not to take away from your arguement but this was started as a
>discussion of MUDs. MUX, MOO, MUSH and a couple others are a different
>discussion. MUSH compared to MUD is apples to oranges different
>enviroment.
Wrong. A MUSH is a MUD. A MUX is a MUSH is a MUD. A MOO is a MUD.
Anyone who says otherwise is selling things.
Now, if you wanted to start a discussion of RP on non-tiny-based
muds, then I misunderstood. Although your examples seemed to
come from something more like diku-based, if we're talking about
RP muds, the same concepts apply to all codebases (though some
are more ept at some things than others, and some have attracted
different followings than others).
Fraternally,
Javelin
Blane Bramble
>
> You are going too far to the edge. What do you call a man who plays a
> Flute and carries a Sword.
He could be a musician travelling in troubled times, a warrior who plays
the flute, a farmer in troubled times who happens to play the flute...
> What do you call a man that you see that just
> carries a sword and wears heavy Armor?
He may be a warrior, he may be a knight. He might be a merchant who is
paranoid about being robbed.
> Labels are necessary. You need to
> pose a structure that the player can you as a basis for his character.
> In the first I would call that man a Bard. The second a Warrior. What do
> you call a man in leather armor with long delicate hands wearing only a
> dagger. Well I can think of two answers. Mage or Thief.
He might be a thief. He might be a farmer. He might be a master
craftsman.
Blane.
KaVir
Well said, Kira. I like the game mechanics to be controlled by the
mud. Bill dislikes that as he feels that the code is limiting his
roleplaying options, although he does likes to be given a predefined
history. Some players find even a predefined history to be limiting
their roleplaying - they prefer to improvise, shaping the history as
they go. There is no perfect solution - different people have
different requirements.
KaVir
Bill <bramag...@bastardclan.com> wrote:
> KaVir wrote:
>
> > > Actually the rules are very specific for the World of the Matrix.
> >
> > The Matrix cannot be explained, you have to see it for yourself. As
> > such the rules shouldn't be "laid out" before the players. The one
> > person (Neo) who can "shape reality" itself does so because he knows
> > the inner workings - this would be akin to the coder, who knows how
> > the code itself works, and can change it at will.
>
> You either are ignoring or missing my point.
> The REAL WORLD of the Matrix what would be the IMM side is set down as
> to how it works. That is unchangeable or you will upset people who
> have been playing for awhile. Most of what I posted was a suggestion
> comments for the IMMS. NOT the players. They players will log in and
> play more or less. Your arguement is more from the Player side than
> the IMM/IMP spell.
You said the rules should be laid out. There are three audiences for
such rules:
1) The rules should be clearly laid out for the players, so that they
know the laws of reality within the game. Generally this is a good
idea, but in some cases it wouldn't apply (eg a mud based on the
Matrix, where players start play as normal people, WITHIN the Matrix).
2) The rules should be clearly laid out for the staff, so that they can
run storylines and design the world in a consistant manner. Generally
this is a good idea, but in some cases it wouldn't apply (eg each staff
member is a 'god' within their own plane of existance, within which
they define their own reality. Players can travel between different
planes of existance).
3) The rules should be clearly laid out for the mud - ie, they should
be coded rules and restrictions. You've already stated that you feel
such systems hinder roleplaying.
> > > You are just being confrontational.
> >
> > I am presenting you with situations in which your points do not
> > apply because I do not believe that your points DO apply to all
> > roleplaying muds.
>
> I never said they applied to all. Again read the title. DISCUSSION.
Which was an invitation to counter your points, correct?
> You are say "BUT BUT BUT" WHAT IF.
No, I provide examples of perfectly valid situations in which your
points do not apply. My reason for doing this is to point out that
there ARE no definitive rules about what defines a roleplaying mud.
You cannot categorise such games purely on the basis of preset criteria.
> > kill count - for example on Harshlands my character went to some
> > sparing fields with a friend he's made (IC) and they practiced
> > fighting with wooden swords. However I do feel that your ability
> > should reflect your skills used, and I've yet to see a roleplaying
> > game that treats this issue differently. Even systems like WoD
> > which don't reward killing at all suggest that you don't let
> > someone improve an ability unless they've actually been using it.
>
> It is not the GAME that promotes kill to advance it is the person
> running the game. You could create situation as a GM that never gives
> the option of killing for points. Instead you as the GM reward RP
> actions.
As Lee stated in a separate thread, why do you feel you have to be
rewarded for roleplaying? You complain about people being rewarded for
killing things, but at the same time you feel that you deserve to be
rewarded for roleplaying - that's the same old GoP/HnS attitude.
> Would you want to take the time to RP on a MUD that was stock Circle
> out of the BOX with no additions of any type.
I would rather roleplay on a stock mud in which all the other players
were skilled roleplayers, than roleplay on any other mud in which all
the other players were pure HnSers.
> Would you sit there an RP or would you prefer a MUD with at least a
> basic theme that the existing zones follow.
I would prefer that by far, but it would be the other players that were
the deciding factor.
> A roleplaying enviroment is the MUD and the IMP/IMMs. This is the
> setting and theme that gives you the framework to create your
> character. You may have a concept of type and I know a few people
> that will have a 10 page history of the character before even
> creating one but the MUD is the enviroment that either helps or
> hinders RP.
Agreed - it helps or hinders. But that's all. It's the players that
are the vital element.
> > The point is that you can only encourage roleplaying - and that is
> > done through game mechanics. The precise line varies from player to
> > player. You obviously think that MUSHes and MOOs are the ideal
> > point -
>
> No I never said that. I specifically aimed this discussion at MUDs and
> ignored the world of MOO/MUSH/MUX.
As has been pointed out to you already, MOO, MUSH and MUX are all types
of mud. To be precise, they all belong to the TinyMUD branch, which
comes from AberMUD. The Diku and LP branches also come from AberMUD.
AberMUD traces it's roots back to the original MUD.
http://www.kavir.dial.pipex.com/muds.html
Dark Ren
Bill <bramag...@bastardclan.com> wrote:
> Dark Ren wrote:
> ell I can think of two answers. Mage or Thief.
> >
> > No, he could be a lean swashbuckler, more interested in speed
> > than protection. Or a traveling merchant of a more militant variety
> > who likes to protect himself.
> >
>
> Your answer supports my arguement. Just because it looks like a duck
and
> quacks like a duck does not mean it is a duck. Your cookie cutter is
> only valid on those without imagination and RP ability.
My cookie cutter? Huh? Believe me, I don't tend to enjoy cookie cutters
when it comes to characters. You have the wrong man. ;)
> > > Jakyb and Carno Fight
> > >
> > > This section using something like Emote.
> > > This can go on and is fun. As long as before actual combat the
> > > contestants/players decide who wins. Yes some prep but hey it
> > is RP and
> > > the fun is in the actions.
> >
> > Not quite.. I've been in free formed RP where the outcome wasn't
> > determined. And my lower level character managed to outwit and
> > defeat a higher level due to tactical thinking and a little luck.
> >
>
> The point is and you again seem to validate my arguement that Code
> should not be the determining factor for combat in an RP MUD. As below
> there is no tatics. There is rote attacks.
Of course. Though code can be useful in speeding up combat. Personally,
I like to have a global system in place for combat as not all PRers are
inclined to freeform. Doesn’t make them bad RPers. They just don't like
it or don't trust anyone. Ahh, if only there were a perfect world. But
place some code to deal with accounting info in terms of combat, then
let the players decide if they want to use it and to what degree.
> > > Code.
> > >
> > > j Attack Carno - You swing at Carno and miss.
> > > c: Attack Jakyb - you swing at Jakyb and miss.
> > > j: Attack Carno - You swing and hit for 10 points damage
> > > c: Attack Jakyb - you swing and hit for 2 points damage.
> > >
> > > Yes lets have code. No control just let them swing till one dies.
> >
> > Ick.. if I wanted the above, I'd play Diablo 2. Actually, I do. ;)
> >
>
> Again my arguement that Code should not be required to support RP
> combat. I play D2 as well and Tribes and a few other games.
Required, no. It shouldn't be mandatory to use code. Personally, I like
to have some code in place to do the accounting of combat. It might
look like the above with possible additions depending on the player.
1. People who don't care about poses and style, but just want the
combat done as quickly as possible can do as above and just go though
the mechanics. That’s not me.
2. People who want to have the mechanics and do care about style can
use the code and pose the results in their own way with whatever style
and flare they can muster. I do that sometimes.
3. Players who trust one another can feel free to freeform the battle
with either a planned ending or by trying to outwit each other though
common tactics. I've done this as well. With the right person, it can
be fun. With the wrong person, it tends to get tedious and annoying,
hence the need for at least a little code to be global and available.
Whether you use it or not is your choice.
Now come on.. life is better with choices, isn't it? You've gotta at
least admit that much. ;)
--
I see the ghosts of navigators but they are lost
As they sail into the setting sun they'll count the cost
As their skeletons accusing emerge from the sea
The sirens of the rocks they beckon me
Ghost of the Navigator : Iron Maiden
Under Construction- Ironclaw MUX. Email for details.
Dark Ren
Bill <bramag...@bastardclan.com> wrote:
> Dark Ren wrote:
> >
> > While I don't belive in banning either, I am of the frame of mind to
> > encourage RP over code. In the MU* I'm making, all the combat
> > code will be there for is to do the accounting for the players and
> > give them the results to RP out. Hopefully, that will eliminate
power
> > posing. And those who mutually wish to free form may.
>
> Not to take away from your arguement but this was started as a
> discussion of MUDs. MUX, MOO, MUSH and a couple others are a different
> discussion. MUSH compared to MUD is apples to oranges different
> enviroment.
Actually, I see this as a discussion about things other than server
type. Its about theme and setting and code(which exists everywhere) and
the like. Server type has no meaning save for details that we needn't
go into. Unless you want to help me code a chargen system..
Well, that entirely depends on content besides all that. I'm a part of
a MUX that has a history and code and theme and all that fun stuff. But
I always find myself back in that one room with that one person rather
than on the MUX, seeking out others. Perhaps I'm just lucky in finding
someone I mesh so fully with. ;) My point wasn't that history is
totally unneeded. You can be sure my game will have one, fleshed out to
some degree. My point is that its secondary. Its fodder that won't
necessarily make your game the ultimate in RP. The RP itself is the
most important no matter how you got it.
And you've never been on a game that just says, you're in the modern
day. The world is normal. Have at it? I guess games like that aren’t
common?
> > > what their character is. Cyberpunk gives the players a neo-gothic
> > > post nihilistic world to base their players on. AD&D gives us a
> > > Bubblegum Fanatasy Medievil RP world. If you do not present
> >
> > Not necessarily. An industrious GM could radically alter any setting
> > to suit his needs. Why not make a D&D game into a Xanth type of
> > setting, full of puns and general silliness. Or have a Cyberpunk
> > game with the tech and such, in a world where the victorian era
> > never went out of style. Outrageous, but thought provoking ideas,
> > yes? Maybe no.
> >
>
> Most definately but the point is a frame of reference for the player
to
> create his character. How many people do you think will stay in your
> bare room and create a role-play enviroment on their own without
getting
> bored and going somewhere with a little more defined framework.
Well, lets look at the game I continually bring up. There are NO files
on history. There is NO theme file. You walk into the grid and you see
that the world is modern. So figure its all the same tech as today. You
assume the laws of physics are normal, then you go play. Personally I
don't need a history to define my character. And as to theme, just tell
me the era and I can play a character. Everything else involves details
that may be important for one game and not others. You're just used to
having detailed history. I'm not. I can imagine a game that's detail
less and you can't or something like that. So by that, you wouldn't be
inclined to play at the game I'm no. THat's cool, you can go to Joe's
and have a blast. Different strokes for differnt folks. ;)
Dark Ren
Exactly. And that's another thing I intend to impose on my players.
Backgrounds are mandatory as they help to define the character and give
the player fodder with which to RP and react to those around them. My
own little quirk is that I think backgrounds should required across the
board, though I admit there are those that I’ve been on that don’t
require it. Of course, one of my background deficient characters is
currently having a story written about his life my myself.
Alan Schwartz
Aleriel <aleriel@_hedgemaze.org> writes:
><rr...@lanminds.com> wrote in message
>news:3a247dc2...@nntp.lanminds.com...
>> On 29 Nov 2000 02:02:03 GMT, Bill <bramag...@bastardclan.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> The problem with only rewarding RP is that there are times that the
>> imms aren't on. What happens if someone does really good RP and there
>> is no one in authority there to see it? And who defines good RP? If
>> someone does something entirely in character, but that disrupts the
>> general story that you are trying to promote, should they be rewarded
>> or punished?
>
>A system could be implemented where a player must send logs to the
>imms/wizards in order to receive a reward for RP. Or some kind of voting
>system could be done where players vote for those people RPing with whom
>they enjoyed most. I personally favor the former, even though reading some
>logs just drives me up the wall. :)
On one mud I ran, players could cause rooms to be marked as "logging"
and all actions in those rooms would be logged server-side (with
some obvious protections like alerting players when they step into
a logging room, turning off logging when everyone leaves, etc.)
A server-side perl script would read through the logs, find those
likely to be interesting RP (defined simplistically by looking
at number of people acting, length of utterances, number of utterances,
etc.), and email them out round-robin to judges who would reward RP.
It worked pretty well, though it's still a bit artificial.
Of course, one great reward of RP is that if you're a good RPer,
people will want to play with you, whether you're good at RPing
goodness or wickedness or whatever.
Bill
> >
> One incentive is that you are free to create your character without
> the limitations imposed by Joe's framework. A minimalist approach to
> the framework allows the players to be more involved in the process.
> Back in my pen-and-paper days, the player was supposed to develop
> their family background, including some idea about the town they grew
> up in, their childhood, the kind of people who lived there, etc.
> There is more opportunity to RP in doing that than in being told
> "Elves live in cities located in this particular part of the world,
> with these particular traits, and these kinds of opportunities."
>
> Kira Skydancer
There still needs to be something to attach to. A reason, a rhyme,
something that gives players a stepping stone. Even in days of Pen and
Paper and they are still here mind you, the GM would give a setting to
the players for their characters. If you played AD&D you knew it was
Medieval Fantasy. If you played Rifts you knew it was Far Future. If you
played Toon you knew it was going to be a laugh a minute. If you played
Paranoia you knew it was going to be cynical and funny, especially when
I lost all 6 clones before leaving the locker area.
Whehter it is minimalist or constrively big either way you need
something to build from as a player.
Bill
> Well said, Kira. I like the game mechanics to be controlled by the
> mud. Bill dislikes that as he feels that the code is limiting his
> roleplaying options, although he does likes to be given a predefined
> history. Some players find even a predefined history to be limiting
> their roleplaying - they prefer to improvise, shaping the history as
> they go. There is no perfect solution - different people have
> different requirements.
>
> KaVir.
>
I think you miss what I am saying about the Code. What I am getting at
is that I do not want to have to level and get skill or kill things and
get skills raised in order to RP. Why should someone have to use code to
back their RP. That to me seems that it give a crutch to people who are
poor RPers.
Bill
>
> Exactly. And that's another thing I intend to impose on my players.
> Backgrounds are mandatory as they help to define the character and give
> the player fodder with which to RP and react to those around them. My
> own little quirk is that I think backgrounds should required across the
> board, though I admit there are those that I’ve been on that don’t
> require it. Of course, one of my background deficient characters is
> currently having a story written about his life my myself.
>
I would have no problem with a background. I would just need some play
time to get the feel for what I want to be. I am the guy who creates a
character type and then takes 2-4 weekends to figure out how I want to
play it. My X-Wife could have a whole history before she even created a
character.
Bill
> Actually, I see this as a discussion about things other than server
> type. Its about theme and setting and code(which exists everywhere) and
> the like. Server type has no meaning save for details that we needn't
> go into. Unless you want to help me code a chargen system..
>
No thanks I can build your server. Set the MUD up and give you access
but I do not actually code. I am the server admin if anything. I do have
Idea but I leave coding to those who have a mind set for it.
>
> Well, that entirely depends on content besides all that. I'm a part of
> a MUX that has a history and code and theme and all that fun stuff. But
> I always find myself back in that one room with that one person rather
> than on the MUX, seeking out others. Perhaps I'm just lucky in finding
> someone I mesh so fully with. ;) My point wasn't that history is
> totally unneeded. You can be sure my game will have one, fleshed out to
> some degree. My point is that its secondary. Its fodder that won't
> necessarily make your game the ultimate in RP. The RP itself is the
> most important no matter how you got it.
>
On the philisophical side you have props that the human mind latches
onto to be able to imagine a situation. What you are describing is also
like lieing in bed before sleep comes and your mind wanders in your
imagination.
> And you've never been on a game that just says, you're in the modern
> day. The world is normal. Have at it? I guess games like that aren’t
> common?
>
Closest thing I found was a Cyberpunk MUSH. It was basically real world.
With some Bionic additions.
>
> Well, lets look at the game I continually bring up. There are NO files
> on history. There is NO theme file. You walk into the grid and you see
> that the world is modern. So figure its all the same tech as today. You
> assume the laws of physics are normal, then you go play. Personally I
> don't need a history to define my character. And as to theme, just tell
> me the era and I can play a character. Everything else involves
The era is a prop/structure for you to define your character from. I
used the words history since I posted on the median intelligence and
comprehension level. You and a few others are above that level. Plus
this is a discussion and we are following it. Giving you the criteria
Earth, Near future. Fine you have a general idea of the world. Gravity
and the physics are assumed information. Though even if you say you dont
need a history your subconcious latches onto "earth" history when it is
the world of the game. If I said okay The Forgotten Realms before the
Time of Troubles. If you have RPed in the Forgotten Realms then you
already have a basis to create a character from past knowledge. Ever try
playing a truly dumb character? You know the guy who failed 3rd grade.
The one who makes Jethro of the Beverly Hillbillies look like a Harvard
Grad. Pretty hard to keep out information that you yourself know. Hard
to act that stupid without slipping up and doing something intelligent
or acting on knowledge you have and the character doesnt. This boils
down to a basic setting. Once you have the basic setting you go from
there in your subconcious and concious mind.
details
> that may be important for one game and not others. You're just used to
> having detailed history. I'm not. I can imagine a game that's detail
> less and you can't or something like that. So by that, you wouldn't be
> inclined to play at the game I'm no. THat's cool, you can go to Joe's
> and have a blast. Different strokes for differnt folks. ;)
>
Either way you have a level of framework you are comfortable with.
You will go where that is.
Bill
That is where there is a fine line to walk. So allow for people to
advance through levels. Just dont restrict someone from RPing themselves
to a point of skill with something and then tell them they cant do it
unless they have CODE skill to back it up.
Moment In Tyme has a RP rewards system. You emote, the games counts it
and rewards you as long as you are in a room with others and interacting
with them. This is a simplistic view of the situation but basically what
they do.
I agree you cant stop someone who is bent on causing problems when there
are no Imms about. Sometimes the players themselves deal with it and
move on.
Bill
> You said the rules should be laid out. There are three audiences for
> such rules:
I was referring to the framework of the MUD. What will the players deal
with when they log in. Again maybe rules was not a good word. The
setting or framework of the world might have been better.
> > I never said they applied to all. Again read the title. DISCUSSION.
>
> Which was an invitation to counter your points, correct?
>
Why should you counter my points with questions like this one here?
You asked me confrontational questions rather than put forth your ideas
about what I put down. When debating you can lose faster by asking your
opponent to clarify or state more clearly their arguement than by
presenting your counter arguement.
> > You are say "BUT BUT BUT" WHAT IF.
>
> No, I provide examples of perfectly valid situations in which your
> points do not apply. My reason for doing this is to point out that
> there ARE no definitive rules about what defines a roleplaying mud.
> You cannot categorise such games purely on the basis of preset criteria.
Not at first. Go back to your first reply. You were hitting me with WHYs
and BUTS and NO YOUR WRONG type statements without any support for what
you were saying at the time. Why ask me about the Matrix when you would
have been better off presenting your opinions. Some of what you posted
was borderline flames. The sarcasm in some of your statements was very
obvious
"""Ah, so roleplaying muds have to be fantasy based?"""
This is sarcastic and also putting words in my mouth. Very annoying and
I am quite sure you knew what you were doing. I find it hard to believe
that you didnt realize how it would be taken. Most of what you posted
initially was heavily sarcastic in tone and putting words in my mouth.
>
> As Lee stated in a separate thread, why do you feel you have to be
> rewarded for roleplaying? You complain about people being rewarded for
> killing things, but at the same time you feel that you deserve to be
> rewarded for roleplaying - that's the same old GoP/HnS attitude.
>
Would you stop putting words in my mouth. I never said I deserved
anything. I posted ideas to create a discussion. If you wish to continue
to put words in my mouth and be sarcastic then you can argue with
yourself as I drop you in the killfile. I also dont know what GoP/HnS
attitude is. If you want to reference something then be clear about it
rather than obtuse.
> I would rather roleplay on a stock mud in which all the other players
> were skilled roleplayers, than roleplay on any other mud in which all
> the other players were pure HnSers.
>
So wouldnt those of us who RP. I do not think there are enough IMMs in
the world to guarantee that. Then again by you statement it could be
implied that you do not think someone can learn. I am not putting words
in your mouth here just pointing out how it could be taken.
Now for the sarcastic comment to be like you.
I suppose you were born full grown and a perfect roleplayer and didnt
have to learn how to RP through trial and error therefore you dont think
someone should be given some leeway about it.
> Agreed - it helps or hinders. But that's all. It's the players that
> are the vital element.
>
Once the MUD is in place and running yes players are important. If you
dont have a draw for them you are spinning your wheels. Define how the
players are Vital? What makes them vital other than it is nice to have
them log in and play.
> As has been pointed out to you already, MOO, MUSH and MUX are all types
> of mud. To be precise, they all belong to the TinyMUD branch, which
> comes from AberMUD. The Diku and LP branches also come from AberMUD.
From a Code perspective yes they do but from the mechanics on the
players side they are as I have said apples to oranges. The MUSH/MOO/MUX
etc though branched away from the code that was to go out kill something
raise level then kill some more to a more RP free form almost setting. I
have player a few MUSHes over the years. They are fun and if I had the
time the best place to play for RP. I am still talking specifically
about the Diku/Circle/ROM/Envy etc side of the MUD tree. The part that
has primarily out of the box hack and slash settings.
Bill
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 29/11/00 1:39 am, in article 3A245E35...@bastardclan.com, Bill
> <bramag...@bastardclan.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Your answer supports my arguement. Just because it looks like a duck and
> > quacks like a duck does not mean it is a duck. Your cookie cutter is
> > only valid on those without imagination and RP ability.
> >
>
> So if you have imagination, why do you need classes?
> All a class does is give you a little box to squeeze your character into.
> I want to play a character who can really kick some <generic monster> arse.
> But he's also learned how to pick a lock (and perhaps, when times are lean,
> a pocket).
> He likes to sing, and often entertains his fellow travellers around the
> campfire.
>
> But his day job is still sticking the pointy end of a sword into things.
> So he's got to be a warrior.
>
Why? For convience most RPs have specific Classes to create into. AD&D
is restrictive in this. Palladium allows a Fighter to do just what you
showed.
> But warriors don't pick pockets, right?
> A warrior can't take singing skills, or learn to play the <genric campfire
> instrument>.
Why not? I havent said it couldnt happen. Hell on an RP MUD it probably
will but if you play a fighter type person of moral integrity would you
pick someones pockets? That is stealing and if you have high morals then
that would be wrong and you most likely wouldnt do it.
>
> And if they can do that, then what's the point of classes in the first
> place?
>
> Classes help those who can't think up even the most basic character concepts
> by themselves, but these are the people who are 'without imagination' and
> will produce cookie-cutter characters.
>
Not true. A fighter type has many choices to be an individual. From the
armor they would were to the weapon they wield to the personality that
they present. A fighter who makes quips all the time like you see in
comic books is still a fighter but he is not a bland knock off of all
other fighters.
> I would definitely say that classes of any shape or description are not
> necessary to have good RP. Good RPers are necessary to have good RP. Good
> classes are necessary to make the most 31337 character and 'win' the game
> (ie: defeat the quests/kill the mobiles/whatever).
I also never said there had to be classes. I mentioned groups as well.
Real world example of groups are Democrats and Republicans. Neither are
fighters but some fight.
Bill
> Now come on.. life is better with choices, isn't it? You've gotta at
> least admit that much. ;)
I never said there shouldnt be choices. I want a more openess. I prefer
the Palladium RPG to AD&D any day of the week for its openess of choices
for the classes.
John Daniels
Hash: SHA1
On 29/11/00 11:30 pm, in article 3A259175...@bastardclan.com, Bill
<bramag...@bastardclan.com> wrote:
> I never said there shouldnt be choices. I want a more openess. I prefer
> the Palladium RPG to AD&D any day of the week for its openess of choices
> for the classes.
Wouldn't there be even more choice if you weren't limited to a class? ;o)
- --
- From address bounces, use john at wibbble dot org dot uk
John Daniels
PGP Public Key:
http://www.wibbble.plus.com/public.key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOiWZg393T0cHCvI/EQJXzACfX8FBYyzC/9lqOdOFfiJX2gnh/KoAn2NJ
NOACFTfThndnBuQhb/KyD7ay
=92ee
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
John Daniels
Hash: SHA1
On 29/11/00 11:28 pm, in article 3A2590F1...@bastardclan.com, Bill
<bramag...@bastardclan.com> wrote:
>
> Why? For convience most RPs have specific Classes to create into. AD&D
> is restrictive in this. Palladium allows a Fighter to do just what you
> showed.
>
Most?
Got statistics to back that up? ;o)
I've never played a RPG which required classes.
(Admittedly I'm not a huge pen-and-paper player, though..)
>
> Why not? I havent said it couldnt happen. Hell on an RP MUD it probably
> will but if you play a fighter type person of moral integrity would you
> pick someones pockets? That is stealing and if you have high morals then
> that would be wrong and you most likely wouldnt do it.
>
It's stealing?!
You know, I didn't know that. I'm shocked. :op
And I can't play someone who has both dubious morals /and/ can kills things
with a sword?
Why would a fighter automatically have high moral integrity? This is someone
who most likely kills for a living...
The tack you're taking in defending classes is merely reinforcing the
cookie-cutter image of them...
>
> Not true. A fighter type has many choices to be an individual. From the
> armor they would were to the weapon they wield to the personality that
> they present. A fighter who makes quips all the time like you see in
> comic books is still a fighter but he is not a bland knock off of all
> other fighters.
So why bother with the label? Does anyone really care which group people
have been forced to select..
>
> I also never said there had to be classes. I mentioned groups as well.
> Real world example of groups are Democrats and Republicans. Neither are
> fighters but some fight.
>
That's... random.
What you said '5: Classes/Groups that are divided on the lines of the Gods.'
was actually more stupid than requiring classes... the various points in
that list are highly specific and most aren't required for RP at all.
