Member Discussions

I know about RPI, there have certainly been a few more than enough threads trying to define it. Since it's an adjective often used as a noun, I find it hard to take this teeny but loud segment of the MUD populace seriously. If I'm going to roleplay, I'd like it to be with people who at least understand the "parts of speech", as they are called in Grammar School. :)

So, what do the rest of you consider to be required features for roleplaying on a MUD? I like to think my DeepMUD codebase is "roleplay friendly", but I have a MUSHer's perspective on such things. As noted above, for me good grammer and spelling matter, but I can't really do much about that without spellchecking all says and emotes, which frankly, I consider a bit beyond the pale. Not only would it be a wretched inconvenience to anyone attempting a dialect, it would remove the early warning signs of a poor roleplayer.

Thanks for your input,
Keri

I know about RPI, there have certainly been a few more than enough threads trying to define it. Since it's an adjective often used as a noun, I find it hard to take this teeny but loud segment of the MUD populace seriously. If I'm going to roleplay, I'd like it to be with people who at least understand the "parts of speech", as they are called in Grammar School. :)

My guess is that's a cheap dig at RPIs. :)

I think roleplaying is about playing a role. I know that
sounds obvious, but I think a lot of time people forget that
playing is a part of it and want roleplaying to be some sort
of collaborative story telling.

If you are idle, more than you are active, then I don't
think you are playing the game. I'm using idle in the sense
of sitting and watching TV for 6 hours straight. I might
have been "watching", but I'm not actively participating.

Rules for RP seem silly to me. Speed walking, talking out
of turn, misspelling words or using pour grammar don't
bother me. Someone who walks into a room, stops and poses
long inane comments that take 15 minutes to write while
everyone else is waiting their turn drives me nuts.
Continuing the TV analogy, that is when the commercial comes
on and I start flipping channels.

I also think it is silly to hide numbers from players to
keep the RP true. Why is it better RP for me not to know
that I only have 50% of my hp left. Knowing the numbers
doesn't make me a better or worse roleplayer, but it does
get me more information that I can use when roleplaying. In
the real world we get stimulus from all around us that
guides us in our actions. A game can't do that, but what it
can do is provide some actual data for what it does know so
that the player can decide how best to use it.

And why can't there be ooc channels in an RP game? I
couldn't imagine having a rule like that around the tabletop
games I play. Part of playing the game is socializing with
the players themselves. When you remove that element, you
take away from the game.

After all, we are talking about games, not real life
simulations.

> So, what do the rest of you consider to be required
> features for roleplaying on a MUD?

In my opinion there are no required features for roleplaying, other than some means of communication. Some features can aid roleplaying, and some roleplayers prefer certain features, but at the end of the day it's perfectly possible to roleplay on even a simple talker.

My guess is that's a cheap dig at RPIs. :)

Ahhh... I'll have to spend more money, next time. ;)

In my opinion there are no required features for roleplaying

As a game designer, I agree with you, but here I'm asking players what they personally require.

Myself, I am in agreement with much of Sombalance posted, and I suppose I'm sort of taking a poll here to see if such feelings are common.

Even in a strong RP environment, I like to have code resolve skill use. For one thing, I think code is impartial and for another, code is always available.

In games where a moderator resolves game mechanics, your potential RP can be limited by the presence or lack of the moderator, and fairness can be a perceived issue.

The worst solution, in my mind anyway, is to have the players decide on the outcome in advance. That's like reading the last few pages of the book before you even begin the story. Where is the fun in that.

There's actually very little that is required of a MUD system to support roleplay, IMO. There are quie a lot of features that (also, IMO) would be nice to have, though. :-)

The first, and simplest, is a way of aiming emotes that does automated pronoun substitution. The syntax could vary, but the effect is that I want to type a single command which specifies a target and produces different messages for that target and for others in the room.

For example, I type:

semote keriwena taps you on your shoulder and says "hello".

Keriwena then sees on her screen:

Shasarak taps you on your shoulder and says "hello".

But anyone else in the room sees the message:

Shasarak taps Keriwena on her shoulder and says "hello".

