RE: Re[5]: [MUD-Dev] (no subject)

["Travis S. Casey" <efindel#io,com>]

On Tue, 23 Nov 1999, Koster, Raph wrote:

> I do still think that the number of viable paradigms for mud design that
> exist after 20+ years of history is surprisingly large. Yes, those paradigms
> sure don't tend to evolve much, and we've all felt that stagnation. But it's
> still more viable paradigms than are extant today in paper RPGing... viable
> in the sense that they have (mostly) stood the test of time, whereas most
> overall forms of paper RPGs have not.

I wouldn't agree with that... individual RPGs have vanished, yes, but
several RPG paradigms still exist.  Also, there's a question of how things
withstand the test of time -- there are RPGs that have been out of print
for years, yet still have followings -- I'd say that those games have
stood the test of time, even though they were not commercially successful.

Ah, well -- in this case, I will say I'm probably too close to judge.
After 20 years of looking at RPGs, I see differences in fractions of a
shade, so I would probably over-count.  And besides, it's off-topic, and I
have no wish to anger the Power That Be.  :-)

--
       |\      _,,,---,,_        Travis S. Casey  <efindel#io,com>
 ZZzz  /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_   No one agrees with me.  Not even me.
      |,4-  ) )-,_..;\ (  `'-'
     '---''(_/--'  `-'_) 




_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev maillist  -  MUD-Dev#kanga,nu
http://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev