[MUD-Dev] List rituals
Mon Jul 2 23:02:37 New Zealand Standard Time 2001
J C Lawrence <claw at kanga.nu> said:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2001 09:35:30 +0200
> Ola Fosheim <=?iso-8859-1?Q?Gr=F8stad?= <olag at ifi.uio.no>> wrote:
>> * what a character really is, is a bi-annual MUD-Dev ritual.
> We've certainly hit it before and quite hard, but not from the
> current direction. Mihaley's insistence on mechanical definition
> and dialectic logic for the topic has driven it in a few new
What's been forgotten and reinvented: Character vs. Player vs. Account
Character as a seperate entity (in terms of data structure) from
a player account - you hate this, J C, but the form is valid,
and it has been a recuring theme/thread that could use
referencing with regard to the current discussion: characters
may not be *entirely* under player control; players may be
viewed as a conciousness inhabiting a somewhat
instinct/acculturation/emotion influenced body (with the mud
itself as the character's endocrine system et al) as a means of
controlling some aspects of behaviour.
>> * in-game mail and the lack thereof is a ritual.
> Off hand I recall only one prior thread that went this way, and it
> did so only cursorily.
Back in '95 or so, there was a pretty long thread on the topic. I
can also remember a technical thread in the bug.be days on mail
>> * UDP vs TCP is an annual ritual.
> Recurrent, never has been a deep, long, or particularly content
> full thread, just an arm-waving assessment and comment on the fact
> that there are differences and you should be choose wisely.
'95, mixed in with Texas Free Store discussions. Extensive details
on UDP as a protocol, on Firewall issues, on error checking.
>> * level vs skill systems is a ritual
> It used to be common, especially on the "Levels are BAD!" side.
> Been a while since we hit there with more than yawns or a
> dismissive "It all depends really," assessment. I think this is a
> shame. There's raw meat still left in scoping and defining the
> basic structures of MUDs in terms of player goal determination,
> acquisition scales and approaches, player value perception, ROI
> etc etc etc yada yada. We've not really backed out much to try
> and look at a meta level beyond a few dismissive hook and cherry
> models of advancement scales.
Now *this* was a part of the MUD-Dev I grew up on (sic).
>> * rollplay vs roleacting is a ritual
Always was, always will be. So... what about that character as a
semi autonymous entity?
>> * what this list really is about is a ritual.
> Its rarely been a full blown thread, but there's a steady stream
> of side notes on already extant threads, yes. Arguably I've
> encouraged this (I've a fondness for parenthetical expression),
> and my moderation style has sustained the mystery and its
> surrounding hubbub.
So... you're the high priest?
>> * rituals is a ritual.
> You bet. Earliest example: MUD-Dev is a MUD. Second earliest
> example: Even non-roleplayers roleplay, they just don't know it.
> ObNote: Actually there is an even earlier ritual, but none of
> the people who were active on the list at that time are still
> active, and the ritual died ~4 years ago. Careful archive
> readers might find it tho (I haven't checked).
Invitations and the seeding of rec.games.mud.admin with discussions,
meant to ferret out the talent for importation?
(What, am I chopped liver? I was here, I was...)
>> In a sense these discussions are good, because they are general.
>> You don't have to be a commercial game designer to have a say,
>> and thus they bridge the gaps across the MUD-Dev population.
> They serve other purposes as well. On the one side they serve to
> develop and establish concepts of "common wisdom", and on the
> other side they serve to challenge those same assumed orthodoxies
> and get the zealots to admit that it is a judgment call. There's
> also a second order value in educating new members who haven't
> learned from the archives and need live repetition to grok. We've
> gone through waves of messages with URLs from the archives on that
> MUD-Dev is repetitive in these regards. I've been fairly pleased
> in most such repetitions there has been some new new ground
> covered, even if it proved barren.
>> These discussions are never conclusive...
> Are ___ANY___ topics or threads on MUD-Dev ever really conclusive?
> And, in fact sre any of the topics usually discussed capable of
> being conclusively answered?
> Is the field deterministic?
No, and thank goodness, or there would be no room for the likes of
thee and me.
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
More information about the MUD-Dev