martin at cam.sri.com
Thu Jun 26 17:04:02 New Zealand Standard Time 1997
On Wed, 25 Jun 1997, Caliban Tiresias Darklock (you) wrote:
> clawrenc at cup.hp.com wrote:
> > As one of the members here commented to me privately, this list is in
> > danger of assuming an orthodoxy. For instance most of us dislike
> > levels in MUDs, to the point that it has become almost assumed as 'the
There is a range of issues on which an assumed orthodoxy is threatened.
Many of these issues are religious ones, like "Is there anything other
than RP worth doing in muds", "which internal language should be used (if
any)?", "should resets be tolerated?" (JCL's views on this are the exact
opposite of mine; his religion obviously involves ritual cannibalism and
> > list's view'. Suffice to say that many players *really* like levels
> > for whatever reason. As happens I also know that more than one member
> > here is also a big levels fan.
[method of recording stuff snipped]
> In other words, when you design a game, design a *game*, not a way to
> use the
> latest and greatest server-design paradigms. Sometimes the latest and
> just isn't what you actually need.
Yes - this is why my Usenet signature says "It's the Game, stupid!". You
can reimplement Unix in LPC, have an ftpd, an httpd, and 1000 socials, and
not have a remotely enjoyable game. Both the proponents of "Give them the
tools, and the good muds will flow" mentality (George Reese, though not a
quote) and their opponents, of the "LP muds need at least ONE dedicated
mainframe for decent performance" (Katrina "Reesebane" McClelan) miss the
point that it doesn't matter what the mud looks like underneath - whether
it's splurged and badly written, flexible, or mean, lean and green, but
whether it's actually any good to play.
To mangle a vaguely well-known verse:
When that one great coder comes
To mark beside your name,
It matters not how you wrote
But how you *played* the game.
> > I don't want these sorts of assumed
> > orthodoxies. They're not good and they're not productive. They need
And there's nothing worse than 300 identical muds to generate a couple of
assumed orthodoxies :)
More information about the MUD-Dev