Hi, I'm looking for a Sci-fi MUD. haven't really heard of many.

I like to have both Roleplay and good game mechanics(I know those two usually don't go together). If it's nothing but Roleplay and "tavern talk", I don't want it. I want to be able to go out and blast a few aliens once in a while. I guess I want a good balance between numbers and RP.

People. It needs to have a good amount or people playing. During non-peak times I'd like at least 10 people on.


Any suggestions?

You could always try out 4 Dimensions. Our theme is Time Travel, so there are 4 different sections. But our futuristic section is pretty big, about 3000 rooms, apart for the big spacegrid, which is around 3000 rooms too. I'd say both our zones and the code are pretty original, challenging and funny and offer a lot of features that not many muds possess.

We have some interesting game mechanics, for instance long range weapons, public spaceshuttles to most planets, and also spaceships that you can fly yourself and engage in space fights with other ships. And lots of planets, with different natural assets, where the enterprising traveller can make a small fortune just by exploiting them. Unless of course they prefer to blast the aliens, rather than trading with them.

To get an idea what our Galaxy looks like, you can checks the graphic MAPS on our website.

Roleplay isn't enforced in our mud, so not all players do it. However there are some pretty good roleplayers around, if you just keep an eye open for people with the RP flag.

The atmosphere is generally relaxed, and there is usually some players around at any time of day to help newcomers getting along.

I recommend OtherSpace. We've got roleplaying, multiple humanoid and alien races, spaceflight, trading and evolving story arcs. Our website is at and the game's telnet address is jointhesaga.com 1790.

Good luck in your hunt!

(P.S.: The moderator should probably move this thread to Advertising for Players.)

Actually, I've found the best game mechanics on RPI MUDs. Compared to them, most others look horrible and poorly designed.

The real problem, of course, is finding a good MUD. As far as science fiction MUDs are concerned, I share your grief. Been looking for a good one for years and haven't found anything that was half as good as I was looking for and come to expect from a great MUD.

If, by the odd chance, you do find one please post so those of us who are also looking can check it out.

Thanks and take care,

Jason

i am currently playing a very fun futuristic/post apocolyptic MUD called ASSAULT: High Tech Wars. It is very diffrent from any MUD ive seen, For example its not :
You attack slime
Your slash injures Slime
Slime caused you no harm
Your slash injures Slime
Slime falls lifeless to the ground.

You control every shot from your gun/mech/tank/plane ect... Its purely pk, so its combat is rarely repeditive. You dont just fight for exp and get levels, you build a base with many choices in specelizations(labs). You must defend your base while attacking others, though many methods including nuke launchers, hacking their computer systems, hover tanks, bomber runs, ect... And all of that is done very well.

Though you said you wanted RPI, and there really isnt roleplaying. But i still highly suggest to you, and anyone else, even those that only play fantasy MUDs, like i did before i found this.

I'm not amazed, since Medieval is the stock theme. You can't download any futuristic stock codebases, and most people don't bother modifying Midgaard enough, let alone the entire theme.

I think it's more than that - after all, most of the better quality muds have fantasy themes. Fantasy muds seem to have a greater following, but I suspect a big part of the reason is combat.

Combat plays a vital part of most muds, but most muds don't support ranged combat very well (if at all). A fantasy theme would typically use melee as the standard mode of combat, but for a sci-fi theme the main focus is almost always going to be on guns. And you really don't want the primary aspect of your game to be poorly supported.

That's my theory, anyway.

There's certainly an element of truth to this. As technology has progressed through the ages, one can certainly observe that the aim of human warfare is to do the most damage from the point furthest from your enemy.

There are ways around this, though, via RP means. Consider a race that evolved with a strict code of honour, à la Klingons.

It comes down the intelligence and creativity of the players that play these games. If most of them are dumb kids without an ounce of intelligence or creativity, combat is going to be their main staple. Those that value the setting and concept more are going to appreciate something other than combat.

