Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Valg,

I thought your post was very well written. Much better than I could articulate. Thank you for that. Though it may have gotten lost in the posts in between. I echo just about every sentiment you state.

Jazuela,

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought you said you started playing Armeggedon a few years ago and have been playing it since? I did not know you stopped playing.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Because a MMO (Massive Multiplayer Online) game runs in a server somewhere and multiple people connect to this game server and play the game simultaneously. Not all graphical RPG's fill this criterion.

PS. Treshold and Prof, if you could take the personal attack-parts to PM's or the flame thread for the sake of brevity, it'd be appreciated.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Actually this is inaccurate. Having programmed for a Graphical RPG online there is absolute no difference between a MUD Server supporting multiple players and a MMO Server. The only difference is that some high end MMO's have multiple servers.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

I started playing Armageddon in late 2002, early 2003 I believe. My account hasn't been active there since late 2005-early 2006.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

I was talking about MUDs to a non-MUDder the other day and used the term PK. They asked what I meant. Suddenly, I realized, there's a term that is used to describe MUDs that seems to have little or no confusion whatsoever and yet it's totally inaccurate. Player-Killing is not an accurate description of what goes on. No player is killed. No player has ever been killed by another on a PK MUD, a H&S MUD, or any type of RP MUD. Their character may be killed, but the player isn't. If one tried to argue that it stands for Player-Character Killing, that might work except the abbreviation should therefore be PCK.

And yet this inaccurate term is accepted by the community to define a specific type of game. PK, after all, takes place on many types of MUDs, most of which aren't referred to as PK MUDs. And yet when you say PK MUD, there's a generally-accepted type that is noted. This isn't, as noted by others, the only terminology which has a name not very accurate in its description of what it applies to. How then is this different from RPI?

Is RPI completely accurate? No, it can be misinterpreted. English is a horrid language because words can have different meanings depending upon how you read them. RPI is accurate but can be interpreted in a completely different way by different individuals. Even within the RPI community we've seen that there are various views on what constitutes a core feature. That's why an examination of what the term originally referred to is critical to understanding how the term was intended. Those features shared at the term's origination provide a guideline for defining the core features that the term applied to. Subjective interpretations of RP are just that: subjective. It must be the unchanging features which were without variation that need be discerned. Only in that way can you avoid the "but we do it this way" or "why can't we do it this way?" arguments.

Take care,

Jason

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Hey Jazuela,

Sorry for mistaking that. Thank you for clarifying.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Unless I completely misread what DurNominator said, he's not comparing MMOs with MUDs, but rather MMOs with Computer RPGs (CRPGs).

Features found in a typical CRPG include things like character development, freedom of movement, multiple quests, combat based (at least partially) on character ability, a well-developed fictional setting, etc. However many CRPGs are exclusively single-player games, and even those with multiplayer support are usually a primarily single-player game.

I suspect that's where 'MMORPG' comes from - they're not just Multiplayer RPGs, they're Massively Multiplayer RPGs that (unlike most CRPGs) can only be played Online. As such I would consider MUDs/MMO(RPG)s a subset of CRPGs. I guess we can all click the 'Roleplaying Enforced/Mandatory' checkbox now, as pretty much every mud fulfills the criteria of a Computer Role-Playing Game.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

After reading these threads for a while, I think I have a clearer way to explain why the RPI community is going to continue having a hard time claiming the title RPI as their own. Before the term RPI or "RP Intensive" was adopted by three games with a specific feel or feature set, it already meant something in the gaming community and continues to mean something to the vast majority of gamers.

RP Intense = The RP on or with this game is intense or the RP is the focus of the game.

Now a subset of the MUDing community is trying to claim it for their own saying that it not only refers to the RP on their games but also a list of specific features. They can continue to call themselves whatever they wish and continue to use the term, but they don't have a right to be upset when people use the term or initials as it is commonly defined with almost everyone else. It was a very poor choice, and if the Armageddon style games don't change the name they are going to have live with the consequences of that poor choice.

Please don't get me wrong, I don't have anything at all against these games. I've played several of them myself. For their own sake and sanity, I do hope they come up with a more unique term to categorize their games.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

You might want to re-read then, because you have it backward. The term RPI became popular -as a direct result- of players using it to describe the "big three." RPI referred to the "big three" FIRST. THEN it started referring to whatever NewForumMember wanted it to mean.

I'm one of the most "vocal" people here about the term RPI, and I haven't played one since 2006. So I'm not trying to "claim it for my own" because frankly I have no stake in it one way or another. The community came up with the term. Not the RPI community exclusively. The mudding community at large. It came up with the term, described it even though they never fairly defined it, and the description stuck.

Every so often, someone pops up saying that RPIs aren't really RPIs, or that THEIR game should be an RPI even though it doesn't fit the rules, and another 5-thread, 20-page discussion comes up. It dies down after a few weeks, and we don't have to deal with it again for another 6 months or so.

In addition, so far as I can tell, none of the "Armageddon style game" admins are posting here complaining about anyone's use of the term. None of them are upset about it, or feel their rights are being infringed upon. There seems to be simply a very "textually vocal" discussion amongst players, ex-players, and non-players of RPIs regarding the use of the term.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

That may be true, but I'm not sure it matters; it doesn't change the fact that it's a dangerously imprecise term that people have decided to use to describe an extremely precise concept.

I have nothing against a MUD that has an "RPI" style; but it is emphatically wrong to suggest that all of the features that the "RPI" community espouse are necessary for "an Intense Role-Playing experience" because they quite clearly aren't.

Most of the features listed in the first post of this thread will, at best, only contribute to the RP experience in some games. There's no reason at all why an "intensive RP MUD" should (for example) have permadeath; it's just as easy to have an intensive RP experience within a game world where the logic of that world's physical laws makes permadeath impossible.

If the "RPI" community wants to play a game with all of those characteristics, then more power to them, but they need to stop using the term "RPI" to describe it.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Just like PK or MUD or H&S. PK MUDs don't involve killing players and it's quite a "dangerously imprecise term" to suggest to players inexperienced with them that they do. MUDs don't have consist of "dungeons". H&S games need not be limited to only hacking and slashing as a means of gaining experience. They're all imprecise terms.

Again, for the nine millionth time, "intense role-playing experience" is not what RPI means. If it did, the abbreviation would be IRPE. Go back, read what was said, stop for a moment, and then speak. It wasn't the RPI community alone that created the term nor applied it to a group of MUDs bearing a particular core of features.

There is no such definable thing as an "intensive RP MUD". "Intensive" role-play is completely subjective. RPI was not a subjective term. It was an objective term for three MUDs in reference to their concentration on features solely with the consideration of creating a world for role-play, not killing monsters for points and levels. There was no opinion on RP, it was applied to a particular group of features. RPI stands for Role-Play Intensive and not Intense Role-Play. I find it hard to believe that in a literate community of text-based games so many people have difficulty understanding this.

The term RPI was created to describe that set of features. Before Arm, HL, and FEM, there was no such thing as RPI. The term was used to describe those MUDs. It was only later that other games began to bastardize the term for their own games. So why would the games to which the term applied "need to stop using the term" that was created specifically for them?

Jason

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

I think a lot of people are really missing the point on what Delerak and a lot of members of the RPI community are trying to achieve with guidelines like this.

We are not trying to invalidate the RP of other MUDs, we are simply trying to make it known what YOU, the gamer, should expect when you run across a MUD that calls itself an RPI.

This has come from the fact that big three did not have a designation and were forced to call themselves MUDs when they were vastly different from all the various other categories of MUDs out there. Too much unforgiving code to be called a MUSH and such a strict RP environment as to really sour someone who was expecting one of the various styles of RP encouraged MUDs and even RP enforced.

What the RPI standards are trying to do is not to say "HEY JACKASSES YOUR RP IS AWFUL AND I HATE YOU!" to any other style of MUD or game out there that does have "intense RP", but just to let people know what they're getting into when they begin to play an RPI.

This has been fine for awhile, and everyone was happy until other MUDs starting picking up on the term that were vastly different experiences than one would expect from an RPI, they weren't necessarily bad games, they were just different enough that they couldn't really be accurately compared to the other games using the designation.

And the whole point of a designation is to define something, whether people are getting their panties in a bunch because it's a term that holds some sort of importance outside of RPIs, it's not a perfect term, it was coined by those who played the RPIs, not something a haughty MUD owner used to fluff themselves up. And it's just stuck for a long time now.

I suggest to those who are arguing against the use of the term. Give one of these RPIs a try, see how different they really are from other styles of MUDs.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Hi there. First post (took a few days to get validated, though I've been reading in the meantime). The only problem I see with this is there is no 'industry standard'. While I agree it would be nice to know what you're getting yourself into if a MUD advertises itself as RPI/RPE/Whatever they want to call themselves this week, who decides exactly what the guidelines are and which MUDs meet them? What stops a MUD that does not fit *insert random name here*'s version of an RPI from calling themselves an RPI? More importantly, how do the PLAYERS (you know, the people you are trying to entice to your MUDs) figure it all out? :confused:

Slapping acronyms on MUDs is all well and good but, without a clear consensus across the board by every single MUD admin, it's confusing and sometimes misleading. One man's RPI is another man's nightmare and so on and so forth. Confusing the very players you want to entice is never a good idea, which is why I ignore the acronyms and read what the MUDs have to offer me.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Yes they are. Read the posts. Every time one of the RPI defenders gets their back in a corner, they lash out with "haha! Your mud's RP sucks." That is the dirty little sentiment that is always hidden (or sometimes not hidden) below the surface of every post. It is part of the magnanimous way they list features with explanations like "because this feature is better/more realistic" when that feature is neither better nor more realistic, but is just a preference.

And then once again, when PROVEN wrong, they lash out with personal attacks against your mud, the RP on your mud, your family, your spouse, your children, anything they can think of.

That may be the goal for some, but it definitely is not the goal of the most prolific RPI-supporting posters. If that was truly the goal, then a set of features would simply be listed - without including snarky comments about how their feature set was better or more realistic.

And they would come up with a non-vague, non-generic, non-qualitative term like RPI. They'd come up with a term like "PRP" - Prof's RP rule set or "ARP" Armageddon RP rule set or something of that nature.

