20 May, 2013, KaVir wrote in the 21st comment:
Votes: 0
Multi-User Dungeon, and they didn't originally use telnet.
20 May, 2013, yue wrote in the 22nd comment:
Votes: 0
I know it was probably originally coined as 'Dungeon' but I have seen 'Dungeon' and 'Domain' used interchangeably over the span of fifteen years. Not everyone's MUD has dungeons. :D

What protocol was the first MUD developed over?

Nevermind. The wiki entry was quite informative. :)

I am still curious what the first MUD to use Telnet was.

edit: from wikipedia: A MUD (pron.: /?m?d/; originally Multi-User Dungeon, with later variants Multi-User Dimension and Multi-User Domain),[1][2] is a multiplayer real-time virtual world, usually text-based.
20 May, 2013, Lyanic wrote in the 23rd comment:
Votes: 0
plamzi said:
We need more sanity like this.

There are some of us in the community who argue in favor of progress and against the closed-minded labeling of what a MUD is supposed to be. KaVir and I did so earlier in this thread. Still, it's an uphill battle. There are just too many traditionalists who actively resist change.
20 May, 2013, quixadhal wrote in the 24th comment:
Votes: 0
If you guys truly believe that text is not an essential component of defining a MUD, might I inquire why you continue to use a depreciated and unpopular text interface when it's clear that the rest of the world wants and expects fully graphical RPG MMO games?
20 May, 2013, Runter wrote in the 25th comment:
Votes: 0
yue said:
I'm sorry, but isn't a MUD defined as a multi-user domain implemented over the Telnet protocol?

Understanding that this definition could be extended with out-of-band protocols, etc.


No.
20 May, 2013, Runter wrote in the 26th comment:
Votes: 0
quixadhal said:
If you guys truly believe that text is not an essential component of defining a MUD, might I inquire why you continue to use a depreciated and unpopular text interface when it's clear that the rest of the world wants and expects fully graphical RPG MMO games?


I somewhat agree with the gist of what you're saying. I don't particularly like the idea of using text to make an ascii map when you can make a proper graphical map that reads a lot better. On the other hand, I think there's a lot of opportunity for making a "text based" game that doesn't have to rely solely on text. Text *is* the best tool for many things. And sometimes it's a production constraint. If I am a decent author but terrible at creating CGI then I may decide to use text. I do think there's room for cross over using mixed elements. Nobody has done that particularly well yet, but the people who have tried have been very successful with rather bad products.
20 May, 2013, yue wrote in the 27th comment:
Votes: 0
Runter said:
yue said:
I'm sorry, but isn't a MUD defined as a multi-user domain implemented over the Telnet protocol?

Understanding that this definition could be extended with out-of-band protocols, etc.


No.


I am curious (almost as curious as what a MUD is correctly defined as) why you even bothered posting. If "No." is all you have to offer, why waste a post? Because that's what your response looks like; a waste of a post. Also, are you saying the Wikipedia entry for MUD incorrectly defines it? You don't have to answer that question.. because it would go a long way toward making your post less of a waste of time and space, and that seems to be counter-Runter.
20 May, 2013, plamzi wrote in the 28th comment:
Votes: 0
quixadhal said:
If you guys truly believe that text is not an essential component of defining a MUD, might I inquire why you continue to use a depreciated and unpopular text interface when it's clear that the rest of the world wants and expects fully graphical RPG MMO games?


I can only answer this question for myself. But it has at least a dozen good answers, which is why I'm doing what I'm doing. The reasons I had a blast when I played a MUD in 1996 had nothing to do with room descriptions or the amount of typing. I enjoyed amazing complexity, huge career length, human-run quests, frequently added new content and features, being able to contribute content myself with relatively little training. The parts of the textual experience I enjoyed were: finding clues/solving puzzles, fun socials, colorful battle messages.

My current projects started in 2009 when I got my first smartphone. They have to do with translating a complex world into something that mobile, and by definition more casual, players can enjoy. I turned to a MUD because it's something that a single dedicated dev can manage to pull off on their own, and the result can be a huge, and hugely satisfying virtual world that puts any other MMO in the AppStore in its pocket. It's not at all about getting rid of text–it's about striking a new balance. I'm trying to retain and enhance all the textual elements I personally enjoyed (the stuff that is more than cosmetic) and I'm adding graphics for general appeal, as well as out of pure necessity, to make the game actually playable on a cellphone. It's been a great hobby, and I'm even making some money from it.

In the fast-growing mobile gaming world, it is not at all clear that people expect 'fully graphical RPG MMO games'. Even the most dumbed-down 3D games (and most 2D games) can be a chore to navigate in a multiplayer context. Millions of people enjoy super-casual Mafia Wars-style BB games. Some of these games, like this one: http://web.scavengewars.com, have next to no graphics and are little more than a set of database tables. Yet, Scavenge Wars has for 2 years had more players than all the top MUDs combined.

