The Mud Connector

Author Topic: MUD vs MUSH(etc) on TMC  (Read 3662 times)

Ateraan

  • TMC Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 726
  • New Worlds Ateraan
    • View Profile
    • New Worlds Ateraan
Re: MUD vs MUSH(etc) on TMC
« Reply #15 on: April 23, 2018, 1:13 AM »
I honestly see no reason to further define these categories. The people that play them know them and if you don't there is certainly an avenue to learn more. I have always thought of a MUSH as being less combat and more emote interaction and a give and take roleplay style. Where a MUD is coded to force the give and take.

As for defining enforced roleplay vs. non-enforced roleplay you have RPI which was an attempt at defining a fully involved "in character" game vs. a more combat driven game without regard to being in character.

I think that none of this really matters in today's market.
New Worlds Ateraan
www.ateraan.com

nullscan

  • TMC Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 107
    • View Profile
Re: MUD vs MUSH(etc) on TMC
« Reply #16 on: April 23, 2018, 12:19 PM »
I have always thought of a MUSH as being less combat and more emote interaction and a give and take roleplay style.

I think that none of this really matters in today's market.

The factors that traditionally separated a MUSH from a MUD have included the emote interactions and fully-interactive roleplay style, not just between players but also full interaction between players/staff and players/environment (meaning the path of storylines, the state of the grid and major NPCs can be significantly modified by player actions).  Up until a couple of years ago the average MUSH also included:

1)  Permadeath.  Whenever a MUSH wanted to not have permadeath, they would typically find a way of eliminating death altogether.

2)  Complex character generation.  Every MUSH player would be expected to write a short story in-context with a game's theme and revolving around their own character as the main protagonist.  The purpose was to prove that the applicant is competently literate in the game's main language and that the applicant had a a solid understanding of the game's theme.  Most typically the applicant was expected to outline the character's childhood, education, and adulthood up to their starting point in the stats-based chargen in a way that justified any stats that would be "better than average" without actually referencing those stats directly.  So a high unarmed or high dodge could be explained with a stint as a bare-knuckle boxer, but that wouldn't cover firearms or melee stats.

3)  Complex and customizable equipment.  Any game that didn't have on-grid vendor bots and/or coded crafting systems could be reasonably expected to have a staff corps willing to handle the witnessing of coded dice rolls, with a keen enough understanding of the basic game system to competently judge the quality of crafting or black market contact attempts based on the outcome of those dice rolls.  This would be true whether the game system the MUSH was based on had such options built-in to the core material or not.

There was always a lot more to any particular MUSH, but these were the top 3 factors that really set MUDs and MUSHes apart.  The average MUD would be based on a particular game system, whether it was commercial or custom, and never went above or beyond that.  It was intended to be used as a standalone or single-player game, whether RP was E or I or whatevs.  The average MUSH was literally unplayable without at least one extra intelligent party involved.

Over the last couple of years I've seen more and more MUSHes that don't seem to think it matters either.  Plots aren't tabletop style meaning the GMs don't design with several forks in mind and they don't have any intention of "rolling with the punches" thrown at them by players either - the whole thing is on rails, with a single pathway, and if/when a player tries to do anything clever or thoughtful (that actually turns out to work as expected) then the GM will pull some petulant move equivalent to a "rocks fall, everyone dies," just out of spite.  So MUSHes don't last long.

So while it's true that none of these oldschool standards are observed by game masters anymore, it has less than nothing to do with the market.  The playerbase, aka "the market," still wants MUSHes to be MUSHes, not MUDs.  But then when it comes to actually making a MUSH happen, those same MUSHers will turn around and be the same stupid, lazy dinks as the game they just left en-masse and created their own MUSH to compete with.

Epilogy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 290
    • View Profile
Re: MUD vs MUSH(etc) on TMC
« Reply #17 on: April 24, 2018, 3:55 AM »
Quote
MU*
MU* is an abbreviation which refers collectively to a family of text-based multi-user virtual world servers comprising:
TinyMUD
MUSH
MOO
TinyMUCK
and related, less-notable types; see the TinyMUD family tree for more
Another term for these servers is the Tiny family.
The asterisk is often used in computer programming languages to represent a wildcard (any number of arbitrary characters), which suggests a usage that encompasses MUDs in general. However, confusingly, MU* is often used in a manner exclusive of services specifically described as MUDs, with the MU* term meant to distance the TinyMUD family of "social MUDs" from "combat-oriented" MUDs.

MOO
A MOO (MUD, object-oriented) is a text-based online virtual reality system to which multiple users (players) are connected at the same time.
The term MOO is used in two distinct, but related, senses. One is to refer to those programs descended from the original MOOcow server, and the other is to refer to any MUD that uses object-oriented techniques to organize its database of objects, particularly if it does so in a similar fashion to the original MOO or its derivatives. Most of this article refers to the original MOO and its direct descendants, but see Non-Descendant MOOs for a list of MOO-like systems.

MUSH
In multiplayer online games, a MUSH (a backronymed pun on MUD most often expanded as Multi-User Shared Hallucination, though Multi-User Shared Hack, Habitat, and Holodeck are also observed) is a text-based online social medium to which multiple users are connected at the same time. MUSHes are often used for online social intercourse and role-playing games, although the first forms of MUSH do not appear to be coded specifically to implement gaming activity. MUSH software was originally derived from MUDs; today's two major MUSH variants are descended from TinyMUD, which was fundamentally a social game. MUSH has forked over the years and there are now different varieties with different features, although most have strong similarities and one who is fluent in coding one variety can switch to coding for the other with only a little effort.

MUD
A MUD (; originally Multi-User Dungeon, with later variants Multi-User Dimension and Multi-User Domain), is a multiplayer real-time virtual world, usually text-based. MUDs combine elements of role-playing games, hack and slash, player versus player, interactive fiction, and online chat. Players can read or view descriptions of rooms, objects, other players, non-player characters, and actions performed in the virtual world. Players typically interact with each other and the world by typing commands that resemble a natural language.

TinyMUCK
TinyMUCK or, more broadly, a MUCK, is a type of user-extendable online text-based role-playing game, designed for role playing and social interaction.

So sayeth Wikipedia, hallowed be thy donation-ran servers.
TheDude is dead.

Stop bothering me already 3:

Ateraan

  • TMC Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 726
  • New Worlds Ateraan
    • View Profile
    • New Worlds Ateraan
Re: MUD vs MUSH(etc) on TMC
« Reply #18 on: April 24, 2018, 10:16 PM »
Unfortunately Wikipedia is perception and not reality. I mean, fine it is a definition, but a definition is irrelevant if it is not followed.
New Worlds Ateraan
www.ateraan.com

desharei

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 83
    • View Profile
Re: MUD vs MUSH(etc) on TMC
« Reply #19 on: April 24, 2018, 11:31 PM »
It's not a "definition." It's an encyclopaedic entry. That's why it's called Wiki"pedia" and not Wik"tionary." The entry has source references that you can follow for more detailed explanation of each point.

The Wiki entry follows fact, not the other way around. That's how encyclopedias work. They follow fact. Fact doesn't follow encyclopedias. It is an explanation of reality, not a perception. It is followed by the majority, the majority of the time, in the majority of circumstances, with some marked exceptions.

They are exceptions because they are outside the norm. The exceptions don't make the norm "untrue" or "non-factual." A MUSH really IS an acronym of "Multi-User Shared Hallucination," in addition to being an acronym of a few other things. In context of this thread, a MUSH is a MUD. A MUX is a MUD, a MOO is a MUD, an LPMud is a MUD, and a MUD is a MUD. MUD is the overall category of game type. The rest are code bases and code-deriv types. These acronyms all fall into a singular category.

RPI, RPE, RP-enforced, RP-encouraged, RP-allowed, RP-tolerated, H&S, are in a totally different singular category.

Pay for Play, Free to Play, Pay for Perks, Pay for Time, Donations Accepted, Donations Rejected, those are all in a DIFFERENT different singular category.

