[MUD-Dev] Graphic MUDS.

Martin Keegan martin at cam.sri.com
Sun Aug 3 12:23:55 New Zealand Standard Time 1997

On 30 Jun, Adam Wiggins wrought:

> > >scars to your character's birthday.
> > 
> > This would imply that simplistic level based MUDs with no character
> > customisation outside of name, level, inventory, and possibly current
> > HP value are not MUDs.  (cf MUD2, Shades, most Abers, etc).
> Maybe in today's world they do barely qualify, but that's still enough

Oh - so some classic MUDs now barely qualify as compared with today's
stock offerings?
> So for a mud you need a persistent, customizable world, and a (potentially
> large number of) persistent, customizable characters who all exist in that
> same world.  Not all that tall of an order - I see no reason someone couldn't
> fool around with the Quake engine for a bit and come up with a perfectly
> good mud server.  (Well, I wouldn't play it, but it would still qualify as
> a mud.)

Yes - persistance is important, and is what sets muds apart from Doom. The
definition I used for my JOMR paper classifying muds was

"computerised multi user persistent real-time virtual world"

The system has to be on a computer; it has to be capable of supporting
multiple users simultaneously; it has to have a persistent world that
remains affected by changes made even after users have left; it has to be
real time - not play by email or something; and it has to model a world
... so IRC doesn't count. 

This definition includes some talkers ... the distinction between muds and
sophisticated talkers is subjective anyway. What the definition does NOT
include is bollocks about goal-orientation, point scoring, internal
modifiabilility etc ... these are server-specific issues

BTW - there's an Australian talker (called Forest or something) which is
better than most of the muds out there.


More information about the MUD-Dev mailing list