A Longer Read: The Role of Code in Armageddon

[Armaddict]

This quote from the language thread touched on something that I've been kind of stewing on for a couple weeks fairly steadily, and over years off and on.  That quote was:

The roleplay makes a difference to me too, but what is frustrating is when the code doesn't support the roleplay.  Or worse, when the code invalidates the roleplay.

This touches on a topic that is right out in front of a lot of arguments about the game and how things work and what people expect out of each other, but I'm not sure we actually give credit for just how much it impacts the perspectives of different players.  I think a lot of conflicts between players (and sometimes staff) are rooted in this very idea, and so I thought maybe open discussion of it might open up paths of understanding.  Or maybe we'll just descend into quibbling and accusations.  Regardless, my intent isn't to criticize anyone or convert anyone.  My intent is only to try and describe what may be a difference in the very foundation of the game, when it comes to comparing me to other players.  Perhaps the discussion of this can help clear things up and help people play differently than they did before, or perhaps it will just make people dislike others more.  I care not.


ArmageddonMUD vs ArmageddonMUSH
The beauty of Armageddon for me, upon stumbling on it completely by accident, was a roleplaying game where I was not dependent on the actions of others for me to get things done in the game.  I'm not speaking about monumental change, or even persistent change; I'm talking about me rolling up a D&D character and having a persistent world for it to progress in, without any need to ask a DM if this was allowed, or if this applied to that, or if this would ruin the game; I could roll up a character, interact with some people, have a story in mind start to evolve, and work towards that goal.  Having been an avid hack'n slash player, I've always been -very- proactive in 'I could be doing this to improve right now', or 'I need this to progress, but can't do it alone'.  The latter case was where things really expanded in Armageddon.  You no longer spammed 'LFG for this piece of gear I need'.  You now made connections and friends to help you, and all of a sudden 'grouping' meant 'being politically savvy'.  I was terrible at it.  That didn't make it not fun.  It all came together so nicely, because my characters had their goals, and would of course work for them.  This got really in-depth when I, the player, started learning more, but would start deciding that my character shouldn't know that perspective or in game knowledge (yet).

I'd tried out MUSHes prior to this.  I -hated- them.  It isn't that I don't enjoy roleplay.  It's that they were -slooow-, and more like playing a tabletop game, but with people who I didn't know, and without the instance of idle banter between things of import happening in the story.  Everything depended on someone else.  Their built-in systems were generally rudimentary (what they often called simple or easy to use), and emphasis was largely on the tone of interactions and storytelling versus what I came to enjoy about Arm's take on roleplaying, which was like capitalist roleplaying:  Do what you want to do, and make your story, and it will naturally interact with and accentuate or affect or destroy other plots. But every person was playing their own hero or villain and trying to make it fit.  Not -win-, but succeed.  I'm not sure if that difference resonates with others as much as it does with me.  But my successful characters have never -won- the game, and I never expect them to.

I think this is a very important distinction between the two methods, and I'm not saying that this is extreme or anything, but that we're on a very slow slope towards the latter without considering what it does to the former.  We depend more on approvals for things.  We depend more on good faith of other players.  We create a lot of grey areas that aren't necessarily there (necessarily is an important word here), and that's not a bad thing; the undesirable part of this comes when we start slamming the hammer down on people who don't agree that it's a grey area. Which leads to the actual full topic on the role of code.

With me liking this former viewpoint a great deal more than the latter, with me thinking of that as what it is to play a MUD instead of a MUSH, the code plays a very pivotal role in the game for me.  It is the persistent world.  It is the laws of physics.  It is the governing behavior.  MUSHes tend to rely on other players to play the antagonist, for long elaborate stories to made that lead to your doom.  Armageddon doesn't do that.  The game itself is fighting you, and it leads to a sense of ever-present danger that is altogether pivotal towards the game experience here versus other places.  People love that persistent danger, and that's even when it malfunctions sometimes.  I think we lose some new players who have this idea, but when they approach the ins and outs of why this happens or imperfections in codes they find, we tend to browbeat them for having this viewpoint, rather than addressing their concern and moving them along towards seeing those ins and outs; the code isn't perfect.  But it is the governing behavior.  And that ability to play within it alone, with other people, or against other people, is what makes it so great.  I don't -need- a staff member to tell me this is okay; the code does that.  I don't -need- another player to agree with how things are done; they're well aware of the code working in this way too.  This isn't to advocate abuse of code, but rather to reduce/fight the idea that the code is an unreliable way to determine the possibility of things. 

