29 Sep, 2009, JohnnyStarr wrote in the 1st comment:
Votes: 0
I am having a hard time deciding the theme of my mud. I am going to make it Sci-Fi,
but that is all I have decided so far. I am curious what is more preferable for players:

A:
Strict, serious games that have a more structured view towards it's internal world, economy, storyline.

B:
A less strict, multi-universe combination where you could say (visit the death star, fight Vader, then
go to Galactica and get a mission from Commander Adama, then beat Serenity with 'The Falcon' in the Kessel Run.)

Fantasy muds seem to be easier to build because it's fantasy, there is little to no
'science' so who's to say that a mage couldn't create a planet with some spell?

Anyway, I think you get the idea. :wink:
I would like to know what the player community might have more fun with.
29 Sep, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 2nd comment:
Votes: 0
I'm not a fan of excessive cross-over. I think that hodge-podge is appropriate only when it is extremely deliberate and still coherent. (There are sci-fi books that explore virtual reality, for example, where characters bounce from setting to setting, but there is still a very coherent trend, a plot bringing it all together.) I think that just slapping a bunch of stuff together because it's cool ends up making things look and feel sloppy.
29 Sep, 2009, JohnnyStarr wrote in the 3rd comment:
Votes: 0
I see.

Maybe, instead of having a crazy melting-pot. I could have
Star Trek, with say "the holodeck" where you could throw in
some crazy areas, but when you're done, you are still on a
ship with rules and structure.
29 Sep, 2009, KaVir wrote in the 4th comment:
Votes: 0
staryavsky said:
Fantasy muds seem to be easier to build because it's fantasy, there is little to no 'science' so who's to say that a mage couldn't create a planet with some spell?

To quote Arthur C. Clarke, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

I would also argue that most science fiction muds could be more accurately described as science fantasy. To quote Rod Serling, "science fiction makes the implausible possible, while science fantasy makes the impossible plausible."

But regardless of whether the mud is high fantasy, science fantasy, science fiction or something else, I personally prefer a single consistant theme.
29 Sep, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 5th comment:
Votes: 0
Personally I would find that far more appealing: you can have the varied settings, but it actually "makes sense" in the story world. The holodeck would actually be a very nice way to throw in other settings if that's what you wanted to do. Several Star Trek episodes are about how things in the holodeck become "real" one way or another (in that you can get stuck in there, die for real, …), so you could use that as well to generate dramatic tension around an otherwise made up virtual world.
29 Sep, 2009, Scandum wrote in the 6th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
I would also argue that most science fiction muds could be more accurately described as science fantasy. To quote Rod Serling, "science fiction makes the implausible possible, while science fantasy makes the impossible plausible."

Hard science fiction themed MUDs seem to be lacking indeed. I'd actually be interested in playing a hard sci-fi mud, but it might be too much of a niche category to attract many players. A post-apocalyptic zombie world might be cool as well. An inconsistent theme and world is a definite turn-off for me.
29 Sep, 2009, Tyche wrote in the 7th comment:
Votes: 0
I tend to dislike anything directly based on movies or TV, especially if they involve canonical stories and characters.
There was a interesting D&D campaign expansion called Spelljammer, which took elves and dwarves into space, which I always thought was slick idea.
I'm one who doesn't really mind at all if the theme has flaws or lacks consistency.

But it's more about what you find fun and interesting to build, and less about what people want.
If you aren't really excited about the theme yourself, it just ain't going to get built.
29 Sep, 2009, JohnnyStarr wrote in the 8th comment:
Votes: 0
Tyche said:
If you aren't really excited about the theme yourself, it just ain't going to get built.

word.
29 Sep, 2009, Sandi wrote in the 9th comment:
Votes: 0
If you're going to have any hope of appealing to roleplayers, then I think a consistent theme is requisite.

The general hack and slasher seems happy to bounce from theme to theme.

To criticize my own game, which is proudly H&S, I think the Iron Age Celtic theme is too serious and dreary. Great for RP, but not 'fun' enough for most players.