Ideally it should be clever enough to say on my screen:

You tap Keriwena on her shoulder and say "hello"

but that's trickier, and less critical.


Other things that I think would add to role-play (and indeed to MUDding in general):

1) Make most combat non-lethal, with options to surrender.

2) Introduce lots of different ways of dealing with NPCs that don't involve killing them, e.g. disguise, deception, distraction, bribery, and/or seduction. (Search for "social combat" for a previous discussion of this).

3) Make the game-world as interactive as possible; so (for example) if someone shuts himself up inside a house it should be possible to flush him out by tossing a lit torch onto the thatched roof and setting fire to it (and possible for the people in the house to respond by spraying the roof with water) with the game engine actually modelling the consequences.

4) Detailed, highly interactive quests, perhaps actively controlled by immortals, with scenarios that are emotionally involving.

Thanks for the ideas, Shasarak. I'm also thinking of directed says.

Believe it or not, I do have non-lethal combat.

Keriwena:
Believe it or not, I do have non-lethal combat.

I see no reason not to believe you. ;-) I'm interested, though - how do you implement that? What are the consequences of defeat? Can one surrender? Is pretending to surrender when you actually haven't a valid tactic? Is there a "detect fake surrender" skill? :-)

It's a result of the game's theme. Tir na nOg is "the Land of the Ever Young", the place where to which the Tuatha Danaan retreated after the Milesians invaded Ireland. Most of my races are 'fae', supernatural creatures that don't die. Mortal humans still die, with corpses and all as in a normal Diku, but the others are snatched away after being 'stunned' by a headless coachman who, when he realises they have no soul (Anam in Gaelic) he can use, tosses them out in some random location where they wake up fully clothed, albeit severely wounded. (That's the problem with not dying, you see, -300 HP is not uncommon.)

The other common consequence that's lacking is the XP death penalty. As this was mostly a mechanic to keep characters from leveling too quickly, and even the best levelers can't seem to get to level 30 in under 100 hours, I felt things were slow enough and I'd reward bravery. Again, this is in theme.

I don't have 'surrender' as a feature, but I like the idea. Of the three original developers, one was a roleplayer, one a 'leveler', and the other... well, he was more of a social type I brought with me from MUSHing that was disappointed his Cleric didn't get XP for giving gold to the beggers. :) As a result, while DeepMUD is aimed at hack and slash, the fabric of the design has threads of roleplay and alternate advancement woven through it. Now that the 'leveling' aspect of the game satisfies me, I'm looking to enhance the roleplay and crafting opportunities.

As commonly practiced, roleplay seems stretched between two extremes - the 'pure immersion' of the RPIs, and the 'theater gaming' of the MUSHes. I'm hoping to find a middle ground that doesn't require playing a role in some over-arcing, predetermined plotline, yet has more self determination than the 'unsuspecting pawn in the game' aspect of an RPI.

Hence, to rephrase my question slightly, "What are the minimum requirements for the style of RP that you prefer?" Maybe it's totally polarized and there is no one in the middle, but I don't think so.

Not only would it be a wretched inconvenience to anyone attempting a dialect, it would remove the early warning signs of a poor roleplayer.

It's funny how elitists roleplayers are, though understandable, because on a H&S mud a stupid person is a fun (though not overly challenging) exercise to kill, where as on a RP mud a stupid person is just that, stupid.

As a consequence I generally don't like RP muds overly much because they tend to attract snobby and whiny players who are all about their 'wonderful roleplay' and stopped having fun in the process. Not to mention that the stupid people are still there, just that they're stupid people who are socially adept, and because of that much harder to ignore because they're not as readily recognizable.

So to get to the point, a requirement should be to complete an IQ test scoring in the top 25% in order to create an account. Next there should be complete freedom of speech to avoid snobby players forming 'whine cabals'. Last but not least, add a dark science fiction theme and some hot chicks to the final mix and Scandum is game!

Its use as a noun is simply shorthand, leaving out the word "MUD" or "game" much like the following example:

There are big apples and there are small apples. Put the bigs here and the smalls there.

