[MUD-Dev] Re: Putting names on things(Re: Ugh, IS Diablo a mud?)

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad <olag@ifi.uio.no>]

Koster, Raph wrote:
> 
> Here's something about those last two that I find interesting--I don't
> see playing Warcraft as assuming a role, necessarily. And I think that
> Dungeon Keeper is just barely doing that, and perhaps I feel that way
> because DK doesn't have a sense of "you" in the game very strongly--it
> feels more like a god game instead.
> 
> Is a requirement that there be an avatar of the player in the game?
> 
> (As an aside, I re-discovered recently that some places call muds
> "habitats" after Lucasfilm's effort. This colors the term for me--I
> would have great difficulty in calling most of these borderline cases
> "habitats" because of connotations of the word. Thoughts on that?)

I guess this is all defined as OT (MUD term discussions), but...  My
personal opinion is that whenever you find an interesting issue relating to
virtual space then try to come up with a set of metaphors or an analogy from
the physical space, but the basic question is, I guess, what is the most
useful way for defining something?  Here are some approaches:

1. an artifact is defined by the vision of the designer
2. an artifact is defined by technology
3. an artifact is defined by affordances
4. an artifact is defined by usage
5. an artifact is defined by the users' perception / feelings
6. an artifact is defined by resemblance (realism)
7. an artifact is defined by the public opinion / status
8. an artifact is defined by the effect it has on it's environment 

An example from the physical world: I make a table and place it in a room.
The room is a reception. There are not enough chairs in the room. My table
is used as a bench by the people in the room. My vision was to make a fine
wooden table. My table was low and afforded sitting among other things. It
was only used for sitting. My table was narrow and could be mistaken for a
very fine bench. The users who used my table perceived it as a bench, those
who didn't didn't use it because nobody needed a table. etc. etc.

What kind of definition is appropriate for my table/bench. If you are
focusing on the  actual artifact in it's own right, then 4, 5, 6 might be a
good choice. If you are going to communicate with a broad audience then 6, 7
might be useful. If you are discussing a general design then 1,2,3 might be
more appropriate.

When it comes to MUDs I am leaning more towards 3, 4 and 5. I have spent
quite a lot of time trying to find a simple definition that is broad enough
to cover actual usage, but still excludes systems which clearly are not
MUDs.  This is my definition (or close to it):

  A collaborative recreational virtual world (MUD) is a system which
  enables users to interact, affiliate and project a personality
  remotely through a computer system in near real time. The system allows
  the users to exchange successive utterances in such a way that the users
  feel they are in an user-user "here and now" interactive situation.
  The system presents itself as a (discrete or continuous) set of
  locations. Users can move between locations and are able to distinguish
  between "here" and "there" (locations contain information).

This is of course a very broad definition and does not exclude IRC, which I
think is a good thing.  If one base the MUD definition on degree of
persistence, NPCs, avatars and such then one are basically basing the
definition on how well it mimics the physical world (6).  I don't see that
as a valid basis for a definition. I can think of many non-realistic themes
which would be used the same way as MUDs are.

I do agree with you that "the habitat" is the most promising aspect of MUDs
and that I personally see those aspects as central in my own visions.  I'm
not sure if JCL's vision is "focusing" on the same spot? I think we just
have to accept that there are many visions within the MUD universe and that
your vision will dictate how you perceive other systems and how close they
are to the center of the MUD universe.

According to my visions it would be right on track to at least add:

  Users are capable of building a lasting identity and project that to
  a virtual body (avatar).  Users have a large degree of control over
  their avatar.  An avatar is perceived as being in a location.  User
  actions can be reflected in the environment (room). User actions are
  being perceived as being mediated through the avatar. The environment is
  capable of changing without user intervention.  Users may interact
  indirectly through the environment. The world is consistent enough for
  users to come up with "laws of nature". Users feel that they are somehow
  present even when they are not online (building capabilities?). The
  system affords local community building.

--
Ola