One example:
- Once, long ago, I was playing a Desert elf ranger.  This was before they required tribes.  I was out hunting, enjoying myself, even solo-emoting and things, which were not very common for me at the time (I've retained a bit of a 'It's only really worth it if it matters to someone because I've got my own visualization already' perspective).  I had someone charge in with an emote of hammers twirling, and they attacked me, and I immediately fled.  I ran.  I pulled out my bow.  I shot at him.  He charged in again during that brief after-delay.  I ran before he could attack, and I ran back the direction he came from.  This happened two more times before I realized I wasn't going to be able to beat him, and I all out ran away.  This resulted in a player complaint about running right past him, which Sanvean discussed with me, and I asked her why he wasn't guarding that direction if he didn't want me going that way.  She acceded the point, said she'd let the player know that such was the purpose of the code in place (or at least that such was my perspective which she was okay with), and told me to carry on. (Edit:  Point of story.  Code made someone feel cheated, but code was the dictation of things being possible, and there were measures of code to try and prevent that action as well that just weren't being used).

Again, this isn't a rant against people who don't agree with me or that ideology.  But this is an explanation of this idea being one that can lead to greater consistency and a lot less 'grey area' to work with.  I view code as the foundation that we depend on for the MUD to be successful and altogether, enjoyable.  I much preferred the era of the game where this was dominant, because no one had any doubts about what -could- happen, what -could- be done, because it was predefined.  Malfunctions were fixed.  And when code was the limiting factor to a plot or circumstance, rather than the means, that was the 'go ahead' to get staff involved.  By appearance only, I think we switched that around, or at least made it not okay.  We seem to want everything to be so micromanaged by above that you doing anything that unsettles anyone else without the okay is turned into an explosion, rather than an event of where to analyze whether or not the persistent game world is in need of modification to prevent it, which results in a lot less of the staff interaction I actually enjoyed.  Right now they're an approval committee for me, where the way they -were- was people who would actively watch the game and make things happen, e.g. the groups of criminals fighting their way back towards the alleys killing soldiers who ran at them, only to find out a staffer had animated a templar up the road who coordinated a defense.  PC's in the Arm and PC's in the crime group both die, but that was -fun-, just because they -saw- it happening and got to spontaneously react to players doing their thing, rather than everyone insisting the whole thing needed to be planned out, which eliminates spontaneity and the 'log in and just make something happen' mentality.

tl;dr
A code-centric view of the game is pretty vital to the crowd who came here out of preference for something that was -not- a MUSH, and I'd like for that code-centric view to be a bit more prevalent as in cases of the original quote from manipura; Make things possible by code that should be possible, fix things that are strange behaviors in code to make more suiting to immersion in roleplay without the need for more staff tasks, and make situations that are limited by code rather than helped by it the true realm of staff involvement (to free up time for their own projects and more spontaneous acts on their part, as well).  I get the impression (perhaps a false one) that a lot of people view the code as a clutz that they just have to deal with while writing out stories, rather than the means for us to do things for ourselves, and for the game world to be interpreted by.  Might be a little too rambly to make sense to some, hopefully the spirit can be gleaned out of it though.

I'd also welcome in-depth explanations in difference of opinion, or modifications, or agreement with further examples.  This is more about understanding and relating than insisting things be converted.

[Armaddict]

And I didn't include that the reason I've been stewing on this hasn't been some outcry or particular event, but just comments here or there on the board or in brief explanations of how things are seen by staff that essentially say 'You used code to do this', where it's true, but doesn't address the idea that such is entirely possible.  Moreso, it seems to be a disapproval of the action that happened, and that it was allowed to happen without someone giving the okay first, or even knowing beforehand.

It's a position that limits spontaneous action on grounds of grey areas, rather than the strict 'Is it possible physically?  Does the code reflect that it is possible, or does it not?'  If someone uses the code to do something that is absolutely absurd, that's one thing.  But the claim that just because code allows it doesn't mean it's okay has over the past few years been used much more liberally in the name of some other discussion being made, and when that's a concern, it's a lot harder to confidently take spontaneous action due to the concern that it may be a frowny face, even though it's entirely in the realm of possibility.

[Jihelu]

Using code to do something is alright if there is another coded way of preventing whatever it is your doing.
Like your elf example.
He could have guarded the opposite direction/whatever.
Elves are also fast so thats a thing as well.



Theres also the example of code being abused. Like that person shooting people with arrows and then hiding on the Gaj roof or wherever.



Not sure what my input is on this but thats what I thought about.

[Armaddict]

Theres also the example of code being abused. Like that person shooting people with arrows and then hiding on the Gaj roof or wherever.