I've noticed that you've since spent most of the thread trying to defend
yourself as people point this out.. and you've tried to expand on what you
meant, as if these extra explainations were obvious from the original
posting.
Perhaps if you'd titled the posting 'A Discussion of what makes a good RP
Generic-Fantasy MUD' people would've cut you a bit more slack....
But...
At least it's been a more useful thread than the same-old, same-old with the
pedophile or MAB... :o)
- --
- From address bounces, use john at wibbble dot org dot uk
John Daniels
PGP Public Key:
http://www.wibbble.plus.com/public.key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOiWZQn93T0cHCvI/EQIyPwCg0C/dDquUVZFxFL/pP4cm8bFZWA8AnjBA
maD8xUhriJH/RtBugNVZ4Lyv
=mitz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Dark Ren
Bill <bramag...@bastardclan.com> wrote:
> Dark Ren wrote:
>
> > Now come on.. life is better with choices, isn't it? You've gotta
at
> > least admit that much. ;)
>
prefer
> the Palladium RPG to AD&D any day of the week for its openess
of choices
> for the classes.
>
I prefer almost any point based system to any randomly generated
system. GURPS, Fuzion, etc.. Ultimate in choices and its easy to
build templets for those that want them. :)
Dark Ren
Bill <bramag...@bastardclan.com> wrote:
> Dark Ren wrote:
>
> > Actually, I see this as a discussion about things other than
server
> > type. Its about theme and setting and code(which exists
everywhere) and
> > the like. Server type has no meaning save for details that we
needn't
> > go into. Unless you want to help me code a chargen system..
> >
>
access
> but I do not actually code. I am the server admin if anything. I do
have
> Idea but I leave coding to those who have a mind set for it.
*Grins* Might be best to keep it that way. I'm not sure I know
enough about code to do it right. But I have a few people I can
pester about it.
> >
> > Well, that entirely depends on content besides all that. I'm a
part of
> > a MUX that has a history and code and theme and all that fun
stuff. But
> > I always find myself back in that one room with that one person
rather
> > than on the MUX, seeking out others. Perhaps I'm just lucky in
finding
> > someone I mesh so fully with. ;) My point wasn't that history is
> > totally unneeded. You can be sure my game will have one,
fleshed out to
> > some degree. My point is that its secondary. Its fodder that
won't
> > necessarily make your game the ultimate in RP. The RP itself
is the
> > most important no matter how you got it.
> >
>
> On the philisophical side you have props that the human mind
latches
> onto to be able to imagine a situation. What you are describing is
also
> like lieing in bed before sleep comes and your mind wanders in
your
> imagination.
True. Just depends what the person needs. Although I'm
somewhat seasoned, personally.
> > And you've never been on a game that just says, you're in the
modern
> > day. The world is normal. Have at it? I guess games like that
aren’t
> > common?
> >
>
> Closest thing I found was a Cyberpunk MUSH. It was basically
real world.
> With some Bionic additions.
>
> >
> > Well, lets look at the game I continually bring up. There are NO
files
> > on history. There is NO theme file. You walk into the grid and
you see
> > that the world is modern. So figure its all the same tech as
today. You
> > assume the laws of physics are normal, then you go play.
Personally I
> > don't need a history to define my character. And as to theme,
just tell
> > me the era and I can play a character. Everything else involves
Heh. Well, yes I latched on to Earth's history. But so far in that
game, it hasn't come up. ;) So I've not really given that much
thought. And I never was much of a history buff.
> > that may be important for one game and not others. You're just
used to
> > having detailed history. I'm not. I can imagine a game that's
detail
> > less and you can't or something like that. So by that, you
wouldn't be
> > inclined to play at the game I'm no. THat's cool, you can go to
Joe's
> > and have a blast. Different strokes for differnt folks. ;)
> >
>
> Either way you have a level of framework you are comfortable
with.
> You will go where that is.
>
Exactly.
Dark Ren
players.
> > Backgrounds are mandatory as they help to define the
character and give
> > the player fodder with which to RP and react to those around
them. My
> > own little quirk is that I think backgrounds should required
across the
> > board, though I admit there are those that I’ve been on that
don’t
> > require it. Of course, one of my background deficient
characters is
> > currently having a story written about his life my myself.
> >
>
> I would have no problem with a background. I would just need
some play
> time to get the feel for what I want to be. I am the guy who creates
a
> character type and then takes 2-4 weekends to figure out how I
want to
> play it. My X-Wife could have a whole history before she even
created a
> character.
Hmm.. well, that isn't likely to be an option for my game. You don't
go in without a background. Though most games I'm on have
been part an RPG. So you buy the books and you have the history. I
would think the most important use for a history and theme would
be chargen and making a history for your character. Especially
when it comes to characters with aspects chosen from restricted
areas.
Example? Well, I'm planning a fantasy type game. One of the
systems I'd considering using has a skill called inventor. I'm
thinking that would be a rare skill, suitable to be restricted as a
skilled use of it could radically change the game's theme. So a
character with that skill, I would require, to have a background of
suitable quality. On the other hand, if you want to play a peasant, it
wouldn't require a book. A few small paragraphs would be dandy.
rr...@lanminds.com
wrote:
>KaVir wrote:
>
>> Well said, Kira. I like the game mechanics to be controlled by the
>> mud. Bill dislikes that as he feels that the code is limiting his
>> roleplaying options, although he does likes to be given a predefined
>> history. Some players find even a predefined history to be limiting
>> their roleplaying - they prefer to improvise, shaping the history as
>> they go. There is no perfect solution - different people have
>> different requirements.
>>
>> KaVir.
>>
>
>I think you miss what I am saying about the Code. What I am getting at
>is that I do not want to have to level and get skill or kill things and
>get skills raised in order to RP. Why should someone have to use code to
>back their RP. That to me seems that it give a crutch to people who are
>poor RPers.
>
>Bramage
>
I will admit that, to me, roleplaying without stats, dice, skills,
etc, is possible, but it doesn't seem much like roleplaying. I'd
describe it as something more like interactive fiction. Personally, I
like the uncertainty introduced by die rolls. Sure, going into a
situation I have some idea of the likelihood of success... if it's
something I have studied a lot, it's much more likely than if I have
no idea what I'm doing. But even in the best of situations, something
can go wrong. And that's where the real opportunities for RP come in,
imo. For example, your party has been planning how to take out a band
of bandits. Everything is going according to plan, when suddenly the
snow on a treebranch falls on your main fighter, distracting him for
just the instant a bandit needs to get a blow in that dazes the
fighter. The party's plans are now in disarray, no one knows how bad
off the fighter is, the weaker party members are in more danger, the
bandits have time to regroup... what happens next, who lives and who
dies, all depends on the ability of the party to think on their feet.
To me, getting together and deciding all that out beforehand is just
not the same thing.
To your claim that levels, skills, coding, etc are crutches for poor
RPers, I think it depends on how you define RP. I could just as
easily say that having to know in advance how things are going to turn
out is the sign of a poor RPer, because they don't RP their char's
reaction to a quickly changing situation based upon the skills they
know the char has. However, I will content myself with saying it's a
sign of a different type of RPer than I am.
Rebecca
KaVir
Bill <bramag...@bastardclan.com> wrote:
> KaVir wrote:
>
> > > I never said they applied to all. Again read the title.
> > > DISCUSSION.
> >
> > Which was an invitation to counter your points, correct?
>
> You asked me confrontational questions rather than put forth your
> ideas about what I put down.
You listed the points about what features a good roleplaying mud should
have. I countered them with examples of muds I felt could contain good
roleplaying, which didn't adhere to that particular point. It was no
more confrontational than your initial claims.
> When debating you can lose faster by asking your opponent to clarify
> or state more clearly their arguement than by presenting your counter
> arguement.
I didn't realise that this debate was supposed to be about "winning"
and "losing" - I thought you were simply interested in discussing what
aspects of a mud make it a roleplaying mud, not forcing your opinions
on everyone else.
> > > You are say "BUT BUT BUT" WHAT IF.
> >
> > No, I provide examples of perfectly valid situations in which your
> > points do not apply. My reason for doing this is to point out that
> > there ARE no definitive rules about what defines a roleplaying mud.
> > You cannot categorise such games purely on the basis of preset
> > criteria.
>
> Not at first. Go back to your first reply. You were hitting me with
> WHYs and BUTS and NO YOUR WRONG type statements without any support
> for what you were saying at the time.
There are no "why"s, no "but"s and no "wrong"s in my initial post. I
listed specific examples of muds which countered your points. How is
that "without any support"?
> Why ask me about the Matrix when you would have been better off
> presenting your opinions.
I WAS presenting my opinions.
> Some of what you posted was borderline flames. The sarcasm in some of
> your statements was very obvious
Every so often someone comes along and decides to tell everyone what a
roleplaying mud should be like. The majority of your points were far,
far to specific to apply to such a wide range of possible muds, yet you
presented them as fact - it was only later that you changed your
argument to "these are just my opinions". In fact you've been
constantly changing your argument throughout this thread. I think
you're more interested in appearing to "win" than participating in
actual discussion.
