Multiplayer rogue/nethack alikes?
Dave Burns
roguelike games that'd be dos or win32/win16 based?
Thanks alot.
Dave
Stewart Stremler
> Can anyone point me towards any multiplayer variants or full separate
> roguelike games that'd be dos or win32/win16 based?
Hit freshmeat and look for slashem -- it appears to be a nethack extension
and the docs mention multiplayer support, and you can get source & compile
it. Good luck.
--
-----------------...@rohan.sdsu.edu----------------------------
"God creates dinosaur. God destroys dinosaur. God creates Man. Man destroys
God. Man creates dinosaur. Dinosaur eats Man. Woman inherits the Earth."
-_Jurassic Park_
Curly++
>"Dave Burns" <eleve...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>news:MPG.138908147...@news.btinternet.com...
>> Can anyone point me towards any multiplayer variants or full separate
>> roguelike games that'd be dos or win32/win16 based?
>
>Quoted from my ancient roguelike games homepage,
>http://www.win.tue.nl/games/roguelike/roguelike.html:
>"A long time ago, on a computer system far, far, away, there was Rogue.
You mean a game has to be sort of like rogue be roguelike? I
could go along with that.
But then, classifications tend be a little fluid. A lot of
things are defined as having at least X of the following Y
characteristics. If a game was _exactly_ like rogue, then it
would _be_ rogue. I think a game that was multi-user would have
to conform that much more closely to the other aspects of
roguelikes than a single-user game, or it would drift outside
the definition. But I don't think "mulit-user" alone would
cause it to lose all likeness to rogue.
>Note that part of the definition includes "single-user".
>
>So *NO*, there are no single-user roguelike games.
^^^^^^^^^^^
Aahh, thank you. After Dylan correcting me once again, this
makes me feel much better. It's nice to see that even the
demigods can make mistakes.
--
Oisin "Curly++" Curtin ocu...@SPAM.usa.net
Surface Liaison, Minetown Digger Send no SPAM.
http://pages.infinit.net/curlypp/
Boudewijn Waijers
news:MPG.138908147...@news.btinternet.com...
> Can anyone point me towards any multiplayer variants or full separate
> roguelike games that'd be dos or win32/win16 based?
Quoted from my ancient roguelike games homepage,
http://www.win.tue.nl/games/roguelike/roguelike.html:
From the Roguelike Games FAQ file:
"A long time ago, on a computer system far, far, away, there was Rogue.
Players wandered a dungeon, hacking and slashing at monsters, gaining
treasures, becoming more powerful, and living their D&D nightmares.
Rogue was a good game; people still play it. It was even distributed with
many copies of Unix. But rogue is a relatively simple and limited game
compared to most of the descendants it has spawned...
Although the common features of rogue and its many descendants are
`obvious' to many people, they are difficult to describe in simple terms.
Generally, the games mentioned below are single-user, fantasy role-playing
computer games, generally set in a dungeon, run with a simple
character-graphic interface. In all of the games, the player controls a
single character, who roams around getting more powerful, in order to
fulfill a difficult quest. Sword-and-sorcery rule the day. Logistically,
they're all free games; executables, and generally sources, are available
by FTP."
Note that part of the definition includes "single-user".
So *NO*, there are no single-user roguelike games. It is a contradictio in
terminis. This is why I don't include multiplayer variants on the page, by
the way.
--
Boudewijn Waijers - go.to/ladonnee
A Elbereth Gilthoniel,
silivren penna míriel
o menel aglar ellenath!
Na-chaered palan-díriel
o galadhremmin ennorath,
Fanuilos, le linnathon
nef aear, sí nef aearon!
Peter 'Freak Boy' Hall
>
> Quoted from my ancient roguelike games homepage,
> http://www.win.tue.nl/games/roguelike/roguelike.html:
>
> From the Roguelike Games FAQ file:
>
> `obvious' to many people, they are difficult to describe in simple terms.
> Generally, the games mentioned below are single-user, fantasy role-playing
> computer games, generally set in a dungeon, run with a simple
> character-graphic interface. In all of the games, the player controls a
> single character, who roams around getting more powerful, in order to
> fulfill a difficult quest. Sword-and-sorcery rule the day. Logistically,
> they're all free games; executables, and generally sources, are available
> by FTP."