There is a very clear and simple path they could take if the goal was truly listing a set of features so people who like those features could find that kind of mud. But that path never gets taken.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

I agree there needs to be more community responsibility. I once noted years ago that numerous MUDs on TMS' rankings were inaccurate, from H&S MUDs calling themselves RPI to stock worlds calling themselves "nearly all original". There seems to be no great movement within the community to hold MUDs accountable for their claims.

I believe I mentioned it in one of these threads and have definitely mentioned it before that I favor the removal of such dishonest MUDs from the listings and their placement on a "Liar's List" denoting that they've used deceitful assessments of their games.

Hence the need to identify and denote a set of characteristics that the term refers to. To do this requires an assessment of games defined as RPI. As the term has been used by games ranging from strict IC-enforcement to (sadly) games where RP wasn't even required, how could such an assessment be determined? This range of MUDs share only such basic characteristics that any MUD could be called RPI. And yet, there are plenty of MUDs which would not claim nor would be claimed to be RPI. Basing such a determination on present-day use would hardly give one an accurate definition of the word, especially if the possibility exists of misuse of terminology. How then to know which MUDs were misusing the term? The best way to determine this would be to compare the MUDs which were undoubtedly considered RPI, the ones to whom the term was first employed to describe. Comparitive examination of those games would reveal a pattern of common features for while they were representative of two different code developments, they each had distinct features not shared with the others as well. Discounting the dissimiliarities, a core of features might be determined. This core could then be compared to other MUDs to determine if they too matched up reasonably well.

When done, a group of games begins to take shape. While most are descendents of those first three, there are examples of other games which are not. The feature set reveals a list of MUDs that match those parameters originally described as RPI. Just as those original MUDs were not disputed as RPI, so too can such a positive identification be derived for those games today bearing the same characteristics. The term gains clarity and usefulness once more.

Always a good idea and still a good idea when looking at individual MUDs. The term RPI would serve much the same as the term PK MUD or H&S. It's a means of narrowing the search. Just as someone looking for a pure player-killing MUD would be looking for a set of characteristics quite different than someone looking for a RP-enforced, so too could someone seeking the core features of an RPI use the term to narrow down the field. The term could even be used to eliminate from consideration games bearing such features as are found in RPIs. The point is that it becomes a tool for a player to use in searching the hundreds of MUDs that exist to narrow the parameters and assist in finding those games that have the features that they're looking for or looking to avoid, whichever the case.

Jason

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

And this is why there is such a bruhaha over the issue. Because you, Threshold, like taking things to extremes, talking in absolutes, and possibly even snickering when someone who doesn't know any better, reads what you post and takes it seriously.

1) Labeling people who agree on a term "RPI defenders" is silly. There's nothing to defend, because RPI isn't an official title of anything. Unless you are referring to people who disagree with you being defensive, thus making you offensive, then I suggest you do away with the melodrama.

2) I am (theoretically) "one of the RPI defenders" and I haven't once lashed out with anything against your mud. I've never played your mud, I've never looked at your website, I've never had any interest, of any kind, at any time, in your mud. I have no idea if your mud's RP sucks. I don't know why you feel so threatened by RPIs that you feel you have to accuse me of insulting your mud. Maybe there's something to the phrase "thou doth protest too much," hm?

Lay off the self-righteous sanctimonious histrionics long enough to realize that most people just don't give a damn about the term RPI, and the vast majority of people who do give a damn, are playing them. And, that vast majority, is a miniscule minority. And, you and your game is not included in that minority. Is that so hard to swallow? Does it hurt your feelings -that- much, that you have to pop a vein over it?

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Really? Go read your own post where you trashed New World's MUD and then come back and tell me I am taking anything to an extreme.

If that were true, then why does this issue even come up? It sure as heck isn't the rest of us poor, unwashed masses creating the argument. The only reason this is EVER an issue is when some RPIers decide to trash someone for calling their MUD an RPI or when a player says "I am looking for an RPI with <these features>" and an RPIer trashes the player for thinking an RPI could ever include such features.

In fact, the latter is how the whole thing started up this go around.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

"RPI defenders" haven't had their back in a corner. They have gotten frustrated at the constant straw man arguments and inaccurate statements and overall ignorance of the history of the term that is continually brought up by some members of the forum, even after such arguments, inaccuracies, and ignorance are proven erroneous.

To say nothing of biased, attacks like that.

Or like this baseless accusation.

Or blanket statements like that.

You have yet to prove anything and have succeeded only in derailing this discussion. If you wish to provide a counter to the points discussed, disprove the following:

1. The term RPI was first applied to a small group of MUDs and used both by and in reference to those MUDs by members of the MUD community besides those associated with said games.
2. Those MUDs share the same features agreed upon earlier in this discussion.
3. That the use of this term to describe three different games utilizing two independently-derived sets of near-identical code features which were later adhered to by more games including a third independently-derived codebase.
4. That the term RPI has since been appropriated for use by MUDs not bearing similarity to any of the above.

And again statements like this are deceitful. As I already explained to you and to to your spouse no slight was ever intended toward her or your children. The remark was solely directed at you and persisting to claim otherwise is an example of demonizing those you disagree with rather than countering their arguments with facts.

Despite whatever reason you have for doing so, these repeated attacks have only served to provoke the sort of response you then point to as a substitute for an actual counter argument to their points. Whether your behavior is a result of fear that some community members' assumption that the term RPI denotes greater quality or simply jealousy on your part in regard to that assumption, as accurate or inaccurate as it may be, I can not say. But your repeated denial of the purpose of this discussion has only been backed by accusation and aggravation of those individuals, myself included, who are attempting to distill a reasonable and accurate definition of the term RPI. I repeat that any comment I just made is directed solely at you and not your family because I have yet to hear any legitimate argument from you to counter those four points of discussion which have been arrived at before the derailing of this thread.

These are baseless accusations based on assumption of purpose to which I refer. You can not know the goal of anyone but yourself so unless you're speaking of yourself, any talk of other people's goals is nothing but speculation. It may be well-founded speculation or not, but to claim "it definitely is" or is not anything is not true. Spoken as is, it constitutes nothing more than a personal attack on motives you can not possibly know.

This has been done and refinement of that set of features would be continuing now if it were not for the derailment of the discussion.

We're attempting to clear up the misconceptions about just such a term: RPI. But the term RPI is a term with a historical precedent and is far from vague or generic when the context of its use is examined. It's not about my "RP rule set" or anyone's preferences. It's about definable set of characteristics that the term was historically used to denote. Even outside of the historical context in which it was used, RPI is no more or less accurate than practically any other term used to describe other kinds of MUDs (or even the term MUD itself).

The first step in this discussion was attempting to discern the features that constituted a RPI MUD. There had been considerable input into this process before the derailment. My hope is that from this point forward the discussion will return to that original purpose and the analysis will be completed. As for other steps in clearing up the misperceptions about the term RPI, those are being taken as well but shall require discussion to ensure that the process is factual.

Here's to keeping the discussion civil and factual from here on out. Is that something we can all agree to?

Take care,

Jason

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Now, let us return to the purpose of this discussion and summarize what features were defined by the invention of the term RPI. Ideally, it'd be nice if the digression were separated from this thread but as I'm not a moderator, that would be up to one of them.

Delerak, as this puppy's your thread and thus far you had kept track, I happily defer the honor of keeping the results of this investigation presented as updated (or maybe I'm just too lazy to type it out myself :-D).

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Jason,

Thank you for such clear responses to my statements. I've learned a lot by reading this thread. Namely, which MUDs I couldn't be paid to try out. ;)

It will be interesting to me to see if some kind of consensus is actually met in what constitutes an RPI.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Yes, I think a lot of people learned quite a bit about certain categories of MUDs.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

No. I'd say I've learned a lot about certain MUDs, regardless of category, based on the responses of the people representing them. :)

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Yeah. We got it the first time. Want a cookie?

:)

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

You're welcome.

I don't know if there ever will be a consensus regardless of how specific a term can be derived. As numerous discussions on a variety of topics on these forums alone have revealed, opinion tends to dictate what will and won't be accepted, be it the definition of "RPI" or the definition of "Pay to Play".

I believe Delerak had a good intention in attempting to define the features. I myself have spent well over half of a decade doing so (ever since the first time I witnessed dispute over the term and back to a time when I still played H&S as well as RPI MUDs). One would think an objective examination of comparitive features would be enough but the tendency of people to simply disregard anything that doesn't fit their preference, as it's been called, means that no matter how sufficient the evidence, some simply won't accept anything less than what they want the answer to be. All one has to do to know this isn't confined merely to MUD terminology is to look at the unwillingness of some to accept the theory of evolution over the creationist mythology. Regardless of the preponderance of even the strongest evidence in support, people don't like to accept even the strongest of arguments if those arguments contradict what they want to believe.

That said, I reiterate my hope that Delerak and all those interested in discerning as objective and exact a list of criteria possible will continue to examine and compare all the MUDs in question in order to arrive at an accurate definition of the term.

Take care,

Jason

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

My listing for RPI feature set would be features that help in making the roleplaying atmosphere more intense. Here are few features I'd expect a true RPI to have. Personally, I wouldn't use some "historical three" as a guideline, as games evolve and implement better features. Thus, I'd like to propose a following development goals for any game (I would not restrict RPI concept for MUD use, as one can say RPI MUD to specify) that wants to call itself RPI:

-One important factor is realistic-based character advancement, which means that the most effective way of character advancement would be similar to the way it is done in real life. Thus, you'd only learn so much coding from typing Treshold's code snippet over and over. The skill based/level based discussion is sort of moot, as the advancement is measured with integers in both cases. Thus, the important part is the realisticness of the advancement, not complete hiding the code or levels, as the player behaviour will be the same if the game is properly coded. Only reason to hide the system is players min-maxing the system due to the inferior nature of the system design in RPI-sense. Thus, the hiding of code itself shouldn't be a requirement, but can be used as a trick to make it easier to build an RPI, as it protects your inferior code from being discovered.

