[MUD-Dev] thoughts

[Jon A. Lambert]

On 4 Jun 99,, Matthew Mihaly wrote:
> This is especially true in combat in Achaea, now that I think of it. Your
> screen scrolls amazingly fast, and you have to discipline your mind to
> pick out the important patterns and toss away the rest. There's not really
> time, if you want to be very good, to translate the text you are seeing
> into what effect it is producing, and then think "oh yes, smoking slippery
> elm is the cure for that". The patterns of text have to TELL you directly
> what they mean in this context (this context being finding the correct
> cure, for instance). It has, at its highest levels, virtually nothing to
> do, from the combatant (not witness') point of view, with imagining
> specific actions being performed. It's as if you learn a new language, and
> the game becomes a new medium, using its own, unique language wherein the
> "words" are made up of english sentences or combinations of sentences.

This is one of the reasons I dislike the text spamming combat systems 
commonly found in stockmuds.  Combat is then an arcade game of typing 
speed and pattern recognition.  It's Tetris in text form.  Or a better 
analogy would be Typing Tutor's Word Invaders (if anyone rememebers 
that).  It's not that I dislike arcade games, I do enjoy playing Quake 
and their ilk from time to time.

I much rather do a turn-based combat game in a mud.  Coming from a FRPG 
background, I view combat as an extension and aspect of role-play.  As 
such, I don't wish for its speed to exceed the pace of conversation.  
Combat is a mixture of mechanics and emotives.  The rush and excitement 
of my combat system is likely experienced in an altogether different way 
than in your Achaea.  Victor and vanquished are often predetermined. I 
daresay my combat system has far far more player options.  It is only 
limited by the players' imagination.  

> I expect a lot of you will jump up and think I'm either nuts or have no
> mudding soul, but I shall ignore your treacherous mutterings and let Pip
> deal with you. It does raise the question (to me at least), about the
> value of speaking of MUDs generally as simulations, or even just
> representations of a visually imaginable reality. (I don't mean that the
> idea of MUDs as visually imaginable should be discarded. I just wonder if
> perhaps MUDs can also be experienced completely differently.)
 
They certainly are experienced differently.  I don't think your 
perception is all that uncommon or unusual.  I think many players of HnS 
muds view the environment exactly as you described.  

And that's why we have strongly suited camps of players and implementors 
(and list members), who like or dislike certain muds, types of muds, or 
styles of play.


--
--*     Jon A. Lambert - TychoMUD Email:jlsysinc at ix.netcom.com             *--
--*     Mud Server Developer's Page <http://pw1.netcom.com/~jlsysinc>      *--
--* To fight the empire is to be infected by its derangement. Whosoever    *--
--* defeats part of the empire becomes the empire; it proliferates like a  *--
--* a virus... thereby it becomes its enemies." -- P.K. Dick               *--


_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev maillist  -  MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
http://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev