Member Discussions

1. Never forget that you too are a player. You are not special.
2. Without other players, you're just masturbating in text.
3. If you layer a whole bunch of crap behind a buttload of bureaucracy then people will do what it takes to avoid that. This includes: Applying for a character, Applying for a plot, applying to run a plot, handing a plot, handling others, logging in.

> 1. Never forget that you too are a player. You are not special.

Firstly, staff are not necessary players.

Secondly, staff are inherently special, by way of their administrative powers and control over the direction of the mud. Their decisions will make or break or the game. That is why they should be held to a higher standard than the players; "With great power comes great responsibility".

> 2. Without other players, you're just masturbating in text.

Without staff, there is no mud. Players come and go over the years, but without staff the mud will die.

> 3. If you layer a whole bunch of crap behind a buttload of
> bureaucracy then people will do what it takes to avoid that.

Different strokes for different folks. Everyone has different tastes, and a competent mud owner will know his or her audience. Just because you dislike something, it doesn't mean that everyone else dislikes it as well.

1. "Special" is a highly inaccurate word. If there are hundreds of players on a game and only 3 staff and those three staff can execute commands and functions that the others can't then they are indeed special. "You are not better" is also possibly inaccurate because many games recruit the best players to join staff; in other words, the staff are better than the pool from which their drawn. Thus, the best wording might be that "you are not above your own rules" if the intent is to suggest that double-standards should not exist.

2. This statement is false in most cases. Other players may be needed for some things but not for all. Unless a game is designed in such a manner that makes it impossible for a single player to do something on their own, most MUDs feature gameplay, features, etc. that can be achieved or at least attempted by a single player.

3. Patience is a sign of maturity and maturity is a good trait to have when doing just about anything. Application processes are excellent ways to ensure that characters fit into game worlds and to weed out the immature "I want to play now!" types. Furthermore, impatience is often a sign of selfishness and such behavior can be detrimental to community. If you're too impatient to "wait" for an application approval to play, join a plot, run a plot, etc. than you're probably not mature enough to be playing the game.

Sounds to me like you want a game (or games) that you're not qualified, via maturity or intelligence or anything else you failed to meet their standards for, to play.

If you're too impatient to "wait" for an application approval to play, join a plot, run a plot, etc. than you're probably not mature enough to be playing the game.

To me, this is just silly. I'm a pretty patient/mature person, but I've never joined up with a game which required an application process. This isn't a reflection of my personality... it's just a reflection of the MUDding landscape.

There are thousands of MUDs for me to try... enough that I couldn't try them all in a lifetime. I don't know anything about 99.9% of those MUDs before playing them, at least 50% listed on TMC are probably dead or dying, and 80% of the rest probably aren't for me. Your MUD is just another dot on that map: What investment do I have to your game before I start playing it? Why should I sit around and wait to be approved for your game when I can start playing another one now? How do I even know that my sitting around waiting to play your game isn't a waste of time because your MUD is really dead? How do I know I'll mesh with your players, or like your style, or appreciate your content, or a boatload of other things I can only find out after experiencing your game?

The answer is, I don't. It's silly to expect me to sit around waiting for admittance to your game when I have no investment in it, know nothing about it, and have thousands of other options... and then call me impatient or immature for not hanging around. If you want to weed out troublesome players, then do it when they cause trouble. By forcing everyone to apply, you've eliminated 9 out of 10 legitimate players too.

Best of Luck,
-Jess

Oh SNAP, mann_jess lays the smack down.

Without staff, there is no mud. Players come and go over the years, but without staff the mud will die.

This is pretty ignorant. There are enough examples out there that I really don't have to bother showing.

> > Without staff, there is no mud. Players come and go
> > over the years, but without staff the mud will die.
>
> This is pretty ignorant. There are enough examples out
> there that I really don't have to bother showing.

PKB. Cite one example of a thriving mud that has no staff.

-points at Earth-

/bows out.

> -points at Earth-

False analogy, try again.

> -points at Earth-

False analogy, try again.

I happen to agree that any MUD any of us are likely to make needs a staff... but it would be technically possible to create a thriving game without staff, modeled after the way things work on Earth.