-Realistic game physics. This means that your actions have consequences, whatever is appropriate in that particular world, such as jumping off a cliff would cause you to fall down if a force pulling you downwards, such as gravity, is present in the enviroment and you do not have means to counter it. Ideally, people wouldn't be able to do what is not possible in their world. Permadeath is not a requirement per se, but there should be a convincing explanation why the resurrection is possible RP-wise.

-Realistic game culture. Actions should also have realistic social consequences. For example, if you clear out an area hack&slash style, the heinous mass murder should have some consequences, such as the town you committed your crime in turning hostile towards you, providing that the deed does not go unnoticed. Anyway, the world would be affected by the actions of players and thus, working as a deterrent for heinous deeds if the players do not wish to face the consequences. Thus, hack & slashing creatures wouldn't be against the rules per se, but the adverse effects would automatically create an enviroment where it is a rare deed.

-Intuitive user interface. The game system should be simple enough to use so that the mechanics do not become a hindrance to roleplay.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

I don't care what we call them. RPI's RPXPDMODS XYZS TEAANDBISCUITS just so long as we can find them when we're looking for them and avoid them when we're not.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

It's an issue because the muds that created the acronym are the actual RPI muds. The other muds using the acronym are not. It's the same sense that DIKU created the diku code, so they can justify what is diku if someone else is using those set of features that the DIKU team created specifically, or by using the actual code. So, yes, RPI players are upset when other muds try to use the term and we try the mud, and it's joke. In that analogy of a sense anyway.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Which means you can't be a level 10 Cook, unless you're multiclassing. If you are multiclassing, then most times you will only be able to have a few classes.

Levels for skills - This seems acceptable.

Levels for characters - Even you have said calling someone a "Level 10 Fighter" is silly.

Although regardless I wouldn't make either one a definition on what is or isn't an RPI. I'm just responding to the assertion that levels are IC.

But these levels don't happen because you've just killed your fifth bunny or used kick 37 times, they happen because a ceremony has been performed. Having a black belt doesn't give you the ability to do certain things. And being able to do certain things doesn't give you a black belt. Graduating from a school gives you a black belt. However someone has no need to graduate from a school to gain those abilities. They could be taught privately by a black belt master.

There are many solutions, and requiring a delay is only one of them. The code can't stop people from roleplaying unrealistically. As long as I can walk up to someone and type "say Isn't this game fun? I thought my character was going to die 5 minutes ago, let's go loot some mobs" then the code allows players to roleplay unrealistically. To single out the need to travel in a certain space in a certain time and then select one solution to the problem and then say "All RPI's must have this" is absurd.

You can't say an RPI must have arbitrary code feature X to enforce realistic roleplay. You can say the code MUST ALWAYS enforce realistic roleplay (I disagree here as well, but you can say it), but you can't just pick or choose when it does. As such anything about skills or levels shouldn't be in a definition of an RPI.

I would generalize this to no constraints on player actions due to OOC reasoning. Me killing Bob the Merchant shouldn't be reliant upon whether he is a PC or NPC. Now whether or not I can do something might be constrained because of what has been coded into a mud (for example I might not be able to skin a human's body and craft a cape from it because it hasn't been coded), but it shouldn't be constrained due to OOC reasoning (I can skin an NPC human's skin, but I can't skin a PC human's skin because that PC's friends might want to collect the body to resurrect it).

So are you saying that RPI's cannot have global channels such as a newbie channel? I could go on at length about why this is wrong (IMO), but I'll see if this is truly what you're saying.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

RPIs are games with coded systems just like other MUDs. The difference is not the existance of any form of such scale but rather the existance of such knowledge to the player. Behind-the-scenes the numbers still exist but a player in an RPI will never see them.

At issue is not whether or not there are multiple ways to achieve a goal. The purpose of this discussion is defining what methods are employed by RPI MUDs as opposed to the methods of other MUDs.

What is more so at issue is the environment and enforcement of it. Walking up to someone and saying "Isn't this game fun" isn't role-playing. It's stepping outside of the role to comment on the OOC fact that it is a game. No code can prevent such an action. However, code can be designed to prevent the use of specific OOC information such as precise skill aptitude determination while the existance and enforcement of a policy of only strict IC-only behavior can determine the appropriate and inappropriate nature of such behavior as in your example.

You seem to have been confused by my point. RPI is a combination of a set of code and policy features intended to support and maintain role-play as opposed to

If I recall correctly, it was Brody who once cited a difference between the terms "role-play" and "roll-play". The former has nothing to do with levels and skills and levels and skills have nothing to do with role-play. At best, the possession of a skill can dictate the appropriateness of role-playing the use of such ability. In this regard, that's where code steps in to maintain the standard of what can and can not be done in role-play and how effective such abilities may be represented.

I'm not saying RP MUDs can't have global channels. I'm pointing out the fact that every MUD undisputedly accepted as being RPI does not have global channels. In attempting to form a definitive feature set for what constitutes an RPI, a good method to do so would be to identify those uncommon features shared by all such universally-accepted MUDs. Hence the lack of global player-useable channels would be one such characteristic of RPI.

Take care,

Jason

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Are you saying that muds must hide numbers from players to constitute an RPI?

Right, and there are many ways an RPI could do something. Just because RPIs have done it one way, doesn't mean that's the only way, or even the best way.

Right, but there are a number of code and policy features an RPI may or may not have. Having code to allow someone to bury objects would support and maintain roleplay. However lacking such code doesn't mean you're not an RPI. Similarly you may have a skill-based advancement system in order to support and assist roleplay, or you might have a level based system designed to do the very same thing. Having one or the other shouldn't disqualify you from being an RPI.

Its a good place to start, as Delerak did in the first post, but it shouldn't be where you finish. For example Armageddon (a mud generally accepted to be an RPI, right?) encourages newbies to seek out trusted players in e-mail, AIM, MSN, etc to ask questions.

If instead we created a newbie channel where they could ask all trusted players a question (such as "how do I fill up my waterskin?" and had the trusted players answer the question without needing to be in the same physical room, this would be a global channel. Does that mean its no longer an RPI? Of course not. Which shows the limitation of simply documenting what current RPIs do or do not have.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Some numbers, yes. Skill (combat, smithing, writing, etc) and attribute (strength, dexterity, etc.) aptitude would be an example of a hidden number. An argument that the same applies to health or movement would likely be incorrect as substitutes for numbers were not employed at the time the term RPI came into use and at least one RPI might still use numbers to denote total health and movement (haven't played it in over six months so I'm not sure).

There are some things that are done one way. That's what differentiated RPIs from other MUDs. Skill-use-based advancement as opposed to stat-based advancement is one such example. Given the vast diversity of features found in MUDs in many different combinations, even within RPIs themselves, it is necessary to determine what specific features were shared by games to which the term was applied. I counted about 16 or 17 originally, though that number is likely larger now given the advancement of several other features over the years. Hence the importance to compare the games then and not now as those shared features of the past were the original parameters of determination.

There are a number of code and policy features which a RPI may or may not have. But there are likewise a core set of features which define a MUD as RPI. A lack of these features would be terminal to such definition however.

Just as a mammal may or may not have a tail, so too may a RPI have or not have some features such as ranged weapons. But just as a mammal has hair and not scales, so too would the existance of some features or the absence of others determine if a MUD were or were not RPI.

The point of this discussion has been to try and determine what those specific features were that were shared by the games that were referred to not only as RP MUDs but as RPI MUDs.

Having code to allow a person to mail a letter in-game to someone would support and maintain role-play as well. However, it was not a feature of RPIs at the time the term was derived and was therefore not a feature that formed the characteristics together to which the term RPI referred.

No, it wouldn't disqualify you from being a role-play MUD but it would disqualify you from being a RPI if the features are not that of the like shared by RPI MUDs. The term was not applied to all RP MUDs, just to a small number. Those MUDs were all RP MUDs sharing similar features, one of which was the absence of levels.

The confusion seems to be over the misinterpretation of Role-Play (RP) MUD and Role-Play Intensive (RPI) MUD being interchangeable. While many today use them as such, that's akin to saying Kleenex in reference to a tissue. Kleenex is not the general term for the thin paper object, tissue is. Kleenex is a specific type of tissue. Likewise, RP MUD (general term) and RPI MUD (specific term denoting RP MUDs with a particular feature set) are not the same thing. RPIs are a specific type of RP MUD. All RPIs are Role-Play MUDs but not all Role-Play MUDs are RPI.

Yes, it would mean it's not an RPI. Global player channels are a staple of most MUDs, including many Role-Play MUDs (owing to its existance in numerous original H&S codebases). But RPI is not a general term like RP MUD. It's a specialized term for a type of RP MUD. The MUDs to which the term RPI was first applied all shared the same set of characteristics, one of which was the deliberate removal of global channels for player use.

The way to determine the elements of the feature set of RPIs is to look for common characteristics in the past, not the present. For example, if all RPIs today have ranged weapon code, that is not necessarily a feature of RPI as the majority of RPIs did not have such code until the public release of the SoI RPI Engine in December '03 or January '04 (I forget precisely which month it was off-hand). That feature would not have been something that denoted a RPI MUD because the term was in use to describe games without that feature long before ranged weapon code became common in RPIs.

Take care,

Jason

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Using that same logic - that whatever doesn't share the characteristics originally applied to a class of MUDs shouldn't label themselves an RPI - would invalidate an RPI MUD (or indeed essentially any MUD listed on TMS) from calling itself a MUD. They don't share the same set of features that the original games to which the term MUD was applied had. In fact, they share almost none of the same set of features of the original MUD.

If you accept that something can be a MUD even with vastly different features from what was originally called a MUD, then I don't see why you wouldn't accept that something can be an RPI even with different features than the original MUDs to which the RPI label was applied.

Language and its meaning evolves.

--matt

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

I've always said MUD was a horrible term anyway. Every now and then I've jokingly used the term MUG in its place. However, the term MUD is an accepted term for text-based gaming and can even be used beyond. the basic characteristics of what is considered a MUD are equally vague but there are some basic shared features between all the games that call themself a MUD. However, there are also clear differences between the context in which the terms MUD and other terms like MUSH are used even though both are text-based games. So too with RP MUDs and RPI. Why do these terms come into use? To differentiate types of games.

RPI MUDs still possess that same basic core of features no matter how far or how little they've changed. Just as a basic set of core features for which the term MUD applies (a rather slim set), so too did a core set exist for identifying RPI.

The problem is that the term didn't evolve into use so much as it was simply ignored and used either out of ignorance or deliberate deceit. Language may evolve but we're talking more than language. We're talking taxonomy.

I'm not disputing that. But formal language dictates most serious study and research in order to reduce confusion over the chaotic changes of language. Standardized terms based on undisputed commonalities and examples are the key to forming functional definitions. As you said, language evolves but even so, local and temporary or short-term changes rarely find their way into standard use. Even when they do, its even less common for them to find themselves into use in scientific use.

Take care,

Jason

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

DIKU stands for Datalogisk Institut Københavns Universitet. If another group of students at this same facility had created a codebase, it would have been a misleading term that could cause confusion. Because there wasn't, it doesn't. You say "DIKU-based MUD" and everyone knows what you're talking about.

RPI is a completely different kettle of fish. This, according to you and players of "RPI's", stands for RolePlay Intensive. This is a phrase which could, and does, mean something in normal english usage. A MUD that doesn't fit your criteria could still be roleplay intensive regardless of whether you agree with the features of that game. Claiming that these other games can't use RPI when it is for all intents and purposes a normal, acceptable acronym because a bunch of people think it should only apply to games with a certain set of features is like saying I've decided other MUDs can't use the acronym RPE (RolePlay Enforced) any more because in mine and my mates game we enforce RP by having one staff member per player follow them around enforcing their RP, and the code watches to make sure you're RP-ing, so other games claiming to be RP-Enforced are inferior.

If the initial three games mentioned as "RPI's" want to have their own special acronym to signify a certain set of features, as has already been mentioned they need to come up with something a bit less generic. Just because something is in common usage doesn't make it right.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

(applause)

Exactly! :)

It's also worth pointing out that some of the other previously cited "counter-examples" are actually nothing of the sort. "MUD" is a perfectly good term, given that it doesn't stand for "Multi-User Dungeon" any more, it stands for "Multi-User Domain". And both "Hack & Slash" and "PK" are actually quite reasonable phrases to use to describe what they describe: PK means "killing characters controlled by players rather than by the computer" - "player-killing" is a reasonable and unambiguous abbreviation for that (unless you think we need to distinguish it from systems where the actual human players are killed in real life while playing).

However, "RPI" here is being used in a sense that is different from what one normally means by the phrase "role-play intensive", and the phrase "role-play intensive" could be (and is) used in a far wider context. If you actually say out loud "no, just because a MUD is role-play intensive doesn't mean it's Role-Play Intensive" you can see quite how inapparopriate the term is.

Again, I've nothing at all against RPIs, but the choice of "RPI" as a term to describe them was simply wrong. The fact that people who play "RPI" MUDs were the ones who coined the term doesn't make it any less wrong.

Put it this way: if they'd decided to call them "Armageddon-like" MUDs, would we even be having this discussion?

(sits back and waits for prof1515 to say "We're not talking about role-play intensive MUDs, we're talking about Role-Play Intensive MUDs!" as if that actually meant something...)

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

That's only true if one accepts your definition of an RPI MUD. ;)

--matt

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

If one only looks back at the three threads on RPI and the posts by Prof1515 it is clear that his singular goal is for everyone to accept his definition regardless of argument otherwise.

Once he understands that many do not and will not accept this (his) definition, perhaps the insanity will end and an more reasonable discussion will ensue from what Delerak originally begain as a round table about what everyone considered an RPI.

Let's face it, the three threads have gone into circles of the same argument. RPI is simply a poor and ambiquous term for a few MUDs to demand appropriation of said term.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

That in mind also, has anyone from the inital triumvirate of muds stepped forward to put in an opinon on the term?

Truth be told these days following so much mis-representation, bickering and general anti-rpi idiots, pro-rpi snobs.. very few players actually care about the term or distinguish a mud by it.


Mud adminstrators may get up in arms about this being called that and what things are classified as, who breaches what liscence.. but the players.. just like to play :)

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

A point made a couple of times I believe and a good point at that. It seems odd that someone would speak like they are the voice of the gang at RPIMUD, yet none of the originals have even commented.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Just a guess here, but possible that the admins don't chime in because the point of all this isn't to appease the admins of these games. It's to help players identify games that match their playing criteria. RPI, which could just as well stand for Really Peculiar Incense as anything else, was considered for years BY PLAYERS OF THOSE GAMES as a catch-all to identify those games. Notice the all caps on the "by players of those games." Notice it doesn't say "by game admins." This is intentional. Just as RPI stands for Rippling Pectorals International.

You see, it really doesn't matter what the letters of RPI "stands for." It matters what the term has come to mean over the years, for people wanting to play a certain type of game. YOU can change what it means to yourself, as much as you'd like. But when I and dozens of other people who have played this particular type of game, are in the market for a similar type of game, with similar criteria, WE will be looking specifically for that similar criteria. And we will be calling it RPI. And if we see an advertisement for a game that claims it's an RPI, and we go to the website, and don't see that it's got that criteria, and then we actually attempt to play the game (which most of us wouldn't do, if the info wasn't on the website, because THAT is one of the criteria too), and see that it isn't permadeath, or that it is pay to play, or that it has a HUGE "verblist" but no emote system, then we will be very disappointed and know that we were deceived - whether intentionally or not.

Because as you all know,

RPI stands for Remove Paper Insert.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

I believe that the only goal is to be able to find a new rpi mud that's going to be what an rpi player is expecting. I hate wasting my time on games with tons of chatter about nothing on a million global chanels, no character descriptions and no death. I'm sure that those games are lovely. But I don't want to play them. So, all of you who object to the term RPI just tell me how I will know when a new mud opens whether or not it's a waste of my time. What are the muds I'm looking for called?

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Same way you do for any MUD and the real purpose of TMS. To find the muds you like via a search engine, reviews, and rankings, and descriptions. If all you like is massive emote systems, perhaps you seek a MUSH? If you hate channels in any form than perhaps you seek a solo game. The reason for the search engine on Mud Sites is to help you with that.

The argument here with most people is that RPI is not a viable search at this time. It would be like putting a search engine for games that have a paid Administrator, but not a paid staff. Just a tad redundant.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

What I'm seeking is pretty much what was outlined in the first post deliniating what an RPI is. That's why we're using the acronym. Not to twist anyone's shorts, but so everyone can find or avoid them with complete ease.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Quoted For Truth. It's as simple as this people.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Then come up with an acronym that uses specific, unique identifying terms rather than generic words that have their own meaning. It isn't that hard, and tons of people have been suggesting it to you folks for years. It would solve all your problems if this is the TRUE reason you want an identifying name like RPI. Until then, stop crying that you can't lay claim to a generic set of words so you can find the exact type of MUD you want without putting forth a little effort like everyone else.

Oh, and while you're at it, drop the superior elitism. RPIs have their own absurdities and arbitrary design choices - just like any game. The RP is no better on an RPI than on many other MUSHs or RP enforced games out there. It is just different.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Threshold, stop hating on RPIs. Really; it's childish and unbecoming of a mud admin. Your game isn't an RPI. The people who have already grown accustomed to the term RPI, to describe an RPI, are happy to continue using the term RPI. You don't like it. You have made your opinion clear. So, don't call them RPIs if it twists your knickers so badly. Call them...oh..here's one:

Games That Have Permadeath, Roleplay Enforced, Free To Play, Skill-Based, Levelless, No-Global-Channel, Emote System But Not MUSH, Roleplaying Text-Based MUDs.

You can shorten it to GTHPREFTPSBLNGCESBNMRTB MUDs, the rest of us will call them RPIs, and everyone's happy.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Theshold changed his avatar..

Anyway Jazuela pretty much summed up my thoughts about it. The acronym has been used for so long by us superior individuals that we will continue to use it. And we will continue to deem other mushes and muds that do not fit our criteria as inferior. For it is quite simply the truth.

Yes we are elite, and we are proud of it. I have an aquiline nose.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

NOTE: "You" is used in this post as a catch-all term for players who use the term RPI to refer to three specific games or a subset that conforms to a set feature list.

You can continue to call them that if you wish. My only issue, and that of others who have replied here, is the derogatry way you sometimes treat other MUDs that advertise themselves as RPI. If they're trying to cash in/steal players from your games then that's different, but if someone calls their game an RPI because they have intensive roleplay then there is no reason for you or others to get all uppity and trash those games.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Sure there is reason. We coined the damn phrase RPI. What makes an RPI MUD intensive are the set of "intensive" features such as perm death, no levels, no global ooc channels, *goes to check his first post*. Anyway the list goes on, you can go read it if you like. It's Roleplay Intensive not Roleplay Enforced, because it has a set of features that are intense features, and when muds who do not have these intense features use the acronym, it is demeaning to us who may want to try other RPI muds and yet see a stock ROM/CIRCLE/DIKU or whatever that doesn't even half 2-3 of the features on the list I described earlier.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Pretty much everyone who doesn't play RPIs thinks it is a bad term, and even some people who play RPIs think it is a bad term. The fact that some people like it doesn't really make a difference. It is a bad choice of term. It is not accurate. It is incredibly vague and generic.

The only "hating" I am doing is on the superior attitude that drips from the posts of so many RPI fanatics. I am not hating on any RPIs. I think many of them are fine games. I have many customers who also play RPIs (some of them admins on RPIs) and I would not even begin to disparage their work or the way they find entertainment.

Or how about one of the countless reasonable suggestions that have been made? Like ARP (Armaggedon style RP). That is very specific and cuts right to the core of the matter. Or AHRP (Armagged/Harshlands style RP). If what you really care about is accurately labelling MUDs with a very specific set of rules, then use a more accurate and less generic term. It really isn't that hard. Alternatively, stop complaining when other people call their muds Role Play Intensive or RPI.

Take your pick.

Yeah, I have used the other one for far too long. I hope you like it. It is a picture of a trulloc.

*chuckle*