The New Societies:

Issues within MUDs and Other Virtual Communities

Vickie Edwards

07 December 2000

Western society has become what Bell called a postindustrial society, where knowledge and information reign supreme over production of goods. The ever-increasing speed at which information technology is growing has not only created a need for workers in such fields, but also has increased the opportunity for millions to instantaneously communicate with others anywhere in the world. As a result, an entire culture of those involved with the internet has emerged, which we call cyberculture. This paper will examine the subculture and surrounding social issues in virtual communities. Its primary focus will be Multi-User Dungeons, or MUDs, and the user and player roles within them.

The internet and online communities have become a source of social change through cultural innovation. Computers are indeed an indispensable tool in our postindustrial society and will no doubt have a lasting effect on the culture of western society. They now keep track of vast quantities of crucial information in practically every area of society, including banks, schools, hospitals, credit companies, the military, and the government. Computer-mediated communication has begun to impact society in a rather large way. Information exchange across the internet has become a major part of the business world. Internets and intranets make it possible to connect offices from any distance. Many employers now allow workers to telecommute at least part of the week, and many small businesses have found their niche in online marketing and e-business. Individuals use the internet for profit as well, using online stockbrokers, eBay, and pay-to-surf services as supplemental (and some for primary) sources of income.

Cyberspace is has permeated society in a huge way. Internet usage is growing at a phenomenal rate - a 59% increase since 1997, according to the CommerceNet/Neilsen Internet Demographic Survey (1999). Many find the convenience of online life attractive. News, stock quotes, shopping, travel, research information, even food (today one can order a pizza online, even have groceries delivered after placing an online order), even gas (e-commerce sites such as priceline.com now allow shoppers to pre-pay for gasoline at discounted prices) are all available online.

One difference which must quickly be delineated is that the terms "cyberculture" and "online community" are not synonymous. A community, in sociological terms, is a social group which regularly interacts and is conscious of its identity as a community. This term can be used to apply to the group of people who use the internet for communication, both for economic and for personal and entertainment purposes. In other words, the online community as a whole consists of communicating internet users (Silver 1996).

Cyberculture, however, is a much more broad term. Today, the commonly accepted definition of cyberculture is a collection of cultures and cultural products that exist on and/or are made possible by the internet, along with the stories told about these cultures and cultural products. Therefore, those people who make up the culture of cyberspace are not only those who use the internet for communication, but also those who are associated with computer-mediated communication in general, as they interact both online and offline (Silver 1996). Silver (1996) uses three terms to describe cyberculture in general:

1. Cyberculture is broad - it envelops and permeates the entire world, made possible by the internet.
2. Cyberculture is deep - it does not cover simply one topic, nor does one medium focus on one topic. Rather, there are huge dynamic discussions, interactions, etc. that go on in varying lengths of time at varying places.
3. Cyberculture is in a constant state of flux - it is always changing. What we considered the "culture" of the internet to be like fifteen years ago could hardly be applied today. As its users change, so will the society of cyberspace.

The significance of cyberculture in today's world is made apparent not only with its economic impacts, but also with the emergent acceptance, even popularity of "geekdom", as it is often called, by contemporary society. Names such as Bill Gates, former CEO of Microsoft, and Andy Grove, co-founder of Intel, are heard as often as politicians and entertainment figures in both the news media and casual conversation. Indeed, the same kind of person who was the brunt of jokes in films such as Revenge of the Nerds is now glamorized in Hackers, The Thirteenth Floor, and The Matrix.

So what gives cyberculture its allure? Kaufman (1996) brings a fairly candid human perspective to the so-called "net junkie" experience by recounting her interaction with a close friend who had recently "[fallen] down the electronic rabbit hole" and become enchanted with his computer. More and more everyday people, it seems, especially casual users, are "going off the deep end," preferring virtual reality to everyday reality and spending huge amounts of time online - for good reason, too. As Kaufman explains, "people don't nag in cyberspace...there is no ageism, sexism, or racism, since all you see are words. It's also cleaner, safer, and more efficient than reality, and above all, you're in control. Or at least it seems that way" (Kaufman 1996 527).

Communication across the internet takes place in many forms. Electronic mail, or e-mail, is one of its oldest and best-known forms. It is comprised of a text message, and at times attachments such as images, other documents, program files, etc. Message boards, discussion boards, and newsgroups are forums in which users post and reply to system of messages, organized into topics or a query-reply format. The world wide web, probably the most popular form of communication today, is the commonly used term for HTTP (hypertext transmission protocol). HTTP, originally created for the viewing of documents in a browser, has progressed from being solely unidirectional communication, and now is used for communication of information and multimedia from not only a source to a user, but from consumer to business, user to user, and intragroup communications.

Chatting is another well-known attraction of the internet. Friendly, casual conversation, which has seen a decline in today's society, is alive and well online. Chat takes place in two forms via client programs: messaging, which involves two people, and chat rooms, which can allow any number of people to converse at once. It provides a place where people can talk to others with virtually no real-life implications. One can vent their frustrations, share jokes, or find someone to share their hopes and fears with while online. As Kaufman's husband commented to her, there is "no danger of shooting someone or being shot. The worst that happens is someone types in capital letters," the equivalent of real-life shouting (Kaufman 1996 533).

Identity is an interesting issue when related to cyberculture, because it is developed in a very different manner online than in real life. A primary reason for the differences between identity development in online communities is that there are far fewer social status cues, which tend to "label" people at a relatively young age in real life identity development. As Turkle (1995) puts it, as our online personas, "we self-fashion and self-create." Many consider cyberspace as having no social status cues whatsoever. However, while the dramaturgical social status cues one would find in meeting someone in person (such as their appearance, gestures, etc.) are not present in computer-mediated communication, internet users tend to use the cue referred to as netspeak, which is similar to the verbal cues of everyday life. For example, seeing the term "oic" as opposed to "oh, okay" in a messaging session on ICQ or in a chat room can be subject to many interpretations, from being "cute" to "taking a shortcut" to "lacking education" (Turkle 1995 171).

Turkle describes the chatting phenomenon as a way of life for some people, even suggests that this way of life gave rise to an entire life philosophy. She exhibits a belief in "the postmodern attempt to portray the self as a realm of discourse rather than as a real thing or a permanent structure of the mind." She describes those who use multiple aliases online as "rapid cycling through different identities", comparing a chatter to a tribal shaman possessed by gods and spirits, con artists, bigamists, transsexuals, even schizophrenics. She also seemingly suggests detachment from family and mainstream social roles as a result of changing identities, saying that it takes away from what Riesman called inner direction. However, she demonstrates a belief that the change from single identity to changing personae is normal for contemporary times, and to be expected. According to her, "now, in postmodern times, multiple identities are no longer so much at the margins of things. Many more people experience identity as a set of roles that can be mixed and matched, whose diverse demands need to be negotiated" (Turkle 1995 173).

Herring (1996) considers social decontextualization in online identity to be a democratizing characteristic of cyberspace. According to her, the internet community "neutralizes social status cues" such as accent, handwriting or voice quality, sex, appearance, etc., that might otherwise be transmitted during everyday communication. This is a very good thing for encouraging the neutralization of bias - such decontextualization could possibly aid in reducing differences between social groups by placing less emphasis on race, ethnicity, and dramaturgical identities and more emphasis on the content of the message (although cues such as netspeak do still exist). However, this same benefit can also be a hindrance to some, resulting in feelings of anomie, even preventing some from accessing the internet due to fear of losing their real-life identities (Herring 1996 477).

Although many have made generalizations about its attractive qualities, usually its dynamic nature or the relative anonymity users have while online, there is no one magical part of cyberculture that appeals to everyone. In fact, very few find themselves suited for every individual method of computer-mediated communication. Instead, each has its own interesting qualities, and appeals to different types of users.

A great many social phenomena have been noted to occur within the culture of cyberspace and online communities. One such phenomenon is the tendency of women to be less vocal in discussion forums. Herring's research on participation in bulletin board discussion forums has revealed that women, although in a potentially gender-neutral environment, participate less than men. This can easily be credited to the idea that women in today's society are socialized to avoid conflict, even of an intellectual sort, and therefore become intimidated by the idea of heavy participation in detailed discussion on specific topics.

One of the most stressed areas in which Herring noted a gender difference was overall participation in the academic discussion groups. Not only did women participate less often than men, they also wrote much shorter messages, averaging a single screen or less, while men's submissions averaged between one and a half and two times as long as women's messages. Herring does seem to resign her gender to a less talkative fate: "Although a short message does not necessarily indicate the sex of the sender, a very long message invariably indicates that the sender is male". One must note, however, that it is entirely possible that Herring chose two areas in which women are not especially interested. Recent research has shown that approximately one in ten workers in the technology field are women, and that women are showing increasing disinterest in technology-related fields such as computing. While Herring's research showed evidence of men encouraging female subscribers to participate in discussions more, the amount of responses to women's postings differed significantly from the amount of responses to men's postings. However, if women leave shorter messages, many explanations could be found for the lack of response. For example, a shorter message could possibly mean that the authors provided less clarification on their opinions, did not use communicative cues welcoming feedback, or readers could have passed over the shorter messages, deeming them unimportant to the conversation (Herring 1996 480).

Another issue in the intergender conflict Herring noted was that once men became inflamed over the content of discussions, the conversations were either stopped by moderators or male outcry brought about the end of a discussion thread. All discussions were of a sexist nature, in which women became extremely involved (female participation neared 50% in all cases for one to two days). Herring does admit that the discussions may have died due to outcry over the discussions' content rather than frequency of female posting, but seemed to believe that it was due to men feeling threatened, quoting Spender's research on language and sex differences: "Reactions such as these are consistent with Spender's (1979) claim that women cannot contribute half of the talk in a discussion without making men feel uncomfortable or threatened. She found that men (and to a lesser degree, women) perceive women as talking more than men when women talk only 30% of the time. This phenomenon is not limited to Spender's academic seminar data or to CMC, but rather is a feature of mixed-sex conversation in public settings more generally...The rather depressing conclusion to be drawn from this is that it is 'normal' for women to participate less than men, such that an increase in the direction of true equality is perceived as deviant, even in liberal, academic settings." In the discussion of the results of her research, Herring identified women as being at-risk for a being "actively censored by the reactions of men who either ignore them or attempt to delegitimize their contributions" (Herring 1996 481).

One of the many concerns a user - not to mention parents of young chatters - may have is that you never know to whom you are really talking. From deceit to one-sided roleplay to egoism, there are many possible explanations of why someone would falsify information about him or herself online, and while this occurs within a very small portion of users, it is still a cause of concern for numerous users. One of the more commonly offered explanations for such behavior is to "escape from real life", to live vicariously through some made-up character. Van Gelder (1996) describes one such case, that of a prominent New York psychiatrist who, while online, took on the identity of "Talkin' Lady", who claimed to have a real-life name of Joan. Though the psychiatrist claimed to have come to be known as Joan through a misunderstanding, he allowed it to continue, and eventually evolve into what van Gelder calls a "bizarre, all-consuming experiment to see what it felt like to be female and to experience the intimacy of female friendship." After taking on the androgynous alias of "Shrink Inc" and being mistaken for a female, he found that a female who came to him for counseling opened up to him a great deal more than his female patients ever did (Van Gelder 1996 533-534).

Although it may be worrisome to users or concerned parents, deception online is a very normal thing. Relatively few internet users prefer to disclose the full details of their real identity. Rather, most use some form of pseudonymity, meaning that they may take on a different name, or change some characteristics about themselves in order to protect their own identity. This is commonly used for self-protection and privacy purposes. Pseudonyms are often chosen to hide explicit identity, while still revealing certain facets of a user's personality (Jaffe, Lee, Huang, and Oshagan 1995). For example, Usenet discussions over issues such as drugs or even depression may cause a user to wish to hide distinguishing characteristics about him or herself while still wishing to communicate freely and honestly. Pure anonymity, while hailed to be one of the more attractive features of the internet, is in actuality rarely used, for in truly anonymous interaction, there is no accrual of experience or reputation (Donath 1996 53).

As common as pseudonymity is on the internet, it remains quite controversial. While some see it as an insurance of freedom of speech, others consider it to be an "invitation to anarchy, providing cover for criminals from tax-evaders to terrorists," as Donath calls it (Donath 1996 54). The concept of pseudonymity is most strongly supported by the ideal that, in such a society, reputations are merit-based, much like in anthropological tribes. More importantly, this is beneficial to a user - a person may manage his or her own identity by "deliberately exhibiting and withholding pieces of social information, for the purpose of influencing the perceptions of others towards that person" (Jaffe, Lee, Huang, and Oshagan 1995).

One issue related to pseudonymity is gender swapping in online communities. Not only do many men enjoy the attention female users receive, but pretending to be male provides some women with an escape from the sexual advances which are commonly experienced both online and in real life. Fundamental to the impact of gender switching, says Bruckman, is "the fact that it allows people to experience rather than merely observe what it feels like to be the opposite gender or have no gender at all" (Bruckman 1993 4).

There is one form of computer-mediated communication where pseudonymity is not just acceptable, but normal. An increasingly popular attraction to internet users is multi-user dungeons, or MUDs. A MUD is a computer program which users can log into and explore. Each user - between one or two, up to thousands of players - takes control of a computerized persona or character. One can walk around, chat with other characters, explore dangerous monster-infested areas, solve puzzles, and even create his or her very own rooms, descriptions, and items. MUDs may be graphically oriented or text oriented, but the large majority of MUDs today still use text-oriented systems such as CIRCLE, Mythran, ROM, MOO, LPMud, etc. (As a note, graphically-based MUDs are generally considered to be separate from text-based MUDs, are treated as spinoffs, and are usually not considered in the study of MUDs.). Increasingly, some MUDs have been studied increasingly heavily, as some feel that instead of games, which they initially were designed to be, MUDs are rather "virtual communities" or "alternate societies."

Before one can understand the value of a MUD as a potential society, one must understand the interface and the manner in which the game is played. On the technical side, MUDs are run off of Linux or Unix servers (Servers are computers designed to send and receive information across the internet. Linux and Unix are two operating systems used to administrate servers.), and players access them via telnet applications (Figures 1 and 2). Most players choose to use a MUD client, which is a telnet application that has been enhanced for the purpose of playing MUDs, and has special features which apply specifically to MUDs (Figure 2). Some MUDs even develop their own client programs, which players may or may not be required to use (Figure 3).

Figure 1: Connecting via a standard telnet application

Figure 2: The standard telnet interface

Figure 3: Connecting via a MUD client.

The MUD is a highly interactive environment, designed to be very realistic. Virtually every MUD has its own monetary system. The basic MUD is made up of "rooms", or areas that can be navigated between (shown in log 1), and objects within rooms that can usually be interacted with. For example, a desk inside a room may have a drawer that may be opened, doors between rooms can be opened or closed, (although rooms are also used for "outdoor" areas, and generally do not have doors), newspapers and message boards that can be read, etc. Creatures within the MUD are referred to as monsters, or more often, "mobs", an affectionate term for "mobiles". Well-designed MUDs even have weather and other environmental factors that actually interact with and affect players in fighting and general movement.

Figure 4: The MUD client interface

Log 1: A typical room, with 4 exits, and one player present.

Log 2: Objects within a room. The object in this room is described as furniture, but serves as a container. Player commands are shown in bold face.

Log 3: A room with a mobile. Player commands are shown in bold face.

Turkle (1995) identified two basic types of MUDs that can be seen in either the graphical or the text-based style of MUDs. Fighting, adventure-type games allow players to gain levels (which give additional power to the player, increased strength, etc., as in any video game) by gaining "experience points" through fighting monsters and other enemies within the game. What Turkle calls "social" MUDs, or roleplaying games (RPGs), are based on interactions between players, wizards/immortals (common terms for game administrators), and objects and creatures within the game. Turkle's observations of typology are quite accurate, however, a third type has emerged over the past few years, an integrated type which uses both fighting and roleplaying. Players gain experience through fighting and "quests" (solving a mystery or finding something, etc.), while creating a society based entirely on roleplay (Turkle 1995 167).

In a MUD, players create their own character, which may be one (or sometimes more) of many races, any gender, and history. Each MUD has a theme of some sort, most being medieval or futuristic, and players will create their character and develop it through roleplay according to the theme of the game and how the player wants his or her character to develop as a part of the game. In fighting, characters carry weapons, which can have various attributes that can increase damage caused to opponents. Weapons, armor, clothing, and accessories can also be "enchanted" or "blessed", or had added effects to assist in fighting or protect the character from harm. Relationships formed between players and roleplay in MUDs (at least in roleplaying MUDs - some do not require it) permeates the entire experience, and has been known to become addictive. As Turkle states, "for most players these relationships quickly become central to the MUDding experience." Even when a player logs on "just to get some exp and gain a few levels," they often find themselves playing the character - avoiding certain areas of the MUD because their character would never go there, refusing to group (grouping involves joining up with other players, and in some MUDs results in higher experience gains) with players whom they would be good friends with in real life (or RL, as it is referred to), simply because they are enemies, members of different temples, clans, or guilds, and so on (Turkle 1995 189).

Many researchers on computer-mediated communication describe users as behaving "more freely and spontaneously than they would in face-to-face encounters". Reid suggests that this spontaneity is most prominent on MUDs, where players experience a sense of disinhibition while playing. MUD players do not become uninhibited by the experience of MUDding, rather, they become disinhibited, as Reid states - they adapt their behaviors to fit in to a social structure that is much different from that of real life (Reid 1999 111-112). Most players believe that this adaptation is normal, that the purpose of a MUD is to get away from real life for a while and experience another way of life, and many consider it a way to relieve tension, frustration, and aggression. As Jeremy, an 18 year old MUD player from Nevada puts it, "Being uninhibited is what MUDs are all about, letting go, losing stress, trying things you would never do in real life. Uninhibited maybe... but in a good way, escape the real world for a while."

New players, however, may feel that anarchic behavior is normative and acceptable, and often may be chastised by immortals, wizards, or administrators (Three commonly used names for those players that monitor player behavior and usage in a MUD) for abuse. Rather than throw out all new players who do not immediately fit into the system, most MUDs have become what is referred to as "newbie-friendly," meaning that more experienced players are willing to aid neophytes at the learning of the MUD's mores. This type of resocialization, as Reid suggests, has resulted in "behaviors which differ in both expression and meaning from the conventions we live with in offline life. A set of social behaviors has arisen in which it may be acceptable to talk with strangers, but not one in which the patterns of that talk are not subject to social controls" (Reid 1999 113). Jeremy puts a much more humorous spin on the concept of "newbie-friendliness": "Perhaps if all the MUD environments stay newbie-friendly, then they will make quick friends and not feel the need to act hectic and rash against the others of the world. After all, who wants a jerk in a world they are in to ESCAPE a world full of jerks?"

One of the major concepts of MUDs is that characters are anonymous, and according to Reid is "crucial to the fostering of disinhibition" of some users. While this is true, she also says:

In reality, however, virtual relationships - whether strictly in character or extending to real life - bear some resemblance to everyday relationships in that they may pass the level of friendship and develop into romances. Reid's premise holds true when referring to players experiencing the initial stages of MUD involvement. However, players who have been MUDding for a significant amount of time know differently: a player may become closely involved in the lives of other players. Very often, players who become close in their roles on a MUD will get to know each other's real life personalities, become friends, even sometimes meet if financial and geographic situation permits. These relationships are often considered to be much stronger than those that players hold in real life, because even if the players do meet, the disinhibition experienced while playing also influences a player's openness to discuss personal situations. As Reid's study shows, the anonymity that MUDding provides makes stronger social bonds between players much more likely. It is even possible, if not likely, that people characterized as "shy" in real life can learn to become much more social through their experiences with MUDs.

According to Bartle (1996), who created the first MUD (MUD1 was developed during the late 1970's in the United Kingdom), the majority of internet users consider MUDs to be one of four things: a game, a pastime, a sport, or an entertainment venue. The distinguishment between "adventure" and "social" MUDs that Turkle makes is broken down even farther. Bartle found four things which people typically enjoy about MUDs: achievement within the game context, exploration of the game, socializing with others, and imposition upon others. These players can be demonstrated graphically as members of quadrants on a graph, as shown in Figure 5. The axes of Bartle's graph represent the source of a player's interest in a MUD, and can be assigned a relative scale reflecting the ratio of a player's interest between extremes on each axis, and charted accordingly (Bartle 1996 7).

Figure 5: Bartle's Interest Graph for MUD players (Source: Bartle 1996)

"Achievers", or players who enjoy game-related goals, typically are seen in what Turkle would call an adventure MUD. These players are most concerned with rising in levels and/or gathering points, depending on the context of the MUD. Exploration of the game is only necessary to find new means to reach their goals. Socializing, for these players, is a way to relax on occasion, but is usually utilized for gaining more information on ways to kill a certain mobile or to find large amounts of gold, etc. Achievers are most interested in acting on the world, placing them in quadrant I of Bartle's graph. The existence of other players does very little for them, other than create a spirit of competition within the game (Bartle 1996 6).

"Explorers" typically enjoy finding out the innermost details of the MUD environment. These players are the best at finding hidden or secret things within the game, such as a special object or description hidden somewhere that one typically wouldn't even know existed (This is shown in Log 4 below). These players usually find leveling to be boring, and get the greatest enjoyment from creating maps and finding intricate details about the game. Explorers enjoy interacting with the world, and are found within Quadrant II of the graph. Other players are unnecessary to them, but they do add depth to the game. It may be possible that these players become the best candidates for "builders", or players who create new areas, mobiles, and objects within the game for others to explore (Bartle 1996 6-7).

Log 4: A room with extra descriptions, one of which is considered to be "hidden". Player-entered commands are shown in bold face.

"Socializers" are those players who use the MUD environment for the purpose of talking and doing things with other player. Socializers interact with other players, and are found in the third quadrant of Bartle's graph. While this usually means talking, it can extend to other behavior, according to Bartle, who says, "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." To socializers, inter-player relationships are very important, and the fulfilling thing about a MUD is the development of long-lasting relationships with others (Bartle 1996 7).

"Killers" are players who enjoy imposing themselves on others. While they may do so in a benevolent manner ("busybody do-gooding", as Bartle called it), most prefer to wreak havoc on others by killing, stealing, etc. Leveling, socializing, and exploring are all just means to find better and more "evil" ways to torment other players. Killers can be described as those who act upon other players (in Bartle's graph, they are located in Quadrant IV) in an attempt to demonstrate their superiority to others (Bartle 1996 7).

The social structure and demographic of a MUD may form in various manners. In most MUDs, the term "balance" is thrown around between administrators striving to keep the balance of power between players of various classes and levels in check, but it also applies to keeping a balanced amount of players of the same type. Different codebases and styles of MUDs can be targeted towards different styles of players, or merely toward one extreme of an axis on Bartle's chart. When a MUD's player base becomes balanced, it can be considered to be what Bartle called a stable configuration, of which he identified four major types:

• Killers and achievers in equilibrium. This is seen in codebases such as Godwars and LPMuds. Killers see achievers as prey, and will be attracted by a high population of achievers. Achievers, on the other hand, typically dislike killers, but tolerate them, and merely view it as an extra part of the challenge of leveling. Explorers and socializers are typically preyed upon by killers, thus keeping the interaction rate of such MUDs fairly low. These MUDs are often the target of ridicule from players who favor other codebases, especially those who view MUDs as communities or virtual societies rather than games.
• A MUD dominated by socializers. This is most often seen in MOOs, talkers, and other social MUDs, although it could be considered an adventure MUD that has been allowed to become little more than a "glorified chat room," as players say - a MUD that was originally designed to be for achievers, killers, or explorers, but was allowed to fill with socializers somehow. This type of MUD is also subject to criticism, but typically by those who approach MUDs as a game or sport.
• A MUD where all groups have similar influence. These MUDs are the ones which most players and administrators would truly be able to call "balanced". Chances of this sort of mix of players occurring naturally are very slim, and therefore it must be reached through both targeting the setting of the MUD and social control techniques. Achieving this status is very difficult, because it requires a huge effort on the part of coders, builders, and administrators to ensure that the MUD targets and appeals to every type of player. Maintaining such a game at such status is difficult as well, and typically requires administrators with time and player management skills. Often these MUDs are seen as pay-to-play games, or are extremely popular and have tremendous numbers of players, because they have been so well-designed and instrumented that they have achieved a high level of success.
• A mud with no players. Bartle suggests that this could be caused by an overly large number of killers who have scared off players, or a MUD targeted for socializers which never accumulated enough players to keep a steady number. These MUDs are not entirely a failure, however, as they tend to provide a place for coders to experiment with new features on their own (Bartle 1996 24).

Players tend to gravitate towards one type of MUD which suits them. For example, a player on a MOO would be extremely unlikely to enjoy an LPMud, and vice versa. This causes dissention within not only the community of players, but also within the academic community of those who study MUDs. Discussion over the viability of adventure MUDs as virtual communities ensues on a regular basis in online discussion groups, and adventure MUDs are rarely studied in the same manner as social MUDs.

One topic of interest is the reasons players become heavily involved in MUDs, and the reasons players continue to play. MUDs are often considered to be addictive, and have been known to interfere with the real lives of players in fairly serious ways. Upon some background research comprised of participant observation, player interviews, and log reading, patterns of participation became noticeable among players in three adventure MUDs: Alanthia, Pendulus, and Kasana. I have broken down this apparent cycle into three types of participants by their commitment to MUDding (non-playing, non-addicted, and addicted), and a pattern of involvement that occurs within these types. This pattern is relatively informal, however, I feel it is interesting enough to be noted. While every player could be classified as being non-playing, non-addicted, or addicted, not all players would follow these hypothesized cycle exactly; rather, it would be as normal for a user to jump between levels of involvement sporadically, due to intervention of various external influences.

One common event of MUD usage among all three observed types - or more accurately, all players - is engagement. Engagement is the initial exposure to the MUD environment, the first time a player ever logs on to any MUD, and is an important experience in determining a user's continued use of MUDs. The player is greeted into the MUD by an opening screen, chooses a user name, password, and creates a character by choosing a race, class, sex, alignment, and weapon. Additional characteristics may be chosen at this time, if the administrators of the MUD make such options available. After this event, the player can either choose to discontinue play, or continue with the MUD.

Log 5: A detailed log of character creation in an adventure-type MUD. The ASCII welcome screen from the MUD has been removed for privacy purposes. Player commands are in bold face.

Non-playing users may exhibit sporadic usage after engagement, play at irregular intervals, and never become attached to the idea of MUDding in general. It is a short-term hobby for such players, and after a period of sporadic use the player will abandon the MUD. Abandonment in the non-playing user is the final stage in the process. Non-playing users who abandon MUDding do not generally play again. This occurs in many gamers who are accustomed to graphically-based games, find the text-based system unrealistic, have problems typing, or have bad experiences during the engagement experience.

In the involvement process, post-engagement players may go into an unattached phase, which may last any length of time. They play a little, and intend to continue playing, but don't log in all that often, usually because they either have other things to do or haven't become too interested in the game yet. For these players, the "romance" between a player and the game hasn't begun yet.

After a user starts to enjoy MUDding, he can progress to the point of being a regular player. These are the players who typically log on only in the evenings and are still more concerned with "RL", or real life. These players enjoy the game very much, but are fairly easily disillusioned and have a decent chance of going to sporadic/unattached usage for a while before continuing to MUD.

After regular usage, a user may enter a stage of heavy usage. I perceived four general types of user motivations which may be applied to either addicted or non-addicted users. These influences appear strongest among the users who consider themselves (or are considered by others involved in their lives online and offline) to be addicted. In all four of these motivations, real life has a great effect on how one's character will develop, both as a secondary identity and as it affects and is effected by the user's real identity (or "OOC", as they are referred to by players). These types are fairly fluid and may be represented in the same manner as Bartle's graph of player types, and are demonstrated in Figure 6 below. The four types of users are: free-timers, psychotherapeutic, romantic, and escapists, and can also be measured by a scale on a two-axis graph, with the X-axis moving from real life influences to character influences (the experience of the game, so to speak), and the Y-axis moving from personal benefit to enjoyment.

Figure 6: The four types of users, presented in a manner similar to that of Bartle's players.

Free-timers generally are either unemployed, students, or have large amounts of free time for some other reason, providing them with opportunity to play more frequently than most users. Addicted players do not become addicted as a result of the MUD environment per se, but rather become comfortable and familiar with the feeling of being within the game, and become accustomed to it. Although not a true addiction, free-timers often have the same amount of trouble "just logging off" as any other addictive type. Free-timers have been found in all four of Bartle's types.

Psychotherapeutics typically have great amounts of stress in real life and choose to exert their frustration within the game. These users may be seen as achievers, and referred to as "rocket levelers" (those who reach fairly high levels in a short amount of time), or as killers - the people that don't roleplay, but prefer to fight. Sometimes a psychotherapeutic will roleplay in order to participate in player-killing, and kill as many people as possible. When psychotherapeutics do roleplay, they often take on the role of an "evil" character.

Escapists are the most common and most interesting seriously addicted players. They often roleplay fairly heavily, don't kill often, and spend the greatest amounts of time logged in. Escapists are the most interesting type of addictive MUDders. These are the players that have serious real-life issues, and use the MUD as a way to avoid dealing with their own problems, creating an intensely dramatic roleplaying situation around their character. Surfacing as any of Bartle's player types (but usually socializers), they play as often as they can, often even from work or school. The friends an escapist make on a MUD are often either the only friends the player has, or given a much greater value than the player's real-life friends. These users not only lose the most in real life from avoiding personal issues, but often are hurt as well when some sort of conflict either prevents them from entering their game, or some other form of conflict arises that pulls them from it.

Romantics are much like escapists. These, however, become addicted when they become infatuated with another character. The infatuation spreads to the real-life... as in the player is addicted to their roleplay lover's character. They may begin as any type of player, but almost always become socializers once a romance ensues, spending as much time as possible with their counterpart. This type of addiction happens at times, but not too often. Players like this often try to create a romance like this in real life, often spending great amounts of money on travel and such, only to finally meet the other player in real life and discover that there are no romantic feelings between the two at all.

From the heavy usage phases, three things can happen to make a user decrease or discontinue play on the MUD: frustration or trauma, a disillusioning event, or a responsibility or time conflict. Any of these three can happen to a user, and among "addicted" players can lead to feelings of anger towards the MUD or its players (or to the cause of the conflict) and detachment from the idea of MUDding. Almost every incidence of expressed anger I have seen has lead to abandonment, possibly after abusive behavior, even being banned from a few MUDs. Detachment can lead to abandonment as well, or a user may resume regular usage, either on the original MUD or on a different one.

Future research to test this hypothesis could be done in multiple fashions, depending on the part of the hypothesis to be tested. For the types of heavily involved players noted, detailed surveys and interviews could be administered in order to gain empirical data for measurement of factors that may have an impact on the X and Y-axis scales. To test the actual process of involvement, surveys could be administered to small samples of players from various MUDs, measuring admitted involvement history. This could potentially be supplemented by extended case studies in a controlled experiment consisting of keeping a user's personal history of family and home conditions, work history, etc., introducing a user to MUDs and then measuring their participation (possibly through checking total time logged in on the player's character on a regular basis, which can be verified through the MUD's player files) and real-life behavior over a period of time, such as six months to one year. Follow-ups at some intervals would be necessary in order to track the behavior of more involved players (up to three years, to maintain feasibility). Observational methods could be applied to examine the different types of player behavior in conjunction with this, perhaps through interviews, viewing logs, or actual participant observation.

Vickie Edwards is currently a PhD student in Public Administration and Policy at the University of Georgia.

Works Cited

Bartle, Richard. 1996. "Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds, Spades: Players who Suit MUDs."

Journal of MUD Research. 1:1-25. http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm.

Bruckman, Amy S. 1993. "Gender Swapping on the Internet." Speaker. The Internet

Society. San Francisco, CA.

CommerceNet. 1999. "Internet Population."

http://www.commerce.net/research/stats/wwwpop.html

Donath, Judith S. 1996. "Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community." Pp. 29-59 in Communities in Cyberspace, edited by Marc A. Smith and Peter Kollock. London: Routledge.

Herring, Susan. 1996.. "Gender and Democracy in Computer-Mediated Communication." Pp. 476-501 in Computerization and Controversy, edited by Rob Kling. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Jaffe, J. Michael, Young-Eum Lee, Li-Ning Huang, and Hayg Oshagan. 1995. "Gender,

Pseudonyms, and CMC: Masking Identities and Baring Souls." Essay. 45th Annual

Conference of the International Communication Association.

http://research.haifa.ac.il/~jmjaffe/genderpseudocmc/.

Kaufman, Margo. 1996. "They Call it Cyberlove." Pp. 525-532 in Computerization and

Controversy, edited by Rob Kling. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Reid, Elizabeth, ed. Marc A. Smith and Peter Kollock. "Heirarchy and Power: Social

Control in Cyberspace." Pp. 107-133 in Communities in Cyberspace, edited by Marc

A. Smith and Peter Kollock. London: Routledge.

Rheingold, Howard. 1993. The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic

Frontier. Reading, MA: Addison.

Silver, David. 1996. "Introducing Cyberculture."

http://www.otal.umd.edu/~rccs/intro.html.

Turkle, Sherry. 1995. Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet. New York:

Simon.

Van Gelder, Lindsy. 1996. "The Strange Case of the Electronic Lover." Pp. 533-549 in

Computerization and Controversy, edited by Rob Kling. San Diego, CA: Academic

Press.

Outline

I. Cyberculture - An Introduction

II. Issues within Cyberculture

A. Identity

B. Gender Differences and Conlfict

C. Deception and Pseudonymity

III. Multi-User Dungeons (MUDs)

A. An Introduction to MUDs

B. Identity and Interaction in MUDs

C. How Players Use MUDs

D. The Demographics of MUDs

E. Users' Involvement in MUDs

Works Cited

Original Reading List

Original Reading List

Although they provided interesting reading material and good background information, there was very little information in any of the following books that could be applied to my areas of focus.

Steve Jones - Cybersociety, Cybersociety 2.0 (Both were collections of relatively old articles, and had little specialized information.)

Rob Shields - Cultures of Internet: Virtual Spaces, Real Histories, Living Bodies (There was one especially interesting article on MUDs, but it had no original information that was unobtainable elsewhere.)

James Brook and Iain Boal - Resisting the Virtual Life (The entire book seemed to be a very negatively biased criticism of the internet's existence and culture)

The following books were either originally included or added to the readings, and were found to be quite useful:

Rob Kling - Computerization and Controversy (This book had a great deal of articles on a large variety of topics, and contained writings from many different perspectives.)

Sherry Turkle - Life on the Screen (A very poignant book from a knowledgeable author, it had a tremendous amount of interesting material on identity in all forms of cyberculture.)

Marc Smith and Peter Kollock - Communities in Cyberspace (This book was very recent, and had very specialized articles with current information.)

Howard Rheingold - The Virtual Community (Although never directly quoted in the paper, Rheingold's ideas pertaining to the WELL were applicable in a more global sense.)

David Silver - Introducing Cyberculture (A good article to describe cyberculture in a very broad sense.)

Amy Bruckman - Gender Swapping on the Internet (Very informative, and had a lot of information about the issues surrounding cross-gender pseudonymity.)

J. Michael Jaffe, Young-Eum Lee, Li-Ning Huang, and Hayg Oshagan - Gender, Pseudonyms, and CMC: Masking Identities and Baring Souls (A highly informative essay on deception and pseudonymity.)

Richard Bartle - Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds, Spades: Players who Suit MUDs (An extremely interesting analysis on player behavior, served as a model for my scale on user behavior.)

The following books were not obtainable:

Rob Kling - The Internet for Sociologists

Roy Winkler - The Web Gate: Dynamics of the Internet