However, since most 'space opera' SciFi stories are actually set in the same universe, I would think you could have the Death Star and Bab 5 and the ringworld without really breaking immersion, and this would add to the variety of experiences offered to the players.
29 Sep, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 10th comment:
Votes: 0
By the way, and this isn't directed at any one person in particular, there's no reason that "consistent" can't mean quirky, imaginative, fun, etc. Consistency just means that things have reasons and these reasons obey the same general rules, as opposed to a world in which you just toss random stuff because you feel like it.
29 Sep, 2009, JohnnyStarr wrote in the 11th comment:
Votes: 0
One idea i had was a stargate type of game where you
you could visit different worlds or even galaxies in a second.
Which would allow more flexibility for having all sorts of realities.
But it would have to be done right.
29 Sep, 2009, Orrin wrote in the 12th comment:
Votes: 0
For a sci-fi game I'd probably go for something with a consistent theme, maybe grand space opera Traveller TNE style. But you might as well pick whatever you are interested in, as Tyche said, because it's going to be hard enough getting a playable game done, let alone if you aren't fully committed to the concept.
29 Sep, 2009, Skol wrote in the 13th comment:
Votes: 0
I always thought a Star Frontiers based game would be fun. Although even the RPG didn't last that long heh.
Great game though, could be cool. I did a modern mud once, and it was a blast. Top Secret (had working guns of many calibers, shells, hot brass, grenades etc). There's something fun about cutting someone in half with a machine weapon heh.
30 Sep, 2009, Grumny wrote in the 14th comment:
Votes: 0
I need consistency in a mud I play, and like DH, I think that consistency means that the world follows it's own rules. There is no reason that you can't have a Sesame Street and a Smurf side by side. If, for example, the "God" of that universe is a 5 year old. Actually, that might be kind of fun, I'll have to think about it.

I've always wondered what would happen if "God" was an alcoholic and got drunk before going to work for the day. In a game sense of course :tongue:
30 Sep, 2009, KaVir wrote in the 15th comment:
Votes: 0
Tyche said:
There was a interesting D&D campaign expansion called Spelljammer, which took elves and dwarves into space, which I always thought was slick idea.

I played in a Spelljammer campaign once, and found it a really fun setting. It is still very much fantasy though (everything has its own air bubble that isn't dispersed by the vacuum of space, the ships are clearly powered by magic, etc).

Tyche said:
But it's more about what you find fun and interesting to build, and less about what people want. If you aren't really excited about the theme yourself, it just ain't going to get built.

Absolutely. Motivation is the driving force that gets a mud started and keeps it running. It cost me a couple of muds and several months of wasted design to learn that lesson.

Sandi said:
If you're going to have any hope of appealing to roleplayers, then I think a consistent theme is requisite.

The general hack and slasher seems happy to bounce from theme to theme.

I don't disagree with your observation, but to expand on it: I think it's worth remembering that a fair number of HnSers (including myself) really do appreciate thematic consistancy - but I've never heard of someone who disliked consistant themes. Thus although you may still appeal to many players with a mixture of conflicting themes, I think consistancy can still be beneficial.

Grumny said:
There is no reason that you can't have a Sesame Street and a Smurf side by side. If, for example, the "God" of that universe is a 5 year old.

How about a mud set on Wax-World?
30 Sep, 2009, Scandum wrote in the 16th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
I think it's worth remembering that a fair number of HnSers (including myself) really do appreciate thematic consistancy - but I've never heard of someone who disliked consistant themes. Thus although you may still appeal to many players with a mixture of conflicting themes, I think consistancy can still be beneficial.

This is where the problem of builders come in, given they're typically volunteers it's very hard to deny them creative freedom, which invariable ends up with every builder creating their own little sub-genre for their areas. From that perspective a mostly dynamically generated world might be preferable.
30 Sep, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 17th comment:
Votes: 0
It's easy to deny too much creative freedom. "I'm sorry, but we need consistency. If that's not ok with you, I'm afraid I can't use your areas in my MUD." Unless you're desperate for people to build for you, and are willing to therefore sacrifice your vision, this shouldn't be too hard to ask.
30 Sep, 2009, KaVir wrote in the 18th comment:
Votes: 0
Scandum said:
This is where the problem of builders come in, given they're typically volunteers it's very hard to deny them creative freedom, which invariable ends up with every builder creating their own little sub-genre for their areas. From that perspective a mostly dynamically generated world might be preferable.

Interesting point. I could see established themes having an advantage here - for example a Wheel of Time mud would generally appeal to Robert Jordan fans, who in turn would be more likely to want to create areas that tie in with the books.
30 Sep, 2009, JohnnyStarr wrote in the 19th comment:
Votes: 0
I think Star Trek would be most fun for me.
And there is something to be said for builders
having to conform to the logic of one consistant universe.

What is most exciting is a (rank) based levelup system.
30 Sep, 2009, shasarak wrote in the 20th comment:
Votes: 0
I'd agree with others who have said that it's unlikely you'll find anyone who actively objects to a consistenttheme, and likely you'll find at least some who are troubled by its absence.
0.0/20