Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Who cares if you think you coined the term. Who cares if you feel "demeaned." You sure as hell don't care about demeaning others, do you? Get over yourself.

You didn't coin the term MUD, you lack many of the core features of MUD, and yet you keep calling yourself RPI MUDs. But that doesn't seem to be a problem for you.

And frankly, some of the "features" RPI muds have are not, in my view and the view of many, intensive at all. Standing in a corner typing a command over and over to skill up is not "intensive" by any stretch of the imagination. Maybe you should use RSI MUD as an identifier.

And RPIs lack or completely ignore many "intensive" features that are standard on other MUDs, MUSHes, and MUCKs that call themselves "intensive." Many RPI features strike me as arbitrary and in some cases very unrealistic. But more power to you. Choose whatever features you want. But don't claim they are objectively better, more realistic, or more "intensive." That's where you go completely off the deep end and fail.

You have a set of features you like. They are not objectively better or more intensive than someone else's set of preferred features. So stop acting like they are, pick a specific term to categorize them, or STOP COMPLAINING when someone else calls their mud Role Play Intensive. You have a lot of choices available to you. Choose one of them and stop demanding that every other person and MUD in the universe obeys your every whim.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Would you mind letting me know which core feautures of MUD that RPI MUDs lack?

Would you mind letting me know frankly some of the features that RPI muds have that are not intensive?

Just so we all are clear here:
in·tense /ɪnˈtɛns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-tens] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. existing or occurring in a high or extreme degree:

Do you not agree that having permanent death is an extreme degree? Do you not agree that having no levels is an extreme degree? Do you not agree that having no global ooc channels is an extreme degree? Do you not agree that forcing your players to register accounts is an extreme degree? Do you not agree that forcing players to submit their characters as applications is an extreme degree?

I'm confused here. Name me one feature that I've listed for RPI muds that is not intense and I will gladly never post again. But however, you cannot. As you can see I have listed the definition of intense and Roleplay Intensive Mud, stands for a type of mud, not the fact that the Roleplay is Intensive, and it is, because at RPI muds we make it more intensive with certain features. Whereas at other muds the roleplay cannot be as intensive, because you simply do not have the extreme degree of changes that we have. Period.

Every single feature that an RPI mud has is there for a reason. Intensifying the experience and the roleplay. Sure you can say you have good roleplay at another mud, but if it doesn't have these set of features, it obviously isn't going to that "extreme degree" that all RPI players agree upon needs to happen.

I don't know what else to write.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

I guess you are just skimming the thread. Go back and read The Logos' post about MUD.

Nope. See below.

You have skill levels. 6 of one, a half dozen of the other. A level is an arbitrary number assigned to a player to determine the result of an action. So is a skill level. The only difference between a "level" and a "skill level" is the "level" amalgamates more things into a single number than "skill levels" do. If you use numbers behind the scenes to adjudicate results/die rolls, then there is no real difference. It is just minor, behind the scenes details.

I, like you, personally like skills more than levels. But I take the study of game mechanics quite seriously, and I understand that mechanically they have a very similar function.

No, because it just moves to the forums, AIM, MSN, Facebook, TeamSpeak, Ventrilo, and Skype instead. It changes nothing. In fact, it makes things worse because then people talk OOC in ways that are totally unmonitored. Furthermore, that is just a preference. There is nothing extreme or intensive about it whatsoever.

By that logic, WoW is the most extreme RPI of them all. They even make you provide a credit card!

What is extreme about that? Hundreds of games require that. There are web sites online that can generate such stories automatically by just plugging in a few words like a Mad Lib. I think it is a good idea on RP games to require such things, but I don't think it is "extreme" by any stretch of the imagination.

Skill training through use is not "intense." It promotes and rewards scripting - e.g. someone standing with their face in a corner typing the same command over and over. Furthermore, it exists in tons of extremely "non role play intense" games - Morrowind, Oblivion, and WoW (in World of Warcraft, all of your skills train up through use). More than once in WoW I trained up my weapon skills by loading up on INT buffs and having a warlock friend banish elementals over and over so I could beat on them while they were immune. That was... not intense at all. Do you really promise to never post again? Not even a retraction and apology?

Also, I think permadeath is very often not intense. It lets you throw away a character and not have to deal with the long term ramifications of their behavior. You think it is intense to just die and start over? If the player wasn't allowed to keep playing the game, that might be true. But the reality is they get a clean slate. They get a full and complete do-over. A mulligan. In a lot of cases that is easier than having people use things against you that you did 8 RL years prior. Now, *that* is extreme.

