![]() |
Re: RPI, RPE, and Roleplay
Glad you are not calling me names.
Sure, I have strong feelings about it. Spent years planning, designing, preparing, working for others and then after the last MUD I worked for that went "poof" (after 6 months as the coder the admin disappeared without warning, and let's not even bring up the one before that that did about the same, or the one before, or the...) I said "the heck with it" and started this one myself. Will be 3 years on this project next month. I have to much time into gaming and coding to call my game "the best". It would be a subjective opinion colored by feelings, and how would anyone define "best" to begin with? I am just working toward putting what I like in a MUD into my game. Working from my notes (let's not mention they are "boxes of notebooks", k?) and what I term "the LIST". We are just letting the players come and go, and it is my hope that they find some entertainment while there. The numbers are low (0-10 usually, with 10 making me think "Oh my!"), but I do it for the game-world, not for player-base numbers. To kind of return to topic, I have considered us as "Role-play Expected", in that "says" and and "emotes" (and other such things) should be IC, but no one is going to follow "the fella that logs in for 20 minutes a day to slay orcs" around with a stick and beat him until he role-plays with everyone else. As long as players stay IC there are no issues (in my mind, and in our game). Somewhere more then "Encouraged" but less then "Enforced" is where I want us to head. Sometimes things can get so far into role-play that some player-enjoyment can be lost. I remember creating a character for SOI. I walked out the gate the first time and was shot with arrows. I quickly moved away, and after I scouted around and saw some people, humans like I was, I went to them to seek aid for my injuries... and was immediately set upon, beaten, bound and hauled off to a prison. This was good stuff! What great role-play! But sitting for (I believe it was) four real-life days in a cell by myself, emoting, just didn't cut it. I would send out the messages for times I was available, and only once did someone show up (for 10 minutes, but then they had to leave). They told me I was a prisoner of war, and was to be executed. I plead my case IC, but OOC conversations showed there was nothing I could do about it. So ended that role-play. Realistic, but not very fun with perma-death, especially with a brand new character's first glimpse of a world. Moderation in all things, I don't know. But if realism at the complete expense of player-fun is a requirement for some games I prefer not to play them, nor create one of their kind. Excuse me. I need more coffee. |
Re: RPI, RPE, and Roleplay
It's odd that there wasn't anyone on staff who noticed you in a cell sooner than four days. Might have been a case of slipping through the cracks. It's hard to say as I haven't been on SoI's staff since January of 2005 and can't really attest to the quality of the staff nowadays or their frequency online.
Sounds like you walked from one city to an opposing one. The situation is much the same as those hikers that Iran captured. The two sides are very suspicious of one another (as they're at war) and thus show no mercy to the enemy. I do know we had to crack down on players from one city going to the other because some people were treating it like a vacation. At one point over half of the humans created in Morgul were going to Osgiliath. But again, it's been a while since I've been on SoI's staff so I can't really say for certain. Of course, if SoI or any RPI didn't meet your preference there's no harm in not playing again. It's what you should do if you find a game doesn't meet your taste. You're better off not playing and they're probably better off not having a disgruntled player who doesn't enjoy their particular game. Your case doesn't sound like it but there are cases where the use of the term RPI by non-RPIs does create that situation. Players come into games with expectations based on that term and find disappointment because those expectations were not met. It's not necessarily the player's fault for having unrealistic expectations and it's not necessarily the game's fault for failing to meet them. The fault lies in the misuse of a term which created the unrealistic expecations either because the game incorrectly called itself RPI or the player didn't understand the meaning of the term. That shouldn't happen. The creation of the term way back when was meant to help identify a particular type of game and help those interested in that type of game find one a home with others who shared that interest. Jason P.S. -- If aside from that incident you did find SoI interesting, I would recommend playing in the city of Minas Tirith. From nearly all trustworthy accounts I've received, I understand that it is their best location for RP and if you stay inside the city you'll both be safe and be more likely to find the best RP they have to offer. |
Re: RPI, RPE, and Roleplay
Threshold not intense? What becuase you cant type 'think'.. surely that is something best catered to in the mind of the players themselves.. not RPI because it does not want to lose players with permadeath? Realistic world design.. the only liberty I saw with that was the south road.. the last location of which (after maybe 20 SOUTH commands which is about 5 mins of game time) was you are X00's of KM south of Sable... apart from that it is one of the most explorable and sensible worlds I have played in (in a list over over 20 muds)
When I played threshold, I lived, breathed my character. I didnt see black and white text.. I saw colours, heard the sounds, smelt the air, felt the ground and the trees all helped by every single sense being catered to in every single location and on a random scale so you didnt get the same description every time, and also had one of the easiest to use emote / preemote systems yet. This is not a defense of Threshold, but a counter to your utterly biased opinion against it. Not a single game out there, not even Armaggedon has managed to suck me in as much, and the main reason I dont play it anymore as it was far 'too' intense and ingame events could affect my real life mood. Players staying in charcter is one of the single biggest contribution factors to something being intense, not one or two commands difference or a difference in game mechanics. I suppose what we need to do really is redefine the scale / method of categorisation to something every one can accept. I dont think it would be such a far stretch for a collaboration between all the big sites to define such a scale, if the oneupmanship / bickering / personal attacks can be put to oneside for a short time. Maybe the RPI tag needs casting into the bin as not a single person can agree on what it means anymore, and 'Intense Features' being brought in as an 'umberella' category which can define a game as intense. For example I think we can agree on the defnition of a Role Playing game.. agreed? However if a game ticks any of the following boxes, it can be defined as 'Intense'. 1) Does game have permadeath 2) Does the game force players to be IC at all times when in the game arena 3) Are 'secret, non-game affecting, player specific commands encouraged' such as feel or think Or maybe a weighted scale where points are totalled up and measure against a table of 0 - 100 Permadeath + 15 Non-permadeath - 5 Incharacter enforced + 10 No OOC disucssion within game arena + 5 Unrealistic Communications between characters (such as whisper, guild channels) with no logical 'transport device' - 5 Eqipment saved on characters person after death -5 Think and Feel allowed + 10 OOC Actions and speech allowed -20 Realistic weather patterns and temperate zones + 5 Full 'sensory' descriptions allowed + 5 Level-less system + 10 Real time combat with constant user interaction + 1 PvP allowed at all times + 5 Stats based mechanics -5 All games start at 50 on the scale.. with 0 being 'Just a game, talk about baseball if yout want' and 100 being 'Forget real life, this game will take over it' and anything about 80 being defined as Role Playing Intense? |
Re: RPI, RPE, and Roleplay
Role-Play Intensive (or Role-Playing Intensive if you prefer) is not the same thing as "intense role-play". It's an adjective much in the same vein as "labor-intensive". Just as a "rose-red flower" and a "red rose flower" are not the same thing (the latter refers to the flower of the rose plant, the former could refer to a red carnation or a red tulip), so too is the difference with Role-Playing Intensive and intense role-playing.
The problem with creating any scale is agreeing on what constitutes it. Every game intent on using the term RPI would try to adjust the scale to make the cut-off point just below their own applied total. One game will only score 78 and will recommend the cut-off point be 75. Another game will only score 73 and argue that it should be 70. Technically speaking, there already is a list of features to which the term first applied and to which you can tick off to determine if a game is Role-Playing Intensive or not. An attempt was made to discern the original meaning of the term by comparing the first two games to which the term was applied and to which there is consensus as to their status as RPI. As a result, To date, at least 31 games, some which have never opened and some which have been open since the early-to-mid '90s, have met these characteristics including those to which the term was first applied. These games represent at least 4 different lines of code development and several different means of implementing these 19 characteristics. Nevertheless, they are all similar as a result of these same 19 characteristics and quite often their players and staff have moved between game to game. The problem is that games which don't meet those characteristics continue to abuse the term. One might be missing 4 of these characteristics while another is missing 4 completely different ones. Yet another may only possess those 8 missing from the other two. All still want to call themselves RPI. Hence even with another list like the one you made, a game that only registered a 22 might still try and call themselves RPI either because they disagree with your scale or because they just "think" that they're RPI anyway. The problem isn't a lack of definition, it's an unwillingness by some games in the MU* community to cease using a term which doesn't apply to them and a general unwillingness by the community to enforce any type of standard usage for that term or really anything else. Take care, Jason P.S. -0- As a side note, your scale would allow for a maximum of 116, not 100. ;) |
Re: RPI, RPE, and Roleplay
For the record, the lines of code development include:
1. Armageddon, from which I'm not aware of any other game using. 2. Harshlands, from which several off-shoots have evolved. The first was FEM which modified the code slightly and whose modifications were used for FE2 and Dark Horizon. The second was Shadows of Isildur (SoI) which in late 2003 made its code available online for download as the SoI RPI Engine. From this emerged the short-lived Argila variant which was used by several other games, none of which made it to opening (or if they did, have yet to open). Another game using the RPI Engine was the now-closed Lost Tales of Beleriand whose code is now being used by Atonement. Additionally, Black Sands uses the RPI Engine but is modifying the code to more closely resemble the style of Armageddon. 3. Southlands, which was developed from CircleMUD and appears to have been used for the apparently-closed Four Lands. 4. The Streets of Yesterday (TSOY) is using NakedMUD. Additionally, there are at least two other code development projects not associated with any particular game which are attempting to create new codebases which could be used to create RPI MUDs while maintaining options for adaptation into other non-RPI games as well. One of these projects is being attempted by Japheth, a former coder on SoI and the other is by Auroness who was responsible for the Argila variant of the RPI Engine. |
Re: RPI, RPE, and Roleplay
This is almost becoming a silly topic. Think for a moment what would happen if a group of Role-Play Enforced games started whining about anyone who used the term RPE who didn't follow their 19 code and policy characteristics. It would sound pretentious and foolish, I'd think.
I mean, think of this: "No you are not Role-Play Enforced. You might be Enforced Role-Play, but dammit man, you are definately not Role-Play Enforced according to what WE believe is RPE and what WE established as RPE so stop calling yourself that!" |
Re: RPI, RPE, and Roleplay
Except that the term RPE was not originally coined to describe their type of game. The term only has come to represent games with enforced role-play. However, if a game did not have enforced role-play and called itself Role-Play Enforced than that would be a case of an incorrect use of the term (if it were the result of ignorance; it would be a lie if the result of deliberate deceit).
You also continue to reverse wording in an attempt to argue against a different term than Role-Play Intensive. It's been demonstrated numerous times that this term is different than "intense role-play". The term Real-Time Strategy or RTS was coined for games where actions operate in real-time yet many of these games have accelerated "year" counters and other features which do not operate according to "real time". Take the Age of Empires series where a "year" goes by every couple seconds. You can also construct a building in seconds. If you build and hold a wonder for 200 "years" and you win but the "years" are not really years so is it appropriate to call it "real-time"? The term was coined for a specific type of game and a particular aspect of that game where the concept of "real-time" is a function (in this case, the execution of actions without the use of turns). Furthermore, the term "real-time" is part of "Real-Time Strategy". The phrase as a whole is an adjective in reference to the means by which you execute strategy within the game, not the passage of time itself. Chess is not RTS even though a real-life chess game involves the same actions, use of turns, and waiting that an online version does. Finally, calling something "silly" or "pretentious" or "foolish" is also a matter of opinion. |
Re: RPI, RPE, and Roleplay
You have a real strange belief that many Admins in the MUD community are out to lie and deceive players, even to the point of claiming someone could be a homophobe, rapist, and even murderer (completely uncalled for and beyond insulting). While some may not accurately define their games in "your" terms, I just don't see this intentional deceit.
As is calling something Role-Play Intensive. The opinion of the player, not 19 code and policy characteristics. Despite your claim to education and intelligence (or rather your insult to everyone elses intelligence or education), you cannot grasp the simple concept that all the terms you bring up as examples to RPI do not have the same litmus test that you give to RPI. RPE, NFL, REAL-TIME are all terms that can be defined by a singular yes or no question. RPE-Are you enforcing RP or not? NFL-Are you in the national football league or not? REAL-TIME: does your game utilize real time or not. Even RPI can be answered with one question, RPI: Is your game Role-Play Intensive or not? The trouble is, the last one is opinion, the others are not. |
Re: RPI, RPE, and Roleplay
I'm afraid this is quite a futile topic as the muds that claim to be Roleplay Enforced don't enforce roleplay at all anyway. RPI's don't even really enforce roleplay. I've seen plenty of players on all muds that don't really roleplay at all. They are the same player every time you see them. The term roleplay is also contested to mean many different things to many different people.
To some roleplay simply means an 'escape from reality'. To me it means something much more. Much like acting, taking on a role, and staying in-character while you're roleplaying. Others prefer global OOC channels so they can break character constantly and talk about IC things and laugh about it. |
Re: RPI, RPE, and Roleplay
I'm afraid I'm agreeing with you way to much lately. But what you say above here is very true much of the time. Roleplay does indeed mean something different to people, which is why it is hard to determine who is a good roleplayer or not except by your own standards.
In NWA we have a help file to encourage serious in depth roleplay and it talks about the importance of tuning out channels and staying off of AIM and other ways to be what we call GAOR or the Golden Advice of Roleplay. While not all follow it, many do and find the experience better for it. Some would say getting rid of all channels would help and sometimes I agree, but, you can't force a person to get rid of 3rd party chat rooms or to stay ic 100% while gaming (which would be ideal, but impossible if outside interruptions, phones and so forth intervene). So we do what we can to accomodate while trying to help to get the best of roleplay. |
Re: RPI, RPE, and Roleplay
I did not claim that anyone in the MUD community was a homophobe (though I do know of at least two), a rapist or even a murderer. I said those are amongst the types of people with which I do not get along.