Ateraan, you like making up your own acronyms to suit your personal preferences. That is all well and good for you, and perhaps for the players of your game, but they have nothing to do with the rest of the MUD world. It'd be as if Simutronics proclaimed that their game is a koboldcentric game. That's great if you're a Simutronics player. You'd know what that meant, it would make sense in the context of games created by Simutronics and their players. But the player of a space-invaders-type first-person-shooter would look at that statement of koboldcentric games and say "uh - okay - where's my blaster-button?" And finding none, would go back to their shooter because in THEIR world, koboldcentric has no meaning at all. It's gibberish.


Tijer

  • Community Manager
  • TMC Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 746
    • View Profile
Re: MUD vs MUSH(etc) on TMC
« Reply #20 on: April 25, 2018, 8:21 AM »
Wikipedia requires citations for facts posted, and if it doesnt have the correct citations can be classed as false information, and generally gets deleted.
--Tijer
War of Legend    • Mud • Waroflegend.net port 4200   • Web • http://www.waroflegend.net
Aadarian Realms • Mud • Aadaria.net port 1111/1114  • Web • http://www.aadaria.com

Jodah

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 411
    • View Profile
Re: MUD vs MUSH(etc) on TMC
« Reply #21 on: April 25, 2018, 8:36 AM »
And those citations can be completely wrong.

Hades_Kane

  • Community Manager
  • TMC Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 1173
  • Owner / Administrator of End of Time
    • View Profile
    • End of Time
Re: MUD vs MUSH(etc) on TMC
« Reply #22 on: April 25, 2018, 10:38 AM »
And those citations can be completely wrong.

That's why, before taking Wikipedia as gospel, you follow the cited links and make a determination as to whether or not you find those cited sources to be trustworthy.
-Diablos
End of Time, a 100% free Final Fantasy & Chrono Trigger based MUD with a large original world, unique combat & magic systems, and more!
eotmud.com : 4000 • http://www.eotmud.comhttp://www.facebook.com/eotmud
http://www.mudconnect.com/mud-bin/adv_search.cgi?Mode=MUD&mud=End+of+Time

Epilogy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 290
    • View Profile
Re: MUD vs MUSH(etc) on TMC
« Reply #23 on: April 25, 2018, 10:55 AM »
I would imagine that if you're willing to put work into a wiki page that can be cross-checked, or verified at almost any given time you're probably more interested in accuracy, not whether one admin with shady practices wants to use a different word than everyone else.

You're not a shining bright snowflake under the term MUD!? Good, cause neither are the rest of us. If you'd like to declare yourself independent, etc. then by all means, go for it. Get the hell off of TMC, and go live in candy land. It's one less obtuse personality who wants to constantly argue, and belabor the obvious.

You really just tried to argue that wikipedia is fake. Entirely, 100% unreliably fake.

Sounds like someone's pissy they're not notable enough for a page.
TheDude is dead.

Stop bothering me already 3:

nullscan

  • TMC Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 107
    • View Profile
Re: MUD vs MUSH(etc) on TMC
« Reply #24 on: April 25, 2018, 11:54 AM »
Wikipedia requires citations for facts posted, and if it doesnt have the correct citations can be classed as false information, and generally gets deleted.

This doesn't make Wikipedia trustworthy by any stretch of the imagination.

For example the wiki entry quoted above doesn't list "Multi-User Shared Host" which was the original acronym, and in 20+ years I've never, ever heard the phrases "Hack" or "Habitat" in relation to the H and literally the only time I ever heard of the terms "MUSH" and "Holodeck" put together were in the title of an adult-based/sex MU that wasn't Star Trek based and I'm pretty sure was actually either an rHost or a MUX (neither of which are even listed in the wiki entry).

In other cases I've seen wikipedia entries that aren't strictly "incorrect" be grossly misleading, such as an entry for the WWII-era Japanese Zero fighter plane that refers to a 7mm semi-automatic weapon as "a cannon."  While "cannon" is the correct military term for this piece of hardware, I've seen the term be misinterpreted for "a big bore" weapon and/or a weapon that fires specifically explosive ordinance which is also the correct interpretation for the term cannon.  The problem is that in aircraft a cannon is never anything but a standard semi-automatic weapon while in naval craft or land-based artillery it's never anything but big-bore (50mm and up) and typically does fire explosive munitions.

