Overbalancing a Mud

Earlier, the effect of taking each axis on the interest graph to its extremes was used to give an indication of what would happen if a MUD was pushed so far that it lost its MUDness. It was noted, though, that along the axes was not the only way a MUD could be tilted.

What would happen if, in an effort to appeal to certain types of player, a MUD was overcompensated in their favor?

Tilting a MUD toward achievers would make it obsessed with gameplay. Players would spend their time looking for tactics to improve their position, and the presence of other players would become unnecessary. The result would be effectively a single-player adventure game (SUD?).

Tilting toward explorers would add depth and interest but remove much of the activity. Spectacle would dominate over action, and again there would be no need for other players. The result of this is basically an online book.

Tilting toward socializers removes all gameplay and centers on communication. Eventually, all sense of the virtual world is lost, and a chat-line or IRC-style CB program results.

Tilting toward killers is more difficult because this type of player is parasitic on the other three types. The emphasis on causing grief has to be sacrificed in favor of the thrill of the chase and bolstered by the use of quick thinking and skill to overcome adversity in clever (but violent) ways. In other words, this becomes an arcade ("shoot 'em up") type of game.

It's a question of balance: If something is added to a MUD to tilt the graph one way, other mechanisms will need to be in place to counterbalance it (preferably automatically). Otherwise, what results is a SUD, book, chat-line, or arcade game. It's the combination that makes MUDs unique ”and special. It is legitimate to say that anything that goes too far in any direction is not a MUD; it is not legitimate to say that something that doesn't go far enough in any direction is not a MUD. So long as a system is a (text-based) multi- user virtual world, that's enough.