[MUD-Dev] Alright... IF your gonan do DESIESE...

[Adam Wiggins]

[Marian:]
> On Sun 25 May, Caliban Tiresias Darklock wrote:
> > This underscores the difference between a MUD and a MUSH (usually; there
> > are ALWAYS exceptions). On a MUSH, there is really very little in the
> > *world* to experiment with; it's very player and person centered.
> 
> Which is what I feel is what defines a roleplaying game from other games.
> And I don't think that most games available realy qualify as roleplaying
> at that; especially not the first person computer games full of guns and
> monsters that are popular.

Heh, well I doubt this is in question.  I've already stated that I don't
think most computer games which claim to be RPGs really are.  But then,
there's a perfectly good reason for this - it's difficult to make
a computer role-play.  So instead those games got focused around what
computers *can* do well - numbers, complex systems, and tactical thinking.

> If the game isn't centered around players and person (and social interaction)
> then it is a game, but there is little to no role being played.

Well, I doubt there are any games in existance which don't center around
the player.  The social interaction thing is the key.  Of course, I don't
think that this is *necessary* to role-play, at all.  I could potentially
log onto a mud, walk out into the wilderness, and role-play a solitary
ranger perfectly well without ever talking to another player.  It's just
that it's not really much fun to do so - the computer won't recognize
that you go out of your way to protect the animals of the forest, in
most cases, and eventually you'll probably take to doing whatever is most
convenient, regardless of your role.

> This doesn't mean that a roleplaying game can't be combative, or that a
> combative mud can't be person oriented. I've played both and they can
> work out (until something shifts the balance, usually towards the hack
> and slash variation).

I've played many a pen and paper RPG session, and most of them were bloody
as hell (probably related to the fact that it was usually a bunch of
15 year old males).  But it's really impossible to play these games
without role-playing, since there's just nothing else to do *but* role-play.
That doesn't mean that you have to role-play a gentle healer or a
shining paladin; it's just as 'valid' to role-play a twitchy, drug-addict
hitman with a cybernetic right arm and an itchy trigger finger.  Usually
you rather revel in the complete stupidity of such a character, and
happily go walking into situations that you know are probably sure to
be fatal.  This is role-playing just the same as anything else.

> > In the game I'm planning, there's not much in the
> > world to be experimented with, and what there *is* doesn't tend to be
> > deadly.
> 
> Which is a pretty certain way to make the powergamers stay well clear
> of your game. What point in having the sword of ultimate destruction
> if there's nothing to chop up with it?

Hmmm...I think there's a little bit of confusion here.  There's a
difference between 'mud with a world that is interactive beyond just
social interaction with other players' and 'mud where the only thing to
do is kill'.  I like the idea of somewhat less deadly worlds...ie, I
can explore a cave and not expect to find instant death in most cases.
On the other hand, I do want to find *something* of interest.

This is, indeed, my fundamental problem with role-players and the Tiny
side of the mud world.  The worlds are just too simple.  Going back
to my original example, it's rare that you role-play a solitary ranger.
There's just nothing to *do* in the forest; the name of the game is
social interaction.  That's fine, but I want more.
On the flip side, there are numbers/puzzle solving muds, LP and and diku
mainly.  These places usually have a good amount to do, things to fool
around with etc.  This greatly appeals to me, both as a programmer
(interesting systems) and as a player (I love to dink around with that
stuff, just like a kid with a strange toy).  Downsides here are that
social interaction suffers, although not always as badly as the MUSH
folks here seem to imply; and secondly, those muds tend to be both too
static (LP areas suffer heavily from this) and too kill/power oriented
(you know what I'm talking about).  Also fine, but again, I want more.

I guess I don't see how a detailed world can possibly detract from
role-playing.  At worst it just may reduce social interaction - I make
a character and start messing around with botany, herbalism, the nature god,
hunting, fishing, tanning, and tracking, and thus spend a lot of time out
in the middle of nowhere, away from other players.  I'm 'role-playing'
just fine; I'm just role-playing a loner.  If the world is convincing
enough, I'll soon start to feel that the forest is my home, the animals
my friends, and that some fresh meat cooked over a campfire and a bed of
pine needles is more appealing than any stuffy inn.  And hopefully, when
I do go into town, my character will reflect this.  I'll be dirty and
unshaven; no one will know me, except perhaps the town's fur-trader;
people will marvel that I've spent so long out in the wilderness all alone,
but I'll just shrug and say it's where I enjoy being.
The difference is, I suppose, that the game is oriented around your
character, rather than the overall storyline.  A role-playing game with
few internal 'rules' means that players spend most of their time thinking
about how their character can help advace the storyline of the game; how
they would react in a certain situation, and so on.  With the game I'm
proposing (and writing), you're thinking more about your character
specifically; the overall storyline forms itself when your character
does what comes naturally.  You try to pick-pocket the big ugly ogre
because she is annoying you, has a lot of cash, and you think of yourself
as a good thief and like the challenge.  When you screw up, she attacks you,
because you pissed her off by trying to steal from her, and she knows that
she can pummel you into the ground without half a thought (plus, it
serves as a good example to others).  You naturally run as fast as you
can and try to hide somewhere, because otherwise she's probably going to
kill you, or at least hurt you real bad.
All of this is role-playing, but it's more natural, to my mind.  You just
do what your character would do - both because it is what is 'best' for
your character, and because that's what the character *would* do by just
following their natural inclinations.  (People generally do what they
think is best for them, although 'best' varies from personality to
personality.)  A storyline forms itself, obviously ("Hey, did you hear
about that dumb thief that tried to steal from UggUgg?  Heh, I hear he
hid in a storage warehouse for three days, shaking in fear") but it's
less of a conscious effort by players to form an interesting storyline,
and more just a natural effect of characters being themselves.
This is, I think, role-playing without having to be a good actor or actress,
although it certainly doesn't hurt :)