Re: Character Creation

From: Daniel A. Koepke (
Date: 04/05/01

On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Patrick Dughi wrote:

>         Well, as an FRPer, you don't want randoms.  You don't want someone
>  who stops by and decides to stick around or not, after a few hours of
>  light play.  Those few hours shatter the illusion that the rest of your
>  characters and admin staff have been working to promote.

I fully understand this.  But this is achieved by invitation or
application (i.e., closed character creation), not by having a character
creation sequence that takes 30 minutes to complete.

>         It is not supposed to attract players; you're not doing it so
>  people flood your mud. You'd be doing it to keep people from flooding your
>  mud, unless they're the right people.

You're still missing the point.  The right people are leaving, too.  They
don't know what your Mud is all about unless they're specifically invited
there or referred there by a friend and you have an otherwise closed
system.  The invitation and closed creation system achieve the proper
elitism.  The lengthy character creation sequence does not serve any
purpose in a closed system, and doesn't do the job you seem to think it
does in an open system.

>         Once again, if you're an FRPer, popularity and population are not
>  your principal goals.

Once again, you've missed my point.  I never once said that the problem
was that you're losing popularity and population.  You've conjured that
strawman and beat him to death.

>         Perhaps you haven't met this type before; most who use muds
>  actually use the emote command instead of cast/fight/<do_skill>/etc.
>  Death of players is a consensual act.

I refer you again to the TinyMUD family.  I am well aware of what you're
speaking about.  And I will submit that *none* of these Muds (that I have
seen or heard of) have lengthy, but open, character creation sequences.
Those that are very hardcore in their role-playing require applications
for roles.  But it is already understood what you're getting there with
the game: the game elements are minimalist and the success of the Mud
rests solely on the role-players.

>  The difference between an FRPer and a 'normal' mudder though is that
>  realism comes first, last, and only; but only insofar as their actor
>  (character) is concerned.

No.  Realism has nothing to do with FRPing.  That demonstrates a general
lack of familiarity with role-playing.  Role-playing is about
communication, not realism.  Realism is about immersive environments and
simulations, which are heavy on mechanics.  These description systems are
more mechanics, not less, and thus directly at odds with FRPing.

>  This system is to drive them away, the unwashed hordes, the
>  unwanted biomass.

That's an ill-founded assumption and highly illogical.  If they don't want
the people, they simply won't have open character creation.  Making the
character creation long, boring, and impossible to complete for EVERYONE
serves no purpose whatsoever.  At all.  Period.  Zero.

You continue to push that it's okay for FRPing, but you're ignoring the
major problems with the system that make it NOT okay for FRPing or for
any Mud:

  * Players cannot know the full theme, setting, and rhetoric of your Mud
    before ever having entered it.  Therefore, they cannot write apt
    descriptions for their characters.  It's impossible, except by luck or
    by having low standads.

  * It doesn't encourage role-playing.

  * It doesn't keep away the unwashed masses.  They just don't bother
    trying to write good descriptions, putting the burden on the admin to
    filter them out directly.

If anyone uses this system in the way you suggest, they're none too
bright.  Come on, Patrick, you're a smart guy... you can see that there's
no good reason to use this system in the way you're suggesting.  It's
ineffective at filtering out the ones you don't want and can be effective
at filtering out the ones you do want.


   | FAQ: |
   | Archives: |

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/05/01 PST