Brandon Cline brandon at merlin.sedona.net
Sat Jun 21 16:52:56 New Zealand Standard Time 1997

On Fri, 20 Jun 1997, Caliban Tiresias Darklock wrote:

> On Thu, 19 Jun 1997 20:43:41 PST8PDT, clawrenc at cup.hp.com wrote:
> >It is a good question, and one I'd like to see taken a *lot* further. 
> >How about a general post outlining what you see as the basic strengths
> >and definitional features of an RP server and a combat server with
> >possibly some talker aspects thrown in?  I wish I had time to join in
> >right now...
> Most servers lean in one direction or another. They emphasize one thing
> over the others. Where the programming language and command sets are
> emphasised, the parts which are exposed to the users, the server will
> usually be more suited to a roleplaying environment; where the internals
> of the system and world are emphasised, the game will generally be more
> suited to what many term 'powergaming'. Both styles of play are
> completely valid, and both have their place and their uses. But I'm of
> the opinion that if we balance the playing field a little more, placing
> roughly equal emphasis on all four areas, we could create a GS which
> could support both roleplaying and 'powergaming' -- in fact, a GS which
> could allow each and every player in the game to determine how much of
> each is right for himself and have a reasonable chance of enjoying the
> game no matter which particular balance he prefers, even while
> surrounded by other players who may have entirely different preferences.

One problem I see, like you said, is that no one has spend a great deal of
time making a portion of the "mud base" that would fit any environment and
not need extra modification to be useable.  The part that I see fitting
this best is the world structure.
  The implementation of "rooms" and such on the standard mud has to some
extent not needed great modification throughout the developements of muds.
Rooms though are very simplified representations of a world base, they are
limited in what actions you can simulatate within them, and inevitably
force the rest of the mud base to be as simplified as they are.
  So, if starting from this point, you create a complex world base,
throwing out "rooms" all together, and implement a coordinate based world
representation, the room descriptions being replaced by "visual input"
that depends on range, sight, objects present, and terrain.
  From there, using the new world base as the part of the code that needs
the least modification, it would then make sense to create easily modified
"systems" to control skills, combat, mobiles, objects, etc. The "system"
itself would not be modified actually, but the objects it controls would
be.  So, the skill system, would be set up so that adding new skills,
within the realm of the complex world base would be easy.  And adding new
races, combat styles, object structure, etc, would follow the same
simplified approach.
  After that, design the user interface to along the same approach, the
initial implementation of the interface would be set, being somehwat
more complex because of the world base, but the commands, coloring etc,
could be left for modification.
  So, in a sense you would have a system, complex enough to support role
playing and such, like a mush, but structured enough, to allow for hack
and slash, power gaming or a hybrid of both.... 
  I didn't take into acount the server or database parts, but they would
need to be set up to handle the world base, etc, so I guess that's more
part of the world base, and shouldn't need modification by outside
  Probably not the best explantion I could have given, but post ideas,
questions etc, and I'll try and clarify.  

Brandon L. Cline
brandon at sedona.net

More information about the MUD-Dev mailing list