This makes me think that if MUDs don't manage to secure themselves a comfortable existence on the cellphone, it will only be because of essentialists who think MUDs should be played in a 1990's museum setting.
20 May, 2013, plamzi wrote in the 29th comment:
Votes: 0
yue said:
Also, are you saying the Wikipedia entry for MUD incorrectly defines it?


Read the Wiki entry more carefully to decode the true depth of Runter's post :)
20 May, 2013, KaVir wrote in the 30th comment:
Votes: 0
yue said:
I know it was probably originally coined as 'Dungeon' but I have seen 'Dungeon' and 'Domain' used interchangeably over the span of fifteen years. Not everyone's MUD has dungeons. :D

Our genre is named after a game called "Multi-User Dungeon", which took its name from a single-player game called "Dungeon". Decades later people tried to retroactively change the word "Dungeon" on the mistaken assumption it referred to literal dungeons.

yue said:
I am still curious what the first MUD to use Telnet was.

I'm not sure, perhaps AberMUD?

quixadhal said:
If you guys truly believe that text is not an essential component of defining a MUD, might I inquire why you continue to use a depreciated and unpopular text interface when it's clear that the rest of the world wants and expects fully graphical RPG MMO games?

I'm developing a text-based game because I want to, and clearly there is still an audience for text-based games. Why would the definition of MUD have anything to do with my decision? Are you suggesting people refuse to add graphics purely because they feel that doing so is somehow not "allowed" by the definition of MUD?

Runter said:
I don't particularly like the idea of using text to make an ascii map when you can make a proper graphical map that reads a lot better. On the other hand, I think there's a lot of opportunity for making a "text based" game that doesn't have to rely solely on text.

I would argue that ASCII maps are already a form of graphics, just a very primitive one that's not well suited to a text-only interface - so if someone is using them, they've already taken a baby step into the world of graphics. While I can understand wanting to retain ASCII maps for backward compatibility with older clients, I agree that it's well worth taking advantage of proper graphical maps (and other modern features) for clients that support it.
20 May, 2013, arholly wrote in the 31st comment:
Votes: 0
quixadhal said:
arholly said:
I was going to add on to what KaVir said. If you add an ascii map to a mud, you'll claim it's roguelike even though it is text-based. It seems like you have very strict ideas on what text-based even means.


Note that I did not say "ADD" an ascii map… I said "REPLACE" the room description with "ONLY" an ascii map.

If you have only an ascii map that shows you terrain, and it's the only thing that updates as you walk around, how is that NOT a roguelike interface?

You are right about replacing.

What is wrong with a roguelike interface? They are certainly more popular than MUD's and why not try and draw more people to us?
20 May, 2013, quixadhal wrote in the 32nd comment:
Votes: 0
arholly said:
What is wrong with a roguelike interface? They are certainly more popular than MUD's and why not try and draw more people to us?

Why not, instead, write a multi-user roguelike game?

This is the same argument made by comic book fans, comparing comic books to regular books. You can kid yourself by giving it a fancy name (IE: graphic novel), but it's still a fundamental shift in the user experience. People who like reading text and letting their own brain imagine the scene, may not enjoy having those scenes drawn for them. It takes you a step out of the immersion, because your brain is now less engaged.

What you guys (I presume) would call a "text MUD" is what most people think of when they hear the word "MUD" in relation to gaming. You can call it whatever you like, and invoke whatever "authority definitions" you feel happy with… but you're still talking about a different game experience when you replace the text components with ANY kind of graphics.
20 May, 2013, plamzi wrote in the 33rd comment:
Votes: 0
arholly said:
What is wrong with a roguelike interface? They are certainly more popular than MUD's and why not try and draw more people to us?


There are folks in this community who believe that if you deviate from what they personally consider a 'real MUD', you will not only become ineligible to post here, but you will also be punished swiftly by your player base who they believe only wants a 'real MUD'.

See the long history of responses to any of my posts that mention any of my game's GUI's. It is funny that despite what I have personally experienced to be patently false, some folks choose to believe that efforts like mine in the GUI realm actually make the game worse. That is despite the fact that my game supports all the clients that their games support, plus more.

The only explanation for this belief is that there is, in their imagination, some kind of corruption spreading from GUI's to the very soul of the MUD, and from there, infecting all other clients. De-emphasizing room descriptions is obviously one such source of contagion :)
20 May, 2013, arholly wrote in the 34th comment:
Votes: 0
Makes me wanna just say, can't we all just get along.
20 May, 2013, Ssolvarain wrote in the 35th comment:
Votes: 0
NO!