[snip]
> I also dont know what GoP/HnS attitude is. If you want to reference
> something then be clear about it rather than obtuse.
GoP means "Game-Orientated Play" (the game is based around the
accumulation of power/etc). HnS means "Hack-n-Slash". These are
fairly standard acronyms in the mudding community. I assumed you were
at least familiar with them, as you've been slamming them so heavily.
> > I would rather roleplay on a stock mud in which all the other
> > players were skilled roleplayers, than roleplay on any other mud in
> > which all the other players were pure HnSers.
>
> So wouldnt those of us who RP. I do not think there are enough IMMs in
> the world to guarantee that. Then again by you statement it could be
> implied that you do not think someone can learn.
Not everyone WANTS to roleplay.
http://www.brandeis.edu/pubs/jove/HTML/v1/bartle.html
There is nothing wrong with HnS - it's just as valid a type of gameplay
as roleplaying. However if you're trying to roleplay it can be very
off-putting when the other players refuse to (or do so badly).
> > Agreed - it helps or hinders. But that's all. It's the players
> > that are the vital element.
>
> Once the MUD is in place and running yes players are important. If you
> dont have a draw for them you are spinning your wheels. Define how the
> players are Vital? What makes them vital other than it is nice to have
> them log in and play.
It is the players that have to do the actual roleplaying, thus they are
the vital element to making a mud a roleplaying mud. You can encourage
or discourage roleplayers but at the end of the day it's their decision
as to whether or not they will roleplay.
> > As has been pointed out to you already, MOO, MUSH and MUX are all
> > types of mud. To be precise, they all belong to the TinyMUD
> > branch, which comes from AberMUD. The Diku and LP branches also
> > come from AberMUD.
>
> From a Code perspective yes they do but from the mechanics on the
> players side they are as I have said apples to oranges. The
> MUSH/MOO/MUX etc though branched away from the code that was to go
> out kill something raise level then kill some more to a more RP free
> form almost setting.
What of those that have implemented combat systems? What of the Diku
muds which have removed levels and - in some cases - automated combat?
What about scratch-written muds, where do they come in?
> I am still talking specifically about the Diku/Circle/ROM/Envy etc
> side of the MUD tree. The part that has primarily out of the box hack
> and slash settings.
What use is discussing "out of the box" stock muds when you yourself
have said that stock discourages roleplaying? Furthermore, why don't
you feel your points apply to the more socially-orientated muds?
KaVir
> > mud. Bill dislikes that as he feels that the code is limiting his
> > roleplaying options, although he does likes to be given a predefined
> > history. Some players find even a predefined history to be limiting
> > their roleplaying - they prefer to improvise, shaping the history as
> > they go. There is no perfect solution - different people have
> > different requirements.
>
> is that I do not want to have to level and get skill or kill things
> and get skills raised in order to RP. Why should someone have to use
> code to back their RP. That to me seems that it give a crutch to
> people who are poor RPers.
There is nothing stopping you from roleplaying on any mud, regardless
of what sort of advancement system it has - unless you're one of those
people who likes to roleplay "the greatest swordsman in the world"?
However I do agree that levels are another artificial limit.
KaVir
Dark Ren <dar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <3A259175...@bastardclan.com>,
> Bill <bramag...@bastardclan.com> wrote:
> > Dark Ren wrote:
> >
> > > Now come on.. life is better with choices, isn't it? You've gotta
> > > at least admit that much. ;)
> >
> > I never said there shouldnt be choices. I want a more openess. I
> > prefer the Palladium RPG to AD&D any day of the week for its openess
> > of choices for the classes.
>
> I prefer almost any point based system to any randomly generated
> system. GURPS, Fuzion, etc.. Ultimate in choices and its easy to
> build templets for those that want them. :)
Agreed - such systems are much fairer and give you far more
flexability. The WoD games by White Wolf are also fairly good - not as
flexible as GURPS, but simpler to use.
I really don't like levels or classes in roleplaying games at all, with
the only possible exception being Rolemaster (when you gain a level you
earn X development points, which can be spent on any skill/s you like -
however different classes learn different skills at different
development point costs).
KaVir.
Dark Ren
KaVir <ka...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <90487h$u1o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Dark Ren <dar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > Bill <bramag...@bastardclan.com> wrote:
> > > Dark Ren wrote:
> > >
> > > > Now come on.. life is better with choices, isn't it? You've
gotta
> > > > at least admit that much. ;)
> > >
> > > I never said there shouldnt be choices. I want a more openess. I
> > > prefer the Palladium RPG to AD&D any day of the week for its
openess
> > > of choices for the classes.
> >
> > I prefer almost any point based system to any randomly generated
> > system. GURPS, Fuzion, etc.. Ultimate in choices and its easy to
> > build templets for those that want them. :)
>
> flexability. The WoD games by White Wolf are also fairly good - not
as
> flexible as GURPS, but simpler to use.
>
> I really don't like levels or classes in roleplaying games at all,
with
> the only possible exception being Rolemaster (when you gain a level
you
> earn X development points, which can be spent on any skill/s you
like -
> however different classes learn different skills at different
> development point costs).
>
Well, here's a question. The system I was going to use has become
unavailable. So now I'm looking for a new one. I'm considering Fuzion
closely, but wonder if there is any that would be suggested by any of
you. The limits are I don't want a system with random chargen aspects
to it. Such as rolling ability scores. And I don't want to use White
Wolf games. They are nice, but I'm creating a fantasy setting and their
system is not that impressive to me on sheer technical merits.
Alan Schwartz
>>
>I will admit that, to me, roleplaying without stats, dice, skills,
>etc, is possible, but it doesn't seem much like roleplaying. I'd
>describe it as something more like interactive fiction.
That's funny. I think of RP *with* stats, dice, skills, etc. as "gaming"
and RP without ("interactive fiction") as true roleplaying. And I
like both.
Just goes to show that different people have different preferences
and viewpoints on what may seem like very stable concepts. :)
Dark Ren
ala...@tala.mede.uic.edu (Alan Schwartz) wrote:
> <rr...@lanminds.com> writes:
> >>
> >I will admit that, to me, roleplaying without stats, dice, skills,
> >etc, is possible, but it doesn't seem much like roleplaying. I'd
> >describe it as something more like interactive fiction.
>
as "gaming"
> and RP without ("interactive fiction") as true roleplaying. And I
> like both.
>
> Just goes to show that different people have different preferences
> and viewpoints on what may seem like very stable concepts. :)
>
RP is RP is RP is RP.
There is NO one way to do it. Period. The point is that you enjoy
yourself. I'd think that the only requirement.
Lars Duening
> I really don't like levels or classes in roleplaying games at all,
I once played a system where the level (about 10 in total) was determined
from the total amount of points spent on developing a character's skills.
This made the level a useful approximation for a character's overall
abilities - very useful for the GM when creating NPCs :-). The level was
also used to simulate long-term effects, so for example whenever a
character gained a level, it had the opportunity to improve basic
character traits like Strength and such.
--
Lars Duening; la...@bearnip.com
http://www.bearnip.com/
KaVir
Dark Ren <dar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <905tg1$b5i$1...@newsx.cc.uic.edu>,
> ala...@tala.mede.uic.edu (Alan Schwartz) wrote:
> > <rr...@lanminds.com> writes:
> > >>
> > >etc, is possible, but it doesn't seem much like roleplaying. I'd
> > >describe it as something more like interactive fiction.
> >
> > as "gaming" and RP without ("interactive fiction") as true
> > roleplaying. And I like both.
> >
> > Just goes to show that different people have different preferences
> > and viewpoints on what may seem like very stable concepts. :)
> >
>
> RP is RP is RP is RP.
>
> There is NO one way to do it. Period. The point is that you enjoy
> yourself. I'd think that the only requirement.
Agreed. Unfortunately some people seem obsessed with categorising
everything.
KaVir.
Jon A. Lambert
Yeah! Why do they do that? I'm pretty sure it's a neurosis. ;-)
-------------------
Online Role-playing - A rainbow of happy flavors.
Avatarism - Probably the lightest form of RP. Players freely enter and
exit RP at leisure. The line between character and player is tenuous
at best. Identification with character is very weak. "Real"
role-players look down their noses and scoff at it as being unworthy.
Immersive RP - is when players are immersed primarily in world and the
environment moreso than socialization. Usually the environment and
world is more static than dynamic. It has a big foot in the Explorer
category because of the fascination its proponents have for "realism",
and making sure the world mechanics function in a desirable fashion.
GameMastered RP - is an attempt to translate some of the adjudication
mechanisms from tabletop FRPG play to muds. Although the resemblance
is casual. Environment and props are much more dynamic. I've seen
both consensual and PvP play.
StoryTelling/Freestyle RP - is probably much closer to offline activities
like LARPing and reenactment societies like SCCA. Usually within a
common theme that is almost entirely dependent on story additions by
players. Extremely dynamic and mutable. There do exist many totally
free-style methods of storytelling. Consensual RP is the rule.
--
--
--* Jon A. Lambert - TychoMUD Email:jlsy...@NOSPAM.ix.netcom.com *--
--* Mud Server Developer's Page <http://tychomud.home.netcom.com> *--
--* If I had known it was harmless, I would have killed it myself.*--
Jon A. Lambert
> In article <8vv00s$81d$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net>,
> "Jon A. Lambert" <jlsy...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > "KaVir" <ka...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8vuj2a$ao9
> $1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > In article <3A21D2FD...@bastardclan.com>,
> > > Bill <bramag...@bastardclan.com> wrote:
> > >
>
> > > A role-playing mud must be about good vs evil? There can be no
> > > shades of grey? Games like "Vampire the Masquerade", which deal
> > > with the constant struggle to retain ones humanity, are not
> > > roleplaying games?
> >
> > Well I'm gonna disagree with both of you. First Kavir. Yes
> > everything boils down to struggles of good vs. evil.
>
> Does it though? What about a mud in which you take on the role of a
> villager, such as "blacksmith", "baker", "innkeeper", etc - then spend
> your time roleplaying out your profession and your interaction with
> other villagers. Would that not be a roleplaying mud? Where is
> the 'good vs evil' element in such a system?
Yes it would be a role-playing mud, and it would be just oozing
with good vs. evil. Like cut-throat competition, shady deals,
fooling around with the baker's wife, stealing, spreading rumors
and innuendo, making the best damn horseshoes or raisin bread,
helping an apprentice getting started, banding together to protest
the king's taxes and laws, participating in guilds and associations,
public service, helping the blacksmith putting out a terrible fire
and loaning him the money to rebuild. But before we dwell on
what is admittedly my own pedantic observations of good vs. evil
on a very trivial scale, I believe that you are correct in that
"comes for free" when humans are involved.
> http://www.kanga.nu/archives/MUD-Dev-L/1997Q3/msg01102.php
>
> "Now suppose I arbitrarily decided that in chess the white side was
> good and the black side was evil. Does this value set matter a whit
> to those involved in the game? I would think not. The good and
> evil aspect of the pieces have absolutely no in-game effect. Of
> course the *cackling* of the black side's queen could provide some
> social amusement. The lesson of chess is, that you cannot insert an
> artificial value set unless you change the mechanics of the game
> in order to make using that value set relevant. Then the nature of
> the game would change" -- Jon A. Lambert (4 Sep 1997).
Heh. I had forgotten that. I believe it was at the tail end of a long
"Alignment: good, bad, ugly or senseless" thread. IIRC, I was arguing
the alignment is irrelevant or senseless to add into GOPer games like
chess, (and by implication, a stock DikuMud), unless you were willing
to back it up with mechanics, goals/rewards. So you can't just state,
"Welcome to DikuMUD...This is a Role-play only game." and expect
some sort of amazing results.
In a previous post I listed some categories. There are terminology
issues with the word role-play as it does mean something different to
each of us. Single-user CRPGs have bastardized the word and for a great
many people it means avatarism, since they haven't experienced anything
else.
There is not much about an unmodified Diku that lends itself to, promotes
or encourages heavier role-playing outside of avatarism. It has been
stated that it is indeed all about the players and their desire to
role-play. However attracting the "right" sort of players is not easy.
There is also the philosophical question. Can you make a role-player
out of a GOPer or HnSer? From their viewpoint it is all about
Where's the rewards? or Where's the cheese?
I know you can in a FTF RP group...more below.
> I would argue that while "good" and "evil" (both as abstract and
> relative terms) almost invariably exist in games of all sorts, they are
> not mandatory - nor even always desirable - to create a quality
> roleplaying environment.
Ah Ok. Yes they do invariably exist. Perhaps we should dispense
with the notions of Hero vs. evil, and good vs. evil and simply call
it Action/Conflict/Resolution or ACR for the acronym lovers.
Or maybe not...too many acronyms.
You brought up soap operas in another post. I think soap operas
are the perfect analogy to really good roleplaying games. Yeah
the acting is sometimes bad and hamish, but most role-players
aren't Lawrence Olivier or Anthony Hopkins either. There are evil
archetypical characters, saint-like characters, and a whole host
of tweeners who oftentimes do good and just as often do bad.
But at its core is actions/events that set up potential conflict
situations and opportunities to resolve them. Each of the many
subplots and scenes going on in soaps, and good RP games, occur
simultaneously and have different levels of scale, from the
triviality of bumping into someone on the street to major full
scale wars.
You'll note that soap operas have many short running and trivial
plots, longer running mid-level plots (sometimes for years), and
occasional major-mega plots (oddly coinciding with network ratings
weeks :-). You'll note the attempt at consistent threads, and
failings. Characters being suddenly written out (player deletion,
vacations, jobs) and suddenly returning again (back to school lab).
And the recycling of old storylines ....lather, rinse, repeat.
I think that by using the structure of soap operas as a template or
pattern, you can create a more sustainable and enjoyable game.
Change the theme, topics, and environment as you deem appropriate.
> > > > 8: When all is said and done the code should not stop the RP.
> > >
> > > So you cannot have roleplaying in a mud which has automated combat?
> >
> > Actually I believe one of the major obstacles in trying to run a
> > role-playing game that doesn't dissolve into Hack-N-Slash/Diablo/
> > Mario bros. type play is the notion of "automated advancement". :-)
>
> While such automated advancement as found in D&D and many other
> pen&papers games might encourage hack and slash, it doesn't prevent
> roleplaying in and off itself. Besides, I would argue that it isn't
> the automation that is the problem, but rather the factors it takes
> into account (ie killing things). If a new roleplaying game
> called "boozing and debauchery" included an automated advancement
> system for sexual conquests and imbibing vast quantities of alcohol, I
> doubt there would be much "hack and slash".
I vaguely remember my own first D&D campaigns and impressions gathered
from the books. Those were very much like... well like playing on a
Diku. We of course followed the rules religiously, they were in fact
laws as far as we were concerned. Not to mention Mr. Gygax issued
conflicting pronouncements; like feel free to experiment coupled with
dire warnings about screwing with game mechanics. Being avid board
war-gamers, rules lawyers, and designer's notes fans that was something
we could understand.
So you killed stuff, you got treasures, and you got experience points,
sometimes you got bonus points, you leveled, you fought harder monsters
and got bigger and better treasures. Bigger-badder-Monty Haul,
off-the-level charts, slaying whole armies with a swing of the sword.
Sound like Diku still? Role-play was casual and we played archetypes.
We wanted to role-play, but we were self-taught and didn't quite know
what we were doing. Most of us looked on it a just another
boardgame (sans board) to win or lose. We were GoPers and HnSers yet
over the years our tastes changed and we did grow, well some of us.
In other words this is what automated and reliably predictable rules
and advancement perpetuate. What I discovered as a DM was that I
indeed could elicit role-play through rewards. I found out one day
that by just ignoring the damn D&D experience point rules and
guidelines, I could get good role-play. Somebody played out a nice
scene and I immediately awarded then 700 exps. Someone picked a lock
,5 exps for the thief, the party kills a giant troll...50 xps for the
fighter, none for anybody else. I said from now on this is how we will
play the game here. Jaws dropped. WTF? I lost 3 players that day
out of 10. Not a big deal. Later we all moved on to RPGs that
supported storytelling better and wimped advancement, Ars Magica,
Werewolf, Vampyre, Wraith, etc.
Two lessons above (for me anyway).
1) Lavishly reward role-play and wimp HnS and GOPer play.
There are those that maintain the role-play is reward in itself.
Yes and No...The rewards are more ephemeral, but even so most
RPers like to see tangible acclaim from their peers or DM.
There's nothing wrong with encourage competitive role-play by
using scales like experience points or role-play points.
2) Never cater to or compromise with players who don't want to
role-play. You either want it or you don't. Mutual existence
is just as annoying for the RPer as the killer is to the social
player.
Anyhow during the 80's a whole host of 2nd generation role-play
games have come out, and many if not most of them have much
looser rules and minimize this notion of advancement. There
are a whole host of games in which characters start as complete
or nearly complete.
I know of no way to automate rewards for role-play. Sometimes
we had players vote for the best player, sometimes we had discussions
between co-DMs, sometimes I did it alone. But it was always very
subjective. Being "fair" is a very hard line to walk.
Well enough rambling for now...
Bill
> I didn't realise that this debate was supposed to be about "winning"
> and "losing" - I thought you were simply interested in discussing what
> aspects of a mud make it a roleplaying mud, not forcing your opinions
> on everyone else.
>
> Every so often someone comes along and decides to tell everyone what a
> roleplaying mud should be like. The majority of your points were far,
> far to specific to apply to such a wide range of possible muds, yet you
> presented them as fact - it was only later that you changed your
> argument to "these are just my opinions". In fact you've been
> constantly changing your argument throughout this thread. I think
> you're more interested in appearing to "win" than participating in
> actual discussion.
>
If I was trying to present my thoughts as FACT do you think I would be
stupid enough to put the word DISCUSSION in the title. I presented a
list of opinions on what would help a RPmud be good. I presented
paragraphs outlining why and explaining what I was saying. All you did
was snip every paragraph about the idea and answer the basic Idea with
Sarcastic questions. If I wanted to "win" anything I would not have even
tried to present this as a discussion.
