[Milawe]

Originally Posted by Fifi Specifically I meant this one: . Extensive, player controlled emote system - Players may create open-ended, custom emotes and have commands to help create these emotes. Stock emotes are not present.

Oh, that's a confusion that's resulted from the fact that Delerak has updated his list. #5 was removed, I believe.

I don't have a probelm with that one. I wrote it.

[Milawe]

Originally Posted by Voidrider To say that a game requires a "slower" pace is simply a crutch being used because a player can't type fast enough to react to a situation or the environment around them. It is a lot like being pumped up with painkillers and trying to deal with a conveyor belt. Does anyone think that a real life soldier under fire in a foxhole in Afghanistan is in a "slow" or "controlled" environment? Effective communication in any kind of environment is a skill in itself.

This isn't actually true. Threshold is roleplay enforced. I believe there's some extremely immersive and extensive roleplaying there. Our players do a great job. The roleplay that happens on Threshold is extremely fast-paced, though, and consists mostly of dialogue punctuated by emotes. If you spend too much time posing, you could be dead, have a jihad declared against you, or been kicked out of your guild by the time you're done with your beautiful and brilliant pose. That's simply the pace of the mud, and I believe NW is much the same way.

Whereas if you go the other extreme and say play on KushielMux, the standard is to often have 5-15 minutes of wait between player poses if you're roleplaying with one other person. People in the mud know this, and they don't have a problem with it. When you, however, stick a Thresh player in a KM setting, it's quite a jarring change.

I'm guessing the RPIs need to fall somewhere in the middle of this, and that's what they're trying to convey with this rule. In Threshold, unless you have two like-minded players, you have about 30 seconds to finish your emoting. Other players, however, may take 1-2 minutes to write elaborate emotes, but when it comes down to conflict, they will switch to the faster style of communication where most of the RP occurs in using the say command punctuated by short, fast emotes.

[Jazuela]

Mina once again you provide a perfect analogy:

MMORPG stands for Massively-Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game. They're basically just the graphical muds.

That is what MMORPG has come to mean, that is commonly accepted and acknowledged meaning. The vast majority of gamers won't have any problem with it.

However, there are games that are online, offer roleplaying, and are massively-multiplayer games, that are NOT graphical. Games such as Achaea and Gemstone, for example. And interestingly enough, MMORPGs as they are understood to be now, are also understood to be commercial. So are Achaea and Gemstone.

Why not change the term MMORPG and call them Graphical RPGs instead, to make them fit what they are known to be at the present time, to distinguish them from muds such as Achaea and Gemstone, which are most assuredly not graphical, but absolutely ARE MMORPGs, by definition of each word in the initials?

Why not? Because - the community as a whole has accepted that MMORPGs are graphical. There will always be a few individuals who reject the standard. There will also be the new member of the community who simply doesn't know any better, and will either accept the education or become one of the few who reject the standard. But the standard remains.

Just like the standard criteria of what constitutes an RPI remains, whether a few reject that standard, or don't know about the standard, or not.

[Threshold]

Originally Posted by ender The goal in any RPI is realism and the skill based experience system does a better job of emulating that than a level based system

Says who? Says you and people like you. That's it. Skill based systems are no better or worse of an abstraction than a level based system. It is nothing more than pure preference. Neither is more realistic or better than the other. You prefer skills over levels. GREAT! There's nothing wrong with that. But when you start declaring your preferences better than everyone else's, then there is a problem.

Originally Posted by ender In a skill based system you receive bonuses in a skill for actually practicing it as opposed to a level based system where you get boosts or the ability to learn skills from completely unrelated actions.

And by practicing it, you mean standing with your face in a corner duplicating the action over and over again, right? Because that's what happens very often in pure skill based games - especially skilling up through use systems.

The point is: neither is more realistic as a concept. It is all about the implementation. One implementation can be more realistic than another, but skills or levels are both abstractions designed to adjudicate a result in a reasonable and believable way. That's it and that's all.

Originally Posted by ender Instead of focusing on an ultimately arbitrary level...

... they focus on an ultimately arbitrary skill level.

Yeah, we get it.

Originally Posted by Jazuela Why not change the term MMORPG and call them Graphical RPGs instead

Well, I wager the main reason is because if someone decides to call their MUD an MMORPG, they aren't going to have their game unfairly bashed by an irrational, foaming at the mouth WoW fanatic.

[prof1515]

Originally Posted by Threshold And by practicing it, you mean standing with your face in a corner duplicating the action over and over again, right? Because that's what happens very often in pure skill based games - especially skilling up through use systems.

Skill-based does not imply RPI. RPIs, as I've pointed out before, do not accept this kind of behavior and employ several methods to guard against it. As a last defense, you have staff like me who would notice players doing that, check the logs, discover they'd been doing it for some time, then adjust their skill level back down to eliminate the gains they had made through such behavior (if they were 95% of the way from "familiar" to "adroit" I'd reset them so they were just at the minimum for "familiar"...guess with all that sparring they pinched a nerve...so sad) . Then I'd fire off a friendly warning to them not to do that again.

The point is: neither is more realistic as a concept. It is all about the implementation. One implementation can be more realistic than another, but skills or levels are both abstractions designed to adjudicate a result in a reasonable and believable way. That's it and that's all.

Not true. Using a skill to increase your ability with that skill is more realistic than being assessed points based on actions not related to that skill. Killing a wolf with a club should not allow you to increase your skill at weaving nor should being able to tell interesting stories in a pub all day allow you to become better at forging a horseshoe. These mechanical stat-based methods are employed by stat-based RPEs but NEVER by skill-based MUDs including RPIs. The result is a more realistic manner of skill development. Use can allow one to improve but only at the skill used (and in RPIs, the use of the skill does not guarantee it will always cause your skill to increase)

Jason

[Milawe]

Here's the distinction between standard level-based and skill based systems that I think RPI players are trying to make: (I say standard because I know of at least one mud that does it differently, and I think that's why Threshold is objecting.)

In a level-base system, a character gains the level and gains abilities based on acquiring a general knowledge ('experience') for that level. The reasoning is that your character has "progressed" far enough in his/her field to suddenly know this ability.

In a skill-based system, however it's implemented, your character "practices" the same skill over and over, and performing that skill enough "teaches" them something. So, in order to get certain abilities, you have to pick which skill to perform repeatedly before you move further down that chain.

The realism really comes with the players and the administrators not the system, but the system can help promote realism. It all depends on the game. On an RPI, you could get a player who decides he's going to min-max the system and start spamming the 4 different abilities in order to skill up what he believes is best for leveling his character and PKing his enemies. Whether or not he gets busted, the "unrealistic" factors of the mechanics have already been exposed. On the other hand, a roleplayer could go to a level-based system and spend his/her entire time roleplaying studies for the abilities he/she knows is going to come when he/she levels. The idea is that using all their previously learned abilities from previous levels expands their "general" knowledge and unlocks a new ability for them. There have been plenty of times when I've been coding when I have a "Eureka" moment, and I've truly understood something new. I liken this more to a level system than a skill system. I haven't been learning about call_outs over and over and over. I code entire projects, and thus, I gain more knowledge in the area of coding in general. That player just brought lots of realism into a level system, and if that becomes the norm on the mud, it's going to seem more "realistic" than a system that allows people to simply write a script to spam an ability over and over to raise a skill.

Arguing that one is more realistic than the other one, again, is completely subjective. They are both systems that are abstracts of real life, and both can be powerful and useful tools for roleplaying. RPIs chose to use a skill-based system. It's neither more realistic or promotes more roleplaying. It's simply a game feature that helps define an RPI.

In addition, many of us keep assuming that "realistic" is "better" for roleplaying and that somehow being realistic is more challenging. That's not necessarily true. Playing a role where you have no basis in realism, making it believable and coherent, and selling it to an audience can be argued to be quite more difficult than simply basing a character off the Marquis de Sade and sticking it in some random fantasy/sci-fi setting. Realism is often nice for roleplaying because it gives you a strict guide to follow, and it's easier to keep everyone on the same page. If you have a group of good enough roleplayers, though, realism matters little as long as there's enough details in the game for everyone to be on the same page and those details are consistent, has patterns that players can easily follow and grasp, and the world operates in a believable manner. The key is building or finding such a world.

Honestly, if I wanted realism, I know this game called real life and the graphics are totally awesome.

I think RPI players would be taken more seriously if they quit using such judgement calls as "this is BETTER for roleplaying" or "this is more realistic". That's probably a very inaccurate statement anyway and not really what you mean. RPIs have picked systems that are harder for irresponsible builders and players to mangle and easier to police. This allows them to spend less time tracking down infractions and spend more time nurturing the game world. I'll attempt to explain.

In a level-based system, builders/coders often simply think of a cool power and stick it in wherever there's space. Often, they find a justification for putting that power in just because it's coded, and many times, coders/builders have no real thought behind the skills they're developing for a class/skill tree because there's no linear progression or guidelines. You often learn in "chunks" or across several systems at once. It takes a lot of effort to maintain a believable progression. So, often, you get a hodge-podge of abilities, often seemingly unrelated, all in one class. The linear progression of a skill-based system may have many branches, but the abilities come in a straight line, much like Civ's tech tree. You learn A which progresses to B which progresses to C, and sometimes, if you have A and B, Y becomes unlocked as well. This is much less prone to sloppy design (even though some games still manage it) because you're forced to already think of "what's next". And as is the norm for anything linear, this system is much easier to organize and organize well.

I think saying that a skill-based system is more "realistic" is a simplified and inaccurate term for what you guys really mean.

[Threshold]

Originally Posted by prof1515 Skill-based does not imply RPI.

Strawman. Please re-read my post. I did not say anything about RPIs.

Originally Posted by prof1515 RPIs, as I've pointed out before, do not accept this kind of behavior and employ several methods to guard against it.

That's nice. Like I said, that is why it is all about the implementation, not the concept. A level based RPI could take the same measures if someone was "levelling up" in a lame manner.

Originally Posted by prof1515 Not true. Using a skill to increase your ability with that skill is more realistic than being assessed points based on actions not related to that skill.

Really. So if I create 100 files with the following:

void create()
{
	return;
}

it is realistic that I will get better at coding?

Oh wait, no that isn't realistic at all. So like I have said all along, skills, levels, etc. are all just abstractions used by a game to codify a system of processing results.

Originally Posted by prof1515 Killing a wolf with a club should not allow you to increase your skill at weaving nor should being able to tell interesting stories in a pub all day allow you to become better at forging a horseshoe.

Really? So cross training is a myth, huh? Going for a 10 mile jog every day will not make me a better soccer player? Lifting weights doesn't make someone a better football player? If I read a lot of books, that won't make me a better writer? Improving my typing skill doesn't make me a better programmer?

Personally, I find that I am a better programmer (in terms of both code output and how rapidly I can learn new concepts) when I make sure I get at least 1 hour of exercise per day. And those two acts are not even close to being related in a pure skill-based system.

In fact, it is incredibly UNREALISTIC that a skill system completely fails to represent the benefits of cross training. But you know what... who cares? That doesn't make it a bad method of designing a game. It just makes it different.

Neither skills nor levels are better or more realistic. They are both abstractions used by a game to create a codified method of determining the success/failure of actions. It is the height of arrogance to simply declare your preference "better" or "more realistic" when that is simply false. And furthermore, it never ceases to amaze me that people (and no surprise it often tends to be RPI types) feel it is important and worthwhile to argue and prove THEIR preference is the best. Why can't you folks just leave it at "I like this best"?

And you wonder why people think RPI-ers are elitist.

[Milawe]

Originally Posted by Threshold That's nice. Like I said, that is why it is all about the implementation, not the concept. A level based RPI could take the same measures if someone was "levelling up" in a lame manner.

That's my point exactly. It's much easier to say "Stop spamming the same ability over and over and roleplay!" rather than say, "Hey, you know, you're just making XP and not roleplaying enough to support your leveling." One form of leveling can be a lot easier to police than the other. It's understandable why RPIs have chosen to use the skill-based leveling system, but I don't believe that it's any more realistic. It's less prone to being mangled by sloppy builders, and it's easy to police such a system for players trying to mangle the roleplay intent behind these systems.

Originally Posted by Threshold Really. So if I create 100 files with the following: void create() { return; } it is realistic that I will get better at coding?

No, but I wish it worked that way cause I'd be cutting and pasting my little heart out.

[Fifi]

The reason that skill based systems are better for rpis than level based is becausethe majority of us who play rpis prefer them.

[prof1515]

Originally Posted by Threshold That's nice. Like I said, that is why it is all about the implementation, not the concept. A level based RPI could take the same measures if someone was "levelling up" in a lame manner.

RPI refers to both code and policy, as I stated earlier. You should lift more weights to cross-train your reading skill.

Really? So cross training is a myth, huh? Going for a 10 mile jog every day will not make me a better soccer player? Lifting weights doesn't make someone a better football player? If I read a lot of books, that won't make me a better writer? Improving my typing skill doesn't make me a better programmer? Personally, I find that I am a better programmer (in terms of both code output and how rapidly I can learn new concepts) when I make sure I get at least 1 hour of exercise per day. And those two acts are not even close to being related in a pure skill-based system.

It didn't improve your skill at it though. It may have made you more alert so that you reached your potential, but it did not improve your actual skill via the exercise. And "learn[ing] new concepts" is not something that would be defined by a skill in a skill-based system. That's represented by attributes like strength, intelligence, dexterity, not by skills like weaving or smithing.

In fact, it is incredibly UNREALISTIC that a skill system completely fails to represent the benefits of cross training. But you know what... who cares? That doesn't make it a bad method of designing a game. It just makes it different.

Yes, it makes it different. And skill-based systems are part of what differentiates a RPI from other MUDs.

Neither skills nor levels are better or more realistic. They are both abstractions used by a game to create a codified method of determining the success/failure of actions. It is the height of arrogance to simply declare your preference "better" or "more realistic" when that is simply false. And furthermore, it never ceases to amaze me that people (and no surprise it often tends to be RPI types) feel it is important and worthwhile to argue and prove THEIR preference is the best. Why can't you folks just leave it at "I like this best"?

I'm curious but are you bashing a lot of gophers with a baseball bat? You type so well that you must be gaining lots of experience points bashing gophers to train up your ability to type! "More realistic" doesn't have to imply "completely realistic" but compared to stat-based advancement, it is more realistic. Although being an artificial system it simply does not equal the complexities of reality. That's pretty much the case with any artificial system.

And you wonder why people think RPI-ers are elitist.

I've never seen a player who started on RPIs leave and then state that other MUD types were better. I have seen players who started on other types of games try RPIs and go back to other types, citing (usually indirectly) their inability or unwillingness to accept the features of RPIs. I have also seen players who started on other kinds of MUDs leave those in favor of RPI. I, myself, fall into this category. Is it elitism that a greater number of players abandon other types of MUDs for RPI than the reverse? I guess it depends on which side of the move you're on. If you're the one who can lose players to RPI but can't lure them away, I guess it's elitism. If you're the game style that players would rather give up MUDs altogether than play something else, the perspective is something different. As someone who's staffed on both sides of the RPI/non-RPI difference and made the move to RPI-only, I can see why some might call RPI "elitist". But there's a green-eyed tint to that argument too.

Take care,

Jason

[Threshold]

Originally Posted by prof1515 I'm curious but are you bashing a lot of gophers with a baseball bat? You type so well that you must be gaining lots of experience points bashing gophers to train up your ability to type!

Actually, bashing gophers with a baseball bat would indeed improve my typing. It would improve my hand-eye-coordination, my flexibility, my hand strength, and my endurance. All of those things would improve my typing abilities. You couldn't counter my other examples, and now you just offered up ANOTHER ONE that proves my point. Thank you!

As a concept, skill based systems are no more realistic than level based systems. It is all about the implementation.

You like skill based systems. That's great. I like them too. I don't like pure level based systems, so I am not trying to defend something that is my own preference. But I have already pointed out numerous ways in which skill based systems are "unrealistic" as well. They don't take into account cross-benefits of different activities, and they are prone to some of the most unrealistic abuses and behaviors of all (standing in a corner, using a skill over and over, or using a skill in a totally pointless way simply to improve it).

Both systems are game mechanic abstractions that a developer uses to adjudicate actions and determine a result. Neither one of them does a particularly good job of mimicking reality. Reality is far too complex. And you know what? It's ok. Realism is not and should not be the most important thing when designing game mechanics. Believability and fun are far more important and valuable goals.

If RPI folks want to make "skill based" a requirement for a game being an RPI, that's fine.

If RPI folks want to shout from the mountain top that they prefer skill based to level based, that is also fine.

If RPI folks want to declare skill based systems "better" or "more realistic", that is not fine. It is not fine when they try to pronounce their own personal preferences to be better than everyone else's. That isn't logic or reason. That is just arrogance.

Originally Posted by prof1515 Is it elitism that a greater number of players abandon other types of MUDs for RPI than the reverse? I guess it depends on which side of the move you're on. If you're the one who can lose players to RPI but can't lure them away, I guess it's elitism.

Surprise, surprise! More elitism! "RPIs are better than everyone else because we lure away all your players! We're in yer playerbase, stealing yer players!" This is getting hilarious. You can't win the argument, so you fall back on more elitism. I really expected better from you, prof. True colors?

My games have attracted countless players who quit RPIs to join ours. We have even had coders (and at least one admin I recall off the top of my head) leave some of those "founding 3" RPIs to play our games. These are people who invested not just their time, but their MONEY in our games. Players move in both directions between RPIs and non RPIs. Perhaps more importantly, many players play BOTH types of games because they offer a different experience. So whatever point you are trying to make is not only elitist and desperate, but wrong.

Lets be honest here. The number of people who play and prefer RPIs is absolutely microscopic compared to the number of people who play "other MUDs" as well as the number of people who role play on "other muds." So don't break your arm patting yourself on the back.

[Milawe]

I think another big difference might be that when we get someone from RPIs (or any other game), we're just glad they found our game and enjoy it. If they move on to another game, we're just glad they spent some time having fun with us and hope that they have fun in their next game, even if that other game is my hated WoW. *mutter* Whereas the poster above seems to be viewing getting a player from another mud as some sort of graduation ceremony. "Welcome to RPIs! You'll never leave again because there's nothing better." I hate to rain all over your parade, but we share players. We even share players with MUSHes and MUXes. We even have players who came from RPIs and have had high builder, coder and admin positions in RPIs, and we also have players who have gone on to be builders on RPIs. Most players interested in RP aren't interested in whether a game is an RPI, and RPEI, and RPXSELFLKJSEF or whatever. They're interested in whether or not the RP in the world is enforced. Everything else is game mechanics, style and preference for them.

Before the implication that we must be jealous of RPIs because they're taking away all our players, I never even thought about who comes from an RPI or who doesn't come from one. Possibly it's because I hadn't bothered to keep track of who came from which mud, nor have I ever thought that "our RP is superior to other games, so once they come to Threshold they never go back". I think it'd be the height of stupidity and arrogance for me to actually believe that never occurs. I know that we share players with several of the RPIs. Sometimes they put more time into their RPI, and sometimes they put more time into us. It really depends on how things are going. There are other players that we have from RPIs that play only our game, and I'm sure that there are players from our game who now play an RPI exclusively.

For a ton of players, RP enforcement is what is the defining line for them. After that they just look for mechanics.

Ultiamtely, RPIs really consist of a handful of muds and a handful of players in the grand scheme of things. I doubt that RPIs are stealing all the players out there.

Anyway, this conversation has degenerated to the point where it's not worth continuing. At least some progress was made before it got derailed, though!

[Newworlds]

The last few posts have been pretty good, but I think it strays off topic for some reason. Mina has it right that players come and go from games all the time. NW has had numerous people join from all types of games (Permadeath, MUSH, RPE, H&S and so on) as I'm sure many have played other games coming from NW.

I know for a fact that many players of NW enjoy Threshold and Achae (which I personally enjoy too) as well as many other games on TMS and frankly I'm glad they have other outlets of enjoyment.

[prof1515]

Originally Posted by Threshold Actually, bashing gophers with a baseball bat would indeed improve my typing. It would improve my hand-eye-coordination, my flexibility, my hand strength, and my endurance. All of those things would improve my typing abilities. You couldn't counter my other examples, and now you just offered up ANOTHER ONE that proves my point. Thank you!

Your other examples were lame and didn't need countering. And bashing animals with a baseball bat will not improve your skill at typing. It will improve the physical attributes that aid in typing but it will not make you a better typist. Typing will.

You like skill based systems. That's great. I like them too. I don't like pure level based systems, so I am not trying to defend something that is my own preference. But I have already pointed out numerous ways in which skill based systems are "unrealistic" as well. They don't take into account cross-benefits of different activities, and they are prone to some of the most unrealistic abuses and behaviors of all (standing in a corner, using a skill over and over, or using a skill in a totally pointless way simply to improve it).

Which is why skill-based systems alone are not enough to call a game RPI. It's entirely possible to have a skill-based H&S (and there are examples of this). And the implementation of skill-based systems in RPIs do take into account cross-benefits, specificially through the use of crafts.

Both systems are game mechanic abstractions that a developer uses to adjudicate actions and determine a result. Neither one of them does a particularly good job of mimicking reality. Reality is far too complex. And you know what? It's ok. Realism is not and should not be the most important thing when designing game mechanics. Believability and fun are far more important and valuable goals.

Yes, because realism isn't believable. As for fun, that's another subjective term. Fun for one player may mean killing everything in sight. That wouldn't be acceptable in a RPI, no matter how much fun it may bring that player.

If RPI folks want to make "skill based" a requirement for a game being an RPI, that's fine. If RPI folks want to shout from the mountain top that they prefer skill based to level based, that is also fine. If RPI folks want to declare skill based systems "better" or "more realistic", that is not fine. It is not fine when they try to pronounce their own personal preferences to be better than everyone else's. That isn't logic or reason. That is just arrogance.

And the term RPI has nothing to do with being "better". We're straying into the realm of a different discussion than what makes a RPI. This discussion got off on a tangent when the subject of the first statement you made there was contested. From there the discussion seems to have slid into yet another digression of little bearing to the purpose of the thread.

Surprise, surprise! More elitism! "RPIs are better than everyone else because we lure away all your players! We're in yer playerbase, stealing yer players!"

I didn't say "RPIs are better than everyone else because we lure away all your players!" so kindly refrain from fabricating and attributing ideas that I did not say. As for the subject of luring away players, there aren't many to lure away. RPIs tend to lure very few players. In fact, most MUDs fail to lure players away from other games. Players tend to stick with the games they first connect with.

This is getting hilarious. You can't win the argument, so you fall back on more elitism. I really expected better from you, prof. True colors?

Also, there is no such thing as elitism. Elitism is a perception. If you feel there's elitism going on, it's probably due to your own insecurities.

My games have attracted countless players who quit RPIs to join ours. We have even had coders (and at least one admin I recall off the top of my head) leave some of those "founding 3" RPIs to play our games. These are people who invested not just their time, but their MONEY in our games.

And right there the inclusion of investing "their money" suggests that they did NOT go to your game for the role-play but for the ability to use OOC factors for H&S advancement. I don't dispute players and even staff from RPIs playing other games but that's because they're seeking something other than RP be it H&S gameplay, PK MUDs, etc. And no doubt plenty of players "quit RPIs to join" your game. But I'll wager those were never players who were dedicated to RPI MUDs, rather the type that tried it out, perhaps even tried to bend/break the rules to do what they pleased and failed, and quit because RPI just wasn't what they preferred.

Players move in both directions between RPIs and non RPIs. Perhaps more importantly, many players play BOTH types of games because they offer a different experience.

I don't dispute this. In fact, I'd say it's a very accurate reason why. But I have yet to see a player who began on any RPI go to a different type of game to find RP. I have seen players who first played an RPI quit to go off to play WoW and Gemstone. RPI just wasn't their cup of tea.

I have seen numerous players who did not start on RPIs leave to go back to the system they were more comfortable with. I have seen many RPI players play other games so they could do "some mindless bashing" (as one put it). But I have seen none that have started on RPIs and left them to RP elsewhere. I've known a few who've tried and they either endlessly come back to RPIs (no matter what the circumstances that caused their departure) or quit MUDding altogether. I spoke with one just the other day (and I myself essentially fall into this category). I spoke to another a couple weeks ago. Sadly, most, I don't hear from any more as they've abandoned text-based gaming altogether. And that's what concerns me as the out-flow of talent dangerously exceeds the in-flow in some RPIs, even with staff (I still have some players come to me with questions about Harshlands because, to quote one, "[they] don't have confidence in the staff to know the answers to [their] questions...." and that's scary).

Lets be honest here. The number of people who play and prefer RPIs is absolutely microscopic compared to the number of people who play "other MUDs" as well as the number of people who role play on "other muds." So don't break your arm patting yourself on the back.

I've never said anything to the contrary. RPI MUDs are not for everyone. In fact, it's been my experience that a good number of MUD players don't have the combination of creativity and maturity to successfully play any RPI, to say nothing of the grammar and vocabulary to adequately express themselves through text-based role-play.

RPIs have always had small numbers. They were and continue to be a small niche community. In 1998 there were how many MUDs? And only three RPIs. Ten years later, that number is double, but only within the last few years (since the release of the SoI RPI Engine). Several RPIs have since seen a vast increase in player numbers. Harshlands' average online numbers are up by at least 200-300% what they were when I first started playing there almost a decade ago. SoI, despite being only half as old, has a playerbase that sometimes gains more players per month than Harshlands did in its first few years combined. But a lot of this new influx of players also come carrying the baggage of code and RP policies from non-RPIs, which in itself is not unsual. However, sometimes they have trouble adapting because they've played 20 other "RPIs" where it was perfectly acceptable to do the skill spamming you refer to or to go out killing anything they find roaming the streets.

So there's no "patting [myself] on the back". If anything, I think RPIs have experienced a horrific fall-off in quality. Part of this is due to the lowering of standards by the staff of the RPIs themselves, mainly done to attract more players but also in response to the influx of players not only unfamiliar with RPIs but also resistant to conforming to the policies. In the old days, they got booted out of the game. Now, some admins are letting them stay, accepting that two or three poor players who don't know the setting, don't care about the setting, and don't care about the game's policies are better than one good one who does. It creates a sad discrepancy between the game's policies and the reality of what occurs.

Jason

[Threshold]

Originally Posted by prof1515 Your other examples were lame and didn't need countering.

Yeah, because jogging a lot won't make you a better soccer player. Cross training doesn't exist. Playing the piano won't improve my finger dexterity and make me a better typist. Whatever. Keep arguing for realism while ignoring reality.

You insist your preferences are superior to everyone else's preferences in the whole world. In your mind, what you like is inherently better and more realistic. And why is it more realistic?

Sorry to disappoint you, but RPIs do not have the "best" role play. They have one kind of role play. Your insistence that it is the "best" is precisely the elitism so many have spoken of since the beginning. Tons of people leave RPIs because they think the RP is better elsewhere. A lot of people think the kind of cutter, emo crap that takes place on a lot of RPIs is immature, boring, and repetitive.

[Valg]

Late to the party, but:

Originally Posted by Delerak 1. Permdeath: This is not disputed, 99% of all RPI players/admins will agree to this.

Milieu-dependent. MUDs exist where the physical death of a character results in them being sent to an underworld, etc. A futuristic MUD might consist largely of cyberspace, where 'death' simply means being forced into an organic world for some time. These MUDs might even share the same underlying engine. In these sets of physical laws, the correct roleplay decision is that traditional permadeath models would be OOC. What you really want here is internal consistency, not realism. After all, it's not 'realistic' that you have wizards and such in Armageddon, etc. It is, however, internally consistent with the rules of the world.

Originally Posted by Delerak 3. Account based: RPI muds should use accounts to keep track of their playerbase, as well as their characters. Considering this, RPI muds should only allow 1 character active on players accounts at any given time. Accounts also allow the staff of the RPI to make notes and keep track of your characters you've played so that in the future perhaps you will be considered for a special role based on these notes.

A) This is irrelevant because you cannot enforce it. A dedicated player who wants two or more accounts can have two or more accounts.
B) Even when a player allows you to link their characters, isn't this an OOC mechanism? I would think that in an "intensive" role play environment, the admins would be judging the quality of a performance or applications strictly on the merit of that character. The 'special' roles seem like a mock audition for a role in, say, a local community theater, except the director decides who gets the part before seeing the tryouts, based on resumes.

Originally Posted by Delerak 4. No levels: Since levels are an OOC concept, RPI's should not have them.

Already covered in detail. You are using integers to track the abilities of a character, but parse them differently (sometimes more coarsely, sometimes not) when explaining them to the character's player. All games have these sorts of abstractions.

Originally Posted by Delerak 5. Extensive, player controlled emote system - Players may create open-ended, custom emotes and have commands to help create these emotes. Stock emotes are not present.

Finally, an actual feature. I'm not sure the absence of 'stock' emotes helps more than it harms, and 'extensive' is purely arbitrary, but you have the core of something here. It's harder to roleplay when the code doesn't put power in the hands of players.

Originally Posted by Delerak 6. Slower Paced World: RPIs should have a slow pace to the game in order to allow for and promote extensive emotes and reactions between players. This should be accomplished by slow paced combat and crafting systems and promoted heavily by administrators.

Artificially slow combat has advantages (time for unwieldy syntax, emotes/ etc.) and disadvantages (many players feel combat is enhanced by a more realistic high-stress rapid pace). I don't see what the absence or presence of a crafting system has to do with the 'pace' of the world.

Originally Posted by Delerak 8. Immersive code: Via scripting an RPI mud should but isn't necessarily required to have various things that immerse the experience of the player, such as coded echoes that happen at certain times of the day, the sun setting, the sun rising. Also room descriptions should have a day description as well as a night description.

All roleplaying MUDs I'm aware of have coded echoes of the sort you're describing. Day/night descriptions are an arbitrary feature that your MUD (and mine) have, but they're no more or less important that any number of other distinctions we could draw. Does your MUD have weather-dependent descriptions? Character-height-dependent? Seasonal? Are they changed by local combat? Why is day/night the only variable that matters?

Originally Posted by Delerak 9. Mechanics Based World: Coded systems should be in place for most gameplay systems such as combat and crafting, and these systems are fully supported by code. This will help differentiate it from more MUSH/MUX type games.

What if the purpose of your game makes combat or crafting unlikely? What if you're running a purely political MUD? Why is that not able to bill itself as "roleplay intensive". Because characters don't fight to the death or spend hours making hats?

Originally Posted by Delerak 10. Open PK - An RPI mud must have an open PK system that allows for PK at any time and any place.

Again, you're acting to exclude games where fighting is unlikely, or else where the results are decided by the combatants or arbitrators. There exist MUDs where each combatant describes their actions to a moderator, who decides what happens next based on creativity, the storyline, who the characters are, etc. It seems odd that such a system would be considered less roleplay-intensive than your preferred system.

Originally Posted by Delerak 11. No Global OOC channels: This is debateable.

Milieu-dependent. A futuristic MUD set on a space station might well have a global PA system. Divine beings could likely make their thoughts known to all mortals. Etc.

[prof1515]

They have one kind of role play. Your insistence that it is the "best" is precisely the elitism so many have spoken of since the beginning.

No, in the beginning people associated RPIs with quality role-play, whether accurate or not. It became an assumption that RPI somehow indicated the quality of role-play.

[prof1515]

Originally Posted by Valg MUDs exist where the physical death of a character results in them being sent to an underworld, etc. A futuristic MUD might consist largely of cyberspace, where 'death' simply means being forced into an organic world for some time. These MUDs might even share the same underlying engine. In these sets of physical laws, the correct roleplay decision is that traditional permadeath models would be OOC. What you really want here is internal consistency, not realism. After all, it's not 'realistic' that you have wizards and such in Armageddon, etc. It is, however, internally consistent with the rules of the world.