That's one of the instances where I'm not sure about.  I don't see the abuse, because in order for it to be abuse, you first have to create the intervention of vNPC's in a way where they do not intervene with actions in any other situation, and likewise, if such were the case we could just as easily remove that ability via guard positioning or all out code to dictate the realm of possibility not including that.  There is no 'manipulation of code' there for it to be possible, and the assertion that someone can't line up a shot through the doorway makes such code additions of 'shoot out' in the past seem counter-intuitive.  Likewise, there was the discussion recently of apartment killings, and insistence that it was an abuse of the game world.  Again, there's been a lot of jabs at previous methods of doing things where grey areas are created to explain why they're bad...but the reason they come up are essentially 'I don't like that this happened.'

However, that's kind of what I mean.  I'd like to see code additions/modifications keep that 'realm of possibility' in mind as the rule, rather than every instance being broken down into an argument over what is and isn't possible, because such removes my ability to be able to perform actions as things happen in the game.  That's the bit about the game starting to feel more like a mush, where everything that you can do might not -actually- be possible, and you need to find approval for it beforehand.

However, that's also not me asserting that -you- have to agree with -me-, as much as me saying I'd like to hear that same understanding for those playing this game as a persistent world where they can do things they want to do, so long as they aren't turning it into a hack'n slash or outright 'outdoing' the code to make it not work for its specified purpose.

[Dunetrade55]

A very thoughtful post. I'll have to reread it several times to decide what, or if, I respond to it.

First thought is, ye olde apartment killing (now with BLOODSPLATTERS!tm), but this is an example of something that code actually has been updated to reflect more accurate consequences (although a coded means of cleaning up the bloodsplatters, if one doesn't already exist, which is moderately time-consuming, but possible, would be ideal).

I get you on what seperates a MUD from a MUSH, and, indeed, MUSHes never really tickled me the same way... I find it funny that the aggressor filed a complaint because you ran past them. An outdoor room is actually supposed to be quite large, even in an alleyway this would be feasable, and you can't be blamed for not stopping to emote when some hammer-wielding psycho is chasing you. You wouldn't stop to reason with a scrab, would you? (I did with some success, but ymmv)

[Armaddict]

Again, I invite invitations to lay things out for me.  Even if you want to do so vehemently.  I'm not really proposing a change here as much as opening a discourse on the title: the role of code and what it should play in a game like Armageddon.  For me, it's what allows me to play the game as a persistent world with predefined realms of possibility that I can act within (reasonably, i.e. I'm not trying to 'fool' people with the code or outsmart it).  For you, it may be something else.

Perhaps a worthless gesture, but it seemed like something I could post for discussion that was more banter and comparison, perhaps cerebral, instead of just another idea, or direct poke at the code.  Kind of a philosophy of where I stand ideologically in the game, I suppose?

[Nathvaan]

I think it's fair to assume where I fall on this topic without much explanation. I suspect I am one of the few people who really know that the old man behind the curtain actually looks like. (It's sometimes not pretty but we love ginka just the same!)

That said, I have been following the recent posts but I am not really understanding how anyone could believe somehow this MUD is moving in the direction of a MUSH.  As you rightly said were it a MUSH things would be 'simple' and surely wouldn't need my abilities to keep the one emote command clipping along.

I perhaps it is that I am tired and a bit overworked but maybe someone could give me some examples of how we have moved, even a little, toward relaxing how integral the code is in the game?  From my perspective I spend 20+ hours a week at a minimum adding code to the game so it's hard to get my head around it!

I am genuinely curious!

[BadSkeelz]

I think it's fair to assume where I fall on this topic without much explanation. I suspect I am one of the few people who really know that the old man behind the curtain actually looks like. (It's sometimes not pretty but we love ginka just the same!)

That said, I have been following the recent posts but I am not really understanding how anyone could believe somehow this MUD is moving in the direction of a MUSH.  As you rightly said were it a MUSH things would be 'simple' and surely wouldn't need my abilities to keep the one emote command clipping along.

I perhaps it is that I am tired and a bit overworked but maybe someone could give me some examples of how we have moved, even a little, toward relaxing how integral the code is in the game?  From my perspective I spend 20+ hours a week at a minimum adding code to the game so it's hard to get my head around it!

I am genuinely curious!

u took away our babe objects

what are we going to load in to corrsbows now?


(Just kidding. Maybe if I can get around to reading the OP I could think of a real example, but my gut reaction is that there is more code support for player actions than when I began playing 4 years ago, not less.)

[BadSkeelz]

Yeah I don't know what the hell you're trying to get at, Armaddict. Sorry.