H&S or PK MUDs which do not even require role-play or support it in any way that attempt to identify themselves as RPI are either grossly ignorant or intentionally deceitful. While you may not like it, the term was invented to describe particular types of games. The 19 code and policy characteristics are a fact. They are common characteristics shared by the two original MUDs called RPIs. Just because somehow this term became popular doesn't change that. I have not made any claims about my education or my intelligence. I don't insult "everyone elses (sic) intelligence or education" although I do question your intelligence and level of education. My guess is that your intelligence is slightly below average and your education level doesn't extend much beyond high school. Am I close? The difference lies in the term "Role-Play Intensive" (or "RPI") versus is it "role-play intensive"? The former is a proper title, a term created to describe a specific type of game. The latter is an opinion. Is a text-based role-playing game like Armageddon a multi-user domain/dungeon/dimension? Answer: Yes. Why? Because it is multi-user though the terms "domain", "dungeon" or "dimension are all questionable. It's also a Multi-User Domain/Dungeon/Dimension or MUD, a specific term meant to apply to a particular type of multi-user game. Is Yahoo! Spades a multi-user domain/dungeon/dimension? Answer: Yes. Why? Because it is multi-user and the terms "domain", "dungeon" or "dimension" are as equally questionable as with a text-based role-playing game. But Yahoo! Spades is not a Multi-User Domain/Dungeon/Dimension (MUD). Or, to use the NFL example.... Were the old American Football League teams (pre-merger) national football league teams? Answer: Yes. Why? Because these teams were found throughout the nation and played American football. Question: Were the old American Football League teams (pre-merger) National Football League (NFL) teams? Answer: No. Why? Because they did not meet the qualifications to be NFL teams until after the NFL and AFL merged. Like it or not, the term Role-Play (or Role-Playing) Intensive was applied to refer to specific games featuring a specific set of characteristics and is therefore a proper term. Example: Question: Is Armageddon a RPI MUD? Answer: Yes. Why? Because it possesses all of the characteristics of a RPI MUD. Question: Is Newworlds' MUD a RPI MUD? Answer: No. Why? Because it lacks some of the characteristics shared by RPI MUDs. As role-play intensive is a subjective term and easily confused with Role-Play Intensive (RPI), calling a game such is questionable and possibly deceptive. Calling a game a Role-Play MUD, Role-Playing MUD or RPI is either erroneous or outright deceptive if it does not meet the characteristics of a RPI MUD. The first (lower case) example is a generic term with little value, especially given the ability to be easily confused with the formal term for a specific type of game (the capitalized, formal term). Furthermore, calling a game role-play intensive because it has "intense role-play" is not only subjective but also incorrect English since "role-play intensive" does not mean "intense role-play". Finally, calling a game role-play intensive (lower case) just to evade the technicality is deceitful if the intent is to intimate that the game is a RPI MUD. Given the presence of RPI MUDs for well over a decade, the community awareness of them and the immense amount of discussion on this subject, there are very few people who could reasonably claim their game is role-play intensive without knowing that they are intimating the formal term. And by the way, chess utilizes real-time. You play chess at the same rate in a computer-simulated version as you would in a real version of the game. It does not utilze what is called Real-Time Strategy (RTS) though. |
Re: RPI, RPE, and Roleplay
You don't even remember your own posts, which is evident all through this lame response you give. I shall quote you for your educational benefit:
Remember now? Rapist? Sex Offender? Murderer? Take my pick which of these apply to me? Are you kidding me? If I was the Admin of this Forum I would ban you for such a comment. At the very least, you should apologise. Even the worst debators I've found on any forum do not use these terms to identify their adversaries. Likely you will try to talk your way out of the semantics written above which is your style in any argument, hence your arguments are always surface level. Whether I like it, you like it, or Johnboy likes it is irrellevant. Anyone may use the term. You do. It only takes a short perusal through your posts to see this. From the beginning this has been your tact, uneducated, amateurish, and childish, as it may be. The rest of your post was a feeble attempt at bringing RPI into the same category as the other, clearly definable, terms. |
Re: RPI, RPE, and Roleplay
I don't think Prof was calling you any of those words. He was stating people he doesn't get along with and told you to pick from the list, which was obviously a quip at you, it was a good one since you think he was insulting you but he really wasn't.
|
Re: RPI, RPE, and Roleplay
You have a dangerously warped sense of humor if you think this is a quip for fun. It is disgusting and should not be representative of TMS.
|
Re: RPI, RPE, and Roleplay
He's not representing the forums, just himself. An open forum is where you're allowed to speak your mind. If you get offended you don't have to talk to him, put him on ignore and be done with it. So far he's winning the argument though. You're both taking petty jabs at each other, which is fine, but the facts are on his side as much as you don't want to admit it.
|
Re: RPI, RPE, and Roleplay
He is representing the style of the Forums. This is not a completely open forum Delerak and rules and maturity are important even if you do not like them. Simple jabs are one thing, insinuating someone is a murderer is quite a bit different. In your imagination of course he is winning, this is YOUR argument he is defending. You two are like siamese twins stuck at the hip.
I have pointed a lot of non mudders to TMS for the purpose of educating them on MUDs and it is this type of attitude that embarrasses me about our genre. |
Re: RPI, RPE, and Roleplay
I have to agree with New Worlds. I've been following this thread to better educate myself on the different styles of MUD's out there and then I see something like this. Grouping someone in with murderers and rapists is just wrong and insulting. And to have someone actually defend those words is even worse. I think you need to quit posting Delerak befoe I advocate that you be banned for trolling immaturity and Prof you need to apologize. Thank you.
|
Re: RPI, RPE, and Roleplay
I've been posting on these forums for a long time. I'm blunt and if people don't like that too bad. The great thing about TMS is it's flexibility of it's forums. Many voices can be heard instead of being quashed because a few sensitive people think they are being called murderers and rapists, when in fact they don't even recognize a common literary device being used in somebody's post. I would agree if Prof's post read: "You're a murderer and rapist." But it didn't, and considering New Worlds and Prof have been insulting one another throughout the entire thread, it's fair game for him to use libel even if you think it's crossing the line because they've both been crossing the line of civility for the past 3 pages.
|
Re: RPI, RPE, and Roleplay
I disagree with Prof on plenty of things, but you're making the assumptions that I support all of his opinions? Whatever, no point in trying to argue against that, apparently you know every conversation I've ever had with him.
I think it's obvious you're getting frustrated and offended. That's going to happen in arguments where both sides think they're right, and begin to resort to ad hominem, but so far you're not providing any facts against the stance of the 'RPI' argument. Just like in the other thread we argued in. So now you're going to lobby for us to be banned and apologize? Typical behavior of those who can't win the debate with facts. |
Re: RPI, RPE, and Roleplay
But judging everything by ones own standards doesn't result in a very effective method of categorisation, because there are many muds, and everyone has different standards.
For example one could argue that almost every mud has enforced/mandatory roleplaying, on the basis that you're required to play the role of a fictional character. But would you really want every mud listing itself as RP enforced/mandatory? |
Re: RPI, RPE, and Roleplay
Yes, take your pick which of these terms apply to you. I don't know you so you may well be all of them or just one: the ignorant moron. The very fact that you can't seem to comprehend that only adds to this conclusion.
Now, if I called you a mentally-retarded bastard child of a serial rapist and a really ugly horse then that would be an insult. However, I'm not calling you that since I know nothing of your parents or the circumstances of your birth. So, no apology is needed and sure as hell none is coming. Your inability to counter my arguments by deliberately (or accidently if you're really that dumb) misinterpreting and misrepresenting what I say as well as your frequent appeals to emotion (ie, claiming I'm comparing you to a murderer or claiming I'm insulting "everyone") only serves to demonstrate your desperate position. As it's been pages since you've even attempted to provide any argument for your position, I'd have to agree with Delerak's observations that you're frustrated and that you're losing this discussion/debate/argument. But that would simply be my opinion. Just because someone uses the term doesn't mean they are correct in doing so. They'd either be demonstrating their ignorance by using a subjective phrase as a label or deliberately lying if they try to associate with the RPI MUDs. Again, my 3-year old niece understands this so why can't you? Show me where I insulted the intelligence of Delerak or Kavir or Mabus or anyone else who posted in this thread besides you? As for you, it's hardly an insult to call you a ignorant since you meet the characteristics of the first word. When I call you ignorant I'm referring to your lack of knowledge and the likelihood that you have a limited education. as for the word moron, when I call you that I'm referring to your lack of intelligence as demonstrated by your inability to comprehend even when it's explained at a level that my 3-year old niece could understand. It's either that or you're being deliberately obtuse, possibly out of desperation. Either way, you come across as a moron. Which I did because the term is a formal term which has been in use for a decade. Just because you weren't aware of that doesn't mean it wasn't so. Again, your lack of knowledge in regard to this is why I call you ignorant. Your inability to comprehend this is why I call you a moron. They're not insults so much as they're observations. RPI is a formal term which has been used by a small group of MUDs with a particular set of policy and code characteristics. Like it or not, they are and I'm correct. "Wrong" is a matter of opinion. In the context of my statement, what I said was perfectly acceptable. I find murderers disgusting and do not get along with them. I find rapists disgusting and do not get along with them. We live in a time where human knowledge has accumulated to unprecedented level and is accessible via techology and resources, be it libraries or universities or even online. With such opportunity to obtain knowledge, I find ignorance unacceptable. When coupled with the egotistical arrogance to assume one is correct in spite of ignorance, I find that disgusting and do not get along people who display these characteristics. Hence I find ignorant morons disgusting as well. I find people who want to censor speech because they're either too ignorant, too stupid or too biased to discern the difference between subjective "right and wrong" and lawful free speech disgusting too. That doesn't mean I'm calling you all three nor does it mean I'm calling you a rapist or a murderer just because I find your statement as disgusting as I view murder. Nor am I calling for or suggesting you be banned for it. I do not need to apologize nor am I going to. You're welcome. Jason |
Re: RPI, RPE, and Roleplay
Ah, thankfully Kavir has the gift of brevity which I do not possess. Then again, historians are paid to be long-winded! :-D
|
Re: RPI, RPE, and Roleplay
Your arguments are now starting to belittle even your own niece. This is the highschool debate tactic: "my 3 year old niece knows more than you do!", "My 3 year old niece can type better than you can", "My 3 year old niece can understand RPI better than you." What are you, in junior high? Have you failed to notice that your 3 year old can't even read this forum. At least make real arguments and comparisons. And of course I was right, you tried to explain your fax pas by delving into semantics and free speech.
As for countering your arguments. Yes, I have done so, countless times. Your issue is that you believe, however wrong, that only your presentation is accurate, though you couldn't substatiate any of it with fact. Examples: 1. The term RPI you claim was established years ago. There is no fact to substatiate that claim. 2. RPI is as valid an acronym as the terms RPE, NFL, and Real-Time. No, is is not. Why? I told you why and either: a. You couldn't understand it (like your 3 year old niece whom you tend to tantrom like). 2. You pretended I didn't. 3. You are ignorant of the concept of litmus. So I'll explain it again. NFL, RPE, and Real-Time can all be proven by a singular yes or no question. RPI cannot. 3. I said your posts, not your posts on this thread, ALL of your posts. Go back and read from when you first became a member Prof. You constantly use the tired argument of this person or that person is ignorant, uneducated, etc etc. Like this makes you seem more educated? I think not. 4. You make outlandish insults then claim freedom of speech. Prof, you remind me of a history professor that writes his own history book and claims everyone else is wrong and uneducated and a moron if they don't accept your book as fact, despite the hundreds of invalid, unsubstatiated, and subjective claims contained within the book. As for misinterpretation. Look in the mirror. |
Re: RPI, RPE, and Roleplay
I didn't insult her. If I'd said she's only as smart as you, that'd be an insult. I didn't say that. She's already smarter than you are. As elements of English like adjectives are taught either in the later stages of grade school or at least early junior high and she just entered pre-school, it's likely that in another 5-7 years she'll likely be more educated than you as well.
Oh? . The term is used by a newbie to the game and thus it's clear that it's already in common use on Armageddon. There's also the possibility that since it's being used by a newbie to Armageddon that the term's application to a specific type of game is also known in the greater community. Additionally, the reference to permanent character death in that post demonstrates one of the features to which this term includes. also reveals another of the 19 characteristics: separation of IC and OOC knowledge. Unfortunately, Arm does not list all of their old discussions, only those they chose to archive. Hence, finding an earlier example of its use that has been saved may be more difficult. Nevertheless, this proves that the term Role-Play Intensive was already in common use by 2001 as was the acronym RPI. . They haven't changed much since then and thus were in place in 2001 when the term RPI was in use to describe Armageddon. Note that numerous policies found in the 19 characteristics of RPIs are found in Arm's rules in 1997 (and today) such as separation of IC and OOC information, a concentration on in-character behavior and a policy against simultaneous multiple characters. As the term was in obvious use by that point to describe Armageddon and you have yet to provide any proof that it was being used to describe any other games, at the very least it suggests that the 19 characteristics shared by Armageddon and Harshlands comprise elements of the definition of RPI. It could be argued, since I have yet to find any old threads relating the term to Harshlands, that the definition of RPI could therefore be even more exact in its detail although I first enountered the term RPI in regard to both Arm and Harshlands back in early 2000(again, documentation from that period is fragmentary). So where's your proof that it was being used to describe any other games at this time? And you are wrong again. The aforementioned link shows use of the acronym RPI as well as the term Role-Play Intensive. As it also uses Hack & Slash as an adjective and relates that term to Role-Play Intensive ("Hack 'n' Slash vs. Role Play Intensive") which the user denotes has characteristics which are different to other games he's played ("going to have to readjust to RPI, unlearning my Hack'n'Slash ways"). The following comments by you don't really constitute countering my points because they have nothing to do with the question of the term RPI. They're the result of your lame attempt to use personal attacks and claims of insult in lieu of defending your position but I thought I'd address them anyway. If a person lacks knowledge, that's ignorance. If a person can not understand a sentence in their own primary language, that's either a reflection of their poor education or their lack of intelligence. Neither of these are insults and considering it's been estimated that as much as 40% of the American public is illiterate to some degree, it's not far off to suggest that figure could easily apply here as well. Your repeated inability to comprehend that Role-Play Intensive does not mean the same thing as "intense role-play" is proof of that. Don't blame me for your ignorance and take offense at the fact nor should anyone else. Again, you also bring up the topic of my education. I don't haul out my degrees in the forums to make points but you seem obsessed with referencing them. You really are insecure about that aren't you? So how far did you get before you dropped out? Tenth grade? Eleventh? I'm still waiting for you to explain this outlandish insult. So far you haven't been able to and it's my suspicion, as I've already said, that you're simply trying to play the role of a victim, paint your opponent (in this case, me) as a villain and thus hope that it sways people to support your disproven position out of sympathy regardless of your inability to defend it. Lame, dude. Lame. Who's this history professor to which you refer? Or is it merely another figment of your insecurity and hostility toward people with an education? That might very well be the dumbest thing you've said. What have I misinterpreted? Please elaborate. |
Re: RPI, RPE, and Roleplay
Newworlds, you've also ignored Kavir's question. Why not give him an answer? Hmm?
|
Re: RPI, RPE, and Roleplay
Since the student of roleplay can't help himself from throwing insults and railroad other threads, I dragged his latest attempt to bring the topic of RPI to the forefront and will respond to his sewage here.
Oh please student, all you do is attack anyone that doesn't agree with your weak definition of RPI. Again you claim your definition of RPI is the only one. After some research I found a couple of things. 1. In an old post by Arm they defined themselves as intensive roleplay mud not Roleplay intense you ignorant fool. 2. RPI is copyrighted by a company out of Texas. Better check in with them to use the term or perhaps you will define it for them? You are more clueless than a blond highschool girl from the Valley. I stopped replying to you when you became a broken record of idiotic redundancy. This is quite normal. Look it up under: arguing with idiots or students that think they are professors. Since you need an explanation I will give it to you: when you debate someone that only has tunnel vision and can only insult with a fools tongue it is time to stop the discussion. You are so ignorant you did not even realise I stopped discussion with you for that very reason. You have to have it spelled out for you in capital letters. Go back to school, youngster, you need at least four more years to reach my 4th grade education. You really should stop thinking someone is proven wrong when they stop discussion with the mentally incapacitated. Yes, I know you have hourly discussions with your 3 year old niece. I'm beginning to realize that your education is about on par with hers. The only thing you enjoy is insulting people with baseless comments about retardation, murder, rape, education, intelligence, and on. You are weak and small minded. You are a wannabe of ownership to something like SOI or Armaggedon, yet you will never achieve anything of the like. You want to be a spokesman for Roleplaying MUD's but you haven't the skill, knowledge, or ability (called KSA's in the business world, something I'm sure you've never heard about). You claim to be building your own game that will be so much more upfront and honest than any game out there. You are the type of person that will likely call himself a GOD on your game and pretend everyone is an ignoramus. I hope you will be honest about that like you claim you are and post a disclaimer about your pretentious overrated evaluation of yourself. You claim to organize a grand group for RPI yet in your own words no one wanted to work with you. You claim to be the end all be all of definitions, yet you will never open your eyes to realize that your definitions are worse than a second grade english dictionary written by a slum dog in broken spanglish. I guess this is what you wanted isn't it? Another post of insults so you could reply in kind. You thrive on this type of tripe don't you? Well, sometimes it is the more intelligent one that knows when to stop arguing with idiots. Such a sad thing it is but I'm imagining you will happily post another 2 pages of garbage for us to dig through and it will go back and forth until I stop wasting my time with you or until you decide to make another lame RPI post or claim you have proven yourself like some cackling insane man on the corner yelling about global warming and saying he is right because no one stops to listen. |
Re: RPI, RPE, and Roleplay
Even though your flame was hilarious I wish you had left this thread alone New Worlds. I do not understand why both of you can't just agree to disagree and stop the insults. This thread should be locked.
|
Re: RPI, RPE, and Roleplay
The opinions are becoming pretty debased. Like I said earlier in the thread.
I still want to see it. I've got my money on NW. As far as the topic at hand. I really don't think there's anything else that can be posted. This topic obviously has two to three sides. The RPI fanatics. The anti-RPI fanatics. And those who don't really care either way. |
Re: RPI, RPE, and Roleplay
Wrong, it was you who again initiated the personal attack in another thread, one which I had not even posted in up to that point.
Wrong, it's already been pointed out that it's not "my definition". And what is the date of this post? Hmmmm? Can you provide a link? [QUOTE}2. RPI is copyrighted by a company out of Texas. Better check in with them to use the term or perhaps you will define it for them?[/quote] Wrong, trademark is the term you're looking for, not copyright. However, a trademark only extends to the areas that it is applied for. But in this case you're wrong yet again because They have trademarked the phrase "Why not change the world?", not "RPI". This is yet another example of your lack of intelligence. You stopped arguing when you demanded evidence that the terms Role-Play Intensive and RPI were used to identify a particular type of MUD. I presented the earliest evidence I can find though personal recollections from many people in the RPI community remember its usage even earlier. I didn't accuse anyone here of murder or rape. I questioned your intelligence as evidenced by your repeated inability to comprehend facts and I estimated that you have a very limited education by your ignorance and your insecurity toward others you perceive as educated. I distinctly do not want a game like Armageddon or SoI. I was on SoI's staff back in 2004 and quit because various things about the game did not sit well with me. My goal with TSOY is to create a historical-setting RPI. Both Arm and SoI are fantasy. I don't expect a large playerbase and all of my staff are in agreement that we'd be happier with a small playerbase of solid RPers interested in the setting than having a larger playerbase at the expense of the setting. So your statement is wrong, yet again. First off, I'm not particularly interested in being a "spokesman" for anything. Yes, we intend to be honest about things like playerbase figures, player expectations and staff expectations. Not sure why you have a hard time understanding that unless it's because you're not honest about your own game. Oh wait, you're not. Wrong again! I actually think it's silly when people call themselves a "God" on their own game. I prefer the term staff or administrator. What "overrated evaluation of yourself" do you refer to? Please show me where I'm making claims about myself? No, once again either you're dishonestly misquoting of what I said or your limited comprehension of the English language is confusing you. The people that resigned had their own reasons for quitting the Operating Committee. Of the three that resigned, I can only say that one had personal issues to deal with and another had work issues (and I will not reveal more without their express authorization). Of the third, I can not say as they did not give any reason why they did not continue. Perhaps they did not like me. Perhaps they had too little time to invest. Perhaps they were sick. They never said. When do I claim to be the "end all be all of definitions"? Just once, support something you say with some proof. I'd actually prefer you back something up just once with actual evidence instead of personal insults. You have yet to do that. Instead you've made a lot of erroneous statements which still do not bolster your position. Jason |
Re: RPI, RPE, and Roleplay
There are two threads full of discussion, definitions, links, and discourse on this topic. Regurgitating it all for your limited memory is something you may enjoy, most do not.
|
Re: RPI, RPE, and Roleplay
And I'm asking you to please stop relying on personal attacks and misquotes and post something to defend your position or else concede and stop deliberately making dishonest statements.
|
Re: RPI, RPE, and Roleplay
You mean stop doing what you do through this entire thread?
The thread is about RPI, RPE, and Roleplay. The thread was started because of your railroading another thread. Do not take the position that you were not. The OP asked the discussion to stop on the other thread and you would not stop so I brought it here. If you need a reference to that thread that proves this here it is: You claim constantly about misquotes and misunderstandings, but even as I read back through this entire thread I noticed you making assumptions and ignoring questions put before you. (example: post 23 if you need one). You also make misrepresentations utilizing an interpretation of the english lanquage or semantics. (Example: post 21) Here you claim the RPI Network is not your site you just pay the bills. Legally it IS your site. Legally you can ban every member of the commitee whether they want you to or not. Unless you have written bylaws and legal documents to control the site, the site is yours and yours alone to be owned and operated by you alone. To be shutdown, discontinued, or modified with you as the ultimate control to do so. Personal Attacks: After reading through the thread it is clear I did throw some unnecessary insults. Deliberately making dishonest statements? I deny that accusation. The argument, in my understanding, boils down to who may use the term RPI and who may not. My contention is that any game that is Roleplay Intense or Intensive may use the term RPI at leisure. Your contension (correct me if I am wrong) is that only those that follow the 19 points outlined by your group may use this term. Looking through threads, MUDs that claim to be RPI and RPE I saw a lot of confusion and disagreement about the term and no evidence (despite a few RPI references) that would proclude anyone from using the term as I outlined above. A similar argument could be made for using the term MUD which is also ambiguous, in that only MUD's begun in 1980(some say the 70's) under the original codebase when the term MUD was first used may call themselves a MUD. It is my understanding that the 19 points you bring up about RPI were not all utilized when the term RPI (according to you) was first established. In fact, many if not all of the games you refer to have changed drastically since. I ask this question then. Do you think no MUD should use the term RPI except as accepted by your group under the guidelines you established? |
Re: RPI, RPE, and Roleplay
I think this question best illustrated the difference between an IRP and an RPI. Not why an RPI is better (though subjectively, I'd maintain they are better) but why they are different.
When writing a novel or story an author will often write an elaborate back story. They have no interest in including said story in the published text, but the richness of the backstory will be be felt in the subtext and the way the story hangs together. Almost a ghost facet of the text. The think command does the same thing. Only the player thinking sees their thoughts, but it makes their rp deeper and richer and more fleshed out. Other players won't see the thoughts but they will see the depth that stems from those thoughts. In an RPI that's more than important it's crucial. In an IRP, I have to assume, from your question, it has less or no value. So, this is why RPIs are different, and why they continue to use a command that you perceive as outdated. |
Re: RPI, RPE, and Roleplay
My response in that thread was begun in response to your post (4:13 pm my time) before the OP's request (4:41 pm my time) was ever made. As my dinner was ready as I was typing I stopped and did not come back to the post for some time. I completed and posted my response at 7:12 pm (my time), after the OP made their request. That is not the same thing as "you would not stop".
Delerak answered that in the next post so I saw no reason to. As for misquotes and misunderstandings (or misrepresentations), examples would include your claim that I was calling anyone in the discussion a murderer, that the 19 characteristics of RPIs represent my own personal views, that people quit the Operating Committee because of me, or that I'm paying for the hosting for the RPMUD Network for some hidden motive beyond my stated one. We do have a formal set of bylaws establishing how the site is operated. In 2008 we formally approved our Charter which governs how the site is operated and established our Operating Committee to make all decisions regarding such operation. I've mentioned this on numerous occassions. I've also mentioned that I'd be happy to cease paying the bills if someone else would do so. While I suppose I could shut down or discontinue the site by refusing to pay for its hosting, I have no intention of doing so. I'd also welcome an arrangement to guarantee I couldn't by the creation of an independent funding source to ensure that hosting was automatically paid. As for modifying the site, I could not any more than any other member of the Operating Committee. In fact, there's plenty I could not do as I do not have the passwords for full access. Only the site's webmaster, one of the other Operating Committee members, has those. I do not. For an example, you need go no further than your initial post in this thread. The annexation, to use your term, is not by "a small subset" since this term's original application referred to them. The controversy has resulted from its wider use by and to describe games beyond that context. It is dishonest to alter the historical context of this disagreement to switch the nature of the origins of the controversy. If this is merely an error on your part, then it's not dishonesty. If it's a deliberate attempt to bias interpretation of the controversy, that's dishonest. (continued below) |
Re: RPI, RPE, and Roleplay
The "points" were not outlined by my group, if by "group" you are referring to the RPMUD Operating Committee (although many of the people present in the round table discussion to discern the characteristics to which the original application of the term applied do sit on the Committee).
As I said, there's a distinct lack of archiving for the formative years of the term. My own exposure to the term use was in 2000. Others can attest to it as far back as 1997. While some never gave much thought as to what it means, they could at least attest to what were RPIs and what weren't. I didn't take a serious interest in the origin, use and misuse of the term until preparing a presentation on MU*s for a role-playing and gaming group I formed back in college. Based on those games which had consensus as RPI, I and some others were able to discern shared characteristics possessed by all of those games for which there was consensus in calling RPI. Agreed, there are varying disputes over the term. That's why in most cases I prefer the term MU* although not everyone uses that term (and in some instances it's therefore better to say MUD and avoid confusion). The 19 characteristics were all in place at the time that the term RPI was used to describe the group of games to which there is consensus that they are RPI. The games have changed, but those 19 characteristics have remained. All 19 characteristics were present when the term was in use as far back as 1996 (for which earlier evidence of its use is at present non-existent). There are many other characteristics that were brought up in the analysis which did not apply to all of the first RPIs. One such example was player accounts. While player accounts are almost universal in RPIs today (aside from Southlands they all use them), this is due to the spread in use of the RPI Engine. Harshlands originally did not employ accounts nor did FEM or FE2. As a result, despite its common use today, use of player accounts was not included in the 19 characterstics (and hence why Southlands is considered RPI despite being the odd-man out without them). Another example of a characteristics which some felt was necessary for RPI was the existence of ranged weapon code. Again, Armageddon had this but Harshlands, FEM and many other RPIs did not. It was only with the spread of the SoI RPI Engine that this feature again spread in use. There are variations on how the RPIs enforce the policy characteristics. For example, citing their setting, Armageddon has far less emphasis on RP in the deserts outside of the cities. This, however, is also subject to interpretation as I have seen examples of the staff taking deliberate action to enforce RP in those areas when players do disregard the setting. Such variations are therefore more the case of staff diligence and time than they are examples of non-RP policies. Also, as has been pointed out, there are disagreements over what constitutes "role-play" and thus such variations are also subject to the differences in the interpretation of role-play rather than a lack of a RP-enforcement policy. On Harshlands, there are areas which are not described but that's because those areas of the game were never completed and were locked off for some time. At some point they unlocked the gates allowing access in but as it's on the extreme edge of the game world, very few players ever go there. Likewise, in 2002 they allowed alternate characters for a single event to allow players without characters in that particular region the ability to participate in the major battle that was to occur. However, these characters were only on the game for that event and never again. They also opened a separate and isolated area of the game for "alternate characters" but these characters do not have contact with the rest of the game making this area function as a separate miniature game unto itself. The same could apply to the OOC arena in SoI's Guest Lounge. For code variations beyond the 19 characteristics, I do think it's possible to further distinguish particular sub-types of RPI MUDs though in many cases it's rather unnecessary. Still, a breakdown of RPI MUDs tends to reveal several sub-types. 1. Armageddon-type RPI: Armageddon is the sole representative.* 2. Harshlands-type RPI: Dark Horizon seems to be the sole remaining representative. 3. SoI-type RPI: A variation on the Harshlands-type, most of the RPIs presently in existence conform with this game. 4. Southlands-type RPI: It appears Southlands is the only remaining operating game of this type. *Black Sands uses the SoI RPI Engine but is changing their code mechanics to more closely resemble the way in which Armageddon displays some information. As such, it could be argued that it's either Arm-type or SoI-type. However, as they're still in open beta the final result remains to be seen. There are also several other projects in development which are creating new RPI-useable codebases and thus may also be handling the code mechanics in ways which would warrant labeling as a new type of RPI. My own project would fall under this category as we'll still possess the 19 characteristics but in other ways will be doing things differently than any of the other RPIs. I think that the because that term has a historical context relating back to its earliest use in the MU* community to describe a small number of games sharing a particular set of characteristics, its use should be confined to referring to that particular group of games. For people who played those games then, it served a distinct purpose by identifying games which were similar and still does today. The "guidelines" are not such; they are characteristics shared by those games to which the term's use originally applied. For games which do not possess these 19 characteristics, I tend to use the terms Role-Play Oriented (RPO) and Role-Play Enforced (RPE). Another person on the forums here used Role-Play Focused. Role-Play Enforced is fairly easy to define as the only characteristic of such games is the existence of a required RP policy. I coined the term Role-Play Oriented (RPO) as a catch all to describe games which weren't simply RPE but didn't necessarily have all 19 characteristics of RPI. Coming up with a clearer definition than that is difficult because of the number of variations possible. With some of those 19 characteristics, you could get nine games with 17 characteristics but each could be missing two completely different ones! Sure, names and acronyms could be devised for each different variation but without a significant number of games conforming to this variation, it becomes a bit unnecessary. Hence the catch-all term of RPO, a term with the RPMUD Operating Committee also uses. Please understand that while some people may associate RPI with "higher quality RP", such a conclusion is subjective and such association is therefore not accurate. If anything, it's been my observation that the RPIs have suffered an overall decline in the quality of the RP typically found on them in the decade since I first started playing them. On one hand, one could simply suggest that this is due to the greater number of RPIs open and the increased playerbase size on the older ones but it appears to be more than just that. In any regard, the term RPI is not a reference to the quality of role-play. Finally, I appreciate your more civil tone of your last post. Thank you very much. Take care, Jason |
Re: RPI, RPE, and Roleplay
I don't think it boils down to "who may use" the term and "who may not." I think it boils down to "to whom does the term, AND its common attributes apply, and to whom it does not."
As I've said in another thread (in similar terms)...if most people who have seen the color green, define it in a certain way, and a blind guy comes by and says "no no, that's not green, THIS is green" and defines it a different way, well the blind guy may very well be correct, and the rest of the people may very well be incorrect. But.. It doesn't matter. If the people who defined green say, "We're having a party, come on by, you have to wear green to get in" and you show up wearing purple, you ain't getting in. EVEN if you say "this IS green." NewWorlds doesn't agree that RPI means what most of the people *who actually use the term* think it means. New World's game isn't an RPI, and it never was an RPI. He didn't know that, because he didn't understand the "generally regarded as standard" usage of the term. He knew its definition: "Roleplay Intensive." He was absolutely correct. And his game really IS roleplay intensive. However, the three letters, used as a term - RPI "Are Pee Eye"..don't -only- mean "roleplay intensive." It means that, along with certain criteria that has become generally regarded by the community as standard, for that specific term. Not the specific term "roleplay intensive," but the specific term "RPI." The term -could- mean "Real Pigs are Interesting" for all it matters, and it wouldn't change a thing. Only games that include the majority of certain criteria will fit that category. NewWorlds is welcome to call his game Roleplay Intensive - his game really does have some great intensive roleplay afterall, so the term is appropriate. However, it is not an RPI. If he uses the term RPI, no board police will come down and arrest him, no one will sue him, no one will siteban him. His entry on the TMS listings might be edited if he says officially on his listing that it's an RPI, but other than that, he's not doing anything *wrong.* What he's doing, is wearing a purple jumpsuit and walking over to a bunch of green jumpsuit-wearing people, and telling them that he's wearing green and that all of the green-wearing people are wrong. That's not wrong, it's just dumb. Or perhaps color blind. As far as I know, neither is a crime. |
Re: RPI, RPE, and Roleplay
While I respect your opinion, I disagree. Who uses or doesn't use the term is, in my opinion, irrelevant. There is is an entire thread of 239 posts arguing over what the term means, who should use it and who should not as shown here:
I do not recall ever wanting to be part of the RPIMud.org, RPMUD network, or associated with this group. As shown in the above link, I am not the only one. The contention is simply the use of the term RPI and the definition of it. Again, look at the above link and read through it. Your supposition here is incorrect, in my opinion. NWA is not "RPI" in your (meaning the 19 point) definition, true, but the above link shows that many do not agree with this. The rest of your presentation ended on how I'm dumb or blind, so I won't comment on it as I see it as argumentative opinion. |
Re: RPI, RPE, and Roleplay
My summation is this:
Should Roleplay Intense or Intensive MUDs be allowed to use the term RPI without hostility, arguments, or insults over such usage? Yes. |
Re: RPI, RPE, and Roleplay
Then I pose you these related questions:
Should pure H&S or powergaming MUDs be allowed to use the term "RP Enforced" to refer to themselves in their listings and adverts without other MUD owners responding with hostility, arguments or insults? When players post on these forums asking for RP-oriented MUDs, should I be permitted to recommend my MUD without other MUD owners disagreeing with my recommendation? |
Re: RPI, RPE, and Roleplay
Furthermore, if my game is about wars between gods, can I call my game a Godwars game and advertise it as such, and even name it "The Godwars Mud" without hostility, insults, and arguments?"
If my game has as its theme, three new worlds, can I call my game NewworldsIII and advertise it as such, without hostility, insults, and arguments? If my game is about Redundant Partial Integrity, can I call it an RPI and advertise it as such, without hostility, insults, and arguments? If my game has a Dog that Is Killing in the Underworld, can I call it a DIKU and advertise it as such, without hostility, insults, and arguments? |
Re: RPI, RPE, and Roleplay
I have two questions for you. Why would roleplay intense, intensive, enforced or whatever else MUDs even want to use the term RPI, and what is the value in trying to broaden the meaning of the term in order to apply it to a wider subset of MUDs?
|
Re: RPI, RPE, and Roleplay
No. We've all seen the God Wars RP Log. :D
|
Re: RPI, RPE, and Roleplay
If they Enforce Roleplay why not? If they don't, the player logging in will know quickly anyway. Realistically this happens all the time even on MMO's. But for us, testing a MUD is best done like this:
Those MUD's that are RPE aren't as uptight about the term, in my opinion. The term is also much more straightforward and direct. |
Re: RPI, RPE, and Roleplay
Most probably would not. As the term RPI has started to have a negative connotation as shown in the predecessor thread to this one, it became clear that some would never use it so as not to be associated with the RPI group.
Not necessarily broaden it, but rather not allow the definition to only be reserved for this group. |
Re: RPI, RPE, and Roleplay
Well I'm talking about pure H&S or powergaming MUDs, so let's assume they've chosen to use a similar definition of RPG as most video games. They consider themselves "RP Enforced" because the players are forced to play a character (rather than as themselves as they could in a chatroom), and their skills and fighting abilities are determined by that character. In effect, it's a definition that could be applied to all MUDs.
But do you think that all MUDs should be allowed to list themselves as RPE without hostility, arguments, or insults over such usage? |
Re: RPI, RPE, and Roleplay
The negative connotation has always existed for some. For others it carried and still carries a positive connotation. However, it is interesting that some of those who view it negatively are the ones who seem to oppose its specific use, support its abuse to the point of obsolescence and then claim they wouldn't use it. Interesting but not surprising. One would think that if they had no interest in using it, they wouldn't put up such a fuss about it unless their goal was specifically to damage its usefulness as well as any game to which it was applied. Is that the case here?
That is, in effect, broadening the term because it's then being applied to a wider range of games and feature/policy sets. Original Use: Applying to games with the clear definition of possessing 19 characteristics, a total of less than 3 dozen games since the term was coined. Different Use: Applying to more than those 31-32 games and therefore conceivably applying to hundreds of games without any clear definition. How is that not broadening the definition? |
Re: RPI, RPE, and Roleplay
I suppose one could look at it that way. I cannot say for a fact, but I doubt that is the case for anyone.
First, I think there are only 3 or 4 games right now under the RPMUD definition that are open. Having a smattering of MUDs using this term wouldn't mean much. Second, I think the argument hasn't really been to broaden the term, but rather have this small minority group use a different, more precise term as was suggested several times. A term like ARMMUD, RPI-19, or the like. You might respond, "Why should they, they coined the phrase?" My answer would be, "Because you will always have people using the term to your chagrine and it will probably be misconstrued for a long time." |
Re: RPI, RPE, and Roleplay
Just as an informational note, there are presently five that are definitely open, a sixth which is questionable as there's been no word from their staff in almost a year and four to six more in development.
It means everything for reasons I’ll elaborate upon below. But instead of being upset and complaining about the RPIs using the term they coined, why not be upset and complain about those games which misuse the term? Your method seems to punish players of RPIs by stripping them of the term they've used to describe their games for 13+ years rather than correct those games which called, whether accidently or deliberately, a term whose definition they did not meet. There's a degree of familiarity, built on nearly a decade and a half of use (the wider application of the term by other games dates back only half as long) that makes the term useful for those wishing to find those 5-6 open games out of a sea of over 1500 MUDs, 350+ of which are RPE. Conversely, for those who do not like the kind of code and policy which comprise the RPIs, the term also gives them a means of identifying those games which they do NOT want to play. Just because there are more non-RPI role-playing MUDs out there means nothing. After all, there are more H&S than there are role-playing MUDs. On sheer numbers alone, they should be more entitled to use the term then! Of course that doesn’t make sense just as the “having a smattering of MUDs using this term wouldn’t mean much”. There also really isn't a “precise term” for anything though. "ARMMUD" might lead players to expect the use of classes for determining skill selection (Harshlands and SoI derived RPIs allow the player to select their skills individually). A term like RPI-19 would probably be just as confusing if the term RPI were used by other games because they're still quite similar. Short of literally coming up with a name like "Levelless, Traditional-Class-Lacking, Description-Based, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera” featuring all 19 characteristics, you’re not going to have a “precise term”. Furthermore, if RPIs shouldn’t use the term because it’s not “precise”, why should any other MUD? The “precise” argument also fails to take into account that the term is precise as it has an original context to which it was applied. Discerning the characteristics, 19 in total, which were shared by those games to which the term was first applied is pretty damned precise especially given the vague nature of most terms in the MU* community. Also, even if RPIs used a new term, how would RPI players come to learn of it? As has been noted, there aren't that many of them that frequent these forums. Less than a tenth of the RPI players I know look at TMS and even fewer have accounts here. So even if a new term were created, let's just use ABCXYZ as an example, most would probably not know of it and continue using the term RPI. They wouldn't know that the games they've known of as RPI for nearly a decade and a half are now called ABCXYZ, especially if the term RPI was still being used by dozens if not hundreds of other games out there. In addition, there are over 350 RPEs out there and if the term RPI is used simply as a substitute for RPE, what's to keep games without enforced role-play from then using the term? They can literally point to the original definition which applied to a total of only 5-6 games (and only 31-32 games in a decade and a half) and then to the broader use which could include over 25 times as many existing games and justifiably ask, "Why can't we use it too?" In fact, by the precedent that would be established, the only justification that they'd need is simply to use it then argue that they think they should be entitled to and that the 350 formerly-RPE games are being "elitist" or any other term that has been applied to the original RPIs for arguing their use of the term. The terms Role-Play Intensive, Role-Playing Intensive and RPI were in use for years before the roots of the present controversy began. This controversy stems not from the inaccuracy of the term but from the misuse of the term, either through ignorance or deceit, by games that were not like those to which it had been describing for years. RPIs coming up with a new term or being prohibited from using the term as they had since its creation are not solutions. The real solution to this problem are educating the community and upholding standards. Jason |
Re: RPI, RPE, and Roleplay
While you make several good arguments for the RPMUD organization promoting your groups RPI style games I still believe the acronym too open to interpretation.
|
Re: RPI, RPE, and Roleplay
I have avoided getting involved in this discussion because of how flamey it was from the get go, but this point needs to be made:
Coining a term does not give the "coiner" any control over its use or definition. To believe otherwise is not just silly but a recipe for a lifetime of frustration. I am sure the makers of AIDS diet candy were not terribly happy when a fatal disease was given the same name (which subsequently drove their 50+ year old company out of business in short order). |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:48 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Top Mud Sites.com 2022