[MUD-Dev] List rituals

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

"Freeman, Jeff" wrote:

> The definition of permadeath you're pushing isn't useful for
> anything.  So why use it?  Why prompt people to come up with a
> whole new phrase that means the exact same thing that the old
> phrase used to mean?

Discussing:

  * what a character really is, is a bi-annual MUD-Dev ritual.

  * in-game mail and the lack thereof is a ritual.

  * the moral aspects of (random) player killing, followed up by
    list members confessing their PK career, is an annual ritual
    (well, now it seems to be called "grief" play).

  * UDP vs TCP is an annual ritual.

  * level vs skill systems is a ritual

  * rollplay vs roleacting is a ritual

  * what this list really is about is a ritual.

  * rituals is a ritual.

In a sense these discussions are good, because they are general.
You don't have to be a commercial game designer to have a say, and
thus they bridge the gaps across the MUD-Dev population.  These
discussions are never conclusive, but they reinforce the common
understanding of what a MUD really is, or an appreciation of the
fuzziness of the border.

(Big commercial games are not all that interesting either, they look
good, but don't seem to be all that novel design wise.  What makes
them interesting is that they have enough players to validate a
particular design model. Unfortunately all the interesting topics
(design, theory, new ideas etc) seem to be killed more or less
instantly, maybe the list has too many members to be productive? If
productive means anything more than information dispersal...)

> Yeah, MUDs don't REALLY have any control over when a character
> dies.  So?  Would could knee-cap every discussion on any topic
> ranging from PKing to resurrection with that.  I don't think that
> would be particularly useful.

PK discussions are always knee-capped, by the topic's spamminess.
They never go anywhere.  They are never useful (except for the
ritual aspect).

Discussions about character is slightly more useful because they
create a common understanding of design limitations.  I.e. you can
only affect a character through design if the character's repertoire
is dependent on in-game resources that are unique to your game.
Meaning, design decisions will always hit your population unevenly.
Designers never get to define the characters.  They want to, they
can't, and they complain about it.

(Easily verified by looking through the archive)
--
Ola  -  http://www.notam.uio.no/~olagr/

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