Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Of all this discussion I can gather a few things:
Derelak and a few others wish to have a term with which to group the type of game of their preference.
These individuals have been using a term (RPI) which now has a meaning that has apparently evolved into something different than originally intended(?).
Some people think their goal is to catalog themselves as better or above other RP(xxx) games or even ARP's.

And more importantly, very little of what is said anymore is new or is beneficial to the discussion.

My question is, would not it be better to wrap up somehow, agree that all you want is a way to group together under a banner and make sure that most people understand what reads in the banner while the rest wants to be left alone when using the RPI char sequence as they understand it? Maybe every 2 weeks or so make a post with the list, or bump the thread that contains the list, or something similar, so that you know people know what you mean ...

Anyway, my last two cents and last ¿contribution? to the thread

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

They already promote themselves on RPIMUD. Why create a new location for this list. RPIMUD is fine, advertise it like any other mud or make a "looking for players thread" promoting RPIMUD.

I personally think Derelak's suggestion of RBM Realism Based MUD is a better distinction but watch out, soon you will have people saying that RBM muds aren't really RBM muds because they lack hair growth, body growth, sickness, defacation, urination, realistic bleeding, paper cuts, etc.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

It seems the terms been coined with less intrest in highlighting those of a similar trait but excluding others.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

I'm thinking that is what caused this thread to spiral into destruction.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

This thread is thriving on destruction.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

That make it a TDI thread?
(thriving destructive intensive...)

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

No you cannot use that acronym. You're so elitist you know that? Come on. There is destruction in plenty of other threads that are just as intensive and thriving. Man, how dare you try to use an acronym like that? Other threads may have a different view, you'd better change it to something else.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

You are right.

I never should have tried to push my definition on others, even though a small few people would agree with it. I guess TDI is just to generic a term, and could be used to discuss about any thread, even without my approval.

;)

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

No, it's you that's being obtuse by constantly employing straw man arguments like the ones below....

It's not a personal preference, it's the result of a comparitive analysis of the original games to which the term was applied. I looked at those games, broke down a list of features they shared with one another and features they shared with other games. The resulting feature set was derived from those results.

As for "little to do with actual role playing", the term didn't denote role-playing. Quit bringing up a misinterpretation of the term to attack its accuracy.

It is an issue for that very reason. In its present (ab)use, the value of the term to really describe anything is all but lost. That's why I believe it's important that this issue be addressed.

It's perfect for people who a) stop to consider the meaning of the term and how it was applied, b) have the English skills to recognize that "intensive" is not an adjective of "role-play" (if it was it would precede, not follow). I think that most people have the latter but fail to consider the former.

I haven't arbitrarily chosen anything. The term was first used to describe those games. In doing so, that "arbitrarly chosen suite of features" was part of the definition of the term, though those features were never clearly delineated. But those features were present in all three and thus form the basis for the differentiation from other games to which the term applied.

Armageddon has features (and a lack thereof) that are not found in the other two RPI codebases (or as many as five if you chose to differentiate the FEM, SoI RPI Engine and Argila from the original Harshlands code). The group to which the term RPI applied can be broken down further by saying "Armageddon-type RPI" or "Harshlands-type RPI" and so forth to further denote the specific approaches to the implementation of that feature set they share as well as to denote the variations in other aspects (for example, the original Harshlands code didn't feature ranged weapons or accounts).

Again, it didn't take on a more accurate meaning, it took on a more confused meaning because as it's used now, there are really no commonalities in the games calling themselves "RPI".

That said, a group of players and administrators got together a few weeks back and performed another comparitive analysis of the shared features of RPIs. We put together a list of 18 (though further research on my part revealed one more, or more precisely the absence of an old H&S feature, that had been overlooked). I was going to post them with this message but in looking just now I realize the log is on the computer downstairs so I'll do it next time I post since I have a lot of forum catching up to do and I've been on my ankles too much today already (been busy for the last couple weeks and if the discussion on the visually-impaired is any indicator, there may be some other good topics to read).

Take care,

Jason

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

OMG, you must be kidding Prof1515? This thread has been done for two weeks. I think you just want to keep it alive for silly reasons.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

And you would be wrong. I simply responded to a thread where I would have posted a rebuttal two weeks ago if other stuff hadn't distracted me.

Take care,

Jason

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Whatever dude. Nobody checks every forums they post on every single day. Well, not me and probably not prof. You're the reason I don't want people using RPI to label their muds.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Pfffft,

It is more likely that RPI has now been tagged as something most would keep clear of because of this thread and the lameness thereof. Even labling yourself as RPI I think now has a bad taste to it. NW, is not an RPI it is an IRP.

Get it right.:D

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

It doesn't matter what it is. It's the fact that you're trying to "one-up" those muds who came up with a completely new term and system for mudding. Regardless of all the bantering that has gone on, your side will always look worse then ours because we at least have the decency to try and talk things out, no matter how arrogant I seem, I'm willing to listen to reason, but you guys just want to cry and whine about each and every single word that gets used without any real concrete arguements except that "We have intensive roleplay too." which means nothing since roleplay intensive mud never made reference that you don't, we just have features that force a more intensive roleplaying environment.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Yes, well FARTSMOGs are the future of text-based gaming, like it or not. :)

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Yes it is.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Again, that is a supposition and a poor one Delerak and the basis for disagreement with you. There is no proof, fact, or even fiction that dictates any of your features result in a "more intensive roleplaying environment."

All of your features and your claim to RPI is entirely subjective. The only thing RBM/MUSHI/RPI/ARP/ says for you is "we're different, we have these 10 (or 20) features other muds do not. That's it. Stop pretending that it means more than just that.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Although it isn't about text-based online games, I had to laugh when I recently saw that a new label has surfaced on a website dedicated to role-playing in the upcoming Age of Conan mmo called "serious" rp.

Apparently, it isn't enough for there to be RP-oriented guilds in the game and some are calling themselves Serious RP clans. It kinda makes me want to make a clan called "Clowns" and have everyone take silly names but still RP their characters (but, yeah, I know that would be griefing, which, of course, makes it even more funny - a bunch of clowns "griefing" :P).

Ah, the process of labelling, gotta love it.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Bahahaha. Classic.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Since you guys insist on resurrecting this thread, and continuing to try and jam your personal preferences and elitism down everyone else's throat, I felt it was important to quote the best post so far yet on this issue:

Owned.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

You just proved my and everyone elses point..

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

The IRP Mud Ring is now accepting applications.

If you wish your mud to be listed as a member of the Intensive Role Play (IRP) Mud Ring, please mail send a private message to newworlds.

Thank you and good day!

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Ridiculous.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Not ridiculous. If we can draw a distinction between IRP and RPI and everyone is happy, it's wonderful.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

If in fact that's the goal, but I don't think it is. If we can all decide that RPI = A set of features that mud users want and IRP = The quality of roleplay that a mud thinks it has. Then so be it. But until people can admit that the adjective use of Intensive is not in regards to the roleplay but moreover at this point in regards to the set of features that a mud has, that won't happen.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

The problem dosen't arise with our definition of RPI, but with the common concept of what RPI stands for to the majority of mud players and before entering this discussion I was of the opinon that IRP and RPI meant the same thing.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

That's what spawned this entire discussion in the first place. A player posted requesting that he wanted an RPI and listed a bunch of features he was looking for. He got flamed for thinking that those features were an RPI. He simply thought that he was requesting a mud where the roleplay was intensive (I'm guessing strictly enforced) and thought that's what RPI stood for. I spent a lot of time thinking RPI stood for the same thing as well but simply never bothered to tack it onto our mud simply because I thought it was just the newest trendy acronym.

Once this discussion dies off, a bunch of players will simply go back to thinking that RPI stands for roleplay intensive mud, and I'm sure this will crop up again, especially with the rather vague definition of RPI that still exists for any site that sports the tag.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

I'd really like to see IRP become a more prevailant acronym, as it solves the problem of people feeling like they're cut off from a phrase they feel expresses what they do, while allowing RPI's to continue to call themselves RPI. Again, I don't care what they're called as long as they are called something and I can find them, and in one glance exclude anything that doesn't have the features I need in order to have a satisfactory mudding experience.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Join the IRP Mud Ring. It is really the true designation for Intensive Roleplaying Muds and those in the Mud Ring will work to keep the acronym alive and well.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

I've no interest in any games like yours. If you include your own game in the category of IRP, then I definitely am NOT looking for an IRP. I'm looking for something that fits similar criteria of what Fifi is looking for, what Delerak has outlined, what several of us have attempted to describe. Come up with a name for that category, exclude yourself from it, and let me know when the name is ready for people to use.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Thank you for the invitation. I think the only important thing is that everyone can search and advertise clearly and concisely. I think IRP is an excellent term.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

I thought I did. It was called MUSHI, ARP, RPI, or RBM. I and most would not use any of those terms to define the special games you like. And Jazuela, there is an entire web page devoted to the games you claim to want to play. How hard is it to go there and play all the games listed?

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Rpimud.com is flawed. Even though I have my mud listed there it's kind of joke because a lot of muds that are on the site are not RPI muds in my opinion, they share SOME qualities of an RPI mud but not all that fit into place to make it what 99% of all players who play Armageddon, Shadows of Isildur, or Harshlands feel might be an RPI.

I've logged into a few muds at rpimud.com and turned right around, so unfortunately the flaws exist even there.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

I can't believe it, but I'm actually tired of arguing about this.. Hah, that's a first for me. I'm always willing to argue and debate but I'm ready to wave the white flag on this thread. :p

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

ARP - Armageddon style Role Playing.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Again you fail to realize that the point is not a style of roleplaying, it's a set of features. RPI MUD has nothing to do with the quality of roleplay you'll find at an RPI MUD but the type of mud it is with set of features.

Also most muds probably don't want to use another muds name to describe what type of mud they are, much less the quality or type of roleplay is going to be similar to that mud. I don't think any admin would want to do that. I highly doubt SoI would ever want to be labelled an ARP.. heh.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

So have the people you consider to be RPI get together, come up with a community name for themselves, and tack that onto the beginning of Feature Set. There may even be a better way of doing it but having spent a good 4 hours today beating my head against a brick wall whilst trying to do something with MySQL, only to notice the door right next to where I was headbutting, my brain isn't working very well ;)

If they decided to call themselves Gemini then you'd have the acronym GFS. Nice, unambiguous, and completely unlikely to be hijacked by anyone and even if someone does you can point out the features it's missing.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Some of those people did get together. They came up with a community name for themselves. That name is:

RPI.

It has been RPI for over a decade. It probably will continue to be RPI, for as long as this category of game continues to exist, no matter who here on this one game forum among many, would demand otherwise.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Feel free, just don't start whining when games that don't match your "feature list" use the term because they're roleplay intensive, and don't start insulting said games because you feel you should have special dispensation to use the term solely in the way you and the rest of the "RPI" community want to.

BTW, "you" is directed at the RPI community, not specifically you Jazuela :)

Ironically, if you went down the road I mentioned you could probably come up with a nice, unambiguous acronym, that I'm sure TMS and TMC would be happy to add to their listing stuff and would allow the people who want that feature set to find said games quickly, easily, and without any others coming up. If the feature set was posted, you could bring claims against people using the term falsely to the relevant admins and after checking the evidence said people abusing the new term could have it taken off their listing.

Since you're all determined to continue with an ambiguous acronym, I guess it won't happen. Shame.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

So you would consider "Gemini" to be an unambiguous term...are we now going to spend the next 5 pages defining ambiguous, and STILL be exactly where we started, over 10 years ago.

The thing is, nothing has changed in 10 years. And I see no reason why it has to change to something other than RPI. Just change the meaning of the three letters. Just say - "RPI is NOT an acronym. The letters don't stand for anything at all. They are just three letters designated to define this set of game features."

If you do that, then there's no problem, right? Just eliminate the idea that "RPI" stands for roleplay intensive. Which, if you want to get really anal about it, would be RI, not RPI. Since roleplay is one word, or at most, a hyphenated word. In which case it would be R-PI, not RPI. Or perhaps, R.-P.I. So everyone who claims RPI stands for roleplay intensive is wrong, already.

There. Problem solved.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

That'd work.. If Average Joe the mud player didn't think RPI relate to roleplay intense.

Over a decade ago, You chose two letters in your 'tag' too outline game mechanics which are commonly used to mean "roleplay" and you're bitching that they're getting it wrong.


It'd be like Threshold coining the term PKI for muds which have a feature set which promotes PK and then getting ****ed when every PvP mud out there starts using PKI to distinguish there mud.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Actually a lot has changed. 10 years ago, this discussion could not even happen. Everyone would leap to the defense of the ARP games and flame anyone else into oblivion. But over time, more people have come to realize how vague and snobby the "RPI" term is both in meaning and usage. 10 years ago, the percentage of MUDs that focussed on role playing was pretty small. There are a lot more MUDs that focus on Role Play (either as MUSHes, RPEs, RPIs, ARPs, or some other classification) because role play is something MUDs can actually do as well or better than graphical MMOs. So things have changed in a very significant way in the last 10 years.

I think what we are seeing is the final, inevitable end to the exclusivity of this RPI term. It is going to continue to be used more widely, and it will continue to gravitate towards what the words actually mean: role playing intensive games. A year from now, RPI will be used even more widely by a more diverse set of muds than it is now.

So people who make and play ARP style muds have a few options available to them.

1) Think of a specific, non-generic term. Preferably one with some proper nouns in it to completely avoid what you consider "misuse." You cannot really hope to control a term if it uses normal words rather than proper nouns.

2) Let it go. Continue to use the term but stop getting your panties in a bunch if someone else uses the term differently.

3) Crai more n00b.

So far, most of the ARP enthusiasts on this forum have been going with #3. That's fine and I am certainly not going to try and stop them, but it isn't very productive and it just makes them look silly.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

If RPI has no meaning other than a moniker for a set of features.. they why in the world is it used? It has *nothing* to denote that it is merely a feature set. Also.. if it is not an acronym, then stop whining when others have an acronym that denotes the standard of RP quality. Another thing.. if RPI has no real meaning other than sme arbitrary method to denote a set of features... why in the world use those letters? They have to have some actual meaning beyond "Waaaaaahhhh!! They are using it to denote quality/amount/intensity of RolePlay. Those are our letters we pulled out of out collective ***es because we wanted to have something to denote a set of features we want. Oh and we just chose these.. well.. just because."

Oh wait.. what did I just say? I use RP. Why is that? Could it be that RP has been the standard short form for Roleplay? It has been that way for longer than I have known about MUDs.. which incidentally is coming on 15 years or so... RP was used for Roleplay long before RPI came along. You dirty thieves! Gimme my R and P back!

You whine about it being *just* a feature set. If that is the case, then actually devise a system that makes it *obvious*. Society and cultures evolve and adapt over time MUDs are no different. Honestly, it looks like the Armageddon Feature Set crowd is outnumbered now as far as what people assume to be an RPI. Deal with it.. or adapt.

Kerrida

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Silly people. This was all coming to a close and you opened it up again. Delerak said he didn't want to debate anymore and we are going back in circles. While fun, this has a dizzying effect.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Perhaps if we can't share, we can take turns. I'll devise a ridiculously complicated system to determine down to the minute, who gets to use RPI, and what it means at the time. But only if I get to go first. This week, I want RPI to mean "Really Playerkilling Intensive", and if your MUD doesn't fit into that, you all have to change your RPI's to something else until I'm done.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

The war is far from over. Just because more people at TMS think that RPI should be freely used amongst any person who runs a stock mud and thinks that they have the best roleplay around doesn't make it true or right.

But whatever, what do I know? I've just been mudding for the past 12 years.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

What's the difference between a stock mud and a ripoff copy of features from say...Armeggedon? Wouldn't that be a "stock" ARP by definition. I mean, the biggest problem Delerak is your blatant use of terms as if there is something better about your definition of an intensive roleplaying mud.

The entire time you've been shown that there isn't, but it is all opinion. When will you just accept that?

More importantly. You keep popping off about Stock Muds. Would you name those "stock" muds that do what you claim above, for I've yet to meet them.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

My point is that you are all saying it's okay for stock muds to use the term. Even though RPI's are a small niche in the community, they just wanted to be left alone with the term that they originated a decade (or longer) ago. The fact that you all just want to blatantly use it doesn't say much about you or your muds. It's essentially the same as any other term that gets mis-used anywhere, it doesn't have to just apply to MUDs, but the easiest analogies would be MUSHes or DIkU's. But we're comparing codebases now to simply a set of features within a mud. The problem is the RP in the word, "Roleplaying" is the big thing now for muds to try and draw people to them, yet in my mind the best roleplaying you can find is at RPI muds, why? Because the set of features forces you into a realistic setting of roleplay, where there are no distractions. I don't care if it sounds elitist, everyone wants their mud to draw "Roleplayers" but they can't even say they've tried a true RPI mud.

This isn't just a personal preference like everyone has been saying in this whole thread. Fir me from an actor's standpoint I can firmly say that I could never get in-character on stage if people were constantly talking about other things while I was acting (OOC channels), or if I saw somebodys real name all the time instead of their character (Short Descriptions/Main Descriptions). I can continue making analogies like these ones but honestly it won't matter because you guys trying to defend the use of RPI to anyone who wants to use it fail to realize it. Until you can say you've tried an RPI mud and have honestly tried to apply yourself to it's rules, boundaries, limitations, or whatever you want to call them, you'll never understand the viewpoint of an RPI player.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

That is such a crock. First, most players are doing multi tasking when they play any mud including talking on AIM with there little buddies about who they should PK on your MUD, please do not be so naive that you think they don't.

Second, all of your arguments can be backhanded to you in full measure to show how lame some of your features are and the style of functionality. But that is pure opinion as well.

I really think this isn't the thread to get into "I'm better than you because of a,b, and c."

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Yes, we're derailing but it does relate to the guidelines for an RPI somewhat. Anyway.. it's not about being better. I've played a lot of muds over the years and the reason I've stuck to RPI is because of the quality of roleplay I've found at them.

You make a point when you say people might be on aim or somewhere else, but the fact of the matter is that they are not subjected to out of character discussion inside the mud itself, that is what counts and matters. As I matured over the years I started realizing these small tiny facts and when I first started acting on stage I even realized them further, how can you claim that you have a roleplaying atmosphere when you can't even get in character on the mud? Obviously people will say they can get in-character no matter what, but until you've seen the differences between RPI muds and the other muds out there you simply can't understand or compare the two.