MUDs and Online Communication: from concerning addiction to social expectation

Multi-User Dungeons are worlds made of narrative communication. From the way your character looks to how they interact with others, everything exists in words. Howard Rheingold in his 1995 article, “Multi-user Dungeons and Alternate Identities” discusses how this was a whole new ball game in they emerged in the 80s and 90s.  MUDs raised many questions for people outside the medium. How could people who are respectable professionals in their ‘real lives’ spend hours existing as wizards, hobbits, warlocks and other strange creatures in a virtual space? A question of communication addiction was quickly raised. Curtis Pavel, creator of a popular MUD, believed there were indeed people using the medium who were addicted to these online societies (DIAC conference 1992).

Now in 2017, a communication addiction seems almost a requirement. The twenty-first century has seen the rise of digital communication as a way to test identity, tell narratives, and connect with people across the world. Most people understand how to communicate in an online world, and those that don’t often struggle in today’s digital narrative media. This shift from the 1980s to 2010s was apparent when participating in a MUD, called the Library, during a class workshop. People’s experience with written communication mediums became a valuable tool in the narrative and exploitative world of the Library. Those who understood, how to type fast, to follow the narrative, and how to express emotion, moved to solve riddles faster than those who could not. Rheingold suggests that the very purpose of a MUD, it is about who is in the same place and how they interact (1995). In a MUD, and online, the first thing you create is your identity . This identity informs how you move through the virtual world, and how you interact to people. Not being able to see non-verbal responses lead to the creation of ‘posing’. Characters could type emotion and humour into their conversations, further developing their identities (Rheingold 1995, 148).

In MUDS, including the Library reading a transcript does not have the same impact as being a part of the real time development.  The narrative context relies on being present in the moment and understanding of the other characters in your MUD. In the Library we were given identities as either Readers or Researchers, but were also identified by our names. I believe that part of the humour and connection in the Library came from our understanding of people’s identities. Jokes landed despite limited physical connection, because after a few months of being in class together, we had learnt things about people’s identities. For example, this brief section of transcript is meaningless to anyone else reading it, except those within the Library during that time;

14:18:07   From  Reader James : I beleive the Ancient Egyptions had their own libraries, I’m not sure if they’re the oldest.
14:18:11   From  Reader Mike : Can a researcher check the Library of Babel?
14:18:27   From  Reader James : Egyptians, forgive my spelling, O researchers (2pm Transcript)

Firstly there is a lack of context, but even if the context was explained, the nuance in identity and humour would likely be lacking.

In the 1980s MUDs were a way for people to push the boundaries of narrative and identity. Since then being able to understand communication in online spaces has shifted to a necessary tool. This is not to suggest the same cries of “communication addiction” and “society is collapsing” don’t exist, they are just now meet with a roll of the eyes.