---
created_at: '2013-05-05T15:52:08.000Z'
title: 'Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds, Spades: Players Who Suit MUDs (1996)'
url: http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm
author: kens
points: 48
story_text: ''
comment_text: 
num_comments: 39
story_id: 
story_title: 
story_url: 
parent_id: 
created_at_i: 1367769128
_tags:
- story
- author_kens
- story_5658681
objectID: '5658681'

---
![](russian.gif)A translation of this article into Russian is available
[here](http://dtf.ru/articles/read.php?id=44593). ![](chinese.gif)A
translation of this article into Chinese is available
[here](http://www.joynb.net/resource/hcdsc.htm).

# HEARTS, CLUBS, DIAMONDS, SPADES: PLAYERS WHO SUIT MUDS

  
Richard Bartle[\[1\]](#1)  
MUSE Ltd, Colchester, Essex.  
United Kingdom.  
<richard@mud.co.uk>  

# ABSTRACT

Four approaches to playing MUDs are identified and described. These
approaches may arise from the inter-relationship of two dimensions of
playing style: action versus interaction, and world-oriented versus
player-oriented. An account of the dynamics of player populations is
given in terms of these dimensions, with particular attention to how to
promote balance or equilibrium. This analysis also offers an explanation
for the labelling of MUDs as being either "social" or "gamelike".

# PREFACE

Most MUDs can trace their lineage directly back to Trubshaw's 1978 game
([Bartle, 1990b](#Bartle,%201990b); [Burka, 1995](#Burka,%201995)) and,
perhaps because of this heritage, the vast majority are regarded as
"games" by their "players". For the convenience of its readers, this
paper continues to view MUDs in this tradition; however, it should be
noted that MUDs can be of considerable value in non-game (ie. "serious")
applications ([Bruckman, 1994a](#Bruckman,%201994a); [Kort,
1991](#Kort,%201991); [Bruckman & Resnick,
1993](#Bruckman%20&%20Resnick,%201993); [Curtis & Nichols,
1993](#Curtis%20&%20Nichols,%201993); [Evard, 1993](#Evard,%201993);
[Fanderclai, 1995](#Fanderclai,%201995); [Riner & Clodius,
1995](#Riner%20&%20Clodius,%201995); [Moock, 1996](#Moock,%201996)).
Indeed, the thrust of this paper emphasises those factors which should
be borne in mind when attempting to create a stable MUD in general,
whatever the application; it is only the terminology which is that of
"fun" MUDs, not the subject matter. In any case, even those MUDs which
are built, from the ground up, to be absolutely straight are still
treated by users as if they were games in some respects, eg. by choosing
whimsical names rather than using their real ones ([Roush,
1993](#Roush,%201993)).

It is worthwhile considering for a moment whether MUDs (as they are
generally played) really are games, or whether they're something else.
People have many recreational activities available to them, and perhaps
MUDs fit some other category better? Looking up the word "game" in a
dictionary of synonyms ([Urdang & Manser,
1980](#Urdang%20&%20Manser,%201980)) elicits three related nouns:
"pastime", "sport" and "entertainment" (a fourth, "amusement", is the
general class of which the others are all examples). So it might be
useful to ask:

Are MUDs

  - games? Like chess, tennis, AD\&D?
  - pastimes? Like reading, gardening, cooking?
  - sports? Like huntin', shootin', fishin'?
  - entertainments? Like nightclubs, TV, concerts?

Or are they a combination of all four? Perhaps individual players even
see the same MUD differently from each another?

These questions will be returned to at the end of this paper, along with
some proposed answers.

# A SIMPLE TAXONOMY

This work grew out of a long, heated discussion which ran from November
1989 to May 1990 between the wizzes (ie. highly experienced players, of
rank wizard or witch) on one particular commercial MUD in the UK
([Bartle, 1985](#Bartle,%201985)). The debate was sparked by the
question "What do people want out of a MUD?", and comprised several
hundred bulletin-board postings, some of considerable length, typically
concerning what the players liked, what they didn't like, why they
played, and changes they would like to see to "improve" the game. Some
15 individuals took a major part, with perhaps another 15 adding their
comments from time to time; this comprised almost the entire set of
active wizzes during that period. Although at times the debate became
quite intense, never did it lapse into the flaming which typically ends
most open-ended, multi-speaker, online discussions.

The fact that the people contributing to this argument were the most
advanced players in a MUD which allowed player-killing might, on the
face of it, be taken as evidence that they would probably prefer more
"gamelike" aspects over "social" ones. However, this was not the case:
the MUD in question had players of all types in it, even at wiz level.
(Later in this paper, an analysis is given as to how such a MUD can come
to be).

When the participants had finally run out of new things to say, it
became time for me (as senior administrator) to summarise. Abstracting
the various points that had been raised, a pattern emerged; people
habitually found the same kinds of thing about the game "fun", but there
were several (four, in fact) sub-groupings into which opinion divided.
Most players leaned at least a little to all four, but each tended to
have some particular overall preference. The summary was generally well
received by those who had participated in the debate.

Note that although this MUD was one in which player-killing was allowed,
the taxonomy which is about to be described does (as will be explained
later) apply equally to "social" MUDs. The advice concerning changes
which can be made to affect the player make-up of a MUD is, however,
less useful to social MUDs, or to ones with a heavy role-playing
component. Also, the original discussion concerned only
non-administrative aspects of MUDding; people who might play MUDs to
learn object-oriented programming, for example, are therefore not
addressed by this paper.

The four things that people typically enjoyed personally about MUDs
were:

i) Achievement within the game context.

Players give themselves game-related goals, and vigorously set out to
achieve them. This usually means accumulating and disposing of large
quantities of high-value treasure, or cutting a swathe through hordes of
mobiles (ie. monsters built in to the virtual world).

ii) Exploration of the game.

Players try to find out as much as they can about the virtual world.
Although initially this means mapping its topology (ie. exploring the
MUD's breadth), later it advances to experimentation with its physics
(ie. exploring the MUD's depth).

iii) Socialising with others.

Players use the game's communicative facilities, and apply the
role-playing that these engender, as a context in which to converse (and
otherwise interact) with their fellow players.

iv) Imposition upon others.

Players use the tools provided by the game to cause distress to (or, in
rare circumstances, to help) other players. Where permitted, this
usually involves acquiring some weapon and applying it enthusiastically
to the persona of another player in the game world.

So, labelling the four player types abstracted, we get: achievers,
explorers, socialisers and killers. An easy way to remember these is to
consider suits in a conventional pack of cards: achievers are Diamonds
(they're always seeking treasure); explorers are Spades (they dig around
for information); socialisers are Hearts (they empathise with other
players); killers are Clubs (they hit people with them).

Naturally, these areas cross over, and players will often drift between
all four, depending on their mood or current playing style. However, my
experience having observed players in the light of this research
suggests that many (if not most) players do have a primary style, and
will only switch to other styles as a (deliberate or subconscious) means
to advance their main interest.

Looking at each player type in more detail, then:

i) Achievers regard points-gathering and rising in levels as their main
goal, and all is ultimately subserviant to this. Exploration is
necessary only to find new sources of treasure, or improved ways of
wringing points from it. Socialising is a relaxing method of discovering
what other players know about the business of accumulating points, that
their knowledge can be applied to the task of gaining riches. Killing is
only necessary to eliminate rivals or people who get in the way, or to
gain vast amounts of points (if points are awarded for killing other
players).

Achievers say things like:

``` 
        "I'm busy."
        "Sure, I'll help you. What do I get?"
        "So how do YOU kill the dragon, then?"
        "Only 4211 points to go!"
```

ii) Explorers delight in having the game expose its internal
machinations to them. They try progressively esoteric actions in wild,
out-of-the-way places, looking for interesting features (ie. bugs) and
figuring out how things work. Scoring points may be necessary to enter
some next phase of exploration, but it's tedious, and anyone with half a
brain can do it. Killing is quicker, and might be a constructive
exercise in its own right, but it causes too much hassle in the long run
if the deceased return to seek retribution. Socialising can be
informative as a source of new ideas to try out, but most of what people
say is irrelevant or old hat. The real fun comes only from discovery,
and making the most complete set of maps in existence.

Explorers say things like:

``` 
        "Hmm..."
        "You mean you don't know the shortest route from <obscure
         room 1> to <obscure room 2>?"
        "I haven't tried that one, what's it do?"
        "Why is it that if you carry the uranium you get radiation
         sickness, and if you put it in a bag you still get it, but if
         you put it in a bag and drop it then wait 20 seconds and pick it
         up again, you don't?"
```

iii) Socialisers are interested in people, and what they have to say.
The game is merely a backdrop, a common ground where things happen to
players. Inter-player relationships are important: empathising with
people, sympathising, joking, entertaining, listening; even merely
observing people play can be rewarding - seeing them grow as
individuals, maturing over time. Some exploration may be necessary so as
to understand what everyone else is talking about, and points-scoring
could be required to gain access to neat communicative spells available
only to higher levels (as well as to obtain a certain status in the
community). Killing, however, is something only ever to be excused if
it's a futile, impulsive act of revenge, perpetrated upon someone who
has caused intolerable pain to a dear friend. The only ultimately
fulfilling thing is not how to rise levels or kill hapless drips; it's
getting to know people, to undertand them, and to form beautiful,
lasting relationships.

Socialisers say things like:

``` 
        "Hi!"
        "Yeah, well, I'm having trouble with my boyfriend."
        "What happened? I missed it, I was talking."
        "Really? Oh no! Gee, that's terrible! Are you sure? Awful, just
         awful!"
```

iv) Killers get their kicks from imposing themselves on others. This may
be "nice", ie. busybody do-gooding, but few people practice such an
approach because the rewards (a warm, cosy inner glow, apparently)
aren't very substantial. Much more commonly, people attack other players
with a view to killing off their personae (hence the name for this style
of play). The more massive the distress caused, the greater the killer's
joy at having caused it. Normal points-scoring is usually required so as
to become powerful enough to begin causing havoc in earnest, and
exploration of a kind is necessary to discover new and ingenious ways to
kill people. Even socialising is sometimes worthwhile beyond taunting a
recent victim, for example in finding out someone's playing habits, or
discussing tactics with fellow killers. They're all just means to an
end, though; only in the knowledge that a real person, somewhere, is
very upset by what you've just done, yet can themselves do nothing about
it, is there any true adrenalin-shooting, juicy fun.

Killers says things like:

``` 
        "Ha!"
        "Coward!"
        "Die!"
        "Die! Die! Die!"
```

(Killers are people of few words).

How many players typically fall within each area depends on the MUD. If,
however, too many gravitate to one particular style, the effect can be
to cause players of other persuasions to leave, which in turn may feed
back and reduce the numbers in the first category. For example, too many
killers will drive away the achievers who form their main prey; this in
turn will mean that killers will stop playing, as they'll have no
worthwhile victims (players considered by killers to be explorers
generally don't care about death, and players considered to be
socialisers are too easy to pose much of a challenge). These direct
relationships are discussed in more detail towards the end of this
paper.

For the most part, though, the inter-relationships between the various
playing styles are more subtle: a sharp reduction in the number of
explorers for whatever reason could mean a gradual reduction in
achievers, who get bored if they're not occasionally told of different
hoops they can jump through for points; this could affect the number of
socialisers (the fewer players there are, the less there is to talk
about), and it would certainly lower the killer population (due to a
general lack of suitable victims).

Making sure that a game doesn't veer off in the wrong direction and lose
players can be difficult; administrators need to maintain a balanced
relationship between the different types of player, so as to guarantee
their MUD's "feel". Note that I am not advocating any particular form of
equalibrium: it is up to the game administrators themseles to decide
what atmosphere they want their MUD to have, and thus define the point
at which it is "balanced" (although the effort required to maintain this
desired state could be substantial). Later, this paper considers means
by which a MUD can be pushed in different directions, either to restore
an earlier balance between the player types, to define a new target set
of relationships between the player types, or to cause the interplay
between the player types to break down entirely. However, first a means
is required of formally linking the four principal playing styles into
aspects of a unified whole; this helps account for different degrees of
adherence to particular styles, and aids visualisation of what "altering
the balance" of a MUD might actually mean.

# INTEREST GRAPH

Consider the following abstract graph:

``` 
                                  ACTING
                  Killers            |                  Achievers
                                     |
                                     |
                                     |
                                     |
                                     |
          PLAYERS -------------------+------------------- WORLD
                                     |
                                     |
                                     |
                                     |
                                     |
                  Socialisers        |                  Explorers
                                INTERACTING
```

The axes of the graph represent the source of players' interest in a
MUD. The x-axis goes from an emphasis on players (left) to an emphasis
on the environment (right); the y-axis goes from acting with (bottom) to
acting on (top). The four extreme corners of the graph show the four
typical playing preferences associated with each quadrant. To see how
the graph works, it is appropriate to consider each of the four styles
in detail:

i) Achievers are interested in doing things to the game, ie. in ACTING
on the WORLD. It's the fact that the game environment is a fully-fledged
world in which they can immerse themselves that they find compelling;
its being shared with other people merely adds a little authenticity,
and perhaps a competitive element. The point of playing is to master the
game, and make it do what you want it to do; there's nothing
intrinsically worthwhile in rooting out irrelevant details that will
never be of use, or in idling away your life with gossip.

Achievers are proud of their formal status in the game's built-in level
hierarchy, and of how short a time they took to reach it.

ii) Explorers are interested in having the game surprise them, ie. in
INTERACTING with the WORLD. It's the sense of wonder which the virtual
world imbues that they crave for; other players add depth to the game,
but they aren't essential components of it, except perhaps as sources of
new areas to visit. Scoring points all the time is a worthless
occupation, because it defies the very open-endedness that makes a world
live and breathe. Most accomplished explorers could easily rack up
sufficient points to reach the top, but such one-dimensional behaviour
is the sign of a limited intellect.

Explorers are proud of their knowledge of the game's finer points,
especially if new players treat them as founts of all knowledge.

iii) Socialisers are interested in INTERACTING with other PLAYERS. This
usually means talking, but it can extend to more exotic behaviour.
Finding out about people and getting to know them is far more worthy
than treating them as fodder to be bossed around. The game world is just
a setting; it's the characters that make it so compelling.

Socialisers are proud of their friendships, their contacts and their
influence.

iv) Killers are interested in doing things to people, ie. in ACTING on
other PLAYERS. Normally, this is not with the consent of these "other
players" (even if, objectively, the interference in their play might
appear "helpful"), but killers don't care; they wish only to demonstrate
their superiority over fellow humans, preferably in a world which serves
to legitimise actions that could mean imprisonment in real life.
Accumulated knowledge is useless unless it can be applied; even when it
is applied, there's no fun unless it can affect a real person instead of
an emotionless, computerised entity.

Killers are proud of their reputation and of their oft-practiced
fighting skills.

The "interest graph" is a representational structure which can chart
what players find of interest in a MUD. The axes can be assigned a
relative scale reflecting the ratio of an individual's interest between
the two extremes that it admits. Thus, for example, someone who thinks
that the people who are in the world are maybe twice as important as the
the world itself would lie on a vertical line intersecting the x-axis at
a point 1/6 of the distance from the origin to the left edge; if they
had little interest in bending the game to their will, preferring their
actions to have some give and take, then they would also lie on a
horizontal line at the bottom of the y-axis. The interesection of the
two lines would put them in the socialiser quadrant, with leanings to
explorer.

It is, of course, possible to analyse the behaviour of individual
players quantitatively by processing transcripts of their games.
Unfortunately, this is very difficult to do except for very limited
domains (eg. forms of communication ([Cherny, 1995a](#Cherny,%201995a);
[Cherny, 1995b](#Cherny,%201995b))). An alternative approach might
simply be to ask the players what they themselves like about a
particular MUD: even a short questionnaire, completed anonymously, can
give a fair indication of what players find enjoyable ([Emert,
1993](#Emert,%201993)). Such information can then be used to determine
the make-up of the MUD's player base, so that in times of falling player
numbers the current composition could be compared against some earlier
ideal, and remedial action taken to redress the imbalance. This "ideal"
configuration would, however, be specific to that particular MUD, and
its precise form is therefore not addressed here. Instead, the more
general issue of how to alter the balance between player types is
considered, along with the gross effects that can be expected to follow
from having done so.

# CHANGING THE PLAYER TYPE BALANCE

A stable MUD is one in which the four principal styles of player are in
equilibrium. This doesn't imply that there are the same number of
players exhibiting each style; rather, it means that over time the
proportion of players for each style remains roughly constant, so that
the balance between the the various types remains the same. Other
factors are important, to do with the rate at which new players arrive
and overall player numbers, but their consideration is not within the
brief of this paper; the interaction between players of different types
is within its brief, however, and is discussed in some detail later.

The actual point of balance (ie. whereabouts in the interest graph the
centre of gravity of the individual players' points lies) can vary quite
enormously; it is up to individual administrators to determine where
they want it to lie, and to make any programming or design changes
necessary to ensure that this is where it actually does. What kind of
strategies, though, can be employed to achieve this task?

In order to answer this question, consider the interest graph. If it is
regarded as a plane in equilibrium, it can be tilted in a number of ways
to favour different areas. Usually, this will be at the expense of some
other (opposite) area, but not necessarily. Although tilting can in
theory occur along any line in the plane, it makes sense (at least
initially) to look at what happens when the tilt lines coincide with the
x and y axes if the graph.

What follows, then, is a brief examination of means by which a MUD can
be adjusted so as to favour the various extremes of the interest graph,
and what would happen if each approach were taken to the limit:

## PLAYERS

Putting the emphasis on players rather than the game is easy - you just
provide the system with lots of communication commands and precious
little else. The more the scales are tipped towards players, though, the
less of a MUD you have and the more of a CB-style chatline. Beyond a
certain point, the game can't provide a context for communication, and
it ceases to be a viable virtual world: it's just a comms channel for
the real world. At this stage, when all sense of elsewhere-presence is
lost, you no longer have a MUD.

## WORLD

Tilting the game towards the world rather than its inhabitants is also
easy: you simply make it so big and awkward to traverse that no-one ever
meets anyone in it; alternatively, you can ensure that if they do meet
up, then there are very few ways in which they an interact. Although
this can result in some nice simulations, there's a loss of motivation
implicit within it: anyone can rack up points given time, but there's
not the same sense of achievement as when it's done under pressure from
competing players. And what use is creating beautifully-crafted areas
anyway, if you can't show them to people? Perhaps if computer-run
personae had more AI a MUD could go further in this direction ([Mauldin,
1994](#Mauldin,%201994)), but it couldn't (yet) go all the way (as
authors of single-player games have found ([Caspian-Kaufman,
1995](#Caspian-Kaufman,%201995))). Sometimes, you just do want to tell
people real-world things - you have a new baby, or a new job, or your
cat has died. If there's no-one to tell, or no way to tell them, you
don't have a MUD.

## INTERACTING

Putting the emphasis on interaction rather than action can also go a
long way. Restricting the freedom of players to choose different courses
of action is the mechanism for implementing it, so they can only follow
a narrow or predetermined development path. Essentially, it's
MUD-as-theatre: you sit there being entertained, but not actually
participating much. You may feel like you're in a world, but it's one in
which you're paralysed. If the bias is only slight, it can make a MUD
more "nannyish", which newcomers seem to enjoy, but pushing it all the
way turns it into a radio set. Knowledge may be intrinsically
interesting (ie. trivia), but it's meaningless unless it can be applied.
If players can't play, it's not a MUD.

## ACTING

If the graph is redrawn to favour doing-to over doing-with, the game
quickly becomes boring. Tasks are executed repeatedly, by rote. There's
always monotony, never anything new, or, if these is something new, it's
of the "man versus random number generator" variety. People do need to
be able to put into practice what they've learned, but they also need to
be able to learn it in the first place\! Unless the one leads to the
other, it's only a matter of time before patience is exhausted and the
players give up. Without depth, you have no MUD.

From the above list of ways to tilt the interest graph, a set of
strategems can be composed to help MUD administrators shift the focus of
their games in whatever particular direction they choose. Some of these
strategems are simply a question of management: if you don't tell people
what communication commands there are, for example, people will be less
likely to use them all. Although such approaches are good for small
shifts in the way a MUD is played, the more powerful and absolute method
is to consider programming changes (programming being the "nature" of a
MUD, and administration being the "nurture").

Here, then, are the programming changes which administrators might wish
to consider in order to shape their MUD:

Ways to emphasise PLAYERS over WORLD:

  - add more communication facilities
  - add more player-on-player commands (eg. transitive ones like TICKLE
    or CONGRATULATE, or commands to form and maintain closed groups of
    personae)
  - make communication facilities easy and intuitive
  - decrease the size of the world
  - increase the connectivity between rooms
  - maximise the number of simultaneous players
  - restrict building privileges to a select few
  - cut down on the number of mobiles

Ways to emphasise WORLD over PLAYERS:

  - have only basic communication facilities
  - have few ways that players can do things to other players
  - make building facilities easy and intuitive
  - maximise the size of the world (ie. add breadth)
  - use only "rational" room connections in most cases
  - grant building privileges to many
  - have lots of mobiles

Ways to emphasise INTERACTING over ACTING:

  - make help facilities produce vague information
  - produce cryptic hints when players appear stuck
  - maximise the effects of commands (ie. add depth)
  - lower the rewards for achievement
  - have only a shallow level/class system
  - produce amusing responses for amusing commands
  - edit all room descriptions for consistent atmosphere
  - limit the number of commands available in any one area
  - have lots of small puzzles that can be solved easily
  - allow builders to add completely new commands

Ways to emphasise ACTING over INTERACTING:

  - provide a game manual
  - include auto-map facilities
  - include auto-log facilities
  - raise the rewards for achievement
  - have an extensive level/class system
  - make commands be applicable wherever they might reasonably have
    meaning
  - have large puzzles, that take over an hour to complete
  - have many commands relating to fights
  - only allow building by top-quality builders

These strategies can be combined to encourage or discourage different
styles of play. To appeal to achievers, for example, one approach might
be to introduce an extensive level/class system (so as to provide plenty
of opportunity to reward investment of time) and to maximise the size of
the world (so there is more for them to achieve). Note that the "feel"
of a MUD is derived from the position on the interest graph of the MUD's
players, from which a "centre of gravity" can be approximated. It is
therefore sometimes possible to make two changes simultaneously which
have "opposite" effects, altering how some individuals experience the
MUD but not changing how the MUD feels overall. For example, adding
large puzzles (to emphasise ACTING) and adding small puzzles (to
emphasise INTERACTING) would encourage both pro-ACTING and
pro-INTERACTING players, thereby keeping the MUD's centre of gravity in
the same place while tending to increase total player numbers. In
general, though, these strategems should not be used as a means to
attract new players; strategems should only be selected from one set per
axis.

The effects of the presence (or lack of it) of other types of player are
also very important, and can be used as a different way to control
relative population sizes. The easiest (but, sadly, most tedious) way to
discuss the interactions which pertain between the various player types
is to enumerate the possible combinations and consider them
independently; this is the approach adopted by this paper.

First, however, it is pertinent to discuss the ways that players
generally categorise MUDs today.

# THE SOCIAL VERSUS GAMELIKE DEBATE

Following the introduction of TinyMUD ([Aspnes, 1989](#Aspnes,%201989)),
in which combat wasn't even implemented, players now tend to categorise
individual MUDs as either "social" or "gamelike" ([Carton,
1995](#Carton,%201995)). In terms of the preceding discussion, "social"
means that the games are heavily weighted to the area below the x-axis,
but whether "gamelike" 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 "gamelike" 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 gamelike
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 =\> gamelike, 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](#Poirier,%201994)) and "MUDs, MUSHes, and Other
Role-Playing Games" ([Eddy, 1994](#Eddy,%201994)). This fertile ground
is where the term "MU\*" ([Norrish, 1995](#Norrish,%201995)) originates
- as an attempt to fill the void left by assigning the word "MUD" to
gamelike (or "player-killing") MUDs; its deliberate use can therefore
reasonably be described as a political act ([Bruckman,
1992](#Bruckman,%201992)).

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 surver called "KillerMU\*" or whatever, and cause the
wound to reopen. Denial of history is not, in general, a wise thing to
do.

Besides, social MUDs do have their killers (ie. 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](#Dibbell,%201993); [Reid, 1994](#Reid,%201994)); general sexual
harrassment ([Rosenberg, 1992](#Rosenberg,%201992)); deliberate
fracturing of the community ([Whitlock, 1994](#Whitlock,%201994)a);
vexatious litigancy ([Whitlock, 1994](#Whitlock,%201994)b). Indeed,
proper management of a MUD insists that contingency plans and procedures
are already in place such that antisocial behaviour can be dealt with
promptly when it occurs ([Bruckman, 1994b](#Bruckman,%201994b)).

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](#Clodius,%201994)), or who seek to acquire a large
quota for creating ever-more objects (Farmer, Morningstar & Crockford,
1994). The fact that a MUD might not itself reward such behaviour
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 socialisers 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:
        o   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.
        o   A MUD is extensible from within; a user can add new objects
            to the database such as rooms, exits, 'things', and notes.
            [...]
        o   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 recognises that these programs are MUDs, which is
more than many "MU\*" advocates are prepared to admit.

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

# PLAYER INTERACTIONS

What follows is a brief explanation of how players predominantly of one
type view those other players whom they perceive to be predominantly of
one type. Warning: these notes concern stereotypical players, and are
not to be assumed to be true of any individual player who might
otherwise exhibit the common traits of one or more of the player
classes.

The effects of increasing and decreasing the various populations is also
discussed, but this does not take into account physical limitations on
the amount of players involved. Thus, for example, if the number of
socialisers is stated to have "no effect" on the number of achievers,
that disregards the fact that there may be an absolute maximum number of
players that the MUD can comfortably hold, and the socialisers may be
taking up slots which achievers could otherwise have filled. Also, the
knock-on effects of other interactions are not discussed at this stage:
a game with fewer socialisers means the killers will seek out more
achievers, for example, so there is a secondary effect of having fewer
achievers even though there is no primary effect. This propogation of
influences is, however, examined in detail afterwards, when the
first-level dynamics have been laid bare.

## ACHIEVERS V. ACHIEVERS

Achievers regard other achievers as competition to be beaten (although
this is typically friendly in nature, rather than cut-throat). Respect
is given to those other achievers who obviously are extraordinarily
good, but typically achievers will cite bad luck or lack of time as
reasons for not being as far advanced in the game as their
contemporaries.

That said, achievers do often co-operate with one another, usually to
perform some difficult collective goal, and from these shared
experiences can grow deep, enduring friendships which may surpass in
intensity those commonly found among individuals other groups. This is
perhaps analagous to the difference between the bond that soldiers under
fire share and the bond that friends in a bar share.

Achievers do not need the presence of any other type of player in order
to be encouraged to join a MUD: they would be quite happy if the game
were empty but for them, assuming it remained a challenge (although some
do feel a need to describe their exploits to anyone who will listen).
Because of this, a MUD can't have too many achievers, physical
limitations excepted.

## ACHIEVERS V. EXPLORERS

Achievers tend to regard explorers as losers: people who have had to
resort to tinkering with the game mechanics because they can't cut it as
a player. Exceptionally good explorers may be elevated to the level of
eccentric, in much the same way that certain individuals come to be
regarded as gurus by users of large computer installations: what they do
is pointless, but they're useful to have around when you need to know
something obscure, fast. They can be irritating, and they rarely tell
the whole truth (perhaps because they don't know it?), but they do have
a place in the world.

The overall number of explorers has only a marginal effect on the
population of achievers. In essence, more explorers will mean that fewer
of the really powerful objects will be around around for the achievers
to use, the explorers having used their arcane skills to obtain them
first so as to use them in their diabolical experiments... This can
cause achievers to become frustrated, and leave. More importantly,
perhaps, the number of explorers affects the rate of advancement of
achievers, because it determines whether or not they have to work out
all those tiresome puzzles themselves. Thus, more explorers will lead to
a quicker rise through the ranks for achievers, which will tend to
encourage them (if not overdone).

## ACHIEVERS V. SOCIALISERS

Achievers merely tolerate socialisers. Although they are good sources of
general hearsay on the comings and goings of competitors, they're
nevertheless pretty much a waste of space as far as achievers are
concerned. Typically, achievers will regard socialisers with a mixture
of contempt, disdain, irritation and pity, and will speak to them in
either a sharp or patronising manner. Occasionally, flame wars between
different cliques of socialisers and achievers may break out, and these
can be among the worst to stop: the achievers don't want to lose the
argument, and the socialisers don't want to stop talking\!

Changing the number of socialisers in a MUD has no effect on the number
of achievers.

## ACHIEVERS V. KILLERS

Achievers don't particularly like killers. They realise that killers as
a concept are necessary in order to make achievement meaningful and
worthwhile (there being no way to "lose" the game if any fool can "win"
just by plodding slowly unchallenged), however they don't pesonally like
being attacked unless it's obvious from the outset that they'll win.
They also object to being interrupted in the middle of some grand scheme
to accumulate points, and they don't like having to arm themselves
against surprise attacks every time they start to play. Achievers will,
occasionally, resort to killing tactics themselves, in order to cause
trouble for a rival or to reap whatever rewards the game itself offers
for success, however the risks are usually too high for them to pursue
such options very often.

Increasing the number of killers will reduce the number of achievers;
reducing the killer population will increase the achiever population.
Note, however, that those general MUDs which nevertheless allow
player-killing tend to do so in the belief that in small measure it is
good for the game: it promotes cameraderie, excitement and intensity of
experience (and it's the only method that players will accept to ensure
that complete idiots don't plod inexorably through the ranks to acquire
a degree of power which they aren't really qualified to wield). As a
consequence, reducing the number of killers too much will be perceived
as cheapening the game, making high achievement commonplace, and it will
put off those achievers who are alarmed at the way any fool can "do
well" just by playing poorly for long enough.

## EXPLORERS V. ACHIEVERS

Explorers look on achievers as nascent explorers, who haven't yet
figured out that there's more to life than pursuing meaningless goals.
They are therefore willing to furnish them with information, although,
like all experts, they will rarely tell the full story when they can
legitimately give cryptic clues instead. Apart from the fact that they
sometimes get in the way, and won't usually hand over objects that are
needed for experiments, achievers can live alongside explorers without
much friction.

Explorers' numbers aren't affected by the presence of achievers.

## EXPLORERS V. EXPLORERS

Explorers hold good explorers in great respect, but are merciless to bad
ones. One of the worst things a fellow explorer can do is to give out
incorrect information, believing it to be true. Other than that,
explorers thrive on telling one another their latest discoveries, and
generally get along very well. Outwardly, they will usually claim to
have the skill necessary to follow the achievement path to glory, but
have other reasons for not doing so (eg. time, tedium, or having proven
themselves already with a different persona). There are often
suspicions, though, that explorers are too theoretical in most cases,
and wouldn't be able to put their ideas into practice on a day-to-day
basis if they were to recast themselves in the achiever or killer mould.

Explorers enjoy the company of other explorers, and they will play more
often if they have people around them to whom they can relate.
Unfortunately, not many people have the type of personality which finds
single-minded exploring a riveting subject, so numbers are notoriously
difficult to increase. If you have explorers in a game, hold on to
them\!

## EXPLORERS V. SOCIALISERS

Explorers consider socialisers to be people whom they can impress, but
who are otherwise pretty well unimportant. Unless they can appreciate
the explorer's talents, they're not really worth spending time with.
There are some explorers who treat conversation as their specialist
explorer subject, but these are very rare indeed; most will be polite
and attentive, but they'll find some diversion if the conversation isn't
MUD-related or if their fellow interlocutor is clearly way below them in
the game-understanding stakes.

The explorer population is not directly affected by the size of the
socialiser population.

## EXPLORERS V. KILLERS

Explorers often have a grudging respect for killers, but they do find
their behaviour wearisome. It's just so annoying to be close to
finishing setting up something when a killer comes along and attacks
you. On the other hand, many killers do know their trade well, and are
quite prepared to discuss the finer details of it with explorers.
Sometimes, an explorer may try attacking other players as an exercise,
and they can be extremely effective at it. Explorers who are
particularly riled by a killer may even decide to "do something about
it" themselves. If they make such a decision, then it can be seriously
bad news for the killer concerned: being jumped and trashed by a
low-level (in terms of game rank) explorer can have a devastating effect
on a killer's reputation, and turn them into a laughing stock overnight.
Explorers do not, however, tend to have the venom or malice that true
killers possess, nor will they continue the practice to the extent that
they acquire a reputation of their own for killing.

The affect of killers on the explorer population is fairly muted,
because most explorers don't particularly care if they get killed (or at
least they profess not not). However, if it happens too often then they
will become disgruntled, and play less frequently.

## SOCIALISERS V. ACHIEVERS

Socialisers like achievers, because they provide the running soap opera
about which the socialisers can converse. Without such a framework,
there is no uniting cause to bring socialisers together (at least not
initially). Note that socialisers don't particularly enjoy talking to
achievers (not unless they can get them to open up, which is very
difficult); they do, however, enjoy talking about them. A cynic might
suggest that the relationship between socialisers and achievers is
similar to that between women and men...

Increasing the achiever/socialiser ratio has only a subtle effect:
socialisers may come to feel that the MUD is "all about" scoring points
and killing mobiles, and some of them may therefore leave before matters
"get worse". Decreasing it has little effect unless the number of active
achievers drops to near zero, in which case new socialisers might find
it difficult to break into established conversational groups, and thus
decide to take their play elsewhere.

Note: although earlier it was stated that this paper does not address
people who play MUDs for meta-reasons, eg. to learn how to program, I
believe that their empirical behaviour with regard to the actions of
other players is sufficiently similar to that of socialisers for the two
groups to be safely bundled together when considering population
dynamics.

## SOCIALISERS V. EXPLORERS

Socialisers generally consider explorers to be sad characters who are
desperately in need of a life. Both groups like to talk, but rarely
about the same things, and if they do get together it's usually because
the explorer wants to sound erudite and the socialiser has nothing
better to do at the time.

The number of explorers in a MUD has no effect on the number of
socialisers.

## SOCIALISERS V. SOCIALISERS

A case of positive feedback: socialisers can talk to one another on any
subject for hours on end, and come back later for more. The key factor
is whether there is an open topic of conversation: in a game-like
environment, the MUD itself provides the context for discussion, whether
it be the goings-on of other players or the feeble attempts of a
socialiser to try playing it; in a non-game environment, some other
subject is usually required to structure conversations, either within
the software of the MUD itself (eg. building) or without it (eg. "This
is a support MUD for the victims of cancer"). Note that this kind of
subject-setting is only required as a form of ice-breaker: once
socialisers have acquired friends, they'll invariably find other things
that they can talk about.

The more socialisers there are in a game, the more new ones will be
attracted to it.

## SOCIALISERS V. KILLERS

This is perhaps the most fractious relationship between player group
types. The hatred that some socialisers bear for killers admits no
bounds. Partly, this is the killers' own fault: they go out of their way
to rid MUDs of namby-pamby socialisers who wouldn't know a weapon if one
came up and hit them (an activity that killers are only too happy to
demonstrate), and they will generally hassle socialisers at every
opportunity simply because it's so easy to get them annoyed. However,
the main reason that socialisers tend to despise killers is that they
have completely antisocial motives, whereas socialisers have (or like to
think they have) a much more friendly and helpful attitude to life. The
fact that many socialisers take attacks on their personae personally
only compounds their distaste for killers.

It could be argued that killers do have a positive role to play from the
point of view of socialisers. There are generally two defences made for
their existence: 1) without killers, socialisers would have little to
talk about; 2) without evil as a contrast, there is no good. The former
is patently untrue, as socialisers will happily talk about anything and
everything; it may be that it helps provide a catalyst for long
conversations, but only if it isn't an everyday occurrence. The second
argument is more difficult to defend against (being roughly equivalent
to the reason why God allows the devil to exist), however it presupposes
that those who attack other players are the only example of nasty people
in a MUD. In fact, there is plenty of opportunity for players of all
persuasions to behave obnoxiously to one another; killers merely do it
more openly, and (if allowed) in the context of the game world.

Increasing the number of killers will decrease the number of socialisers
by a much greater degree. Decreasing the number of killers will likewise
greatly encourage (or, rather, fail to discourage) socialisers to play
the MUD.

## KILLERS V. ACHIEVERS

Killers regard achievers as their natural prey. Achievers are good
fighters (because they've learned the necessary skills against mobiles),
but they're not quite as good as killers, who are more specialised. This
gives the "thrill of the chase" which many killers enjoy - an achiever
may actually be able to escape, but will usually succumb at some stage,
assuming they don't see sense and quit first. Achievers also dislike
being attacked, which makes the experience of attacking them all the
more fun; furthermore, it is unlikely that they will stop playing after
being set back by a killer, and thus they can be "fed upon" again,
later. The main disadvantage of pursuing achievers, however, is that an
achiever can get so incensed at being attacked that they decide to take
revenge. A killer may thus innocently enter a game only to find a
heavily-armed achiever lying in wait, which rather puts the boot on the
other foot...

Note that there is a certain sub-class of killers, generally run by
wiz-level players, who have a more ethical point to their actions. In
particular, their aim is to "test" players for their "suitability" to
advance to the higher levels themselves. In general, such personae
should not be regarded as falling into the killer category, although in
some instances the ethical aspect is merely an excuse to indulge in
killing sprees without fear of sanction. Rather, these killers tend to
be run by people in either the achievement category (protecting their
own investment) or the explorer category (trying to teach their victims
how to defend themselves against real killers).

Increasing the number of achievers will, over time, increase the number
of killers in a typically Malthusian fashion.

## KILLERS V. EXPLORERS

Killers tend to leave explorers alone. Not only can explorers be
formidable fighters (with many obscure, unexpected tactics at their
disposal), but they often don't fret about being attacked - a fact which
is very frustrating for killers. Sometimes, particularly annoying
explorers will simply ignore a killer's attack, and make no attempt
whatsoever to defend against it; this is the ultimate in cruelty to
killers. For more long-term effects, though, a killer's being beaten by
an explorer has more impact on the game: the killer will feel shame,
their reputation will suffer, and the explorer will pass on survival
tactics to everyone else. In general, then, killers will steer well
clear of even half-decent explorers, except when they have emptied a
game of everyone else and are so desperate for a fix that even an
explorer looks tempting...

Increasing the number of explorers will slightly decrease the number of
killers.

## KILLERS V. SOCIALISERS

Killers regard socialisers with undisguised glee. It's not that
socialisers are in any way a challenge, as usually they will be
pushovers in combat; rather, socialisers feel a dreadful hurt when
attacked (especially if it results in the loss of their persona), and it
is this which killers enjoy about it. Besides, killers tend to like to
have a bad reputation, and if there's one way to get people to talk
about you, it's to attack a prominent socialiser...

Increasing the number of socialisers will increase the number of
killers, although of course the number of socialisers wouldn't remain
increased for very long if that happened.

## KILLERS V. KILLERS

Killers try not to cross the paths of other killers, except in
pre-organised challenge matches. Part of the psychology of killers seems
to be that they wish to be viewed as somehow superior to other players;
being killed by a killer in open play would undermine their reputation,
and therefore they avoid risking it (compare Killers v Explorers). This
means that nascent or wannabe killers are often put off their chosen
particular career path because they themselves are attacked by more
experienced killers and soundly thrashed. For this reason, it can take a
very long time to increase the killer population in a MUD, even if all
the conditions are right for them to thrive; killer numbers rise
grindingly slowly, unless competent killers are imported from another
MUD to swell the numbers artificially.

Killers will occasionally work in teams, but only as a short-term
exercise; they will usually revert to stalking their victims solo in the
next session they play.

There are two cases where killers might be attacked by players who,
superficially, look like other killers. One of these is the "killer
killer", usually run by wiz-level players, which has been discussed
earlier. The other is in the true hack-and-slash type of MUD, where the
whole aim of the game is to kill other personae, and no-one particularly
minds being killed because they weren't expecting to last very long
anyway. This type of play does not appeal to "real" killers, because it
doesn't cause people emotional distress when their personae are deleted
(indeed, socialisers prefer it more than killers do). However, it's
better than nothing.

The only effect that killers have on other killers is in reducing the
number of potential victims available. This, in theory, should keep the
number of killers down, however in practice killers will simply attack
less attractive victims instead. It takes a very drastic reduction in
the number of players before established killers will decide to stop
playing a MUD and move elsewhere, by which time it is usually too late
to save the MUD concerned.

# DYNAMICS

From the discussion in the previous section, it is possible to summarise
the interactions between player types as follows:

To increase the number of achievers:

  - reduce the number of killers, but not by too much.
  - if killer numbers are high, increase the number of  
    explorers.

To decrease the number of achievers:

  - increase the number of killers.
  - if killer numbers are low, reduce the number of  
    explorers.

To increase the number of explorers:

  - increase the number of explorers.

To decrease the number of explorers:

  - massively increase the number of killers.

To increase the number of socialisers:

  - slightly decrease the number of killers.
  - increase the number of socialisers.

To decrease the number of socialisers:

  - slightly increase the number of killers.
  - massively increase the number of achievers.
  - massively decrease the number of achievers.
  - decrease the number of socialisers.

To increase the number of killers:

  - increase the number of achievers.
  - massively decrease the number of explorers.
  - increase the number of socialisers.

To decrease the number of killers

  - decrease the number of achievers.
  - massively increase the number of explorers.
  - decrease the number of socialisers.

What are the dynamics of this model? In other words, if players of each
type were to trickle into a system, how would it affect the overall
make-up of the player population?

The following diagram illustrates the flow of influence. Each arrow
shows a relationship, from the blunt end to the pointed end. Ends are
marked with a plus or minus to show an increase or decrease
respectively; the symbols are doubled up to indicate a massive increase
or decrease. Example: the line

killers + ------------\> - achievers

means that increasing the number of killers will decrease the number of
achievers.

``` 
                + <------------ +
                - <------------ -
        killers + ------------> - achievers
        - + + - - ------------> +
        ^ ^ | |  -  + ++        ++  --
        | | | |  ^  ^   \       /   /
        | | | |  |   \    \   /   /
        | | | |   \    \    X   /
        | | | |     \    \/   X
        | | | |       \ /  \/   \
        | | | |       / \ /  \    \
        | | | |     /   / \    \    \
        | | | |   /   /     \    \    \
        | | | |  |  /         \    \   |
        | | v v  v v            \   |  v
        - + --++ - -             ++ -- -
        socialisers               explorers
        + -     - +               +     +
        ^ ^     | |               ^     |
        | |     | |               |     |
         \ \___/ /                 \___/
           \___/
```

A graphical version of the figure appears at the end of the paper.

From this, it can be seen that the numbers of killers and achievers is
basically an equilibrium: increasing the number of achievers will
increase the number of killers, which will in turn dampen down the
increase in the number of achievers and thereby reduce the number of
excess killers.

The explorer population is almost inert: only huge numbers of killers
will reduce it. It should be noted, however, that massively increasing
the number of explorers is the only way to reduce the number of killers
without also reducing the player numbers in other groups. Because
increasing the number of explorers in a MUD generally encourages others
to join (and non-explorers to experiment with exploration), this gives a
positive feedback which will eventually reduce the killer population
(although recall the earlier point concerning how few people are, by
nature, explorers).

The most volatile group of people is that of the socialisers. Not only
is it highly sensitive to the number of killers, but it has both
positive and negative feedback on itself, which amplifies any changes.
An increase in the number of socialisers will lead to yet more
socialisers, but it will also increase the number of killers; this, in
turn, will reduce the number of socialisers drastically, which will feed
back into a yet greater reduction. It is possible for new socialisers to
arrive in large enough quantities for a downward spiral in numbers not
to be inevitable, but it is unlikely that such a system could remain
viable in over a long period of time.

This analysis of the dynamics of the relationships between players leads
naturally to a consideration of what configurations could be considered
stable. There are four:

1\) Killers and achievers in equilibrium. If the number of killers gets
too high, then the achievers will be driven off, which will cause the
number of killers to fall also (through lack of victims). If there
aren't enough killers, then achievers feel the MUD isn't a sufficient
challenge (there being no way to "lose" in it), and they will gradually
leave; new killers could appear, attracted by the glut of potential
prey, however this happens so slowly that its impact is less than that
of the disaffection among achievers. Socialisers who venture out of
whatever safe rooms are available eventually fall prey to killers, and
leave the game. Those who stay find that there aren't many interesting
(to them) people around with whom to talk, and they too drift off.
Explorers potter around, but are not a sufficient presence to affect the
number of killers.

2\) A MUD dominated by socialisers. Software changes to the MUD are made
which prevent (or at least seriously discourage) killers from practising
their craft on socialisers; incoming socialisers are encouraged by those
already there, and a chain reaction starts. There are still achievers
and explorers, but they are swamped by the sheer volume of socialisers.
The number of socialisers is limited only by external factors, or the
presence of killers masquerading as socialisers. If the population of
socialisers drops below a certain critical level, then the chain
reaction reverses and almost all the players will leave, however only
events outside the MUD would cause that to happen once the critical mass
had been reached.

3\) A MUD where all groups have a similar influence (although not
necessarily similar numbers). By nurturing explorers using software
means (ie. giving the game great depth or "mystique", or encouraging
non-explorers to dabble for a while by regularly adding new areas and
features), the overall population of explorers will gradually rise, and
the killer population will be held in check by them. The killers who
remain do exert an influence on the number of socialisers, sufficient to
stop them from going into fast-breeder mode, but insufficient to
initiate an exodus. Achievers are set upon by killers often enough to
feel that their achievements in the game have meaning. This is perhaps
the most balanced form of MUD, since players can change their position
on the interest graph far more freely: achievers can become explorers,
explorers can become socialisers, socialisers can become achievers - all
without sacrificing stability. However, actually attaining that
stability in the first place is very difficult indeed; it requires not
only a level of game design beyond what most MUDs can draw on, but time
and player management skills that aren't usually available to MUD
administrators. Furthermore, the administrators need to recognise that
they are aiming for a player mix of this kind in advance, because the
chances of its occurring accidentally are slim.

4\) A MUD with no players. The killers have killed/frightened off
everyone else, and left to find some other MUD in which to ply their
trade. Alternatively, a MUD structured expressly for socialisers never
managed to acquire a critical mass of them.

Other types could conceivably exist, but they are very rare if they do.
The dynamics model is, however, imprecise: it takes no account of
outside factors which may influence player types or the relationships
between then. It is thus possible that some of the more regimented MUDs
(eg. role-playing MUDs, educational MUDs, group therapy MUDs) have an
external dynamic (eg. fandom interest in a subject, instructions from a
teacher/trainer, tolerance of others as a means to advance the self)
which adds to their cohesion, and that this could make an otherwise
flaky configuration hold together. So other stable MUD forms may,
therefore, still be out there.

It might be argued that "role-playing" MUDs form a separate category, on
a par with "gamelike" and "social" MUDs. However, I personally favour
the view that role-playing is merely a strong framework within which the
four types of player still operate: some people will role-play to
increase their power over the game (achievers); others will do so to
explore the wonder of the game world (explorers); others will do so
because they enjoy interacting and co-operating within the context that
the role-playing environment offers (socialisers); others will do it
because it gives them a legitimate excuse to hurt other players
(killers). I have not, however, undertaken a study of role-playing MUDs,
and it could well be that there is a configuration of player types
peculiar to many of them which would be unstable were it not for the
order imposed by enforcing role-play. It certainly seems likely that
robust role-playing rules could make it easier for a MUD to achieve type
3) stability, whatever.

At this point, we return to the social/gamelike MUD debate.

Ignoring the fourth (null) case from the above, it is now much easier to
see why there is a schism. Left to market forces, a MUD will either
gravitate towards type 1) ("gamelike") or type 2) ("social"), depending
on its administrators' line on player-killing (more precisely: how much
being "killed" annoys socialisers). However, the existence of type 3)
MUDs, albeit in smaller numbers because of the difficulty of reaching
the steady state, does show that it is possible to have both socialisers
and achievers co-existing in significant numbers in the same MUD.

It's very easy to label a MUD as either "hack-and-slash" or
"slack-and-hash", depending on whether or not player-killing is allowed.
However, using player-killing as the only defining factor in any
distinction is an over-generalisation, as it groups together type 1) and
type 3) MUDs. These two types of MUD should not be considered as
identical forms: the socialising which occurs in a type 3) MUD simply
isn't possible in a type 1), and as a result the sense of community in
type 3)s is very strong. It is no accident that type 3) MUDs are the
ones preferred commercially, because they can hold onto their players
for far longer than the other two forms. A type 1) MUD is only viable
commercially if there is a sufficiently large well of potential players
to draw upon, because of the much greater churn rate these games have.
Type 2)s have a similarly high turnover; indeed, when TinyMUD first
arrived on the scene it was almost slash-and-burn, with games lasting
around six months on university computers before a combination of
management breakdown (brought on by player boredom) and resource hogging
would force them to close down - with no other MUDs permitted on the
site for perhaps years afterwards.

This explains why some MUDs perceived by socialisers to be "gamelike"
can actually be warm, friendly places, while others are nasty and
vicious: the former are type 3), and the latter are type 1). Players who
enter the type 3)s, expecting them to be type 1)s, may be pleasantly
surprised ([Bruckman, 1993](#Bruckman,%201993)). However, it should be
noted that this initial warm behaviour is sometimes the approach used by
administrators to ensure a new player's further participation in their
particular MUD, and that, once hooked, a player may find that attitudes
undergo a subtle change ([Epperson, 1995](#Epperson,%201995)).

As mentioned earlier, this paper is not intended to promote any one
particular style of MUD. Whether administrators aim for type 1), 2) or
3) is up to them - they're all MUDs, and they address different needs.
However, the fact that they are all MUDs, and not "MU\*s" (or any other
abbreviation-of-the-day), really should be emphasised.

To summarise: "gamelike" MUDs are the ones in which the killer-achiever
equilibrium has been reached, ie. type 1); "social" MUDs are the ones in
which the pure-social stability point has been reached, ie. type 2), and
this is the basis upon which they differ. There is a type 3) "all round"
(my term) MUD, which exhibits both social and gamelike traits, however
such MUDs are scarce because the conditions necessary to reach the
stable point are difficult or time-consuming to arrange.

# 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 favour?

Tilting a MUD towards 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 towards 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 towards socialisers removes all gameplay, and centres on
communication. Eventually, all sense of the virtual world is lost, and a
chatline or IRC-style CB program results.

Tilting towards 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 favour 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, chatline or arcade game. It's the combination that makes
MUDs unique - and special. It is legitimate to say that anything which
goes too far in any direction is not a MUD; it is not legitimate to say
that something which 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.

# SUMMARY

To answer the questions posed in the preface:

Are MUDs

  - games? Like chess, tennis, D\&D?  
    Yes - to achievers.
  - pastimes? Like reading, gardening, cooking?  
    Yes - to explorers.
  - sports? Like huntin', shooting', fishin'?  
    Yes - to killers.
  - entertainments? Like nightclubs, TV, concerts?  
    Yes - to socialisers.

# ENDNOTES

[\[1\]](#ret1) This paper is an April 1996 extension of an earlier
article, "Who Plays MUAs" ([Bartle, 1990a](#Bartle,%201990a)). As a
result of this, and of the fact that I am not a trained psychologist, do
not expect a conventionally rigorous approach to the subject matter.

Permission to redistribute freely for academic purposes is granted
provided that no material changes are made to the text. [\[2\]](#ret2)
In the figure below, green indicates increasing numbers and red
indicates decreasing numbers. A red line with a green arrowhead means
that decreasing numbers of the box pointed from lead to increasing
numbers of the box pointed to; a red line with a red arrowhead would
mean that a decrease in one leads to a decrease in the other, and so on.
The thickness of the line shows the strength of the effect: thin lines
mean there's only a small effect; medium lines mean there's an effect
involving roughly equal numbers of players from both boxes; thick lines
means there's a great effect, magnifying the influence of the origin
box.

![\[ Graphical Figure \]](hcds.gif)

# REFERENCES

[Aspnes, J.](#rAspnes,%201989) (1989). TinyMUD \[C\]
<http://ftp.tcp.com/ftp/pub/mud/TinyMUD/tinymud-pc.1.0.tar.gz>

[Bartle, R. A.](#rBartle,%201985) (1985). MUD2 \[MUDDLE\] MUSE Ltd,
Colchester, Essex, UK.

[Bartle, R. A.](#rBartle,%201990a) (1990a). Who Plays MUAs? Comms
Plus\!, October/November 1990 18-19.

[Bartle, R. A.](#rBartle,%201990b) (1990b). Interactive Multi-Player
Computer Games. MUSE Ltd, Colchester, Essex, UK
<ftp://ftp.lambda.moo.mud.org/pub/MOO/papers/mudreport.txt>

[Bruckman, A. S.](#rBruckman,%201992) (1992). Identity Workshop:
Emergent Social and Psychological Phenomena in Text-Based Virtual
Reality. MIT Media Laboratory, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
<ftp://media.mit.edu/pub/asb/papers/identity-workshop.ps>

[Bruckman, A. S.](#rBruckman,%201993) (1993). Gender Swapping on the
Internet Proc. INET-93
<ftp://media.mit.edu/pub/asb/papers/gender-swapping.txt>

[Bruckman, A. S. & Resnick, M.](#rBruckman%20&%20Resnick,%201993)
(1993). Virtual Professional Community: Results from the MediaMOO
Project. MIT Media Laboratory, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
<ftp://media.mit.edu/pub/asb/papers/convergence.txt>

[Bruckman, A. S.](#rBruckman,%201994a) (1994a). Workshop: "Serious" Uses
of MUDs? Proc. DIAC-94
<ftp://media.mit.edu/pub/asb/papers/serious-diac94.txt>

[Bruckman, A. S.](#rBruckman,%201994b) (1994b). Approaches to Managing
Deviant Behaviour in Virtual Communities. MIT Media Laboratory,
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
<ftp://media.mit.edu/pub/asb/deviance-chi94.txt>

[Burka, L. P.](#rBurka,%201995) (1995). The MUDline.
<http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/lpb/mudline.html>

[Carton, S.](#rCarton,%201995) (1995). Internet Virtual Worlds Quick
Tour: MUDs, MOOs and MUSHes: Interactive games, Conferences and Forums
Ventana Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

[Caspian-Kaufman, J.](#rCaspian-Kaufman,%201995) (1995). Sid Meier's
CivNET: Instruction Manual Microprose, Hunt Valley, Maryland.

[Cherny, L.](#rCherny,%201995a) (1995a). The Modal Complexity of Speech
Events in a Social MUD. Electronic Journal of Communication, Summer
1995. <ftp://bhasha.stanford.edu/pub/cherny/ejc.txt>

[Cherny, L.](#rCherny,%201995b) (1995b). The Situated Behaviour of MUD
Back Channels. Dept. Linguistics, Stanford University, California.
<ftp://bhasha.stanford.edu/pub/cherny/aaai.ps>

[Clodius, J. A.](#rClodius,%201994) (1994). Concepts of Space in a
Virtual Community. <http://tinylondon.ucsd.edu/~jen/space.html>

[Curtis, P.](#rCurtis,%201992) (1992). Mudding: Social Phenomena in
Text-Based Virtual Realities. Proc. DIAC-92
<ftp://ftp.lambda.moo.mud.org/pub/MOO/papers/DIAC92.txt>

[Curtis, P. & Nichols, D. A.](#rCurtis%20&%20Nichols,%201993) (1993).
MUDs Grow Up: Social Virtual Reality in the Real World. Xerox PARC, Palo
Alto, California.
<ftp://ftp.lambda.moo.mud.org/pub/MOO/papers/MUDsGrowUp.txt>

[Dibbell, J.](#rDibbell,%201993) (1993). A Rape in Cyberspace. The
Village Voice, December 21, 1993.
<ftp://ftp.lambda.moo.mud.org/pub/MOO/papers/VillageVoice.txt>

[Emert, H. G.](#rEmert,%201993) (1993). "X" Marks the Spot. East
Stroudsburg University, Pennsylvania.
<http://www-f.rrz.uni-koeln.de/themen/cmc/text/emert.n01.txt>

[Eddy, A.](#rEddy,%201994) (1994). Internet After Hours Prima, Rocklin,
California.

[Epperson, H. L.](#rEpperson,%201995) (1995). Patterns of Social
Behaviour in Computer-Mediated Communications. Dept. Sociology, Rice
University. <http://www.eff.org/pub/Net_culture/Misc_net_culture/>
web\_social\_behaviour.paper

[Evard, R.](#rEvard,%201993) (1993). Collaborative Networked
Communication: MUDs as System Tools. Proc. LISA-93
<http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/remy/documents/cncmast.html>

[Fanderclai, T. F.](#rFanderclai,%201995) (1995). MUDs in Education: New
Environments, New Pedagogies. Computer-Mediated Communication Magazine,
2(1), 8.

[Farmer, F. R., Morningstar, C. & Crockford,
D.](#rFarmer,%20Morningstar,%20&%20Crockford,%201994) (1994). From
Habitat to Global Cyberspace. Proc. CompCon-94, IEEE
<http://www.communities.com/paper/hab2cybr.html>

[Kort, B.](#rKort,%201991) (1991). The MUSE as an Educational Medium BBN
Labs, Cambridge, Massachusetts. <ftp://musenet.bbn.com/pub/micromuse>

[Mauldin, M. L.](#rMauldin,%201994) (1994). Chatterbots, TinyMUDs and
the Turing Test: Entering the Loebner Prize Competition. Proc. AAAI-94
<http://fuzine.mt.cs.cmu.edu/mlm/aaai94.html>

[Moock, C.](#rMoock,%201996) (1996). Virtual Campus at the University of
Waterloo. <http://arts.uwaterloo.ca:80/~camoock/virtual_classroom.htm>

[Norrish, J.](#rNorrish,%201995) (1995). MU\*s.
<http://www.vuw.ac.nz/~jamie/mud/mud.html>

[Poirier, J. R.](#rPoirier,%201994) (1994). Interactive Multiuser
Realities: MUDs, MOOs, MUCKs, and MUSHes. The Internet Unleashed,
1192-1127. SAMS Publishing, Indianapolis, Indiana.

[Reid, E.](#rReid,%201994) (1994). Cultural Formations in Text-Based
Virtual Realities. Dept. English, University of Melbourne, Australia.
<ftp://ftp.lambda.moo.mud.org/pub/MOO/papers/CulturalFormations.txt>

[Riner, R. D. & Clodius, J. A.](#rRiner%20&%20Clodius,%201995) (1995).
Simulating Future Histories: The NAU Solar System Simulation and Mars
Settlement. Anthropology & Education Quarterly 26(1):95-104.
<http://tinylondon.ucsd.edu/~jen/solsys.html>

[Rosenberg, M. S.](#rRosenberg,%201992) (1992). Virtual Reality:
Reflections of Life, Dreams and Technology. An Ethnography of a Computer
Society. <ftp://ftp.lambda.moo.mud.org/pub/MOO/papers/ethnography.txt>

[Roush, W.](#rRoush,%201993) (1993). The Virtual STS Centre on MediaMOO:
Issues and Challenges as Non-Technical Users Enter Social Virtual
Spaces. MIT Media Laboratory, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
<ftp://media.mit.edu/pub/MediaMOO/Papers/STS-Centre>

[Urdang, L. & Manser, M.](#rUrdang%20&%20Manser,%201980) (1980). The Pan
Dictionary of Synonyms and Antonyms Pan Reference, London, UK.

[Whitlock, T. D.](#rWhitlock,%201994) (1994). Fuck Art, Let's Kill\!:
Towards a Post Modern Community.
<gopher://actlab.rtf.utexas.edu/00/art_and_tech/rtf_papers/pmc.terrorism>

[Whitlock, T. D.](#rWhitlock,%201994b) (1994b). Technological Hierarchy
in MOO: Reflections on Power in Cyberspace
<http://www.actlab.utexas.edu/~smack/papers/TechHier.txt>