There really aren't any requirements for role-play. The terms role-play and Role-Play Intensive are not the same thing because the latter was conceived to describe a particular code and feature philosophy. The quality of role-play is more dependant upon the abilities of the staff and players than on these features although one of the goals of RPIs is to create code that supports RP rather than H&S.

Additionally, a "MUSHer's philosophy" hardly implies "friendly". My experience with MUSHes has been that they're highly clique-oriented and RP from someone not in the clique is ignored more often than not. Regardless of the quality of their role-play or the relevance to the moment, players who aren't familiar to the members of these cliques can't expect their role-play to be a factor until they're accepted into the group, if ever at all. The MUSHes I've seen which are friendly tend to have the worst quality RP since they're so desperate for players that they'll take on anyone no matter how inept they are at role-playing.

Nor do MUSHes indicate an appreciation for good grammar and spelling. I've seen some horrible examples of both on MUDs and MUSHes but the single worst example from any role-playing game I've ever played came from a MUSH.

I'd guess that your inability to take RPIs seriously is more likely due to your ignorance of what RPI is coupled with a pre-existing bias toward MUSH.

That said, in all honesty RPIs aren't doing well right now but that's owing far less to the format than it is to the present staff and players on several of them at this time. The problems with staff usually originate from people who wouldn't rise to become staff on other RPIs starting their own despite their shortcomings at RP. Tossing in combat unnecessarily at any moment or running cliched, poorly-conceived and horribly-executed plots doesn't make for good RP. Some of the problem players are originally from MUSHes and their tendencies toward drama-whoring and painfully-long pauses while they compose their emotes (which are typically huge run-on sentences saying very little) but most are immigrants from other RP MUDs and hybrid RP-H&S type games who wouldn't be such a problem if they learned the setting instead of wanting to turn any game they play into 90210 or Gossip Girl. With a lot of the old guard staff and players of RPIs leaving MUDding altogether it doesn't look good for the future of RPIs. The average quality of staff and players falls as good players leave and are replaced by those of sub-par ability.

Take care,

Jason aka Falco

P.S. - Does proper punctuation matter to you? Does spelling really matter to you? You used an unnecessary comma in the sentence in which you stated that "good grammer" matters to you. However, you spelled the word grammar incorrectly. There is no "e" in grammar.

(Comment added by TSOY_Falco on Fri Jun 26 1:05:46 2009)

Another major problem with the staff on some RPIs is favoritism. One of the reasons I quit the RPI I'd played for about eight years was obvious staff favoritism toward some players (ie, their friends). Pathetic and unacceptable behavior like this hurts any game though and is not confined to RPIs alone.

Ha! I knew someone would take the bait. Actually, there's a comma missing in that sentence. ;)

I didn't feel like getting involved in the "terminology" thread, but honestly, I support your attempt to distinguish yourselves. I believe words are the tools of the mind, and the larger one's selection of tools, the easier it is to choose the right tool for the job. The mentally lazy, who proclaim 'a MUD is a MUD is a MUD' seldom have much else to contribute. I do wish, years ago, you'd accepted my obvious suggestion to change it to "RolePlay Immersive".

If I thought MUSHers were particularly friendly, I would not have spent the last ten years developing a DIKU derivative. In fact, the problems you delineate regarding the demise of RPIs are rampant on MUSHes, as well. I think the problem is simply most roleplayers are bad players, and those that attempt to control them are bad, as well. And while "bad" is a very vague little word, I think we'd have no trouble agreeing on what it means in this context.

Anyway... I do find it odd to see you state "There really aren't any requirements for role-play." Given your experience, I would expect you might have some insight into the sort of environment that fosters good RP? (Perhaps you just saw red after reading my first post and felt compelled to reply, and missed the post where I explained "requirements" was simply a tongue-in-cheek dig at the laundry list posters?)

At any rate, good luck on your Victorian theme, I worked on one back in '95 and had a jolly good time describing the costumes, a welcome change from the more typical chain mail or space suits.


