Well I am currently working on geMud. It's in early phases but I am planning an alpha release very soon. I had planned to release it a couple of days ago but came across some very fundamental design issues that had to be addressed. I release an old very barebones ruby codebase called MiMud which was based on EventMachine, but it's lacking even most basic features, and is poorly design in the first place.
Either of those could be easily added into the existing codebases. Teensymud and rocketmud are both prime candidates. I'm not sure of the others. Tphegley, why bother with a codebase that has OLC, classes, races, skills and spells already in place when you could design the way they work from the ground up? There is no trying to force your idea to fit when you start with these, and learning to implement your own system is no more complicated in Ruby than learning smaug OLC, imo. =)
The question is, is there a ruby code base like the MOO codebases, that you can program with ruby inside the client never actually having to login into the shell, just into the game?
There is AetasMud which is C++ with embedded ruby scripting. I don't know whether it allows code editing online. RocketMud allows runtime code loading. Write a string editor for it (or borrow the one from TeensyMud) and your there.
Personally I am of the opinion that a codebase should not include game "content", including classes,races,skills and spells. An original game should have it's own way of handling such an important part of the design, and adding anything premade like that is just another thing that people will have to remove when they get to that part of their design. I also believe that adding content like that will enable people to be lazier and use that system instead of coming up with their own. =)
Personally I am of the opinion that a codebase should not include game "content", including classes,races,skills and spells.
I think there's a big difference between including a selection of races and classes, and providing support for races and classes. The former is clearly game content, but the latter is not. Personally I'd favour something generic that would also be useful for classless and raceless muds (like the background system I once described on Mu...).
This is the sort of thing that most muds will want to add. If you don't, and your codebase becomes popular, it's only a matter of time until someone else releases a derivative with classes and races built in. Better to beat them to it, IMO, and provide the framework for something generic that'll be passed on to later derivatives.
I would have to argue that "providing support" for races, classes etc.. in the manner you described it is still considered including game content. Let's say I create the most basic system possible, and include templates for races, classes, skills and spells. How much non-content can you include in that system while still providing something functional? The supporting functions/methods have to follow some sort of design, basing skills on character level, adding racial abilities, including racial or class statistic bonuses or requirements(character measure ie: dexterity, is content). I just don't understand how you can include something useful without stepping into the realm of content. My suggestion to this problem would be to design a codebase that allows for fully swapable modules. You could include a race module, a class module, a skill module and a magic module (along with modules for any other system you decide on) for people to use as a base, or to learn from. Inside a module you could include as much content as you like, since it could be removed by commenting out a line or something equivalent. I don't know that I'm up to the task of creating such a system, but it sure would be nice. No more snippets or updates, just install a module! (This is Nakedmud's idea right?)
I would have to argue that "providing support" for races, classes etc.. in the manner you described it is still considered including game content.
Do you consider "providing support" for OLC to be adding game content? Because I don't think that this is any different, and Tyche has already said that TeensyMud supports OLC.
Chris Bailey said:
Let's say I create the most basic system possible, and include templates for races, classes, skills and spells. How much non-content can you include in that system while still providing something functional?
You can provide the underlying system without adding content, just as you can provide the mechanics for movement without adding a stock world. Of course you may well want to provide a little content just to serve as an example - a handful of rooms, for example, or a handful of backgrounds (to use the system I proposed earlier). But these can simply be deleted if unwanted, without needing to change any of the code.
Chris Bailey said:
My suggestion to this problem would be to design a codebase that allows for fully swapable modules.
Sure, but they'll still require numerous changes to the rest of the codebase - all the hooks for accessing the skills/etc.
Several of the muds listed in the article section have games of one sort or the other. TeensyMud sports an OLC, but no game system.
I'm always curious about the Class/Race/Skills/Spells thing. What game system do people really have in mind?
I would just like to see how it's a done. A simple human race, warrior class, 2-3 example skills/spells and then I would be set. I'm looking through teensy mud right now to check it out and learn from it.