GO re-read what you first replied with and ask yourself if you were just
trying to flame me and be a twit or were you honestly just trying to
elicit more information.
The way you worded everything you come across as wanting to be a
sarcastic twit. That is how the wording and tone of what you wrote
sounded to me as I read it. You came across as not caring at all about
what I had put forth. You just wanted to try and make me look stupid.
Bill
> > Why? For convience most RPs have specific Classes to create into. AD&D
> > is restrictive in this. Palladium allows a Fighter to do just what you
> > showed.
> >
>
> Most?
> Got statistics to back that up? ;o)
> I've never played a RPG which required classes.
> (Admittedly I'm not a huge pen-and-paper player, though..)
>
Okay what RPGs have you played that dont require Classes?
I know a couple out there but most require some sort of class
definition.
Toon doesnt that I remember would have to find the book.
There is another but I cannot think of it off hand.
> >
> > Why not? I havent said it couldnt happen. Hell on an RP MUD it probably
> > will but if you play a fighter type person of moral integrity would you
> > pick someones pockets? That is stealing and if you have high morals then
> > that would be wrong and you most likely wouldnt do it.
> >
>
> It's stealing?!
> You know, I didn't know that. I'm shocked. :op
>
Maybe I wouldnt get defensive if you werent stupidly sarcastic. You
avoid to comment by trying to be cute and failing.
> And I can't play someone who has both dubious morals /and/ can kills things
> with a sword?
>
> Why would a fighter automatically have high moral integrity? This is someone
Why do I bother. I SAID "BUT IF YOU PLAY" doesnt that mean that you have
made a choice to play in a certain manner? Did I say anywhere that a
fighter HAD TO HAVE moral intergrity?
> who most likely kills for a living...
>
So he kills. Do you consider a soldier who fought in a war someone who
cannot have high moral intergrity if they choose to live that way and
still kill. I can name a few war heroes who are very good people but
they also killed many. Does that mean they are really bad people?
> The tack you're taking in defending classes is merely reinforcing the
> cookie-cutter image of them...
>
I am not defending classes I am pointing out that just because someone
is labeled a Fighter does not mean they are going to be like every other
fighter out there. Why do you insist I am saying they will be?
> >
> > Not true. A fighter type has many choices to be an individual. From the
> > armor they would were to the weapon they wield to the personality that
> > they present. A fighter who makes quips all the time like you see in
> > comic books is still a fighter but he is not a bland knock off of all
> > other fighters.
>
> So why bother with the label? Does anyone really care which group people
> have been forced to select..
>
A few posts back I was saying the same thing. A label doesnt matter.
As far as forced? What you got someone with a gun to your head telling
you to log into mud A and play a specific character.
You also have to consider how other people view you. If you play a
Futuristic Cyberpunk like MUD and they have a class list. You choose say
some sort of Cyborg. In the MUD you do your best to present what would
be called a Corp or Suit. You want them to think you are nothing more
than some Executive. You may have had to use a class structure but you
expanded to a personality beyond the actual class. If I log into the MUD
and create a character and see yours and you are dressed like a Corp I
will think of you as a corp. This is not a me centered issue which your
arguement seems to be based from. You also have to consider what others
will view you as. Take the median way they will think. This results in
someone looking at you and seeing one thing even if you dont want them
to see it.
> >
> > I also never said there had to be classes. I mentioned groups as well.
> > Real world example of groups are Democrats and Republicans. Neither are
> > fighters but some fight.
> >
>
> That's... random.
>
> What you said '5: Classes/Groups that are divided on the lines of the Gods.'
> was actually more stupid than requiring classes... the various points in
> that list are highly specific and most aren't required for RP at all.
>
Well I assumed people would understand that when I put down
classes/groups and read the whole paragraph under they would understand
that I meant Classes OR groups OR some sort of polarized definition for
RP to work around. You might try to not read everything literally and
try to see what I am getting at instead of just trying to rip it apart.
> I've noticed that you've since spent most of the thread trying to defend
> yourself as people point this out.. and you've tried to expand on what you
> meant, as if these extra explainations were obvious from the original
> posting.
>
Obviously they were obvious enough as you seem to have missed most of
what I was putting across and still seem to do no matter what I post.
> Perhaps if you'd titled the posting 'A Discussion of what makes a good RP
> Generic-Fantasy MUD' people would've cut you a bit more slack....
>
Here you are admitting that rather than truly discuss and refine the
concepts you would rather cut me down. Real pitiful. I am very sorry for
you. If I decide to respond to any more of your narrow minded comments I
will make the effort to be more specific about what I am saying since
you cannot see the concepts behind the literal words.
> But...
>
> At least it's been a more useful thread than the same-old, same-old with the
> pedophile or MAB... :o)
Maybe you might want to treat it less like those and more like a
conversation about what would be good for a RP MUD.
Henry McDaniel
> The way you worded everything you come across as wanting to be a
> sarcastic twit. That is how the wording and tone of what you wrote
> sounded to me as I read it. You came across as not caring at all about
> what I had put forth. You just wanted to try and make me look stupid.
Kavir is too polite to say it so I will: grow the f. up. I bet less
whining
is heard in swine slaughter houses.
-McDaniel
rr...@lanminds.com
>Agreed - such systems are much fairer and give you far more
>flexability. The WoD games by White Wolf are also fairly good - not as
>flexible as GURPS, but simpler to use.
>
>I really don't like levels or classes in roleplaying games at all, with
>the only possible exception being Rolemaster (when you gain a level you
>earn X development points, which can be spent on any skill/s you like -
>however different classes learn different skills at different
>development point costs).
>
>KaVir.
>
I played RM (been thinking recently of trying to start up a game of
it, actually.) I think the system they have handles two things very
well. Number one, xp actually represents experience/time, and thus my
GM would just reward a lump sum at the end of the session. You didn't
gain it for killing X, or for doing Y... the GM would consider the
amount of in-game time that we had spent, and what we had been doing
during that time, and awarded what he thought was appropriate.
Also, since leveling gave you development points, which basically
represented the time that you had spent on the learning skills, he was
able to limit what you spent it on. This offered both balance (if we
spent the last 6 months in the middle of the desert, sailing and
swimming wouldn't be allowed), and RP opportunity. For example, if
the party was based in a desert society, and someone wanted to learn
swimming, you could have an entire adventure about finding a way of
learning that! It also limited our access to high-level skills, since
we would have to RP finding teachers, books, etc. to learn it.
I have no idea how to translate this into a mud, but it's something to
consider.
Kira Skydancer
Blane Bramble
>
> Okay what RPGs have you played that dont require Classes?
> I know a couple out there but most require some sort of class
> definition.
> Toon doesnt that I remember would have to find the book.
> There is another but I cannot think of it off hand.
IIRC Paranoia doesn't have a class system. Also, I have hazy memories
that RuneQuest was mostly skill based.
Blane.
KaVir
Blane Bramble <blane....@ashbourne.com> wrote:
> Bill wrote:
> >
> > Okay what RPGs have you played that dont require Classes?
> > I know a couple out there but most require some sort of class
> > definition.
> > Toon doesnt that I remember would have to find the book.
> > There is another but I cannot think of it off hand.
>
> that RuneQuest was mostly skill based.
RuneQuest is indeed skill based - you choose how many years you spent
in each of various professions, and that determines your starting
skills are (it's assumed that an adventurer no longer has time to
follow a profession at that point). The other RuneQuest-style RPG's
(Call of Cthulhu and that Elric one - what was it called?) are fairly
similar I believe. There's also White Wolf's roleplaying games (not
just the World of Darkness ones) and the various superhero RPGs. GURPS
and Fuzion have already been mentioned. Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay has
dozens of classes - but you can change class as often as you like, and
classes only differ in terms of what skills/stats you can improve while
belonging to that class (the skills/spells are not unique to any
particular class either).
KaVir
rr...@lanminds.com wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Nov 2000 11:34:28 GMT, KaVir <ka...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >Agreed - such systems are much fairer and give you far more
> >flexability. The WoD games by White Wolf are also fairly good - not
> >as flexible as GURPS, but simpler to use.
> >
> >I really don't like levels or classes in roleplaying games at all,
> >with the only possible exception being Rolemaster (when you gain a
> >level you earn X development points, which can be spent on any
> >skill/s you like - however different classes learn different skills
> >at different development point costs).
>
> it, actually.) I think the system they have handles two things very
> well. Number one, xp actually represents experience/time, and thus my
> GM would just reward a lump sum at the end of the session. You didn't
> gain it for killing X, or for doing Y... the GM would consider the
> amount of in-game time that we had spent, and what we had been doing
> during that time, and awarded what he thought was appropriate.
Was that a house rule though? I remember when I used to play
Rolemaster (and admittedly this was over a decade ago) there were all
sorts of complicated formula for working out your exp based on how much
damage you'd both dealt and received, including additional bonus exp
for critical hits. The system was extremely hack and slash
orientated. Perhaps the newer versions of Rolemaster have tried to get
away from that?