Sandi

I think it's a great idea to put in code or build support which enhances the RP experience. One small thing we did which has turned out to be a lot of fun is to give wands and staves an option to be used with "play" rather than "zap", so we can build wands which look like instruments. You can play a tambourine to give someone a haste effect, for instance, or play a flute to charm. We also have an emote system described in one of the posts above (which uses proper pronouns for the user, target, and viewers), as well as colour code ({s) which allows players to emote says and still have them appear in the right colour for everyone who sees them (even if they've changed their 'say' colour from the default).

Still, I agree with the sentiment that while built-in features are nice, all that's really NEEDED for RP is people willing to play roles, and some kind of backdrop or setting to inspire those roles: a mud. To me, the richer the mud's mythology/areas/history/secrets/etc., the more interesting the RP can get, and the way to move from a bare-bones start is to incorporate player RP into the fabric of the game as it's played out over the years.

Therefore, I was kind of surprised by this comment:

I think roleplaying is about playing a role. I know that sounds obvious, but I think a lot of time people forget that playing is a part of it and want roleplaying to be some sort of collaborative story telling.

I think that RP is collaborative story telling in the same way that plays or movies are collaborative (though of course without the script -- so maybe more like Reno 911). Yes, it's about playing roles, but in a collaborative way where they can build off of each other, with the result being a storyline. I think the "multi-user" part of muds is what makes them so much fun, and I also think that the stories which can result from collaborative RP are pretty darn awesome. Part of my job on our mud is to try to make sure that those great player stories aren't forgotten over time, by incorporating them into areas or objects or whatever, or by making sure the stories keep getting told, etc.

To me, bad RP is when one person wants to be the star of every situation he's in, and so won't support the stories and roles of other people, or will even try to overwrite them.

Good RP (again, in my opinion) is when people play their roles WITH each other by listening to each other and responding in character. I really enjoy storylines which build on story arcs from other people (past or present), or enrich the game by creating new depth to areas, history, items, etc. It's how epic stories spanning ten years happen, and also how new people can keep getting involved: they can RP with others and discover a whole hidden world just under the surface. Collaborative storytelling, to me, is essential to a good RP mud.

My comment about no requirements being needed for role-play was in reference to expanded code features. With just emote and the general say/tell communication a player can role-play quite well on their own. .

But to answer your question in more detail, I would have to suggest that for good role-play there are several factors which are advantageous. Excluding commands such as emote/pose, say/tell/talk and think, I would suggest the following:

1. A comprehensive, detailed world with established standards: By standards I refer to everything from historical facts (such as what king ruled before the present monarch, how long and from which dates) to physical standards of the game universe (for example, how materials react with one another, how long organisms including player races might live, technological levels of society, etc.) from which a player may derive an understanding of how their character is to fit into the world. The "we want our players to develop the details of the world" rarely works because ultimately someone has to arbitrate whether or not something can or can not be done. Without an established standard, the risk is always present of inconsistency.

2. Mature, fair, competant, knowledgeable staff: Staff with the maturity to make good decisions and the willingness to remain unbiased by OOC circumstances are something that's in short supply amongst games. Additionally, staff should be competant enough to manage the game without chaos ensuing or without having to "cheat" to keep the game world functioning (such as designing a plot so that it flows without having to force it to proceed as they want via illogical changes to the game world or impossible/improbable reactions to players' actions). Finally, the staff of a game should be well-versed in anything and everything that they're likely to need to know to run the game world in line with the setting (for example, if one's on the staff of a medieval-setting game, they should know what feudalism is and how it functions, etc).

3. Honest, mature, competant, knowledgeable players: Just like staff, the players of a RP MU* should be mature, competant role-players. They should also be honest and not look for ways to exploit bugs or loopholes that they find in the code and world design (classic example from the game I used to play was a twink who, finding a building error linking two distant parts of the game together, proceeded to exploit the mistake by claiming that it was a "shortcut" that trimmed 95% of the distance from the trip and abusing it repeatedly). Finally, while players probably aren't expected to know as much as staff, especially in regard to detailed information unknown to their characters, the players of a game should be well-versed in the setting and any details that are necessary to create a well-rounded character that can fit and function within the game world without any trouble whatsoever.

I would consider that these three things are the most important factors necessary for good role-play. Without them, too many problems pop up from nonsensical plots and behavior to twinkery and bias. I'd wager many a promising game has been undone by the lack of at least one, if not more, of the above.

Also, don't misunderstand me. RPIs are doing very well as far as playerbase numbers are concerned. There are more RPIs open right now than there ever have been and, with the exception of the new ones still establishing themselves, average playerbase size has only increased. The problem, that I stated earlier, is that while more players are coming in, there are some leaving and the ones entering are less knowledgeable about the games and in many cases of poorer quality. Losing two great players but gaining 3 average quality and two poor players might be a positive so far as totals are concerned but it's devastating to playerbase quality.

Thanks for the well-wishes with TSOY. It's a long, difficult road and my staff's been plagued with real-life issues. Additionally, we only recently tossed use of the SoI/Argila RPI Engine in favor of building a new RPI codebase from the ground up. Wading through a decade and a half of mostly uncommented code and unused fragments from earlier versions was a chore to say nothing of transforming a code designed around a medieval setting into one capable of handling an industrial one! Our original projected opening date was some time between 2008 and 2010 and now we don't expect to do so until the middle of the next decade (provided there are no more unexpected and unfortunate problems). However, with new code we believe we can overcome a few of the problems which might have limited what we could achieve with the game.

Take care,

Jason aka Falco

P.S. - Yes, there's a missing comma but there are also two extras in that sentence! It should read (omit parenthesized notes):

"As noted above, for me good grammar (spelling corrected) and spelling matter (comma removed) but I can't really do much about that without spellchecking all says and emotes (comma removed) which, (comma added) frankly, I consider a bit beyond the pale."

I had a professor in grad school who was a nitpicker (thankfully since schools today tend to be lax on the subject) regarding comma usage. ;-P

it would remove the early warning signs of a poor roleplayer.

Never assume that lack of grammar skills makes someone a poor role player. I frequently use the spell checker on here, and other places, to make sure my words at least make sense. I've been role playing for 20yrs now and find that you can teach someone how to use proper English and grammar but you can't teach them to have an imagination.

To think that someone with a poor skill set doesn't play good make believe, which is what it all boils down to, is really not thinking outside the box.

ShadowDragon
Archwizard SpaceConquest

Sombalance I didn't want to quote your full post to agree wiht you. I think that OOC chatter that doesn't bother the IC side of the segment is great. Thats why we keep IC in the room/location but have an OOC channel to chatter on. We tend to crack jokes at each other while posing and the "anger" is just that make believe and fun.

ShadowDragon
ArchWizard SpaceConquest

Ideally it should be clever enough to say on my screen:

You tap Keriwena on her shoulder and say "hello"

but that's trickier, and less critical

Not if your working with MOO Code. :)

ShadowDragon
ArchWizard SpaceConquest

Many people RP in order to be The Very Most Special Prince/ss. Those who want to do that in line with the game's code will twink their way to combat (or maybe crafting? I've not seen that) specialness as quickly as possible, while the rest will simply resort to the tried and true methods of BSing, both in the game and, especially, in whatever forums/IM/character blog outlets are available, and TSing. Many of the Very Most Special will become staff, or at least staff's pets. Eventually this critical mass of Specialness will most likely lead Different Special Prince/ss With Very Different But Very Special Agendas into bloody public conflict, with screaming meltdowns on channels and on the game's boards, stolen DBs, and years worth of rumor and recrimination to follow. Whoopee.

No codebase and no setting is immune to this process. Attempts to write code that forces people to RP solutions, making rules against dragging OOC conflicts IC (and vice versa), and enforcing "canon" all simply challenge the twinks and the TSers to evolve new ways to get what they want (being the adaptable little cockroaches they are). At the same time, those restrictions and the atmosphere of distrust they breed leads those people who just want to have a good Pretendy Fun Time with people who want to be entertaining to each other rather than to "beat" each other and "win" the game throw up their hands in disgust and leave in search of a pastime less maddening. The only thing that might work is to have a game where OOCly obsessing about such things as "my character's advancement" or "my character's status" is openly mocked, but I doubt that will happen outside of the games so small as to effectively be tabletop over IP for a group of friends.

