The Social Versus Game-Like Debate

Following the introduction of TinyMUD (Aspnes, 1989), in which combat wasn't even implemented, players now tend to categorize individual MUDs as either "social" or "game-like" (Carton, 1995). In terms of the preceding discussion, "social" means that the games are heavily weighted to the area below the X-axis, but whether "game-like" means the games are weighted heavily above the X-axis or merely balanced on it is a moot point. Players of social MUDs might suggest that "game-like" means a definite bias on and above the X-axis, because from their perspective, any explicit element of competitiveness is "too much." Some (but not most) players of game-like MUDs could disagree , pointing out that their MUDs enjoy rich social interactions between the players despite the fact that combat is allowed.

So strongly is this distinction felt, particularly among social MUDders, that many of their newer participants don't regard themselves as playing "MUDs" at all, insisting that this term refers only to combat-oriented games, with which they don't wish to be associated. The rule of thumb applied is server type, so, for example, LPMud => game-like, MOO => social; this is despite the fact that each of these systems is of sufficient power and flexibility that it could probably be used to implement an interpreter for the other one!

Consequently, there are general Internet- related books with chapter titles like "Interactive Multiuser Realities: MUDs, MOOs, MUCKs and MUSHes" (Poirier, 1994) and "MUDs, MUSHes, and Other Role-Playing Games" (Eddy, 1994). This fertile ground is where the term "MU*" (Norrish, 1995) originates ”as an attempt to fill the void left by assigning the word "MUD" to game-like (or "player-killing") MUDs; its deliberate use can therefore reasonably be described as a political act (Bruckman, 1992).

This attitude misses the point, however. Although social MUDs may be a major branch on the MUD family tree, they are, nevertheless, still on it, and are therefore still MUDs. If another overarching term is used, then it will only be a matter of time before someone writes a combat-oriented server called "KillerMU*" or whatever, and causes the wound to reopen. Denial of history is not, in general, a wise thing to do.

Besides, social MUDs do have their killers (i.e., people who fall into that area of the interest graph). Simply because explicit combat is prohibited , there is nevertheless plenty of opportunity to cause distress in other ways. To list a few: virtual rape (Dibbell, 1993; Reid, 1994); general sexual harassment (Rosenberg, 1992); deliberate fracturing of the community (Whitlock, 1994a); and vexatious litigancy (Whitlock, 1994b). Indeed, proper management of a MUD insists that contingency plans and procedures are already in place such that antisocial behavior can be dealt with promptly when it occurs (Bruckman, 1994b).

Social MUDs do have their achievers , too: people who regard building as a competitive act and can vie to have the "best" rooms in the MUD (Clodius, 1994) or who seek to acquire a large quota for creating ever-more objects (Farmer, Morningstar, and Crockford, 1994). The fact that a MUD might not itself reward such behavior should, of course, naturally foster a community of players who are primarily interested in talking and listening, but there nevertheless will still be killers and achievers around ”in the same way that there will be socializers and explorers in even the most bloodthirsty of MUDs.

Researchers have tended to use a more precise distinction than the players, in terms of a MUD's similarity to (single- user ) adventure games. Amy Bruckman's observation that:

There are two basic types [of MUD ]: those which are like adventure games, and those which are not.

” (Bruckman, 1992)

is the most succinct and unarguable expression of this dichotomy . However, in his influential paper on MUDs, Pavel Curtis states:

Three major factors distinguish a MUD from an adventure-style computer game, though:

• A MUD is not goal-oriented; it has no beginning or end, no "score," and no notion of "winning" or "success."

  In short, even though users of MUDs are commonly called players, a MUD isn't really a game at all.

• A MUD is extensible from within; a user can add new objects to the database such as rooms, exits, "things," and notes.

• A MUD generally has more than one user connected at a time.

All of the connected users are browsing and manipulating the same database and can encounter the new objects created by others. The multiple users on a MUD can communicate with each other in real time.

” (Curtis, 1992)

This definition explicitly rules out MUDs as adventure games ”indeed, it claims that they are not games at all. This is perhaps too tight a definition, since the very first MUD was most definitely programmed to be a game. (I know, because I programmed it to be one!) The second point, which states that MUDs must involve building, is also untrue of many MUDs; in particular, commercial MUDs often aim for a high level of narrative consistency (which isn't conducive to letting players add things unchecked), and, if they have a graphical front-end, it is also inconvenient if new objects appear that generate no images. However, the fact that Curtis comes down on the side of "social" MUDs to bear the name "MUD" at least recognizes that these programs are MUDs, which is more than many "MU*" advocates are prepared to admit.

This issue of "social or game-like" will be returned to presently, with an explanation of exactly why players of certain MUDs that are dubbed "game-like" might find a binary distinction counter-intuitive.