@Faraday said in "My Guy Syndrome":
@Roz said in "My Guy Syndrome":
we’re not talking about TTRPGs, though; we’re talking about MU*s. they may take systems from TTRPGs, stats and dice and such, but the social structure of how players have to persistently interact is entirely different from a tabletop experience.
Yes, I realize MUs are not TTRPGS (obviously). I said it was because of the TTRPG influence, which I believe came over along with the “stats and dice and such”.
plenty of MU*s have been entirely divorced from TTRPGs. like – plenty of them haven’t had stats or sheets at all. that was the majority of the games i played growing up
Seriously - have you seen “yes-and/no-but” as a commonplace principle in your MUSHing experience? Because I haven’t, even on games with a cooperative focus.
i would absolutely say it’s commonplace in nearly all of the games i’ve played. despite arguing about MU*s =/= TTRPGs just a second ago, i would in fact say that this philosophy has also extended to most of the TTRPG games i’ve played at, too.
maybe we’re just understanding the philosophy differently? to me, this is just a description of the basic philosophy of cooperative storytelling and trying – where appropriate, yes – to build upon what your fellow players are giving you. we even have a common phrase that gets trotted out for when people play against this philosophy in a particular way: no-selling. no-selling is frustrating and obnoxious for players because it tends to be a refusal of story rather than building on story.
“no, but” is a hugely common piece of advice given to GMs, both in tabletop and on MU*s – the idea that you be able to give characters something to keep moving forward, even if it’s a more difficult or more dangerous path, in cases where they fail.