Sidonie wrote:
Therefore, I was kind of surprised by this comment:

I think roleplaying is about playing a role. I know that sounds obvious, but I think a lot of time people forget that playing is a part of it and want roleplaying to be some sort of collaborative story telling.

I think that RP is collaborative story telling in the same way that plays or movies are collaborative (though of course without the script -- so maybe more like Reno 911). Yes, it's about playing roles, but in a collaborative way where they can build off of each other, with the result being a storyline. I think the "multi-user" part of muds is what makes them so much fun, and I also think that the stories which can result from collaborative RP are pretty darn awesome.

Perhaps my choice of words wasn't the best. When I said "collaborative story telling" I was thinking of one (or more players) having a story that they had pretty much pre-scripted and saw other players as extras to add flavor to the story.

I suppose situations where a players has to log every session because they may want to post it on their web site as a tribute to their role playing powers can be lumped under this too.

These types of game feels forced to me.

RP will always be a collaborative effort between players. I simply prefer spontaneous and fast past paced RP. I like to play in the moment. I've never found RP with those who are trying to write a story to be any of those, and while the story might be compelling, if it is slow and drawn out, I won't stick with it.

I think the problem is simply most roleplayers are bad players,

We will have to disagree on this. Most of the people I have rped with have been fair to outstanding rpers.

Maybe they all got old and went off to do non-mud things?

I also wanted to comment on an earlier statement you made -

for me good grammer and spelling matter, but I can't really do much about that without spellchecking all says and emotes, which frankly, I consider a bit beyond the pale. Not only would it be a wretched inconvenience to anyone attempting a dialect, it would remove the early warning signs of a poor roleplayer.

English is not everyone's first language. I would have missed out on playing with a couple of excellent rpers if I had blown them off because of some spelling and word tense errors.

Kitkat - is old, has no patience anymore for ten minute long sword fighting emotes - no matter how pretty they may be -

We will have to disagree on this. Most of the people I have rped with have been fair to outstanding rpers. Maybe they all got old and went off to do non-mud things?

I think that may very likely be true. Most of the 'good' roleplayers I fondly recall were from the pre-AOL days.

Then again, our apparently different experience may be the result of our selection process. I don't know many talented roleplayers that seek out games full of twinks. However, as a coder/consultant, I go where I'm needed, and that tends to be on games with less experienced players. Still, I have worked with Philippe several times, and his games are known four their quality. I was also involved with Guardians MUX from start to finish. Guardians had four separate worlds to play in, linked through time travel, including a space opera, an old west town, the more typical medieval venue, and a Roman story. It started in '94, and ran several years, being considered one of the best roleplay sites by many. The last remaining storyline was Maddock, the western town, which we ran as a stand-alone for a while before giving up due to lack of players that could uphold the standards, around 2001. Yes, long poses were in fashion. :)

English is not everyone's first language. I would have missed out on playing with a couple of excellent rpers if I had blown them off because of some spelling and word tense errors.

Point taken, although it's improper to counter a generalisation with a specific. (For the rhetorically challenged, that means a generalisation assumes exceptions, only an absolute declaration may be opposed with a specific example. "Warning signs" are hardly a confirmed diagnosis.) On the other side of it, some of the best English I've seen comes from those for whom it is a second or third language. I noticed Jason mentioned a prof in grad school being picky; my daughter wasn't even taught spelling in what used to be "Grammar School" - they said she'd pick it up later. IMHO, Americans aren't getting what they're paying for when it comes to schooling.

Point taken, although it's improper to counter a generalisation with a specific.

Er...when did the message thread morph into a formal debate?

For the rhetorically challenged, that means a generalisation assumes exceptions,

That's just rude.

tabletop over IP

This is my new most favoritest phrase.