> Also, since leveling gave you development points, which basically
> represented the time that you had spent on the learning skills, he was
> able to limit what you spent it on. This offered both balance (if we
> spent the last 6 months in the middle of the desert, sailing and
> swimming wouldn't be allowed), and RP opportunity. For example, if
> the party was based in a desert society, and someone wanted to learn
> swimming, you could have an entire adventure about finding a way of
> learning that! It also limited our access to high-level skills, since
> we would have to RP finding teachers, books, etc. to learn it.
But you can only increase a skill once or twice per level, and only if
you've got enough development points to do so. If you spend 6 months
doing nothing but swimming, surely your swimming skill should improve
dramatically?
KaVir.
Dark Ren
Bill <bramag...@bastardclan.com> wrote:
> John Daniels wrote:
>
> > > Why? For convience most RPs have specific Classes to create into.
AD&D
> > > is restrictive in this. Palladium allows a Fighter to do just
what you
> > > showed.
> > >
> >
> > Most?
> > Got statistics to back that up? ;o)
> > I've never played a RPG which required classes.
> > (Admittedly I'm not a huge pen-and-paper player, though..)
> >
>
> Okay what RPGs have you played that dont require Classes?
> I know a couple out there but most require some sort of class
> definition.
> Toon doesnt that I remember would have to find the book.
> There is another but I cannot think of it off hand.
Two that come to mind right off the top of my head are GURPS and
Fuzion. No classes are built into it, but if the GM desires, templates
can be made for those that want to take package deals. Although you're
not required and can make your character however you want within the
theme of the game being played. I'm sure there are others.
<Snip the rest>
Quit it, you two. You sound like an old, married couple. ;)
--
I see the ghosts of navigators but they are lost
As they sail into the setting sun they'll count the cost
As their skeletons accusing emerge from the sea
The sirens of the rocks they beckon me
Ghost of the Navigator : Iron Maiden
Under Construction- Ironclaw MUX. Due to circumstances beyond my
control, this MUX will be changing in name. Although I'm not sure what
to. But anyway, email for details.
Ari D Jordon
Bill> John Daniels wrote:
>> > Why? For convience most RPs have specific Classes to create
>> into. AD&D > is restrictive in this. Palladium allows a Fighter
>> to do just what you > showed. >
>>
>> Most? Got statistics to back that up? ;o) I've never played a
>> RPG which required classes. (Admittedly I'm not a huge
>> pen-and-paper player, though..)
>>
Bill> Okay what RPGs have you played that dont require Classes? I
Bill> know a couple out there but most require some sort of class
Bill> definition. Toon doesnt that I remember would have to find
Bill> the book. There is another but I cannot think of it off
Bill> hand.
off of the top of my head: gurps, wizards (game based on the bakshi
movie of the same name), the chaosium system (RQ, call of cthulhu,
stormbringer, hawkmoon, &c), powers and perils, swordbearer, villains
& vigilantes, time ship, and fantasy wargaming. those are just the
ones i've own/played, i'm sure there are others.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Aristotle
>In article <3A21D2FD...@bastardclan.com>,
> Bill <bramag...@bastardclan.com> wrote:
>>
>
>
>> 1: A world with the rules laid out.
>> Not the rules of the IMMs but the rules of how the world works.
>
>So a Matrix/13th Floor/ExistenZ style of mud where "everything is not
>as it seems" couldn't be a roleplaying mud?
Damn! That would be a cool mud.
>Ah, so roleplaying muds have to be fantasy based?
Don't tell that to Verant, with their new sci-fi game coming out. =) Of
course, I guess they wouldn't know RP if it bit them in the wallet, but that
is another issue.
>So a post-apocalyptic mud where history is unknown, or a mud based on a
>similar concept to the movie "Dark City", couldn't be a roleplaying mud?
Damn! That would be a cool mud.
>A roleplaying mud must be about good vs evil? There can be no shades
>of grey? Games like "Vampire the Masquerade", which deal with the
>constant struggle to retain ones humanity, are not roleplaying games?
Damn! That would be a cool mud.
>> 8: When all is said and done the code should not stop the RP.
>
>So you cannot have roleplaying in a mud which has automated combat?
I cannot imagine a game where combat was NOT handled by the computer.
Otherwise, I think it ends up being totally contrived and hokey.
Excellent points, KaVir!
-Aristotle@Threshold
--
THRESHOLD RPG - Where Roleplaying is not an option, it's a requirement.
Player run clans, guilds, legal system, economy, religions, nobility, and
more. Roleplay online with thousands of people from all over the world.
http://www.threshold-rpg.com -**- telnet://threshold-rpg.com:23
Jon Lemon
"Bill" <bramag...@bastardclan.com> wrote in message
news:3A270287...@bastardclan.com...
>
> Okay what RPGs have you played that dont require Classes?
> I know a couple out there but most require some sort of class
> definition.
> Toon doesnt that I remember would have to find the book.
> There is another but I cannot think of it off hand.
>
>
Shadowrun (I think) hasn't been mentioned yet, so I'll mention it, it even
backs up the idea of skills, etc, defining your "class/profession". ie, if
you want to use magic, you usually learn it in generation, as, IIRC, magic
is pretty hard to learn as your character develops, and if you spend all
those Karma points on learning magic, why not learn it good? So that makes
you a magic user of some sort, likewise if you spent all your money on
reaction and strength cybernetic upgrades and artificial eyes with
targetting info. linked to your weapons, then you'd be some sort of
fighter/killer. The list goes on, but you could mix and match, no set
rules, no set classes.
-Koryon, who could very well be totally wrong, since it's been 8 or so years
since he played.
Lord Ashon
> Okay what RPGs have you played that dont require Classes?
> I know a couple out there but most require some sort of class
> definition.
> Toon doesnt that I remember would have to find the book.
> There is another but I cannot think of it off hand.
Traveller, only the coolest bestest SCI-FI RPG. The WEG (West End Games)
games had 'beginner templates' that were meant to help guide beginner
players. WEG produced such great games like Star Wars, Indiana Jones,
d6... Mmmm, a force sensitive Storm Trooper!
Another was the Amazing Engine that was one TSR's failed attempt. There are
many many games out there that do away with classes! It's silly that MUDs
continue to cling to it's D&D roots, and refusing to get away from class &
level systems!
-Lord Ashon
Ari D Jordon
Ashon> "Bill" <bramag...@bastardclan.com> wrote in message
Ashon> news:3A270287...@bastardclan.com...
>> Okay what RPGs have you played that dont require Classes? I
>> know a couple out there but most require some sort of class
>> definition. Toon doesnt that I remember would have to find the
>> book. There is another but I cannot think of it off hand.
Ashon> Traveller, only the coolest bestest SCI-FI RPG. The WEG
Ashon> (West End Games) games had 'beginner templates' that were
Ashon> meant to help guide beginner players. WEG produced such
Ashon> great games like Star Wars, Indiana Jones, d6... Mmmm, a
Ashon> force sensitive Storm Trooper!
well, it could be argued that traveller did have classes, at least to
some extent. your background profession (be it army, scout, merchant,
or whatnot) had a definite influence on what skills you'd start
with... traveller was memorable for having probably the least
character development during play (stat/skillwise that is) of any
rpg...
Alan Schwartz
>Okay what RPGs have you played that dont require Classes?
Everway.
Aristotle
>Another was the Amazing Engine that was one TSR's failed attempt. There are
>many many games out there that do away with classes! It's silly that MUDs
>continue to cling to it's D&D roots, and refusing to get away from class &
>level systems!
No, what is silly is people who think there is "One True System" of gaming.
There is logic behind class based and skill based systems. In our own lives,
we are in classes (jobs) and our class tends to be highly stratified in a very
level-like system (chain of command where you work).
Does this mean skill based systems are silly? Nope. However, class based
systems make just as much sense as skill based systems. Both have their
merits, and both can be done well.
Marc Bowden
thre...@threshold-rpg.com (Aristotle) wrote:
> In article <9091j5$7bl$1...@leopard.it.wsu.edu>, "Lord Ashon"
<as...@wsunix.wsu.edu> wrote:
> >Another was the Amazing Engine that was one TSR's failed attempt. There are
> >many many games out there that do away with classes! It's silly that MUDs
> >continue to cling to it's D&D roots, and refusing to get away from class &
> >level systems!
>
> No, what is silly is people who think there is "One True System" of gaming.
> There is logic behind class based and skill based systems. In our own lives,
> we are in classes (jobs) and our class tends to be highly stratified in
a very
> level-like system (chain of command where you work).
>
> Does this mean skill based systems are silly? Nope. However, class based
> systems make just as much sense as skill based systems. Both have their
> merits, and both can be done well.
>
Ari's right; it depends completely on your audience what works and what
doesn't. This doesn't extend only to the *mechanics*, by the by, but also
to complexity of modeling, tone, and style.
======================================================================
Marc Bowden - Soulsinger D R E A M S H A D O W
Human Resources Director --------------------------
TINMC The Legacy of the Three
dreamer.telmaron.com 3333 or 206.246.120.2 3333 ry...@merit.edu
"We did not choose to become the guardians, but there is no one else."
======================================================================