Then again, when I decided last year that I wasn't happy with the lack of fine control in the MS DotNET Framework's UTF8 and 16 codecs, good information on UTF codec design was hard to come by.  Stackoverflow, MSDN, and every other highly accredited technical forum were full of plain disinformation presented by clowns who just wanted to make themselves look intelligent by spouting nonsense about how UTF encoding and decoding works.  The documentation provided by The Unicode Consortium itself is thousands of pages of babble that demands you already know the basic data relationships, without the basic functional specification spelled out at all.  In the end, Wikipedia's information on this particular topic was the best (meaning clearest and most complete collection) available on the internet and is the primary source of information that I used to complete the project.

So the important distinction to make is that Wikipedia is an amateur-edited and maintained encyclopedia and is extremely unreliable, not because it presents incorrect information but because it presents incomplete information that introduces errors in consumer perspective and misunderstanding.  Strict educationalists/intellectuals have every right to classify errors and omissions of this type and scope as being totally false information, while casual users have every right to argue that that's stuck up.

I hope I don't get accused of "derailment" since I'm responding to half a dozen posts on this topic, in this thread, already.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2018, 11:59 AM by nullscan »

Bronn

  • New to TMC
  • *
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: MUD vs MUSH(etc) on TMC
« Reply #25 on: April 25, 2018, 12:14 PM »
The wikipedia definitions are acceptable... it's not like we're writing a dissertation here. They are all text based games. You can do different things in them. Sometimes there is overlap. The distinction isn't particularly important beyond the codebase and common commands used in each.

Epilogy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 290
    • View Profile
Re: MUD vs MUSH(etc) on TMC
« Reply #26 on: April 25, 2018, 7:37 PM »
The distinction isn't particularly important beyond the codebase and common commands used in each.

There's the heart of it.

Out of the box, it is what it is.
TheDude is dead.

Stop bothering me already 3:

Apos

  • New to TMC
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: MUD vs MUSH(etc) on TMC
« Reply #27 on: May 01, 2018, 3:36 PM »
I do understand the need to categorize though, to the extent that it's ideal to play on a codebase that you're familiar with. To use two examples Jeshin brought up, Arx (why aren't they listed on TMC? This game is awesome) uses the relatively new Evennia while Armageddon uses DIKU. You have a new codebase that is in active development on top of the game creator's developments but is very similar to TinyMUSH, and you have an old codebase that is very familiar but does not get updated beyond that which Armageddon's code team adds on.

Also that certain types of players tend to be drawn toward MUSHes as opposed to MUDs and so on. Arx seems to have drawn a tabletop community of sorts, where RP is cherished but so are the game mechanics.  Armageddon's mechanics exist in a holy grail state where they are almost never talked about, at least not in the open, and so it tends to attract roleplaying purists as well as people who like figuring a game's obscure mechanics out through trial and error.

Lastly, different types of games tend to have different cultures surrounding them. I have found Arx's players and staff to be very welcoming, very open about how the game works, and very responsive, whereas Armageddon strikes me as a more insular community with a survival of the fittest type of vibe even in the meta aspect, where newbies either make it or they don't.

Hey thanks, that's very kind of you. When I made Arx I decided to call it a MUSH since I thought the RP style and feel of the game would probably feel most similar to that, and I thought it would be less confusing to people that way, even if I know that's completely incorrect technically since it's using Evennia and no mush code at all. But yeah I think a more tabletop-writ-large feel and then try to make a bit more immersive if the vibe we go for, since I think it's more friendly and I'm going for collaborative instead of competitive. But aside from, 'People that MU might get a very rough idea of what the game is like', the distinctions don't really mean anything to me. I regret a little calling it a mush since I think that's too confusing to new players that have never MU'd at all, and we're getting more of those as time goes on.

As for why we're not listed here, I have no idea, I probably did something wrong in the submission I did eons ago or there's something wrong in some protocol that makes crawlers bounce off it or something tied to Evennia.