Player-generated content is a must on most really big games, and eliminates the need for staff-created content if there's enough of it. A game free of major bugs, large enough, implemented to change and persist those changes, without design flaws requiring administrative intervention could thrive just on the players alone.

I haven't played Second Life, but I don't think the staff really get involved there, which would serve as a good example.

Best of Luck,
-Jess

(Comment added by mann_jess on Tue Aug 25 22:14:25 2009)

For all the newcomers: This thread started as flaimbait and devolved quite rapidly from there.

For the most part, one can ignore the comments from TSOY_Falco, KaVir and myself, as they is largely just bickering.

I've tagged all of my posts which contain on-topic content with a notation in this color. Reading through the comments by everyone else (other than the 3 of us), and only my posts which are thusly tagged, is the only way you'll get anything out of this thread.

And what happens when a malicious player, irked that he isn't the most powerful player in the game, decides to crash the mud? Without staff, the mud is dead, and that would be that. It only takes one bad seed to cripple a game without staff.

Also, regarding the application point. Often it is true that awaiting the approval of an application is a tedious business, and can detract from the face appeal of the game, however, in the mudding community of today, many players lack the maturity to create an enriching roleplaying atmosphere, and it is necessary to find those who can through an application process, or else resort to inquirees upon character creation, which would be just as tedious. It might be an annoying feature at times, but to make a desired community effective, it is often a necessary sacrifice. As for the fact that you an try all the other games that don't require an application process in the time it takes to fill out the application in the first place, it's really a matter of preference. While you might prefer a mud with easy character creation, you're sacrificing the option of a mud that lacks a certain demographic that might be undesirable. If you don't care much about the roleplay quality, then this might be an ok swap, but if you do, then the application process may well be worth the time devoted.

Firstly, staff are not necessary players.

Secondly, staff are inherently special, by way of their administrative powers and control over the direction of the mud. Their decisions will make or break or the game. That is why they should be held to a higher standard than the players; "With great power comes great responsibility".


Without staff, there is no mud. Players come and go over the years, but without staff the mud will die.


Different strokes for different folks. Everyone has different tastes, and a competent mud owner will know his or her audience. Just because you dislike something, it doesn't mean that everyone else dislikes it as well.

This.

And what happens when a malicious player, irked that he isn't the most powerful player in the game, decides to crash the mud?

If you don't have a buggy game... nothing. It's possible to make a game which doesn't crash, ya know.

While you might prefer a mud with easy character creation, you're sacrificing the option of a mud that lacks a certain demographic that might be undesirable.

Yuh. If the MUD with an application has that 'certain demographic', which I don't know... because I haven't played it yet. Before I fill out your application, I don't even know if your game is even alive, much less good, to my taste, with the right environment, content and staff.

If immaturity is a problem in your game, then get rid of the immature players. Banning everybody until they write an essay just to login is silly.

Best of Luck,
-Jess

It is simple enough to implement a representation of the who list online, which would show whether players play the game regularly, and thus show if the game is alive. As for whether the desired demographic does indeed play, if the game is alive, then that assumes the application process has been used and the proper players have been approved and are playing. In short, you can't just ban those players that don't live up to the game's expectations, it would not only look bad upon the gaming community that you ban players left and right, but it would also be hard to enforce, as immeaturity isn't necessarily the only reason a person wouldn't be wanted in the game world. A certain ability to roleplay, a certain skill if you will, would be wanted, and this skill can only be found out through the creation of a character through an application process. Banning someone for lacking the necessary roleplaying skill doesn't seem a good precedent to set, so, instead, simply set up an application system.

It is simple enough to implement a representation of the who list online, which would show whether players play the game regularly, and thus show if the game is alive. As for whether the desired demographic does indeed play, if the game is alive, then that assumes the application process has been used and the proper players have been approved and are playing.

None of which I'd be able to see if I can't get into the game. If you have things set up so that I can login, interact with the other players, and experience the game without first applying, then you don't have an application system. If you don't allow me into the game, then I can't try it out before filling out an application, which gives me no reason to do so.

Banning someone for lacking the necessary roleplaying skill doesn't seem a good precedent to set, so, instead, simply set up an application system.

You don't want to ban them for lacking RP skills, but you're willing to ban everybody and refuse to unban them if they lack RP skills?