Well, I can.

And ascii maps are great. The ones we have for End of Time aren't even all overhead. Some are isometric ascii representations of the FF maps. Whether you put a castle on a world map with a river to the east, or write out "The'res a castle here, with a river to the west" it's all the same in the end.
20 May, 2013, Hades_Kane wrote in the 36th comment:
Votes: 0
Here is an example of some of our non-wilderness ASCII maps. The red box is the actual view a player will see, the rest of it is the full ascii of the town.

My question is, for those who believe room descriptions are necessary for a game to be a MUD, if a game's rooms were "described" entirely with hand written ASCII art like this, would it also cease to be a MUD?

20 May, 2013, Tyche wrote in the 37th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
yue said:
I am still curious what the first MUD to use Telnet was.

I'm not sure, perhaps AberMUD?


Just working off publicly available source code and early usenet posts:

It looks like LPMud 1.41 used Telnet protocol as of May 1990.
AberMud didn't have TCP sockets until Abermud 4.0 ~ late 1990
…meaning you either had to have a local account and invoke abermud or
telnet in to the host machine and login to a specific account (like "mud" or "jabberwocky")
CircleMud 2.01 and Merc 2.0 started to implement Telnet protocol ~ 1993
20 May, 2013, yue wrote in the 38th comment:
Votes: 0
Thanks, Tyche!
21 May, 2013, quixadhal wrote in the 39th comment:
Votes: 0
Hades_Kane said:
My question is, for those who believe room descriptions are necessary for a game to be a MUD, if a game's rooms were "described" entirely with hand written ASCII art like this, would it also cease to be a MUD?


Yes. Because, again, you are removing the player's imagination from the equation. I look at your ASCII map, and I see 6 buildings. I wonder what they are, since it appears only one is labelled as the Inn. However, that's about all I can wonder about… "Inn" is so generic, there's no possibility for history or story-telling there. Is it a run-down inn? Is it a shiny new brick building? Is it field-stone? Marble block? Does it look like there might be a back enterance?

A nicely written text description can convey some of that information and hint at more. A map is just a map.

Perhaps it fits the technical definition of a MUD that others here like to use, but it doesn't fit the spiritual definition. In short, it doesn't feel like a MUD, it feels more like a roguelike.

Tyche said:
It looks like LPMud 1.41 used Telnet protocol as of May 1990.
AberMud didn't have TCP sockets until Abermud 4.0 ~ late 1990
…meaning you either had to have a local account and invoke abermud or
telnet in to the host machine and login to a specific account (like "mud" or "jabberwocky")
CircleMud 2.01 and Merc 2.0 started to implement Telnet protocol ~ 1993


It should also be noted that there's a difference between using the TELNET protocol, and just using a raw TCP socket. Most of the earlier MUD's used raw TCP sockets, which a TELNET client will happily connect to. In fact, quite a few MUD's today still don't actually use the TELNET protocol.
21 May, 2013, plamzi wrote in the 40th comment:
Votes: 0
quixadhal said:
Hades_Kane said:
My question is, for those who believe room descriptions are necessary for a game to be a MUD, if a game's rooms were "described" entirely with hand written ASCII art like this, would it also cease to be a MUD?


Yes. Because, again, you are removing the player's imagination from the equation. I look at your ASCII map, and I see 6 buildings. I wonder what they are, since it appears only one is labelled as the Inn. However, that's about all I can wonder about… "Inn" is so generic, there's no possibility for history or story-telling there. Is it a run-down inn? Is it a shiny new brick building? Is it field-stone? Marble block? Does it look like there might be a back enterance?

Perhaps it fits the technical definition of a MUD that others here like to use, but it doesn't fit the spiritual definition.


Oh, Muse, sing to me of the day when HK's game ceased to be a MUD! :)

A couple of comments about 'feelings' and 'spiritual definitions':

* If most of us feel differently from quixadhal about HK's game, then perhaps it is we that have the true definition of a MUD and he has the true definition of something else. After all, we have feelings, too!

* By quixadhal's 'spiritual definition', any game that does not convey in eloquent language the materials out of which an inn is built, its history, and some anecdotes to help you RP a scene, is not a 'real' MUD. Now, since practically speaking no game in the world offers that level of textual detail about everything found in its world, quix should be the first to agree that there is, by his definition, no real MUD currently in existence. So we shouldn't automatically feel bad that ours isn't :)

* If we look closely at HK's graphic, we see that the inn has red shutters. Yet, we can easily imagine a verbal description written hastily and poorly that doesn't contain this detail. So, if stimulating the imagination with concrete images is the purview of a true MUD, then HK's game has the potential to be more 'real' than a game that uses vague and unstimulating writing to describe the scene.
20.0/82