[MUD-Dev] realism

[Matthew Mihaly]

At 10:39 AM 6/7/99 +0200, you wrote:
>
>Matthew Mihaly <diablo at best.com> writes:
>
>> Thoughts on the nature of realism in MUDs.
>> 
>> A few people have mentioned 'realism' as if MUDs need to be a simulation
>> of some artificial reality, complete with consistency, etc. I would argue
>> that this is not only necessary, but that it is impossible. True
>> consistency would concist 
>
>Hmm, let's answer just to the partial message.
>
>While MUD doesn't HAVE to be artificial reality, complete and
>consistent, I will only play it if I perceive it as such - or unless
>its combat is filled with suspense. And since I play quite a
>few... combatless MUSHes and MOOs, I claim that the goal is attainable
>(I said that the MUD has to be perceived as 'real', not 'real' in any
>objective sense of the word).

Right, you will only play it if you perceive it as such. I fully recognize
that there are many people out there who will only play a game that is
perceived as some sort of reality, and, in fact, I might fall into that
group (it's only the combat part of Achaea that I sort of view out of role,
though I think all but the best combatants probably view it in-role). Why
not look at a MUD as a game rather than a world though? Chess or Go are
games, for isntance, and don't try to establish alternative worlds. 

>
>On a different thread, I'd rate Achaea's combat system at about 0.2
>BattleTechs (seach Mudconnector for BattleTech 3065 or BT 3030 to find
>out what I'm talking about). :)

Well, that's wonderful, but having never really used Achaea's combat system
(I'd recognize your name if you were good with it), I'd have to say your
opinion on the matter is rather ill-informed.
--matt




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