Best of Luck,
-Jess

I'm a pretty patient/mature person, but I've never joined up with a game which required an application process.

Then you don't know what you're missing and you're speaking out of ignorance.

This isn't a reflection of my personality... it's just a reflection of the MUDding landscape.

There are lots of different MUDs out there but very few are alike. Each has its own unique aspects. Of course, you don't know that because you've never played any requiring an application.

There are thousands of MUDs for me to try...

Not quite two thousand though of such diversity that any particular type you're looking at probably only has a couple hundred at most.

...enough that I couldn't try them all in a lifetime.

Not true. I've tried out almost 1000 different MUDs and over three-quarters of those were in the years 1999 through 2003. If I could try 750 games in five years, it's entirely possible to check out every MUD in existence right now in under a decade.

I don't know anything about 99.9% of those MUDs before playing them, at least 50% listed on TMC are probably dead or dying, and 80% of the rest probably aren't for me. Your MUD is just another dot on that map: What investment do I have to your game before I start playing it?

Learning the setting, learning about the political, economic, religious and social traditions of the game, and developing a character that fits within all of this for the application process are all investments.

Why should I sit around and wait to be approved for your game when I can start playing another one now?

Not every game is identical. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses. If you're too impatient to wait even a little bit then I think you'll also find that any game with an application process doesn't mind if do go and start playing another one now.

How do I even know that my sitting around waiting to play your game isn't a waste of time because your MUD is really dead?

Some MUDs have information regarding how many players are on and when. This information is posted on their websites. Not all have this, but that eliminates your question for those games, none of which by your own admission you have attempted to play. As for the others, what’s to guarantee that even a game you log into immediately will always have the amount of players that fits your desire? The first time you log in might but what about subsequent logins? They might not. Egad! Now you’ve wasted your time and invested effort on a game that turned out not to be your cup of tea even though it didn’t have an application process. Getting a feel for how many players any game has, regardless of whether or not they have an application process, takes time. If you don’t have the patience for an application process, what’s to say you’ll have the patience for that?

How do I know I'll mesh with your players, or like your style, or appreciate your content, or a boatload of other things I can only find out after experiencing your game?

This is reflective of one mindset of gaming that does not apply to all MUDs. Meshing with the players isn't as important on many role-playing MUDs because players are portraying characters. What is important is that your character meshes with the setting. That's what an application process reveals. As for the rest, you’ll find that out when your application is approved, if you are indeed capable of what the application process is meant to discover.

Waiting a bit to find out all of the questions you asked takes patience. Even if you believe you have it, the inability or unwillingness to wait is a called impatience.

It's silly to expect me to sit around waiting for admittance to your game when I have no investment in it...

As before, you do have an investment in it: the time you've spent developing a character for the approval process. I refer not only to the application itself but the time spent researching the setting, learning the in-game customs and developing a character that fits within the framework of these things. That's an investment, one which you're unwilling to make and that says something about your patience and maturity, or lack thereof, and how well you'd function within the game. This is the first step in the application process: weeding out those players incapable of Step #1.

...(I) know nothing about it....

Many if not most games have websites with a wealth of information, especially games requiring applications.

...and have thousands of other options...

And yet....

...at least 50% listed on TMC are probably dead or dying, and 80% of the rest probably aren't for me....

Doesn't sound like thousands of other options.

…then call me impatient or immature for not hanging around.

Which was done.

If you want to weed out troublesome players, then do it when they cause trouble.

That's when it's too late. Enough troublesome players manage to get by the application process so why open the doors to even more? All it takes is one to give staff a lot of work to do repairing the damage. Why add multitudes of players probably incapable and/or unwilling of playing the game properly and multiplying the amount of damage control needed?

By forcing everyone to apply, you've eliminated 9 out of 10 legitimate players too.

No, we've eliminated 9 out of 10 players. The 10% remaining are applying players from which the application process will reveal legitimate players. If the other 9 had been, they'd have had the maturity and patience for the application process.

Ahh. Now I understand much more clearly why the most active RP MU* community consists of people sitting around mocking bad RPers and occasionally being shocked that, given how awesome they are at identifying things that suck, they can't ever seem to get a good game together.

Which "most active RP MU* community" are you referring to?

Sounds to me like you want a game (or games) that you're not qualified, via maturity or intelligence or anything else you failed to meet their standards for, to play.
If you're too impatient to "wait" ... than you're probably not mature enough to be playing the game.
If the other 9 had been, they'd have had the maturity and patience for the application process.
Why add multitudes of players probably incapable and/or unwilling of playing the game properly
That's an investment, one which you're unwilling to make and that says something about your patience and maturity, or lack thereof
Then you don't know what you're missing and you're speaking out of ignorance.

I see a pattern. You seem to think everyone who either disagrees with you or has different tastes is ignorant, immature, impatient, unqalified and unintelligent. This is absurdly arrogant. If you saw this behavior in someone else, would you think it was healthy?

This [Meshing with the players] is reflective of one mindset of gaming that does not apply to all MUDs.
Learning the [game] and developing a character that fits within all of this for the application process are all investments.
Getting a feel for how many players any game has, regardless of whether or not they have an application process, takes time. If you don’t have the patience for an application process, what’s to say you’ll have the patience for that?

I can't tell if you're being intentionally obtuse or if you honestly believe these statements make any modicum of sense.

What is important is that your character meshes with the setting. That's what an application process reveals. As for the rest, you’ll find that out when your application is approved, if you are indeed capable of what the application process is meant to discover.

This seems to be the crux of your argument. You believe I should invest hours into filling out an application and creating a detailed character with a background story and whatever else, in order to find out if I like your game. That simply isn't going to happen. If I like your game, I'll invest time into it. Not before.

An application process is fine if you're expecting to hang out with your IRL buddies and their friends. If you want to attract new players, it's a bad idea.

Best of Luck,
-Jess

> I happen to agree that any MUD any of us are likely to
> make needs a staff... but it would be technically
> possible to create a thriving game without staff, modeled
> after the way things work on Earth.

And who is going to design and develop this game? Who is going to fix its bugs? Who is going to maintain the server? Who is going to pay the hosting costs?

And who is going to design and develop this game?

Of course there is an initial staff requirement in order to create a codebase. I'm talking about running a game after the initial startup point. Perhaps my wording wasn't stellar.

Who is going to fix its bugs?

It would be technically possible to fix all the bugs in a game at some point, and with no new code, no new bugs would arise.

Who is going to maintain the server? Who is going to pay the hosting costs?

Of course the game would need to be hosted (unless we did some weird p2p thing), but it could easily be hosted on either a free host or cohosted on a server which was already maintained for a different reason. Neither of these would constitute staff IMO, particularly because it doesn't imply the host has any administrative access to the game or code.

It would be atypical, but absolutely possible.

Best of Luck,
-Jess

> It would be technically possible to fix all the bugs in a
> game at some point, and with no new code, no new bugs
> would arise.

I would use the word "theoretically" rather than "technically" - it's possible, but in practice it would never happen.

I would also point out that a mud with no new changes will eventually stagnate and die. That's presumably where your player-content concept comes in - something which does indeed sound good...until you realise that the vast majority of player content sucks horribly, and that without some sort of administrative content control, so will the mud.

> Of course the game would need to be hosted (unless we did
> some weird p2p thing), but it could easily be hosted on
> either a free host or cohosted on a server which was
> already maintained for a different reason. Neither of
> these would constitute staff IMO, particularly because it
> doesn't imply the host has any administrative access to
> the game or code.

You need access to the source code (or at the very least the binaries) and other data files in order to run the mud. If you have that access, then you're staff.

> Which "most active RP MU* community" are you referring to?

I'm guessing, just because chaosprime wrote 'MU*' and that Bane started this thread, he means WORA.

I would use the word "theoretically" rather than "technically" - it's possible, but in practice it would never happen.

I don't think 'never' is the right word. None of 'us' will do it, but I imagine most MMORPGs of the future will have to adopt this practice in order to keep up with their vast playerbases. Administrative requirements do little but slow games down.

until you realise that the vast majority of player content sucks horribly, and that without some sort of administrative content control, so will the mud.

It depends... Guided player content has lots of potential, but it puts limitations on the breadth of content produced. Unguided player content tends to be sloppy, but with a properly designed game (say, modeled after Earth), sloppy content would largely be drowned out by lasting/worthwhile content other players more enjoyed. IRL, most arts & crafts suck, but this doesn't stop people from making and purchasing good art, which is adopted and spread throughout the world.

With a combination of the two, and a game which produced content of its own with enough variation, both skilled and unskilled players could flesh out an interesting world filled largely with intriguing content, without any staff intervention whatsoever.

If you have that access, then you're staff.

If I buy hosting from bluehost to run my MUD, they have access to by binaries and code, but I wouldn't consider them staff. I'm not being pedantic, this is the exact situation I'm suggesting... no administrators in the game whatsoever, just a host (unassociated with the MUD) on which the code runs.

Best of Luck,
-Jess

(Comment added by mann_jess on Tue Aug 25 22:11:11 2009)

To be clear, this is a continuation of the interesting discussion. I'm tagging it so people can sift through the silly me/KaVir he said/she said nonsense.

I see a pattern. You seem to think everyone who either disagrees with you or has different tastes is ignorant, immature, impatient, unqalified [sic] and unintelligent. This is absurdly arrogant. If you saw this behavior in someone else, would you think it was healthy?

No, I don’t think that people with different tastes need be ignorant, immature, impatient, unqualified or unintelligent. I do think they need to stop bitching about games that don’t meet their taste though because if it doesn’t meet their taste, move the hell on.

I think people who aren’t willing to spend time doing something because they don’t like waiting are impatient. That’s the definition of impatient. I think people that don’t want to do an application to play a game are unqualified to play that game because one of the requirements is an application. A failure to meet all requirements of a position makes one unqualified to hold that position and the same applies with characters on such MUDs. I think people that don’t want to develop a character because they don’t know enough about a setting but still want to play are ignorant. I think people who can’t accept that some games want applications just because they don’t like applications and complain about it are immature. They’re childishly thinking that they want to play and they want the game to cater to them. Bitching about it here is immature. Go play a game that doesn’t have application requirements. Nobody’s stopping you. I think that players who don’t want an application process because they don’t have the knowledge on the game’s setting and don’t want to learn it are ignorant. They lack knowledge which is what ignorant means.

As for intelligence, I think people that can’t understand these words might very well be unintelligent. Either that or they’re poorly educated, possess a limited vocabulary or are just being *CENSORED*s. Take your pick.

I can't tell if you're being intentionally obtuse or if you honestly believe these statements make any modicum of sense

Online player numbers vary from time to time, day to day. If you don’t believe this you really aren’t very experienced in MUDs. I’ve played games that seemed dead when I was online but that’s because I was on at times when they weren’t active. I’ve also played games that others complained were dead yet were very active when I was playing. Sometimes these ups and downs can be charted because they last for months or years while sometimes they change over a period of days (for example, drop-offs near the end of school semesters or on holidays or even the approach of warmer weather).

This seems to be the crux of your argument. You believe I should invest hours into filling out an application and creating a detailed character with a background story and whatever else, in order to find out if I like your game. That simply isn't going to happen. If I like your game, I'll invest time into it. Not before.

And that makes you someone games requiring applications don’t want. Move along. Nothing to see here. We want to make sure you have a fully-realized character before you enter the game from which to build upon. An application process helps in creating a coherent character that fits in a setting upon entry. Don’t want to do that? Go play a hack-and-slash or any of the role-playing MUDs out there that don’t require an application. It’s no problem with me or any other game requiring an application. Have fun, enjoy yourself. Just do it somewhere else where the potential of you creating a half-assed, under-developed, unacceptable, out-of-context, mish-mash mess of a character isn’t something they want to avoid and stop bitching here.

An application process is fine if you're expecting to hang out with your IRL buddies and their friends. If you want to attract new players, it's a bad idea.

It only hurts so far as attracting new players who don’t want to develop their character before entering the game. It doesn’t bother everyone however.

You don’t feel you should cater to MUDs with applications and we don’t feel we should cater to you. What’s the problem? I’m not going to be upset if you don’t play my game so why do you feel the need to complain or back someone who is complaining? You, the OP or anyone else has the option to go elsewhere instead of complaining here. So do it. That’s not arrogance, it’s just fact.

Self quote:
"2. Realize that the MUSH flavor draws the attention of pretentious people who spend all their time puffing up their own image. It's the very nature of a MUSH."

Someone owes me $10.