[MUD-Dev] Persistent Worlds

[John Buehler]

J C Lawrence writes:

> > My point is that spontaneous generation was disproved a couple of
> > centuries ago.
>
> This would only seem significant if the simulation aspects of your
> environment are primary.

'Simulation aspects'?  That's like saying you should have simulation
in your world only if you need the advantages of simulation, right?
Simulation in and of itself has no value to a MUD.  The effects that
simulation brings into the environment have potential value.

For what it's worth, simulation is a means of modeling *some* behavior
or system, not just a real one.  All MUDs are simulators.  Most
simulate a spontaneous generation model.

So to return to the point, the primary goal of a MUD is to provide
entertainment.  If providing a reproductive model for introducing new
characters has characteristics that are more desireable than those
obtained by having a spontaneous generation model, it would seem that
simulating the reproductive model has value.  That statement is
essentially independent of whether simulation of reality is a primary
goal.

The problem of presenting cause and effect in MUDs is a fairly large
one.  Having the effect of generation of a character without any
apparent cause has an corresponding effect on the attitude of players
about your game environment.  If they see animals as a non-renewable
resource, that will add to the player's tendency to conserve those
resources - especially if the character's well-being is derived from
having a viable animal population.  Obviousy, that 'tendency' isn't
sufficient by itself, as was described by a past post.  I believe it
was Raph who described a closed ecology where the players promptly
wiped out the entire ecology.  Other effects obviously have to be put
in place to encourage or require players to conserve limited
resources.

JB

_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev