Howard Rheingold and The Positive Potential of Multi-User Domains/Dungeons

“If MUDs were nothing more than a way of participating in vicarious violence and other antisocial behavior, the question of how to deal with them on campuses and tax-supported networks would be easier to answer. But the evolution of MUDs began to branch when people began exploring less lurid modes of interaction using the same technology. The genre of social MUDs, where there might or might not be hierarchies of power but where there are no fixed goals or point systems, and murder is not possible, emerged when James Aspnes of Carnegie-Mellon University created TinyMUD in 1988. It spawned a variety of different worlds and new MUD languages based on egalitarian and nonviolent values. When every citizen, not just wizards, gained the power to build the game, and there was no longer a gain in killing or stealing, a new variety of MUD enthusiast emerged.” p.162

— Howard Rheingold “Multi-User Dungeons and Alternate Identities” (1995)

 

Much has been written on the often disastrous nature of Multi User Domains/Dungeons (MUDs), online environments where users from around the globe can communicate and explore together – on the horrors that occur when users cross the line of exercising their freedom in an imaginary space which is simultaneously populated by real people. However, Howard Rheingold’s chapter tackles the problem of MUDs, identity, and relationships by revealing that MUDs can bring as much good as bad. With an acknowledgement of the dangers of creating an online persona and interacting with other characters (who mask real people) to different degrees of honesty, he highlights the positive side of MUDs through their ability to enrich people’s lives and form relationships they people may be incapable of forming in the real world.

The selected passage from page 162 discusses the expansion of MUDs with the creation of social MUDs, beginning with TinyMUD in 1988 – which posed questions for how to deal with the medium as a whole when it got out of hand, and how to generalise the problems present within them. Rheingold states: “the evolution of MUDs began to branch when people began exploring less lurid modes of interaction using the same technology”. Firstly, he argues that the technology should not be blamed for the actions of its users which cannot be anticipated and become difficult to control. And secondly, a failed experiment (earlier MUDs where people appeared to abuse a space which lacked any rules or law) should not define the potential for an entire medium. Rheingold shows an awareness of the apparent positive evolution of this platform, and advocates that MUDs should be seen as more than “a way of participating in vicarious violence”.

TinyMUD, which is “based on egalitarian and nonviolent values” is Rheingold’s key example in this passage to illustrate the power of MUDs to create healthy spaces for people to interact. Still allowing users a generous amount of freedom, rules are put in place to ensure everyone’s safety and wellbeing. Unlike its ancestors, this MUD gives everyone equal ability to contribute to the building of the game which to some extent eradicates a social hierarchy previously in place when wizards had all the power – reducing the likelihood of any unequal relationships forming, or people being left out of certain activities due to their social status. With the removal of the ability to kill or steal, violence is also reduced. Rheingold’s discussion of TinyMUD is significant as it raises questions of MUDs potential by showing how they have the ability to erase many societal problems and create an almost heavenly space to interact, rather than simply accentuating the unmediated ills of human nature.

Rheingold’s chapter introduces a positive perspective, arguing in favour of MUDs, amongst a larger body of literature which often focuses on the more negative occurrences in the medium – cyber-bullying, for instance. Rheingold displays how through MUDs, positive real life relationships can blossom and suppressed identities are given the space to grow. He illustrates why this medium should not be viewed as a place which only harbours antisocial behaviour and deception, by highlighting the positive space created by TinyMUD. The article opens up questions of the potential of MUDs, as while they have the ability to generate unhealthy spaces where bad things occur, they also have the ability to educate and bring people together – and this should not be discouraged.