[MUD-Dev] Life

[clawrenc at cup.hp.com]

In <3.0.32.19970603212522.009e2b10 at mail.tenetwork.com>, on 06/03/97 
   at 09:32 PM, Jeff Kesselman <jeffk at tenetwork.com> said:

>At 07:26 PM 6/3/97 PST8PDT, you jc lawrence wrote:

>>However, none of the above games had or have exclusionary memberships,
>>and several of them engaged in broad marketing campaigns attempting to
>>appeal to any computer user with anything from a Sinclair ZX80 on up. 
>>They were very literally open to all comers with *nobody* banned.  The
>>entire concept of banning a player just didn't exist.  

>Would it be dodging the issue fro me top say its become a whoel brave
>new world out there in the last 2 years?

Nope.  You could also profitably observe that they were all in
England, a country whose culture and educational base is significantly
different to the US'.  

>I almost fgeel I owe you all an apology for that...

What's happening instead is that the 'net is attempting to preserve
its cultural forms by balkanising and stratifying its mores.  Thus you
having mailing lists such as this one taking the place that newsgroups
once did.  Culturally is an incredible if sad process to watch.

>>>I'ld be intrested in your
>>>namign a commerical MUD on a reasonably large service (GEnie, AOL,
>>>and such) thats HASN'T had to deal with destructive players.
>>
>>An overly trite question given that I don't have access to the records
>>of multiple commercial services who also offered such games.  

>Hmm. Records arent the issue. i assume you have no access to record
>on the MUDS you cited, either.  I will grant however that you may
>have noexperience with these and haven't thus heard the horror
>stories from the old timers.  I do and have.

Oh, I expect I've read many of the sme horror stories I suspect you
have.  I also expect that I don't find them horrific, but instead
predictable and implicit.

>>A subjective standard impossible to judge impartially.  I can write
>>best here on SX MUD and Shades.  
>>
>>Neither I think had any real concept of a social community and
>>implicit standards for that community.  (eg newbie killing was not
>>seen as a "Bad Thing").  The base agreement was that the game was a
>>toy, and you made of it what you would.  Agreement on what to make of
>>it was a matter of happenstance.

>Hmm. And you did not have the grousp factioning and fighting over
>what they wanted to make of it? Interesting.  

Yup, there sure was.  That was implicit in the games and I'd argue was
one of their strengths.  There has to be significant perceived value
before players start to commit that sort of emotional energy to
championing such a faction.

>This would make it a
>counter example to everything ive seen in the commercial domain. Can
>you give me a port and machien that I can go loo kat?

Shades can currently be found at, err, games.world.co.uk 18088. 
There's also an associated web site and mailing list at the same site. 
The user base is unsurprisingly highly UK specific as of last I
checked, and so follows UK playing hours.  Remember also that Shades
falls into the very early realm of MUD development, so it is *very*
feature simplistic when compared against even a Aber (eg no
containers).

>>If they wish to determine that certain things are "unwelcome" and/or
>>"crimes", then that is their choice.  Neither I nor the game will have
>>anything to do with that (tho I (not the game) may try and discourage
>>it).  If they wish to define various guild forms, social strata,
>>status structures etc, they are perfectly capable of doing that. 

...

>My experince in teh commerical online world is that most peopel are
>NOT "capable of doing that".  Which is my fundemnetal point.  But
>hey, prove me wrong :)

I agree absolutely.  Most people are NOT capable of doing that.  I
don't expect otherwise.  However I know that a small percentage are,
and a percetnage of that elect group will attempt to set up such
structures.  Once that's done, some of the sheep will attempt to adopt
the structures.

>>I have a set of ill-formed hopes which I hope to foster by creating a
>>game which encourages their realisation without explicitly mandating
>>them or expressing them in any codified form within the game.  Mostly

>A wonderful ideal.  Ill be intrested to see how well it coems off. 
>Im still not convinced that your players wont, given no clear game,
>start factionailizing and definign their own and then fighting with
>eahc other over what the "right" game is... but we will see...

Ahh!  But that would be an ideal circumstance!  The players at that
point will have done exactly what I've hoped for: they will have
examined the game and defined their own various goals with sufficient
conviction to fight for them.  Emotional involvment!  Excellant!  That
would be quite perfect.  My job at that point would be to ensure the
pot keeps being stirred and that the minor factions don't die out.

--
J C Lawrence                           Internet: claw at null.net
(Contractor)                           Internet: coder at ibm.net
---------------(*)               Internet: clawrenc at cup.hp.com
...Honorary Member Clan McFUD -- Teamer's Avenging Monolith...