>
> Note that part of the definition includes "single-user".
>
Note also that part of the definition includes "generally".
> So *NO*, there are no single-user roguelike games. It is a contradictio in
> terminis. This is why I don't include multiplayer variants on the page, by
> the way.
>
I have seen many long flamewars/discussions on what constitutes a roguelike game
(incidentally we are almost overdue for another one, so it's a good thing this
thread was started up) and the only thing that is clear is that there are three
camps. The purists who believe that there are very strict rules and that games
not adhering to these rules are not roguelike, Boudewijn appears to be in this
camp with respect to multiplayer. Then there are those who would attempt to
classify every vaguely RPG game, both computer and pen and paper based, as a
form of roguelike. The final camp, and this is the one that I fall into, see
'roguelike' not as a style of gameplay, but as a certain indefinable 'feel' that
some games have.
Although roguelikes generally tend to be single player, ASCII interface, dungeon
crawling, randomly generated, fantasy games, they don't always have to be.
Wether or not a game is roguelike is, like beauty, in the eye of the beholder.
There are those who claim Diablo to be a roguelike, there are those who would
argue otherwise. There are those who would argue a Sci-Fi roguelike is not
really a roguelike. There are those who would argue that a roguelike with a
wilderness or a plot is somehow "less roguelike" than other roguelikes. It is,
in my opinion, entirely up to the individual.
> --
> Boudewijn Waijers - go.to/ladonnee
>
> A Elbereth Gilthoniel,
> silivren penna míriel
> o menel aglar ellenath!
> Na-chaered palan-díriel
> o galadhremmin ennorath,
> Fanuilos, le linnathon
> nef aear, sí nef aearon!
On a side note I'm about 2/3 through my second reading of The Lord of the
Rings. It's a great book.
--
Peter Hall
Currently studying *laugh* for his BSEng at ANU
Bureaucracy cuts red tape... lengthwise
Calrion
Hasn't anyone heard of InterHack???
This is the multi-player version of NetHack -- and whilst not official, it's
as close to it as they come. It should be available from somewhere under
ftp://mcs.une.edu.au, but this may have changed.
One of my friends (goes by Winter/Darwin online) is developing/creating it
so I'll contact him and post more details.
There _is_ multiplayer NetHack, it's called InterHack and is Unix-based.
It's been developed under Slackware Linux. I'm sure a port to Win32 Terminal
wouldn't be difficult.
Yours,
Calrion.
joseph_...@rocketmail.com
"Calrion" <cal...@insertyahooyodelhere.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Hasn't anyone heard of InterHack???
> This is the multi-player version of NetHack -- and whilst not
official, it's
> as close to it as they come. It should be available from somewhere
under
> ftp://mcs.une.edu.au, but this may have changed.
>
There is also a multiplayer game called Crossfire ? that is based on
rogue type games. It is graphical and you use a client to connect to a
server and play with or against other people in very large worlds. I
played it last year but nobody ever seemed to be online except to try
to kill me :( I do not remember the url but try to do a search. I
used the windows client so that should not be a problem. Also there is
unix client too.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jesse Welton
<Kro...@win.tue.nl> wrote:
> "Dave Burns" <eleve...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.138908147...@news.btinternet.com...
> > Can anyone point me towards any multiplayer variants or full separate
> > roguelike games that'd be dos or win32/win16 based?
>
> Quoted from my ancient roguelike games homepage,
> http://www.win.tue.nl/games/roguelike/roguelike.html:
>
> From the Roguelike Games FAQ file:
<snip>
> Note that part of the definition includes "single-user".
>
> So *NO*, there are no single-user roguelike games. It is a contradictio in
> terminis. This is why I don't include multiplayer variants on the page, by
> the way.
First of all, the (snipped) description is descriptive, not definitive.
Second of all, your own source belies you. Check section 4 of that
same FAQ document:
~Subject: 4.) List of "multi-user roguelike games"
Listed below are "multi-user roguelike games". Yeah, yeah, I know, I
said at the top that all roguelike games were single-player. I lied.
Oops. If someone comes looking for a "multi-player roguelike", you at
least have an idea of what they're looking for. Consider it a separate
genre if you must, but it's not as though this group is inherently
incapable of providing assistance. This *is* the single most
appropriate news group for such a subject, like it or not.
To Dave Burns: The FAQ at Boudewijn's site lists 3 games in this
section, Myth, Fantasia, and CrossFire. None show DOS as a supported
platform, but the document is about five years out of date. I don't
personally have any more knowledge on this subject. Good luck
finding something to your liking.
-Jesse
darkgod
> Can anyone point me towards any multiplayer variants or full separate
> roguelike games that'd be dos or win32/win16 based?
Ever played Angband ?
well there is a varaint called Mangband where M means .. Multiplayer :)
Boudewijn Waijers
news:391F559A...@student.anu.edu.au...
> Boudewijn Waijers wrote:
>> Quoted from my ancient roguelike games homepage,
>> http://www.win.tue.nl/games/roguelike/roguelike.html:
>> From the Roguelike Games FAQ file:
>> Generally, the games mentioned below are single-user, fantasy
role-playing
>> computer games, generally set in a dungeon, run with a simple
>> character-graphic interface.
>> Note that part of the definition includes "single-user".
> Note also that part of the definition includes "generally".
:-)
I know, but I was deliberately exaggerating.
> I have seen many long flamewars/discussions on what constitutes a
roguelike game
> (incidentally we are almost overdue for another one, so it's a good
thing this
> thread was started up) and the only thing that is clear is that there
are three
> camps. The purists who believe that there are very strict rules and
that games
> not adhering to these rules are not roguelike, Boudewijn appears to be
in this
> camp with respect to multiplayer.
If you have a look at the above mentioned site, you'll notice that I also
include, for example, Ragnarok. This 'roguelike' doesn't fit the above
description, either, since it has nog simple character-graphig interfact.
> Although roguelikes generally tend to be single player, ASCII interface,
dungeon
> crawling, randomly generated, fantasy games, they don't always have to
be.
> Wether or not a game is roguelike is, like beauty, in the eye of the
beholder.
I wouldn't classify Eye of the Beholder as a roguelike... :-)
> There are those who claim Diablo to be a roguelike, there are those who
would
> argue otherwise. There are those who would argue a Sci-Fi roguelike is
not
> really a roguelike. There are those who would argue that a roguelike
with a
> wilderness or a plot is somehow "less roguelike" than other roguelikes.
It is,
> in my opinion, entirely up to the individual.
In my opinion, it has (at least) to resemble ROGUE in a certain way. Of
course, that particular game is _old_, so you should allow for some
changes (it would be rogue, not roguelike otherwise).
> > A Elbereth Gilthoniel,
> > silivren penna míriel
> > o menel aglar ellenath!
> > Na-chaered palan-díriel
> > o galadhremmin ennorath,
> > Fanuilos, le linnathon
> > nef aear, sí nef aearon!
> On a side note I'm about 2/3 through my second reading of The Lord of
the
> Rings. It's a great book.
Then you've already past the above poem. It's sung by Elwing, sometime
during the stay at Rivendel.
Boudewijn Waijers
news:slrn8hur20....@jarod.oc...
>>Note that part of the definition includes "single-user".
>>
>>So *NO*, there are no single-user roguelike games.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
> Aahh, thank you. After Dylan correcting me once again, this
> makes me feel much better. It's nice to see that even the
> demigods can make mistakes.
Well, I never claimed to be a demigod. In fact, I hereby officially state
*never* to have ascended in NetHack (outside wizard mode to try out
things, that is).
And believe me, I've tried... I do have a lot of abandoned games, though,
usually somewhere around finding the vibrating square.
--
Boudewijn Waijers - go.to/ladonnee
A Elbereth Gilthoniel,
Boudewijn Waijers
"Jesse Welton" <jwe...@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
news:jwelton-1605...@ts29-16.homenet.ohio-state.edu...
> In article <8fnfft$1dr$1...@nereid.worldonline.nl>, "Boudewijn Waijers"
> <Kro...@win.tue.nl> wrote:
> Oops. If someone comes looking for a "multi-player roguelike", you at
> least have an idea of what they're looking for. Consider it a separate
> genre if you must, but it's not as though this group is inherently
> incapable of providing assistance. This *is* the single most
> appropriate news group for such a subject, like it or not.
Note that only *one* of the newsgroups posted to is the *single* most
appropriate newsgroup for this subject. I am reading these articles in
rec.games.roguelike.nethack, which may or may not be appropriate. I do
agree with you for the most part, by the way. In my first reaction, I was
deliberately exaggerating.
