From edmond@netcom.comTue Feb 14 10:24:38 1995
Date: Fri, 10 FEB 1995 23:07:08 GMT
From: "Edmond L. Meinfelder" 
Newsgroups: rec.games.mud.misc
Subject: Re: MUSH vs. MUD

dbright@harp.aix.calpoly.edu (Darrin Lee Bright (Duck Ezra)) wrote:

>First of all, regardless of differences between the code, implementation,
>interface, parsers, etc., MOST folks affiliated with MUSHes usually rather
>resent being lumped together with "MUDs", which are usually brainless hack
>and slash arrangements.

I have been, for the past four years, almost exclusively affiliated with
MUSHes as have most of the people I know.  Myself and my associates do
not resent considering MUSH a kind of MUD.

>There are two main types of "MUDs", Diku and LP, which are usually written
>in C.  Dikus tend towards the hack-n-slash rack-em-up gold-and-xp, LP's tend
>to favor "quests".

Okay.  So, the acronym MUD is only valid when applied to combat MUDs? I
would disagree.  The distinctions are far too blurry to draw the line at
something so arbitrary as combat.  Especially when you consider that a
MUSH can be given a combat system.  True, it will suck to high heaven,
but that is beside the point.

What if I take an LP, re-do the interface so it looks like TinyMUD (the
ancestor of TinyMUSH)? Is the LP then not a MUD and suddenly a MUSH?  I
would hate to think so.

I accept that the interpretation of the word MUD is subjective to some
extent.  For some it clearly means Multi-User Dungeon, for others it is
Multi-User Domain, and a few cling tenuously to Multi-User Dialogue.  The
word MUD has been around long enough that it now has its own meaning.

I would define MUD as:

   A multi-user environment that supports a spatial metaphor upon which an
   entire virtual world can be built. In which, at least simplistic
   expressions of communication are possible and constrained to some extent
   by location as dictated by the spatial metaphor. This communication, no
   matter how minimal, creates a sense of community (or communities).

That's it.  The interface or the intention of the MUD does not, to me,
change what it is.

>MUSHes, MOOs, and MUSEs can sort of be lumped together.  These programs are
>large data-base intensive programs with a built-in interpretted "language"
>that can be "coded" while the program is running.  The goal of such programs
>is usually to provide an environment for roleplaying so players can imitate
>their favorite Vampire/Werewolf/Dragon/Something-Fuzzy stories with or
>without the consent of the original author.

This may come as a shock, but TinyMUD and its descendants were not created
with a "goal" of role-playing.  They are suited to role-playing, true, but
that is not their "goal".  They are open-ended, to be used however the
local God sees fit.

Also, Tinys are not the only types of servers with parsers.  In fact, LPs
have, what is considered by many, a superior parser with a more structured
C-like syntax, whereas TinyMUSH and its ilk look a look like line-noise.
(The simile must be attributed to Russ Smith.)

>Most heavy roleplayers consider their efforts to be much more meaningful
>than the average hack-n-slash player and prefer not to be lumped together
>with these types.

This reeks of unfounded superiority.  There is no reason good role-playing
can not occur on an LP.  From what I hear, this occurs on Ancient Anguish.
I can not say for sure, but I doubt you can either.

>There are other talkers, mucks, etc. out there that might still be
>considered "games", but they don't have to be MUDs.

Whew.  I would venture to guess that you have not spent a lot of time on
MUDs.  I could be wrong, but I am giving you the "benefit of the doubt."


--
Edmond L. Meinfelder
5603 Derby Court, apt #201
Alexandria, VA 22311