If there are more quality medieval MUDs, its only because there are more medieval MUDs. 99% of MUDs are total crap. If there are 1000 medieval MUDs, that means maybe 10 aren't total crap (and even then, they're not necessarily great, just not total crap). If there are only 100 science fiction MUDs, that number is maybe only 1 (again, the odds of it being great are just as slim). The result? 990 crap medieval MUDs, 9 average medieval MUDs, 1 good medieval MUD, 99 crap science fiction MUDs, and 1 average science fiction MUD.

Actually, projectile weapons in any science fiction MUD set on a space station or spaceship are a bad idea. Firing a projectile in a sealed environment? Heh, if you're looking to breach the hull and blow everyone out the hole perhaps. And there are perfectly legitimate ways to incorporate traditional weapons into science fiction (look at Dune). It just takes a well-developed concept, something nearly all MUDs lack, not just science fiction MUDs.

Take care,

Jason

What a bizarre suggestion! A well-designed combat system should require careful planning, clever tactics, quick thinking and the ability to constantly adapt to new situations. Why would that appeal to "dumb kids without an ounce of intelligence"?

The 'setting and concept' only provides flavour, it doesn't add anything to the gameplay itself. Are you suggesting that stupid people like games of complex strategy, while intelligent people are more interested in cosmetic fluff?

Depends entirely on the setting - even in the real world there are bullets that can be used on aeroplanes without risk of a hull breach, so on a futuristic space station it shouldn't be much of an issue even discounting special technology. Of course weapons could also be banned, particularly if you're playing on something as controlled as a space station.

But the point still remains that ranged weapons are heavily associated with most sci-fi themes, while melee weapons are the main option for most fantasy themes. And regardless of your belief about strategy games only appealing to stupid people, the fact still remains that combat is the main focus of most muds.

Reread my post and point out where I say strategy appeals to dumb people. I mentioned combat. Combat and strategy are not the same thing. And there's more to intelligence than "careful planning, clever tactics, quick thinking and the ability to constantly adapt".

Setting up a good combat system does take a lot of planning and good design to implement, but ultimately, use of it falls to a limited number of variables which even a monkey could learn if given enough time. Elements of role-play are something which can't be coded in, which is why graphical games emphasize combat and are shunned by serious role-players.

There's a difference between learning mechanics or being devious and having the reasoning ability to justify the actions. Case in point on one of the MUDs I play. Every day some player comes along with a great way to abuse the game's setting and concept and kill something or steal something. They however do so at the expense of reason. Just because a person can do something in a game doesn't mean that they should, and very few can offer a rational reason for their actions. This is where setting is important.

The setting and concept only provides flavour if the MUD is seriously lacking in depth. If done properly, the setting is vitally important because it dictates what is and is not possible, as well as why things are as they are. Anyone in a MUD can kill something. The depth of the game's setting and concept however determine whether or not they should. That takes far more intelligence and creativity to implement than combat alone and more than what most players possess to put into practice and succeed. Hence, in games where there is more to combat than just strategy, players that plot and strategize as to how they'll succeed in combat often meet with frustration because while they're plotting and strategizing, they're doing so from a perspective in which they're ignoring the setting and numerous other factors.

Now, create a MUD where the goal is limited to something as simple as killing another player and setting becomes nothing more than window dressing. So yes, in that case, setting isn't important. Of course, neither are many other elements of a MUD (theme, room descriptions, object descriptions, mobile descriptions or even names). Strategy helps one succeed in this formula, but this isn't the normal type that most MUDs fall into.

Now, when it comes to science fiction as opposed to fantasy, it's easy to see why the latter is more popular when designing MUDs and role-playing games. Science fiction is rooted in principles of science. For example, why does a planet have gravity twice that of earth? Because it's mass is twice that of earth. But a lot of people are ignorant when it comes to understanding a concept like gravity, much less the difference between mass and volume (####, to many, volume is only a setting on their stereo). In order to create a good science fiction setting, one must carefully balance the fantastic with the scientific (this is why many consider Star Wars to be fantasy rather than science fiction). With fantasy, you can toss all that out the window and attempt to rationalize the inconsistencies. Of course, most who do this still manage to fail in creating a viable setting because rationalizing inconsistencies usually creates more. But, it's easier to simply say something will be so without explaining, or falling back on the crutch of "it's fantasy".

Very few are willing to invest the time and effort to create a fantasy world that isn't filled with such flaws (though some have succeeded), much less create a science fiction setting where the standards are often viewed as much higher. And most players aren't interested in being required to think so much as they are to type "kill this" and "kill that", earn experience points, and level.

You are partially right about the ranged weapons, but I don't think that's the only thing that stops them from creating a science fiction MUD. It's like Hollywood films. The summer blockbusters are almost always more successful and easier to bankroll because people will go see them. But thoughtful, intelligent films cater to a smaller audience. Same goes for MUDs.

Take care,

Jason

I don't think this is quite an appropriate blanket statement: What if the space station or vehicle is sealed with super-indestructible force fields? Would a mere projectile such as a thrown dagger or bullet be able to penetrate a craft that is built with a reinforced alloy several meters thick?

Some sci-fi settings have weaponry that only reacts with biological targets. I know of one that shoots an invisible ray that causes perfectly normal folks to explode from the inside after a short 5-second delay. Completely harmless on metal, though. Honestly, if you're creating the setting you can do any #### thing you want. There is no reality here.

Games like Chess, Shogi, and Go are all centered squarely on forms of combat. But would you argue that these are all games that appeal to dumb people?

Combat can be stupid or it can be intelligent. It is a medium for a particular strategy to be played out just like anything else. I don't know how you can stand to point out what intelligent people would like when you're obviously not intelligent enough to understand this distinction.

Again, read the difference between fantasy and science fiction. Science fiction, good science fiction, is concerned with dealing with the question of why and how something can exist. Of course there is room for poetic license, but "super-indestructible force field" is one of those things that does't usually find itself into serious science fiction.

Again, nothing says that you have to or don't have to have ranged weapons in science fiction MUD. But not having them doesn't prevent one from creating a science fiction MUD. Failings in the ability to conceive a quality concept on the part of the creator or an inability to comprehend on the part of the players is why science fiction MUDs aren't attempted as often.

Good science fiction wouldn't concern itself with a person exploding from some death ray. Instead, it would likely concern itself with why the person explodes from a death ray in the context of the world. The how-it-happens would be there, not just the what-happens.

So, yes, you can do anything you want. But that goes with anything. The difference between quality and crap is how you do it, not what you do. I'm not certain that's a concept you understand.

Jason

Chess and many other strategy games concern themselves solely with strategy, not random dice rolls to determine damage points inflicted. Like my example of a great game designed around combat, they don't need a setting, nor do they need descriptions, or even names (note that all the pawns are just pawns). It's distilled down to what is necessary for the game. Sure, you can have the pieces look like medieval knights or Yoda as your King, but it has -no- bearing on the game. Furthermore, the players are pitted against each other with evenly matched pieces, allowing only strategy (or a failure of) to determine the outcome.

Most MUDS, on the other hand, utilize randomness like dice rolls on weapons, plus and minus checks, "spells" and such. This detracts from pure strategy and brings elements of randomness into the game. So, the comparison to Chess is not accurate.

As for intelligence, I've read many of your posts before. So tell me again, how black is the kettle?

Take care,

Jason

That's not what , a sci-fi author thinks:
I agree with him and not you. Now if you want to say it's just because I don't know good science fiction, I'll reply where you can shove your opinion -- because that's all it is at that point. Science fiction is fiction with a scientific slant. Nothing more.

Well it's a good thing we're writing games with science fiction themes and not serious science fiction. We're not going for Hugo awards, we're looking to build interactive entertainment.

Of course, but you said they were a bad idea on space ships and space stations. And I told you that you were ignorant of every setting that anyone could plausibly create -- even those with modern technology! -- so your blanket statements were simply wrong.

Science fiction is not concerned with dealing with the question of why and how something can exist. That is, in fact, why it's called 'science fiction' and not just 'science,' for the essence of science is determining why and how something can exist, whether that be mankind, a basic chemical reaction, or a supernova.

And please don't insist that the science fiction you happen to like is what constitutes 'quality' science fiction. It's just the science fiction you happen to like.

--matt

I'm curious what he thinks 'serious science fiction' is. Obviously the Hugo award doesn't cut it for him, given that the Foundation series (absolutely chock-full of the sort of over-the-top magic-science that he claims serious science fiction doesn't have, not to mention extensive use of telepathy) won a Hugo in 1965 for Best All-time Series.

--matt

Just look at how you backpedal and change your argument. Now it's not just combat that attracts dumb people, it's combat with some element of chance. Sorry but that's not what you said.

Strategy is strategy whether it has elements of chance or not, and even then it can most certainly be applied to combat situations in an intelligent manner. There's bad roleplay and there's good roleplay. There's bad combat and there's good combat. The only difference is the systems and the people using and designing them, not the medium.

Obviously not anything from Arthur C. Clarke, who wrote:
At least I have evidence to back up my claims.

Actually, I have read Asimov's Foundation trilogy and I recommend you read his essay, "The Name of our Field" (think that's the title, it's been years since I read it, though I believe it was eventually published in his last book, Gold). In it, he talks about the difference between what the popular media calls science fiction and what science fiction means to those who essentially wrote the textbook examples of good science fiction consider it. Science fiction need not concern itself with ray-guns and spaceships, even if that's what people think of when they hear the term.

There's plenty of debate over what constitutes science fiction (heh, looking over these forums there's even debate over far easier to define terms like "free", but that's a matter for a different discussion), but that doesn't really concern itself with the original question. If we can go back through the scribblings a bit, we'll see that Kavir said that science fiction MUDs are associated with ranged weapons. But science fiction need not have ranged weapons. Again, I put it to you that a good science fiction MUD (or a poor one for that matter) does not have to have ranged weapons. If that's what prevents people from building one or playing one, it's their own narrow view of what science fiction is that is the problem.

Besides, most fantasy that I've ever seen featured bows and arrows. Hasn't stopped hundreds of fantasy MUDs from being created or thousands of people from playing them.

Take care,

Jason

P.S.--Check out again what Clarke stated. He said technology might appear as magic, not that technology was magic. It's still rooted in science (ie, it uses some form of device or tool or biological process explainable by scientific theory to accomplish a goal), hence it's science fiction. By Clarke's statement, magic, in the form of mysticism and not technology misunderstood, is fantasy.

Which is exactly the point. So what's the difference to the player whether or not the "super-indestructible force field" was created with magic or with technology they can't understand? What matters is the setting supports it. That is all.

The point is that if it was created through magic, it's not science fiction. That's the difference. If it was created through technology, it's not indestructible. You could cut the power source. You could disrupt the field perhaps. If it's magic, it doesn't have to adhere (and probably doesn't) to teh laws of science. There might be ways to defeat it other than casting some magic spell or something, but that's not explaining its origins through science. Matter and energy may not be destroyed, but that doesn't mean that an energy field is indestructible.

Now, from the players' perspective, they don't have to know the difference, provided that the game culture (something else most often ill-conceived) doesn't provide them a knowledge base regarding that technology (or they're some sort of fundamentalist that simply refuses to accept reason). But if the game's designers haven't created an explanation behind the "force field" and simply say it's magic, that's not very good science fiction.

Now you're just trying to find holes in an intentionally vague description of a force field. The field doesn't have to be completely indestructible, but for the intent of containing ranged weaponry it is completely plausible to have it act as such. No amount of your "what-ifs" can trump the setting designers, as they are essentially gods. For example, if you say you'll cut the power source, the designer will put another force field around the core generator! Huzah. If you say you'll disrupt the field, you are imposing your idea of what a "disruptable" field may be on the setting designer, who is perfectly free to reject your idea.

You are also stepping further and further from your original dubious claim. With each "what-if" you're undermining your argument that ranged weapons on space stations and space ships are bad ideas. "Well they're a bad idea if the players can disrupt the force fields surrounding the station", "Well they're a bad idea if the players can turn off the power to the fields". These don't sound like problems that are impossible to solve. I bet any Star Trek Geek could do it without batting an eyelash.

My point exactly.

And not a one of us has used that explanation.

Yet a well-designed combat system would reward clever strategy. So what exactly are you arguing? That badly designed combat systems appeal to stupid people?

World chess champions - people who have trained from childhood - compete with powerful supercomputers for five or six digit prizes. And that's in a simple game played on a board with 64 squares and 32 pieces. A game which doesn't even have to cater to the element of chance. Maybe you should get into monkey-training business? If your theory is right, you could make a fortune!

Ah! So if Vladimir Kramnik had been more intelligent, he would have become an actor? But obviously not being smart enough for that, he was only able to become the world chess champion?

Which forces the player to prepare for the unexpected, and learn to adapt to new situations as they arise - no longer can you consistently rely on the same strategy, expecting it to work the same way every time.

"Military tactics are like unto water; for water in its natural course runs away from high places and hastens downwards... Water shapes its course according to the nature of the ground over which it flows; the soldier works out his victory in relation to the foe whom he is facing. Therefore, just as water retains no constant shape, so in warfare there are no constant conditions. He who can modify his tactics in relation to his opponent and thereby succeed in winning, may be called a heaven-born captain." - Sun Tzu

I agree, it need not. The question still stands: What do you consider "serious" science fiction. Obviously it's not Asimov, as he concerns himself with spaceships, telepathy, and rayguns.

--matt

Yes, I'm sure the chess champions of the world would flock to play hack-and-slash MUDs for the strategy. After all, that's why they all do, don't they?

Chess takes a helluva lot more intelligence to play than any hack-and-slash or role-playing MUD. But the difference between a H&S and an RP MUD is that anybody can type <kill mob> while not everyone has the ability to interact in-character without looking like something out of a bad high-school play rehearsal.

But seeing as the original poster's topic has been f---ed over enough, I'm going to bow out. You're welcome to believe your'e right. You're welcome to believe that some H&S MUD is equal to chess in terms of pure strategy. You're welcome to believe that the majority, #### nearly all, MUDs out there don't suck. But, it's not fair to the person who posted originally since this discussion was not about the good and bad of role-play versus hack-and-slash or whether or not typing "kill" makes you a strategist.

And I happen to share the original poster's desire for there to some day be a good science fiction MUD though I'd prefer one that was well-designed and emphasized role-play over pure combat. Do I think it will happen? Perhaps, but not likely. Still, I'm holding on to the hope that one will emerge.

It'd be refreshing in light of all the crap that's out there now.

Take care,

Jason, who forgot about how many insecurities many in this forum have regarding their MUDs.

No, science fiction technology is not rooted in science. Warp drive is not rooted in science. The holodeck is not rooted in science. Lightsabers are not rooted in science. The reason it's called 'fiction' is because it's -not- rooted in scientific theories. It's pure speculation, regardless of how you gussy it up with scientific-sounding explanations. Can do exactly the same thing with magic, as Asimov did with telepathy for instance.

--matt

Perhaps you should examine your own insecurities, as many of us don't get into the habit of stereotyping every combat-oriented mud as being populated by "dumb kids without an ounce of intelligence or creativity".

Good. Your arguments were embarrassingly poor for somoene supposedly representing the intelligentsia.

If you think that combat consists of nothing more than typing 'kill' then you've obviously been playing muds with extremely poorly designed combat systems. It would be comparible with someone saying that roleplaying muds consist of nothing more than emoting mudsex - some muds are indeed like that, but any serious roleplayer would laugh at the idea that such a mud represented all roleplaying muds.

Hey now you just hold on thar, Baba-Blooey! Everyone knows that mudsex is essential to every quality RP mud. How else do you think we all get the power-up? Hrrmph!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(the above was intended as humor. No mudsexers were hurt in the creation of this post.)