Boudewijn.
Benjamin Grayland
I'm suprised nobody mentioned that already. I didn't 'cause I was too
lazy to post. :)
---
Benjamin Grayland
gray...@dingoblue.net.au
Josh Fishman
<Kro...@win.tue.nl> wrote:
> "Curly++" <ocu...@NOSPAM.usa.net> wrote in message
> news:slrn8hur20....@jarod.oc...
>
> >>Note that part of the definition includes "single-user".
> >>
> >>So *NO*, there are no single-user roguelike games.
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> > Aahh, thank you. After Dylan correcting me once again, this
> > makes me feel much better. It's nice to see that even the
> > demigods can make mistakes.
>
> Well, I never claimed to be a demigod. In fact, I hereby officially state
> *never* to have ascended in NetHack (outside wizard mode to try out
> things, that is).
>
> And believe me, I've tried... I do have a lot of abandoned games, though,
> usually somewhere around finding the vibrating square.
Play Crawl. You can start as one.
-- Josh
--
"We returned Elian to Havana, or maybe Pinar del Rio.
It's hard to tell from 30,000 feet."
Richard Cooley
Josh Fishman <fis...@ext.rlab.cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
>On Tue, 16 May 2000 22:34:48 +0200, Boudewijn Waijers
> <Kro...@win.tue.nl> wrote:
>> "Curly++" <ocu...@NOSPAM.usa.net> wrote in message
>> news:slrn8hur20....@jarod.oc...
>> > Aahh, thank you. After Dylan correcting me once again, this
>> > makes me feel much better. It's nice to see that even the
>> > demigods can make mistakes.
>> Well, I never claimed to be a demigod. In fact, I hereby officially state
>> *never* to have ascended in NetHack (outside wizard mode to try out
>> things, that is).
>> And believe me, I've tried... I do have a lot of abandoned games, though,
>> usually somewhere around finding the vibrating square.
>Play Crawl. You can start as one.
What, a vibrating square?
Oh, er, never mind...
--
Rick Cooley Extroardinaire, a beast of pure hatred with purpose malign
http://www.shore.net/~pixel/
DVD boycott--are you doing your part?
tussock
> Can anyone point me towards any multiplayer variants or full separate
> roguelike games that'd be dos or win32/win16 based?
>
> Thanks alot.
>
> Dave
MAngband. Multi player Angband.
http://thangorodrim.angband.org has pretty complete angband links.
rec.games.roguelike.angband for questions. (followups set there)
--
tussock
Sarcasm is the lowest form of humor. 8]
J. Ali Harlow
>In rec.games.roguelike.rogue Dave Burns <eleve...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> Can anyone point me towards any multiplayer variants or full separate
>> roguelike games that'd be dos or win32/win16 based?
>Hit freshmeat and look for slashem -- it appears to be a nethack extension
>and the docs mention multiplayer support, and you can get source & compile
>it. Good luck.
News to me :-) Slash'EM is about as much multi-player as Nethack is, that
is to say, none.
Cheers,
--
J. Ali Harlow Email: J.A.H...@city.ac.uk
"When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and
the stars, which you have set in place, what is man that you are mindful
of him, the son of man that you care for him?" Psalm 8 v 3-4, NIV.
Stephen Kennedy
control a number of players on an 8 level game board. The players choose
one of 26 characters (A: archer, B: barbarian, C: caveman, ...) who fight
each other and random monsters (a: ape; b: bat, c: centaur, ...) plus &:
death which is close to impossible to kill. It plays well enough, but lacks
a story line.
Since this is not a turn-by-turn oriented game, much of the strategy gets
lost. This is a problem for multiplayer games. If it was turn oriented,
you might have to wait a while if the person left their computer.
As with Rogue and Hack, I created my game for a standard PC/DOS size
display. All information is always on the display. There's one inventory
line which you toggle through. Same for what you're wielding, shooting and
wearing. All you stats are listed using a 0 to 100 scale. These include
Agility, Armor, Charisma, Constitution, Dexterity, Health, Hearing,
Intelligence, Magic, Stealth, Strength and Vision. Your health is also
listed at the bottom with a status bar which fills the width of the display
when you're at 100%. Two more such lines below this to show who is fighting
you and who is helping you. Their health bar is also included.
You use the arrows to move, shift-arrows to swing and ctrl-arrows to shoot.
If you fight or don't have good stealth, a noise '%' is displayed which
other players and monsters can hear depending upon their hearing. The magic
and intelligence attributes still need to be utilized.
I'll create a tar.gz file of this stuff and post it. If anyone makes any
updates, I'd like to get a copy...
Shadowhack
fish...@nerve.com
Stephen Kennedy <spke...@suffolk.lib.ny.us> wrote:
>lost. This is a problem for multiplayer games. If it was turn oriented,
>you might have to wait a while if the person left their computer.
Maybe a hybrid? Turn-based, but if you don't take your turn in a specified
interval, you lose it.
>As with Rogue and Hack, I created my game for a standard PC/DOS size
>display.
Ah, good. That's the vesa standard 132x60 or the VGA 80x60, 80x50, or
the EGA 80x43 standard?
Avrom Faderman
<fish...@nerve.com> wrote in message
news:8hjrjt$31r$1...@famine.phx3.mindspring.net...
> In article <OS5%4.3754$HD6....@iad-read.news.verio.net>,
> Stephen Kennedy <spke...@suffolk.lib.ny.us> wrote:
>
> >lost. This is a problem for multiplayer games. If it was turn oriented,
> >you might have to wait a while if the person left their computer.
>
> Maybe a hybrid? Turn-based, but if you don't take your turn in a specified
> interval, you lose it.
You would have to either make the interval pretty short (<<5 seconds, I'd say)
or expect *lots* of patience from the players. Imagine walking through a long
corridor if you could only take a step every 5 seconds.
Actually, I think this might work. A "roguelike" (although it would be a
*very*
different game from any existing roguelikes) that was *almost* real
time--perhaps
you (and monsters) would get a single opportunity to move every second (or
this
could be adjusted for speed). Rummaging through your pack for the wand you
want would be dangerous in melee (a monster would likely get 5 swings or so),
but not absolutely fatal, the way it would be if the game were actually real
time.
I sort of like the way this would handle speed--it would make you move and
(mindlessly)
fight faster, but it wouldn't help you think or do complex manipulations
faster.
Saving would be a separate problem. Who wants to have to play a complete
roguelike in one sitting? But, on the other hand, how do you synchronize
saves?
Should saving make a player disappear? Freeze and become invulnerable?
This is open to all kinds of abuse.
Better, perhaps: Rather than allow saving with a command, make leaving the
dungeon (without the amulet) save the game. When you reenter the game,
you restart on the up stairs in DLVL 1. Other characters could, of course,
keep playing while you were away.
Of course, as I said above, this wouldn't really have much of the feel of a
roguelike game. Sitting and pondering your next move is an important
part of the roguelike feel, and semi-real-time would destroy that option.
Best,
Avrom
Erik Max Francis
> Saving would be a separate problem. Who wants to have to play a
> complete
> roguelike in one sitting? But, on the other hand, how do you
> synchronize
> saves?
> Should saving make a player disappear? Freeze and become
> invulnerable?
> This is open to all kinds of abuse.
In any kind of persistent multiplaying environment where people aren't
expected to play 24 hours a day, there _must_ be some sort of safe
haven, where people can go to end their session and be assured that
nothing bad will happen to them (at least for some set period of time).
There's also the approach of literally having the game run 24 hours and
notifying players when interesting events happen, but that's a special
niche, and more of a strategic approach rather than having players
specify their movements step by step through a dungeon, and isn't
applicable to Roguelikes.
> Better, perhaps: Rather than allow saving with a command, make
> leaving the
> dungeon (without the amulet) save the game. When you reenter the
> game,
> you restart on the up stairs in DLVL 1. Other characters could, of
> course,
> keep playing while you were away.
That is quite reasonable, but obviously restricts you to having a single
dungeon that everybody plays in. If you wanted a persistent,
countryside environment like Omega, then you'd be back to the same
problem, of how to handle it when people stop playing.
The only obvious approach is to have "hostels" or some similar thing
scattered around the map, where players can enter and save their
environment to return at a later time, guaranteeing that they will be
safe from interference by other players while they are in "limbo." It's
a little forced, but it would work.
