I disagree completely.  A non-RP mud can have just as much depth as any RP mud - the only difference is that it is a different style of game, and therefore appeals to a different audience.

There is no "right" or "wrong" style of mud, a fact which many people (you included) seem to forget.

What's the purpose of having an original world if the limit of interaction is to go around saying "thou art truely cute" and then having mudsex?

Stereotypes work both ways.

By that definition, every mud is a roleplaying mud.  However that's not the definition that is used within the mud community.  Diablo is not a roleplaying game by mud standards, nor is EverQuest.

What do colors and an original world have to do with roleplaying? You can roleplay without any props whatsoever. You can roleplay in an empty chatroom.

--matt (especially baffled by what possible fundamental connection there is between roleplaying and the color of text.)

Do you guys really have nothing better to do then criticise my article? Okay, so its not perfect. It doesn't sit with all your predefined concepts of 'what is' in the world. Its an article of my opinions, views, etc, that HAVE worked to change more then a couple MUDs I've played for the better.

This will be my final note, as this is hardly discussion, but rather people saying: Your opinions wrong for this reason. I don't really care if I'm wrong. There was nothing in the article that was a definitive statement of the world that has to be right or wrong. It started with my background in MUDding, how I was disheartened by the lack of good role-playing MUDs out there, the three ways I classify MUDs, statements about those classifications that still have not been proven contrary, despite people altering my wording to make me seem crazy, then a list of OOC things that make these games unfun to me, then a list of miscellaneous other things that degrade gameplay, then simple and easy ways to conver it towards less of what it was, and more of a fun thing to play.

If you don't like what I said, fine. I'm not saying "You will do this and like it. Because its my way or the high-way."
The article was intended for people of similar mind, that may or may not have had my similar experiences in the world of MUDding, and may operate their own MUD and would like to turn it to the way of role-playing, realism, and the fun that is associated with that genre.

But I guess its too hard to just read something and take it for what it is. And then to set the tone for 'discussion' the first response is taken out of context and made accusatory.

Anyways, if you want to read an article about evolving your MUD towards a role-play inclusive environment, read the article. If you want to hear how wrong I am in my opinions then continue reading this thread, as I'm sure it will drag on for 10+ pages, as most 'discussions' here do...

Thanks.

Was the purpose of posting here not so that we could provide feedback?

You are naturally entitled to write whatever you like in your article - but we are equally entitled to question and disagree with what you write. While some of the points you made are quite valid, you drew a number of overly broad generalisations which are extremely biased against certain types of mud. In particular, your implication that non-RP muds are pointless and stagnant. As someone who is developing a non-RP mud I found your premise flawed and obviously offensive. As such, I decided to step forward and defend my style of mud. Do you honestly think someone wouldn't have done the same to me if I had written an article describing how RP muds were stagnant and pointless?

Give me a break. I'd suggest not publishing any more articles if you can't handle criticism of your views.

--matt