See? It really is all just perspective and preference. What you think is marvellous and wonderful is only marvellous and wonderful for you and people who share your view. To a lot people, what you like is cheap, unbelieveable, unrealistic, and simplistic. Good thing for all of us that there is more than 1 game on the internet, huh? The difference is, non-RPI folks aren't the ones saying their way is the best, most realistic, most extreme, or most intense. So with that in mind, maybe you can stop being so superior and narrow minded? Maybe?

Who am I kidding? You are going to insist your way is still the best no matter how many people give examples of things they find far more extreme, realistic, believable, and fun. Oh well.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

No I've been keeping up with this thread, his post was in reply to Prof who believes that the RPI term is applied because the "original" rpi muds came up with it, so that's what dictates an RPI. I honestly don't care about that point of view, what an RPI is, essentially what anything is, is in relation to what the person reading or thinking about it wants it to be. The only problem here is, we have the people who play the muds with these set of extreme features, and I use extreme because they are extreme compared to other muds.

Your analogy about world of warcraft is absolutely ridiculous, the fact that they require accounts has nothing to do with the fact that normal MUDs do not. This deters from the norm of muds, hence the word "Extreme" or intense. It's the reason the adjective was chosen originally, because everything about "RPI" muds are to more an extreme and intensive.

You know very well that having global ooc channels won't deter any players from using any other instant messenger, the ooc channels do one thing and one thing only for an RP mud they detract from staying in-character and from the roleplay in general. In the middle of a play do you think the actors stop to take a break and talk about the final four basketball games or should we allow players to chat it up in the middle of an intense roleplaying session? I think not. You breed your players but what features you take and give to them. RPI muds take this feature for many different reasons, and to say that it doesn't detract from roleplay is quite ignorant on your behalf.

Either way, no matter how many analogies any of us use, neither side will understand the other. Because we're obviously from different stock. The fact remains that the acronym RPI was coined by a certain type of mud, and the fact remains that other muds that think they have "great roleplaying" want to use the term, and it ****es us off.

Well it ****es me off, I can't speak for the rest of the RPI mudding community.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Wow, ****es is being filtered?

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

No.

No.

No.

(boggle) Definitely no.

No.

Not only are none of these measures particularly "intensive", there's a wider problem which you are failing to acknowledge: even if some of these features do, on "RPI" MUDs, contribute to an experience which could legitimately be characterised as "Intensive Role-Play", they are not, by any conceivable stretch of the imagination, universally necessary for intensive role-play.

The problem with the term "RPI" is that it does describe what an RPI actually is. Are you really so arrogant as to imagine that it is not possible for a MUD to be "role-play intensive" (lower-case letters!) if it does not include permadeath? Can you not imagine an intensive role-play experience in a game-world where all of the game characters are immortal in an in-character sense? To take an isolated example, perhaps, on dying, one temporarily becomes a disembodied soul which must prey on other souls of the fallen in order to acquire the energy needed to reincarnate itself. Are you so narrow-minded that you cannot imagine having an intensive role-play experience in a game-world with those rules?

I hope not; but if you admit that it is possible to have an intensive role-play experience in a MUD which does not feature permadeath then you must also admit that reserving the term "RPI" for MUDs which have permadeath is inappropriate: you're trying to use a generic term to refer only to a very specific phenomenon, and trying to ban other people from using the term in situations where it manifestly applies. Is a MUD role-play intensive? Then it's an RPI. That says nothing whatever about whether or not it has permadeath.

Frankly I don't care that RPI players were the first to coin the phrase "RPI"; all that means is that the original RPI players were short-sighted idiots when it came to choosing a name. It doesn't give you any sort of exclusive rights to the term.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Well I'll let everyone in on a little secret. Until this thread kicked off, to me RPI stood for RolePlay Intensive and as far as I was aware was just used by games who wanted to emphasise the fact they consider RP a very high priority. So, while you may have coined the phrase, it certainly has other meanings that people who haven't discovered that you coined it will think apply. This is why we are saying the acronym is misleading.

Oh, and whether a feature is intense or not in the area of roleplay is highly subjective and dependant on the setting of the world being used. I will maintain again that you say to be "RPI" perma-death MUST be used, but in my hypothetical world no-one dies because the Gods created a set number of consciousnesses and whenever the body is destroyed they are shifted to a new one. Perma-death is not intensive in my world, because RP-wise it makes no sense as it doesn't exist.

I will say again that what is considered intense roleplay does not necessarily equate to "as close to real life as possible" roleplay. it is entirely world-dependant, not real-world dependant.

I've noticed some good old personal attacks surfacing in this thread as well. Please, everyone, try and keep it civil. We may disagree, but that doesn't mean we can't discuss without descending into the pits of flame.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Similarly of course, MUD was coined for a single type of game (MUD I), but you don't see Richard Bartle whining that language evolves or that he somehow 'owns' the definition of the term (because, of course, he doesn't). The MUDs you term "RPI MUDs" have virtually nothing in common with what MUD originally meant, unless I'm missing something and the whole point of RPI MUDs is to run around collecting items and killing monsters in order to get to 102,400 points, at which point you became a wiz. And wasn't one of your RPI-definition points that the MUD have no levels? Levels were an integral part of the original definition of MUD. Are RPIs not MUDs because they've removed this core feature of what MUD originally meant? How about accounts? The original MUD didn't have accounts. It also had essentially no enforcement of RP, so one might say that enforcement of RP disqualifies one as being a MUD using the logic I've seen used here.

As long as you're going to call an RPI a 'MUD' even though it shares almost none of the core gameplay concepts from the original MUD, it's just wildly hypocritical to insist that the term RPI denotes a particular, unchangeable feature set.

--matt

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Funnily enough, not even all the games that listed themselves on RPImud.com (a site that was formed especially for 'RPI' games), have identical or even nearly-identical features. Some of them have global channels, others have no permanent death. Perhaps the 'RPI' term originally stood for a few games (Armageddon/HL/SoI/etc) that had similar featuresets, but perhaps it too has evolved into the more broad definition as any game which puts intense roleplay and realism first and foremost.

If you'll allow me to derail just a moment:

I have to disagree here. It's true, permadeath gives you a "clean slate" in terms of a new character, but usually this isn't want players want. They're also losing everything they've invested in the old character -- all the skills, all the loot, all the IC relationships and advancements. In the context of a roleplaying game based around storytelling, the last thing a player wants is for their beloved character's story to end. It's a good mechanism for encouraging players to play their characters as realistic people who have an actual fear of death -- because the player has that fear, too. Going through that experience as a player, looking death in the face with a PC you've invested a good deal of time and emotion in, is very assuredly intense, whether or not your character lives through it. Granted, permadeath isn't the right mechanic for every game, but I'd have a hard time really getting into a serious roleplaying game that didn't have those ultimate consequences after being used to games that do.

/derail

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

As an outsider:

My exceedingly ignorant observation would be this. It does feel as if some are trying to push this "RPI" label as some sort of indicator of quality (the 'intense' bit). And something as subjective as that will always attract controversy, because, despite what anyone might believe, there is surely no "correct" answer. Each person defines quality in their own way. For some roleplayers, any game with realdeath isn't quality. For some roleplayers, any game with strong PK aspects detracts from its RP quality.

My suggestion would be this, rather than trying to define some absolute and complete set of features that MU*s must have to qualify for the supreme accolade of being "RPIs", if you want to help MUDders, consider some sort of profiling system in which site users can configure their own personal preferences to create their own custom MU* ranking list. That way, the folks who look for the features RPIs have will be able to see which MU*s satisfy their criteria.

Clear definitions are useful though, so kudos for trying. I wish there was a clear and accepted definition for "free" MU*.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Quote of the Thread Award!

And I wish MUDs would not force me to rent!
;)

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

For full disclosure, the following is an opinion only regarding what I understand by RPI when I read the words of the acronym (not based specifically on Derelak's definition) from the point of view of someone who has sparsely tried to play RP online games but has played MUDs of other categories for years, so bear with me if you would.

Must have's:
As I see it, part of the list set forth in this thread deals with the server-client interaction, be it existence of not of custom emotes, or how easy it is to put forth your own original emotes, etc.

It dwells some into preventing communication that is not strictly in-character, yet does not address the need for a spiritual/self reflective/schizophrenic or however-you-call-it side that allows you to interact with yourself in meditation, fear, etc.

It goes into murky areas as the need to remove levels yet does not require justification for any other measurable (internal or external) in-game feature.

Adds unneeded requirements (assuming the list on the 1st page is being updated) as crafting, that would leave a game like Age of Reptiles out of question, yet does not justify why.

Accounts/Multi-playing, these are two things that cannot realistically be enforced, even more, by trying to enforce them the truly skilled people who go undetected (defining skill as being able to fool the admins) benefit even more from the 'cheating'. This problem is exacerbated when the natural flow of events is slowed down (lag-less with delay)

It is blind to the fact that there is a thing like having too much realism. If it is unreasonable that you would be able to cross the world in a few seconds it should be so as well that you would spend the same time crossing a town than traveling between two towns, yet, walking through a town might give you plenty of opportunities to interact with other players (what I thought RP MUDs were for in a sense) while the path to a distant town is not necessarily as crowded as a town and hence should provide with less RP-interaction chance. In terms of being realistic or not, if 1 city square is 33 ft/10 m wide and a wilderness square is 330 ft/100 m wide, should then each move within a city square take roughly 10 seconds and one on the wilderness 100 seconds for the sake of realism (assuming humanoid forms at Homo-Sapiens walking rate) would that add anything to the actual playing experience? or is it enough to have an 'Okarina of Time' type of transport that everybody but the newly recruited knows is necessary to not die of boredom that takes you where you want in a reasonable amount of time?

I believe RPI as a game genre should make it clear that even though you are aiming for immersion on the game world, the expectation more often than not is that you will play a significant role in the events of the world, even if you are playing the town fool or the beggar, I doubt there are many players who will be content by playing said beggar over, and over, and over, by just sitting on the same corner without much more hope than to get enough for a bread before going back to their fox hole, yet, "realistically", there should be someone falling into this category in most MUD settings I have seen described.

These points lead me to suggest that the simpler the game idea, the simpler the player options and character options, the easier it is to immerse yourself into role playing. This is one of the reasons why I felt in love with Age of Reptiles, because the rules are simple, basic. Even if the game itself has not a huge range of tools for emoting or is finished in any form, it allows you to play what you are told you are. Your only tools are what nature (as defined in the game) gives you, it has many of the requirements listed forth in your list, but more importantly, it is actually possible to go into the world and have a clear idea of what to expect, from the perspective of the average person logging into the game. Armageddon is beautifully built, with extensive description of their races, their world the magic, etc. But unless you read of all the lore the average inhabitant SHOULD know, you are going to walk around like a mumbling idiot for a while until you figure out who is who and where things are etc.

Anyway, enough for the monthly (or worse) post.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Again Xerihae and Logos explain perfectly that insanity of this thread. But just to be clear, Delerek did NOT coin the phrase RPI. He uses "we" as if he was part of the original three games. He wasn't. Let's not try to be Al Gore and say we invented the internet next.

On a side note, Threshold, where there hell did you get the term Trolluk (by the way I like your new avatar better, it is more permadeathish and RPI'ish), we have a race called Trolahk in NW and frankly I think we should start our own thread arguing over that term. Or better yet, let is redefine RPI as any game that has some form of Race that starts with Trol---something. That is really the only fair way to define the term for pure clarity.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

I don't know or care if what we refer to as rpis are "better." I don't care if permadeath is "better." I just want to weed out all the games that don't have permadeath in 25 words or less. Someone come up with a name, let's use it and move on.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

There already is a name for it. Unfortunately a few voices here don't like the name and want it changed. Most members of this forum haven't cared enough to offer an opinion one way or another. Several people have stated that it -has been- this name for many years, and have even pointed to posts from years ago to cite actual sources of its use. Several people have used the same sources to remind us that even then, the term wasn't liked, or accurate, or whatever. Whether or not it was liked, or accurate, or whatever else, it IS what was used then, and has been used up until now, and is still used now.

And yet, a very loud minority of the forum wants it changed. The vast majority doesn't think it's important enough to voice an opinion, and a very loud minority is happy with the status quo. Personally, I'm lazy. I'd rather just leave it how it is, because I don't feel like having to learn a new term for something that already has a term, unliked as it might be by that vocal minority.

Call them "Purple and Pink Polka-Dotted Games" if it floats your boat. I'll just keep calling them RPIs, because that's what they've BEEN called for over a decade, and I started playing them more than half a decade ago, and I'm stuck in my ways and have no inclination of changing them now at my old, addled age.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

I do believe there is already an option to dictate whether a game has permadeath or not. I seriously wouldn't think it hard to find those games just by searching for permadeath.

I took five minutes to find your three muds that have permadeath. Here they are:

6 Dragons
Archaic Journey
SoulMUD: Age of Dogma

Shouldn't take long to try these three out!

(hint: My guess is that there are a lot more than three muds with permadeath. I think if it is such an important traight they ought to have it in their descripts)

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

When you say "loud" do you mean "by great intensity" or "tasteless"? Perhaps another definition?

The term "minority" is usually used for the smaller number of two parts of a larger group (skipping other definitions, as they likely do not appply). As about 6 posters of the forum have been on one side in this thread, and 15-17 others have expressed either a dissenting opinion, no opinion or somehow questioned the term RPI how do those not in the 6 out of 23 become the "minority"? Would not the 6 be the minority?

Not that what is said on this forum matters to the future of the term "RPI", but to address the "changed" part, the definition (if there ever was a set one) has changed according to the features of the MUDs listed at RPIMud.com (which was previously posted in this thread by Jherlen). Perhaps you would have an easier time getting them to de-list games you feel do not fit within your view, then afterwards trying to convince others.

I could care less if it changes or not, really. I have never called, nor have an intention of calling, the game I work on an "RPI". I will just call it by its name, and mark the features it contains. So I have no real dog in this hunt.

Things change. Definitions change.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Then you aren't reading. I offer once again: ARP - Armageddon style RP.

That's fine. But then don't be upset when other people CORRECTLY call their muds RPIs as well, because their muds are Role Playing Intensive.

When you choose to use a generic term, you lose the right to complain if other people use it, co-opt it, or interpret it differently.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

If it's just about permadeath, would it be overly simple to suggest that you simply call them permadeath muds or permadeath roleplaying muds...? You could use PRAM as the acronym...

*ducks*

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Quoted as it was basically what I was going to say. I couldn't care less what you personally call them, I only have issue with people who do use the term to refer to a specific feature set trashing MUDs that are using the term in the generic sense.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

And of course all three have detailed character creation, no names, no globals, persistent immersive environment, skill based, apps required, right? And when they say permadeath they mean once your pc dies they're gone? Because apparently some people feel permadeath too is a fluid term.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Really? Can you point us to evidence of this vast majority you speak of, or are you just hand-waving? I can just as easily, and just as without any evidence whatsoever, speculate that the vast majority thinks the current definition of RPI is silly, though I suspect that the vast majority of users if, when asked what features make up an RPI, would come up with a list that bears little relationship to the one Delerak posted or, indeed, to other randomly-asked people's list of RPI features.

--matt

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Originally Posted by Jazuela
And yet, a very loud minority of the forum wants it changed. The vast majority doesn't think it's important enough to voice an opinion, and a very loud minority is happy with the status quo.

Responded to by Logos
Really? Can you point us to evidence of this vast majority you speak of, or are you just hand-waving? I can just as easily, and just as without any evidence whatsoever, speculate that the vast majority thinks the current definition of RPI is silly, though I suspect that the vast majority of users if, when asked what features make up an RPI, would come up with a list that bears little relationship to the one Delerak posted or, indeed, to other randomly-asked people's list of RPI features.

I can easily point to evidence. Check out the membership list of the forum. Check on how many registered users exist on it. Now compare that with the subset of users who "think it's important enough to voice an opinion," and you will find that the vast majority of the forum is not part of that subset.

It's simple math. Out of all the people who are registered on this forum, only a small minority thought it was important enough to voice an opinion one way or another. The rest of the membership might very well have an opinion on the subject, but didn't feel any particular need to express that opinion on the forum to which they are registered.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Please see and remember the membership numbers on here are often used without due consideration of the actual active posters.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics!

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

From the front page:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Exactly. The vast majority don't care enough to register an opinion one way or another. That's not an argument against or for the list of attributes that the OP attributes to RPIs.

In other words, it really IS just a handful of people who are trying to impose some arbitrary definition of RPI on Topmudsites. Keep in mind that those of us objecting are not putting forth our own, narrow view of what an RPI is. We're just arguing a dogmatic approach to the definition of a term about which there is clearly no consensus is not the way to go.

--matt

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Funny thing is, there really was (still is) a stock mud on here behind the listing. At one point there were even 4 people playing it :)

The 'out' counter went up over 400 times, but alas the poor stockmud got no real inbound votes.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

In other words, it really IS just a handful of people who are trying to impose some arbitrary definition of RPI on Topmudsites.

It is ALSO just a handful of people who are trying to *oppose* some arbitrary definition of RPI. That was my point. Something has actively been a certain way, for over a decade, according to the handful of people who thought it was worth identifying at all. And for over a decade, an almost equal-sized handful of people have wanted to change that, and have not been successful. And everyone else - has been content enough with how things are, for the past decade plus, that they didn't think it was important enough to bother trying to change.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Yes, that's right. So in other words, your definition is as accepted as anyone else's.

Well, no, clearly not. RPI certainly never meant anything like this list of rather arbitrary requirements that the OP wrote to me, for instance, and I've been in the MUD world since 1991 or so. In fact, as far as I can tell, there are only a handful of people who ever felt it meant anything like the list presented in the original post.

Change what? The mistaken assumption here is that RPI ever meant precisely what you feel it means to everyone else. I think it's pretty clear that's not the case. It never meant that to me, for instance, and I've got no personal stake in the matter one way or another. To me it means exactly what it says: roleplaying intensive. All the Iron Realms games are RPIs as far as I'm concerned, for instance, insofar as compared to the dominant MUDs out there (WoW and the like), they're extremely roleplaying intensive.

Anyway, as far as I'm concerned RPI means exactly what it says - roleplaying intensive. Your view of what roleplaying intensive specifically is is free to differ from mine or anyone else's but you're no more right than anyone else is.

--matt

P.S. If you want to make your quoting of others' posts easier to read, enclose quotes in [-quote-] and [-/quote-] tags, removing the four - symbols from them (which are there so that they won't render as the tags themselves in this post. Not a big deal but it does make a post nicer to look at.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

It's not just about permdeath. Look at the list that was the first post here, and that list is even missing a few.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

But, if we were to judge by the breakdown of opinions in this thread, it would seem that the handful that wants to scrap the term is a lot larger than the handful that wants to keep it.

Perhaps a better question to ask is: suppose you were to ask a large sample of MUDders what they understand by the term "RPI", would the majority answer something along the lines of the first post in this thread, or would the majority simply understand that it is a MUD which is "role-play intensive"? If, as I suspect, the great majority would understand the term to mean something other than what you mean by it, that means that your definition is no longer a viable one now, even if it ever was to begin with.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

This whole thing cracked me up :) And it worked! I had one of my guys say on our forums:

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

The only reason RPI players are in the minority in this thread is because they don't care/know to come here and post. If you posted on the armageddon/soi/hl/fem/darksun forums and told the players to come register here and voice their opinions our numbers would grow and the majority of people that have the same point of view as the rest of the RPI mud players in this thread would slide to us.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

And then we'd go and inform everyone who doesn't play those games and it would swing back to us. Can't use that as an argument I'm afraid.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

The very fact that there are quite obviously less then 1% of all muds being true RPI's, yes I guess you have a point.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

That's kind of a silly argument. The RPIMUD forums are pretty much dead. I've been there. Even if it were active, it would be akin to telling all the players of Iron Realms, NW, Threshold, and so on to come here and register and become Trolls to further a dead point.

Perhaps you will one day finally accept that the term RPI is and was a poor term. You were not part of the creation of it, you are not in authority to speak on it beyond your own personal opinion of it as we agreed at the beginning of this thread.

I have no problem with you deciding what RPI means to "you" or your friends specifically. I do have a problem with you trying to incorporate your defination as a global definition. I think that is all of our problem. Your definition is not and will not be accepted by others as a global definition.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

That's because the players stick to their own forums. My point is there is a large playerbase for RPI muds, not nearly as large as normal muds because it's still a fairly new concept and still growing. They are completely different muds with the features they use and most normal MUDDers or Gamers for that matter are not interested in them because they deter from the classical hack n slash that all other muds still hold dear. The fact remains however that RPI players are being disrespected when everyone insists that our use of "RPI" is arrogant, elite, etc, etc. That's just an easy scapegoat and it doesn't matter how much arguing we do back and forth, we're always going to use RPI, and what's worse is here at TMS anyway, all those opposed to RPI are going to oppose it.

We still haven't gotten anywhere.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

I think you always should use RPI if that is what you want to do. Just remember it is your definition of RPI not a global one. On the note of arrogant and elite. I don't have much of a problem with that if it is warranted. I hate to say it, but calling all other muds hack & slash would be akin to calling your defined RPI's MUSH's which is the direction you sort of go.

Let's face it, if you want paragraph long emotes, a set system of etiquitte to slow down roleplay, a lack of guilds and levels (even though I see no difference between guild levels and skill levels) and very limited combat, aren't you really just a MUSH with Permadeath and PK? And being a MUSH isn't a bad thing, just a different form of roleplay. Maybe call it MUSHI (MUSH Intensive?).

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

You've never played an RPI. They are nothing like MUSHES. They are more like MUDs then mushes.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Now, that would not be very IC of you to do if you did right? in fact, if you happened to do that and got the hordes of said MUDs players in here you would defeat the very MUDs you are trying to champion for :P

Just an observation

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

This is true.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

The problem is that it makes a term which once had more specific meaning nothing more than an alternate term for the generic term MUD.

Why was the term RPI first used? To distinguish a group of games from others (This doesn't constitute elitism, mind you, because that involves a bias of superiority). You had hundreds of MUDs. Some of them were hack-and-slash, others were role-play while others were a combination. While there were scores of new features put into them, most had the same code found on hack-and-slash games. A few of the hack-and-slash games however didn't even have those characteristics.

Of the role-play MUDs, you had a variety of different ones but they all shared one thing in common: they were still using the codes and features found therein that originated for purposes other than role-play be it levels, experience points, death evasion, OOC channels, etc. Some were enforced role-play, some were less stringent about it and settled for "encouraged" rather than "enforced". And yet, amongst the "enforced" group, you had another type of MUD develop. These MUDs didn't just require role-play. They stripped down their code and rebuilt it from the ground up, making it role-play intensive code. Role-play intensive code, that is to say code which was strengthened or emphasized for role-play purposes. This was different than all the other role-play enforced or encouraged MUDs which either rationalized ("when you die, your soul can be reunited with your body with only a small loss of skill ability", etc.) or attempted to play down ("the levels are there but we ignore the levels") the hack-and-slash origins of their features.

Someone coined the term RPI for this philosophy of role-play MUD design. I don't know who and I doubt we'll ever be able to track down the person who did. I will say one thing for them, they understood the English language. They used a term which describes in only three words the origin and purpose of the game design. Sadly, used in a different context the word "intensive" has other meanings and despite this being a text gaming community, language skills aren't all equal. Instead of "intensive" being read as an adjective to code or MUD, people confused it and somehow applied it as an adjective to "role-play" (have to wonder if you said you had a "brick red car" would these same people think the car was made of red bricks?).

At least some MUDs used this misinterpretation to refer therefore to "intense" role-play. Reasoning that their role-play was as intense as any other they began to adopt the term. There may have been other motivations for using the term as well. I know that when I first started role-playing, I found the quality of role-play on the original RPIs to be vastly superior to that I found anywhere else. It's possible that some mistakingly viewed RPI as a quality branding (when quality of something like role-play is a personal, subjective preference and therefore difficult to gauge in such a manner). Thinking this, they adopted the term RPI as a means of feeding off this perception. In any regard, the term began to be used outside the original application.

The problem you have though is that what good is the term any more if it's just become one more synonym for role-play MUD (or even just MUD in general given that there are games who use the term and don't even concern themselves with role-play much)? Sure, RPIs could adopt a new term but what term would be really as descriptive as role-play intensive? Perhaps role-play designed? Role-play intended? (uh oh, same initials)

Role-play Intensive is the perfect adjective to describe the nature of these games and the code, world design, and policies they employ. And even if RPIs did adopt another term, if this term came to be coveted as much as RPI apparently is, what would stop everyone and their grandmother from suddenly calling their games by this new term? It's sad to say it, but there's a distinct lack of ethics in the MUD community. Everyone wants to win over players using whatever tactic they think will work regardless of the accuracy or honesty of how they describe themselves.

For some of us though, we just want to be able to find games with the features we used to be able to find when one said RPI. We don't want to try out dozens of games which call themselves RPI only to find a dozen different combinations of features, none of which constitute the kind of game we're looking for. For others, we want to be able to advertise our games as RPI and not have people come in who have no interest in or desire to learn or adapt to the code and policies that RPIs, in the traditional use of the word, have long employed.

MMO* games are pretty popular right now. What if either game manufacturers misunderstood what that type of game was or deliberately used the term to market their game in order to capitalize on the popularity of the format, regardless of whether or not their game was the same? If you wanted to play one, wouldn't you be frustrated if dozens, if not hundreds, of games advertised themselves as MMO* and when you tried them out you found they were single-play side-scrolling games nothing like what you were looking for?

That's the root of the issue with RPI. The few vocal players and RPI administrators that have posted here are far from the only ones that experience frustration over this topic. They're just the ones that choose to speak up. There are lots more. Some of them are downright social hermits who wouldn't be comfortable posting on a forum. Some are apathetic about taking any action that doesn't involve typing emote first. But I've talked to a lot of them over the years. I've heard them grumble about games they "wasted their time trying" only to find it wasn't what they were looking for. 'Role-play MUD" adequately describes any MUD which features role-play (RPIs included). "Role-play enforced" adequately describes any MUD which has an enforced role-play policy (RPIs included). But RPI means different things to different people. For some, it means the same as "role-play enforced". For others, it means the same as the same as "role-play MUD". But for others, RPI doesn't just mean either of these two things alone. For them, RPI harkens back to that unique combination of features and philosophies of code and world design that sprang from saying, "We want to design our game around role-play, not the code that was created for a different purpose."

That's lost if the term is turned into a generic term for a smorgasbord of MUDs.

But what's really lost if it's used more discriminately? Just one more synonym to describe anything you want?

Take care,

Jason

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Oh contraire, I have played two MUSHI's and one for an extended time frame. Many players at NW have come from MUSHI's. Many features are in fact very MUSH'like. Mainly the features I spoke about in my previous post. I can certainly detail them if you like, but I think that is redundant.

Having said they are Mushlike, doesn't mean they aren't MUDlike too. But the direction you push with many features gives me the feeling you aim for a MUSH more than a MUD.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

The only thing that's similar between a mush and an RPI is the fact that it focuses on roleplaying. Everything else comes from other MUDs.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

The feature set you cling to as a requirement for "RPI" status has everything to do with PERSONAL PREFERENCE and very little to do with actual role playing. The term is horrible, it was horrible from the beginning, and it is a bigger issue now because the generic nature of the term has actually become more widespread than the narrow use that the "RPI MUDs" want it reserved for.

No, it isn't perfect. If it was perfect, we wouldn't be having this discussion for 900th time. You have arbitrarily chosen a suite of features and decided it is what you like best. Those features are chosen based on the personal preferences of the people who made the "First 3 RPIs." That's it. If you want something closer to a perfect term, use specific terms related to those first three, and call it done.

Once again:

ARP - Armageddon style RP.

There you go. That is far more "perfect" and far more accurate. That is what you are talking about anyway.

Or, if you don't want to do that, then accept that RPI has a broader common meaning and usage now, and you're just going to have to deal with it.

Your choice. But stop harping on RPI being a great and accurate term, because it was never great and never accurate. So few people play RPIs that most people didn't know about it or care for a long time. But as the years went by, the term slowly reached the mainstream and took on a more accurate and general meaning.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

This whole situation is an example of how in a small, insular group, you can make up vague terms and it doesn't matter since everyone knows what you mean. That's fine. But when you go out into the Big Bad World, it is foolish to expect and demand that everyone adhere to the little personal definitions you have made for an otherwise generic term.

I have a very apt analogy. In my family, we have two cars. They are both green. But if my wife says "which car are we taking?" and I say "the green car", she knows I mean the smaller green car (better gas mileage but less room). Now, that's fine in our family. When someone says "get in the green car, we're going", everyone else knows which car to get into. I believe the reason this term evolved is because the little green car is our secondary car, and during its lifespan we have had 3 different primary cars. So the colors of the primary car has changed, and only recently became green. But the secondary car has always been green... thus, it is always "the green car."

But it would be absolute foolishness and arrogance for us to expect the rest of the whole wide world to understand and accept that "the green car" means "the smaller of two green cars." We chose to use a very vague and generic term, and it works for us. But expecting everyone else to share in this definition is totally inappropriate and illogical. It doesn't matter how long we have been calling the smaller car "the green car" or how well this term works for us.

Furthermore, "the green car" is not a perfect term at all. It is, in fact, a pretty poor term. But it works for us, we use it, and there's nothing wrong with that. It would only start to be wrong if we demanded that everyone else use the term in the same manner.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

The term for this particular logical fallacy is "". You're merely defining the term in order to produce your desired outcome-- games that are the style you like to play.

If someone else plays a different kind of MUD which has intense roleplay, and calls it "roleplay-intensive", you merely brush them off as "not a true RPI".

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Except you, yes?

Elsewhere in this thread, you're telling people that MUSHes are not roleplaying-intensive, despite the fact that on many MUSHes it's the only thing they can do. They often have combat 'systems' which are essentially storytelling competitions judged by a neutral arbiter-- each person describes their actions, and the arbiter decides what would be best for the storyline, and what best rewards creativity.

Why is that not "roleplay-intensive"? Their entire codebase is based around it, and from their perspective Armageddon-style code is heavily invested in mechanical, repetitive skill-grinding.

What makes a pure storytelling game like that not "roleplaying intensive"?

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

And if we posted this discussion on the Diablo II forums and told the players to come register here, the number of players who think any form of roleplaying is a waste of their time would grow. That's kind of a silly argument.

The reason Armageddon-style viewpoints are not in the majority is simply because a relatively small number of people play that style of codebase.

A much larger subset of players play games where roleplaying is expected/mandated, and are generally confused as to why they are decreed to be not "roleplay-intensive", especially when the list of traits (i.e. hard-coded crafting system) allegedly defining such an experience seem rather arbitrary. Why is crafting important, but hard-coded political systems (hierarchy, voting if applicable, power structure, etc.) not mentioned? Why is an unrealistically slow pace of combat so important? Why are day/night descriptions important, but weather-dependent or seasonal descriptions not important?

The only consistent answer I've seen is essentially that this is the feature list you like. Which is fine, but not binding on the community.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

ARP - Armageddon style Roleplay? That does not work at all, I don't want my mud being compared to the roleplay that exists on Armageddon. I'd prefer something that relates to the features. RBM - Realism Based Mud or something.