--
Erik Max Francis / m...@alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
__ San Jose, CA, US / 37 20 N 121 53 W / ICQ16063900 / &tSftDotIotE
/ \ If you don't take chances, you can't do anything in life.
\__/ Michael Spinks
Fat Boy and Little Man / http://www.fatboyandlittleman.com/
Watch Fat Boy and Little Man go about their antics.
The Spaghetti Fiend
I've only seen 1 multiplayer roguealikes, the first was crossfire, a
sorta rogueish type thing, where you returned to a hotel type thing. It
was also realtimeish, which sorta sucked. The second I can't remember
the name of, you could either camp out somewhere (Avoiding the common
places that were visited, if you were sensible) or stay in a inn thing,
for a fee.
Stewart Stremler
> <fish...@nerve.com> wrote in message
> news:8hjrjt$31r$1...@famine.phx3.mindspring.net...
>> Maybe a hybrid? Turn-based, but if you don't take your turn in a specified
>> interval, you lose it.
> You would have to either make the interval pretty short (<<5 seconds, I'd say)
> or expect *lots* of patience from the players. Imagine walking through a long
> corridor if you could only take a step every 5 seconds.
Scale it depending on how many other players are around; if I'm the only human
on this level of the dungeon, have near-roguelike timeouts (perhaps a status
bar that indicates how much time is "left" for the current move); if another
player is on "this" level, but not in the current room, the timeout gets a
bit shorter; and if another player is in the same room as I am, it becomes
synchronized but still turn-based with a ~1 second timeout.
Monsters, of course, should not contemplate their actions. :)
[snip]
> want would be dangerous in melee (a monster would likely get 5 swings or so),
> but not absolutely fatal, the way it would be if the game were actually real
> time.
True. . .
> I sort of like the way this would handle speed--it would make you move and
> (mindlessly) fight faster, but it wouldn't help you think or do complex
> manipulations faster.
It seems a lot of people fight pretty mindlessly, at least until they get
low in hit points. Perhaps that could be factored in as well.
> Saving would be a separate problem. Who wants to have to play a complete
> roguelike in one sitting? But, on the other hand, how do you synchronize
> saves?
> Should saving make a player disappear? Freeze and become invulnerable?
> This is open to all kinds of abuse.
Take a cue from Xpilot: you can pause at any time if you can get to a
base (not hard to find), but you can't always rejoin the game right away.
If you only allow entrance to the game when the move count mod 100 or so
is zero, "pausing" is much less a tactical advantage.
Minmum pausing time, and notification to the other players that you have
rejoined the game. (Which would make an interesting covert channel.)
> Better, perhaps: Rather than allow saving with a command, make leaving the
> dungeon (without the amulet) save the game. When you reenter the game,
> you restart on the up stairs in DLVL 1. Other characters could, of course,
> keep playing while you were away.
Naturally.
Scatter mushrooms about the game. Eat one, and you, with all of your stuff,
turn to stone, and suffer no damage. You cannot resume play for ~1000 seconds
or 1K moves, whichever is shorter....
> Of course, as I said above, this wouldn't really have much of the feel of a
> roguelike game. Sitting and pondering your next move is an important
> part of the roguelike feel, and semi-real-time would destroy that option.
Well, it's mostly "Why didn't I stop and take a moment to think about what
I had? I should'a drunk that potion of extra healing instead of running for
the stairs..."
--
Stewart Stremler stre...@rohan.sdsu.edu
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft isn't the answer, but the question. The answer is NO.
Ville V Sinkko
> Erik Max Francis wrote:
> I've only seen 1 multiplayer roguealikes, the first was crossfire, a
> sorta rogueish type thing, where you returned to a hotel type thing. It
> was also realtimeish, which sorta sucked. The second I can't remember
> the name of, you could either camp out somewhere (Avoiding the common
> places that were visited, if you were sensible) or stay in a inn thing,
> for a fee.
There was a MUD i used to nominally code in, called Majik. At one point in
its evolution it was developed from a text-only interface to an actual
hybrid of a functional roguelike map view (looked like ADOM) with
additional text descriptions. It was practically realtime, with one turn
taking 0.5 seconds (iirc). This incarnation of the MUD is gone now, but
there's still a screenshot lingering at
http://www.majik3d.org/gfx/majik4-sc.gif
I have to say, it was damn *FUN* to play!
+Cinquo