[DGD] Current state of MUD-dom

[David Jackson]

At 08:13 AM 8/23/2004, you wrote:

> > I am saddened to see that MudConnector only lists 21 MUDs as having a
> > population higher than 100 on a regular basis.
>
>This has saddened me as well, and is one of the main reasons I have slowly
>started to let my MUD coding slip...both in my LP and custom environments.
>It upsets me most because MUD coding is something I enjoy doing.

I enjoy that particular aspect as well; in fact, more than I ever have 
actually playing MUDs.

> > I am also saddened to see the list of AberMUDs almost dwindling to
> > nothing.  And only a few LPMuds on the list.
>
>LP is defiantly on the down swing right now. I'm not really sure why,
>though I have my theories. I think one of the main ones is the "cost of
>entry". It can be very difficult to get an LP MUD up and running, and
>getting good builders who are also coders can be difficult at best. Though
>strides are being made to change this, with new object systems and new OLC
>systems for LP muds. DGD is at the forefront in my mind as far as enabling
>these sorts of technologies for LP systems.

I am worried about OLC systems for LP MUDs, although I recognize their 
necessity.  When I was striving to put up a MUD a few years ago, my biggest 
problem was content creation (I was making the Melville lib more robust, so 
I had no time to design rooms, etc.)  I dug around and posted everywhere 
for builders, and I got a goodly number of them.  But, not a single one of 
them were coders, and as everyone knows, being an LP MUD builder means 
being a coder (even if not a very innovative one).  Then I was stuck with a 
dozen or so people who wanted to build, and make content, but didn't know 
how to code.   Suddenly, my time was spent trying to train these 
individuals, and most of them had absolutely -zero- interest in coding.

A good OLC system for LP MUDs will only be useful if it's flexible enough 
to allow for creative design, and powerful enough to handle multiple edits 
and re-edits.  My feeble attempts at room-makers / object-makers so far 
hasn't produced anything that I felt was flexible enough for anyone besides 
myself to use.

> > I am wondering what the future of MUDs are; in my mind, a good game is a
> > good game is a good game.
> >
> > But...the facts don't lie.  Where are MUDs headed in the future?  In this
> > day and age of multimedia, have they clung to existence far too long
> > anyhow?
>
>I don't think MUD's are dead. There are too many wildly popular ones out
>there (Achae, Aetolia, Medivia to name a few). Admittedly, these MUDs do
>have some "pay to play" style setups, but they also offer gobs of original
>(or at least mostly original) content, with regular, systematic updates. I
>think this just demonstrates that the days of setting up a stock MUD and
>running with it are over. You need to be able to offer a better experience
>then the current crop of MUD players is being offered. I think MUD-dom as
>it stands is not creating any new users, but it is not really losing any
>either. The trick is simply to create a better mouse trap as they say. In
>my opinion, MUD's are simply going to keep closing...but the strongest of
>the MUD's are going to stay strong. Players demand much more from their
>interactive text games then they used to. If you can't provide it to them,
>then they will go somewhere else to find it.

For me, in the vein of non-commercial MUDs, it's a balancing act.  You have 
to have enough content to attract players, to establish a player base, and 
hopefully from that player base will emerge some builders.  Who will keep 
adding content, while you can devote yourself to maintaining the innards of 
the lib.

> > Just wanted to hear your thoughts, before I decide to dig into some new
> > mud
> > coding...
>
>I wouldn't stop coding. I code more because I love to code then because I
>want to create my own fancy MUD. I love to pioneer new techniques for
>solving old problems, and creating a MUD server or a MUD-lib is a way to
>outlet that while doing something I enjoy doing (creating fantasy worlds).
>I think with enough time, and some good vision and overall design, you can
>still make a successful MUD. It's not as easy as it used to be though, and
>defiantly takes some hard work and dedication.
>
>
>Matt Holmes

I'm not going to stop coding; in fact, I've just realized that what the DGD 
community needs more than anything else are finished products.  I know that 
your message here has advocated against the use of "stock" libs...

BUT, from what you've said, and my own observations, it is imperative for 
us, for both the sake of DGD and MUD'ing in general, to produce the following;

1)  We have a great driver already...
2)  We need OLC creation tools, to inspire non-coders to become builders...
3)  We need tools to link the web browser to the MUD, so that getting into 
the MUD can be seamless for the novice...
4)  We need a stock lib with enough playable content so that the average 
guy will be inspired to set up a MUD in the first place...
5)  We need it now.

All of the great MUDs that are out there, after a closer inspection, are 
MUDs that have been around for a while (with only a few exceptions).   They 
have had the hordes of builders pass through them, to create the massive 
amount of content that is necessary to grab and keep players.  The cycle is 
a vicious one; and the only way to break it is to create a massive amount 
of content to draw players in the first place.

But, most libs "die on the vine" because they undertake the massive 
project, only to become dis-interested once the size of the project 
overwhelms them (I suffered from this as well).

I think the original idea for the 2.4.5 lib is a valid model for today; 
players play until they exhaust the content, and once they do, they are 
then in charge of creating new content.

-David Jackson


_________________________________________________________________
List config page:  http://list.imaginary.com/mailman/listinfo/dgd