[Dunetrade55]

I think it may have been partly inspired by the firing a bow into a tavern, but that was handled ICly, because, realisticly, from the cooking pits (a contained space with echoes of a virtual presence), to your apartment hideaway, is something that could have very well provoked an IC reaction, but code limits with PC populations were lacking. Also add to the fact such high profile acts occurred more than once. But we're not really here to harp on particulars, as mentioned in the OP.

Some of us do have certain expectations of the virtual environment, and it can be frustrating when those don't work out. Are they always correct? Certainly not, as in the elf murdering hammer guy case. But I think, personally, higher expectations should be placed upon the aggressor to have figured out what they're doing before attacking... in his case, to like, maybe guard a direction?

Killing characters can create and further plots, but it's one of those no-take-backsies sort of things, that shuts down other plots you may or may not be aware of. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a certain amount of premeditation to go into that. I could very well be wrong in my opinion. Have I walked into the Gaj before and typed "bash dude" and fended off the onslaught, then escaped (stopping shy of murdering them, but that was a personal choice) the immediate vicinity? Yes... but there was a whole lot leading up to it. It wasn't smart of my PC, but, it was what they would do to send someone a message. It didn't end well for me, honestly, I probably would have been better off if I killed them, but really it was a satisfying enough death in the end, and I saw how further plots spawned from it. I did expect to escape it, and if I hadn't stopped somewhere to consider what was IC for me to do and typed "nosave arrest" to turn it back on, I probably could have just tanked my way, wherever the hell I wanted to go leaving piles of corpses in my wake.

Many things I could do in such a situation, that I chose not to do. Some may be so invested in succeeding that they would not make the same choices, and this, too, is ok... it would not have been ok for my character at the time to simply shift his perspective into a 180 and go on a murder spree given his background and character development... many characters are not shaped the same, so what is and isn't ok for this particular situation, is ok in other scenarios.

[Armaddict]

As you rightly said were it a MUSH things would be 'simple' and surely wouldn't need my abilities to keep the one emote command clipping along.

I think I was careful to state that I didn't think this was a big slide, but rather an explanation on why some people could see things as outright abuse, then be appalled when someone like me came in and said 'ehhh, well...not really'.  There's been kind of a double standard set between the 'emoting doesn't equal roleplay' and the 'we need to see you describe why you think this would be possible.'  It was less about whether or not we are a mush, and more about whether or not we have an expectation for it to be played like one, but with much neater coded features.

I play it like a MUD with a lot of roleplay where code is a dictatorial force that I work within, and my emotes are the flowers that I put around the game world that the code keeps me within.  Sometimes it seems we want that in reverse, as in we expect description and planning to come first before we then apply code to see the effects transferred into the game.  It's hard to make actions quickly in the game for me.  Most things seem to revert to 'You should ask staff.' and that's what I'm trying to address; that seems a very inefficient way of doing things, based more on preventing things from happening than letting things happen.  In the latter, there were certainly bad events, but they could be rectified, then the ability for them to be fixed came after.  The former, I feel on edge with every decision on whether or not someone's going to be all pissed about how it was done when the fact is I'm trying to get something done and the code is the way I have to do it.

For a not real example, I feel like we're moving towards the ability to make a camp being:
The old way: 
Set up objects with ldescs, because the code lets you do that.
send message to staff saying you did it; they may or may not set it up as a save room.
(edit:  Staff reply with 'done' or 'We can't do that because of this, but here's a workaround for you.')

The new way:
You must set up a request first and explain why you need the camp.
Receive list of items you will need with what sort of ldescs.
Discuss whether or not you should have multiple people involved in this camp.
Discuss if the camp is in a setting-appropriate place.
Wait for request reply.
Find out there's an issue.  Someone else thinks there are vNPCs likely traveling through here.  In the end, it doesn't -really- matter.
Reply about that issue.  Disagree, but find a workaround that allows for the vNPCs to be included anyway, but in a different way.
Set up time and date for this to happen.
postpone date; unforeseen problem, but we want maximum involvement.
set up camp

**If you did it the old way, you are probably going to be just fine.  But occasionally, you'll get put on the spot for not doing it the new way, and you don't really know when these instances will occur**

The above is a bit of silliness, of course, and absolutely not real, but I think the expectation for the second 'method' is becoming more prevalent, and sometimes, becoming more needed, because even when you're usually okay for doing it the old way, the sudden turnaround on its 'okayness' just jars the crap outta you.  Note that this really isn't about setting up camps, mmkay?  I'm just using that as a demonstration from what staff expectations and player expections sometimes seem to be, by the mood of posts on the GDB discussing this matter or that one.

I hope that describes it.  Autonomy and trusting the code to allow you to get things done in the game seems to be less expected than the need for everyone's approval.

From my perspective I spend 20+ hours a week at a minimum adding code to the game so it's hard to get my head around it!

And honestly, man, this is kind of a brainstorm on why things feel so much different to me than it did before, and why I seem to be 'against the grain' a lot of the time where I wasn't before.  It may not be well formulated, but I threw it on up here as a chance to have people join in and either point out where I'm absolutely mistaken or where there are just big differences of opinion.  Again, I didn't really post it with the intent of having momentous mind explosions and sudden game-direction changes.

[Armaddict]

I think it may have been partly inspired by the firing a bow into a tavern, but that was handled ICly, because, realisticly, from the cooking pits (a contained space with echoes of a virtual presence), to your apartment hideaway, is something that could have very well provoked an IC reaction, but code limits with PC populations were lacking. Also add to the fact such high profile acts occurred more than once. But we're not really here to harp on particulars, as mentioned in the OP.

Right, this was a convenient and recent thing to refer to, not an instigating event.  I've had pieces of this conversation with you before, which actually spurred along a lot of this brainstorming in the last little bit.

For something made up:
I want to assassinate a noble.  I've been hired.  Noble has a guard.  Noble is sitting in a chair.

The code tells me when I type 'backstab noble' that I succeed.  Or it tells me that the guard intercepts me.  There is no discussion of whether the seat backing protected where I struck, or discussion of whether or not the NPC guard's position should have made me visible beforehand.  That's all taken care of with code; the code dictates the possibility, and I don't need to consult anyone else before typing in that command.

I'd like for that same standard to go across the board, because it's -reliable-.  I don't want to have to set up this elaborate thing.  I don't want to have to argue over whether that venue was suitable or not.  I want to be able to trust the code as reliably in almost all situations as this one, and for others to feel that comfortable with it as well.  I think for the -most part-, we are, but I'm referring to these smaller things that crop up under scrutiny on the GDB where we suddenly start doing exactly that.  We argue just -how- possible it was or not.  Likewise with when we carry out actions and find out staff didn't want that to go down that way; it degrades into an argument over something that is, really, incredibly akin to arguing whether or not god exists.  We're arguing about virtual things that were interpreted entirely differently, and thus had very different ideas on possibility...but the code said it was possible, all the same.

So I guess, Nathvaan, a better thing to say would be I want your code to be more trusted and relied upon, not for you to do anything differently with it other than keep on defining our limitations in the world, and if we need to get around limitations of code, -THAT- is where we need to reach out to staff to see if we can get around it.  In other words, your code tweaks and additions are awesome and I'm not saying anything that should affect them, only how the rest of us view them.

[BadSkeelz]

Oooooh I get it now. People are whining about needing to put in a Request for "Everything."

What's actually preventing you from doing "the old way" now? As far as I'm aware you don't need to put in a request to pitch a tent.

Now, maybe you need a request to make that tent permanent, but the "old" example you described that only existed in some semi-mythical "old school" Armageddon where the staff played favorites and everyone was a shitbird.

There's plenty that can be done in game now without needing to file any sort of reports. Stop worrying and just play the game.

[Armaddict]

What's actually preventing you from doing "the old way" now? As far as I'm aware you don't need to put in a request to pitch a tent.

This is actually me trying to make it understood why I see things differently, and kind of a totally meandering conversation meant less to be impactful and more insightful to those who are up for it.

I still do things the old way.  I always will, because it's convenient and it's how I enjoy the game and remain mostly autonomous.  But I am saying people doing it the old way aren't just twinking out or trying to win in those instances that they do it differently than how you wanted.

There's plenty that can be done in game now without needing to file any sort of reports. Stop worrying and just play the game.

I fully intend to.  There wasn't any danger of me stopping. Was just to have a new sort of conversation about how the game is played by us and maybe be interesting to some who would in turn bounce thoughts back at me.

Thanks for giving it the read.  I know I ramble.  Heh.

[Dunetrade55]

I actually think it's a very productive conversation to have. Debating the merits and drawbacks of various vague generalities with Armaddict has been quite educational for me. Calling it "whining", when it's really more a call to have a conversation about where everyone is at on this particular topic at this time is, less than productive. I sense you have a valid perspective to offer, Badskeelz, let's try to keep the snark out so as to keep the discussion productive.

[Riev]

I want to respond to so many things in this, but it would just be considered whining. Suffice to say, that I agree there ARE recent (within 5years) policies that shift away from "The code is there to guide your actions" to "The code is there to allow you to represent something you just roleplayed an hour doing".

The struggle is, again, we're not in a world where "because you did it in game, it'll be represented". Putting up a bunch of trail markers should not take four IC years.