The game world design drives the code, not vice versa and a good number, if not all, such examples are typically code driving world design.

A) This is irrelevant because you cannot enforce it. A dedicated player who wants two or more accounts can have two or more accounts.

It can be enforced. IP comparison is one method but it's true that twinks can find ways around that. Still, it's not irrelevant any more than "enforced role-play" is. As enforced role-play is a concept which at the heart of RPIs, RPOs, and RPEs, it's hardly irrelevant. Fact is, two accounts, one or both gets deleted along with the characters and then the decision, though some are hesitant, is whether or not to ban.

Sure players can try sneaky ways to get back. I banned the same guy two or three times for multi-play, evading previous bans, and all-around general rudeness involving anti-Semitism, racism, and sexism directed at other players and staff. Wasn't too hard to figure out who he was since he had an IQ of a rabbit and was fairly easy to spot if I caught sight of his RP and character types. Didn't take much effort on my part to do some double-checking within the community and find out that sure enough the moron had mentioned to someone he was back playing. Then it was a very quick personal message (visible only to him) of "Ban extended by six more months, goodbye asswipe" and a nuke of his character and account (and a ban of the IP of his school or friend or whoever it may have belonged to). Has the potential to be disruptive though he tended not to RP so much as mob kill and as a result every time he was alone in the woods killing animals.

But this isn't a fault of the system, it's a fault of the player who seeks to find ways to cheat. You can't necessarily stop cheaters all the time but you certainly can make it a policy to prohibit cheating, eliminating any discussion on whether or not punishment is warranted.

You are using integers to track the abilities of a character, but parse them differently (sometimes more coarsely, sometimes not) when explaining them to the character's player. All games have these sorts of abstractions.

The point is that the play can't see the specifics of their attribute and skill aptitude meaning micromanagement of it and dependence upon the numbers to make decisions in RP is rendered difficult if not impossible. That's quite different from the original H&S code where it is routine for people to use the numbers to dictate their choices.

All roleplaying MUDs I'm aware of have coded echoes of the sort you're describing. Day/night descriptions are an arbitrary feature that your MUD (and mine) have, but they're no more or less important that any number of other distinctions we could draw. Does your MUD have weather-dependent descriptions? Character-height-dependent? Seasonal? Are they changed by local combat? Why is day/night the only variable that matters?

I wouldn't put day/night descriptions on the list seeing as this was not something widespread throughout (examples of it, yes, but not widespread use until more recently) RPIs.

What if the purpose of your game makes combat or crafting unlikely? What if you're running a purely political MUD? Why is that not able to bill itself as "roleplay intensive". Because characters don't fight to the death or spend hours making hats?

I believe the more appropriate distinction would be that the systems exist to compliment the world. Crafts can also be used for a wide variety of uses. In the case of the RPI Engine, the crafting system is incredible powerful and has been used quite creatively to brilliant effect. Crafts need not be for manufacture. They can be used to simulate, with results beyond that of an emote, actual processes. This can be as simple as cutting a piece of paper with scissors, creating two smaller pieces.

My own game will feature little to no fighting whatsoever but our craft list will be huge by comparison. Many of these crafts will be for simulation of actions producing changes beyond that of what an emote can do.

Again, you're acting to exclude games where fighting is unlikely, or else where the results are decided by the combatants or arbitrators. There exist MUDs where each combatant describes their actions to a moderator, who decides what happens next based on creativity, the storyline, who the characters are, etc. It seems odd that such a system would be considered less roleplay-intensive than your preferred system.

Policy-wise, the example you give, is a good one of role-play enforcement. However, Role-Play Intensive was used to describe more than policy alone. It was also about code design. In the example you gave, the code for this aspect of interaction is absent altogether. There is a procedure in place for role-playing the action but there is no coded system for that action beyond emotes.

Milieu-dependent. A futuristic MUD set on a space station might well have a global PA system. Divine beings could likely make their thoughts known to all mortals. Etc.

The examples you give, there is limited responsive ability. One should not be able to respond back via the "global PA system" (unless it's voice activated perhaps) unless they're capable of activating the system. So if a person were to bash the PA system, they shouldn't be able to communicate. And yet, there's a global channel still in place for their use over which they could still be subjected to hearing communication. If capable of being toggled off, another player in the room could still hear it unless they too toggled it off. This is because it's independent of the setting. Now, if it were scratch-built to accomodate the kind of situations mentioned above, that would be acceptable as it's part of the setting. But otherwise, it's really nothing more than an excuse for a standard non-RPI feature, quite often nothing more than a hold-over from H&S code.

The second example is equally vexed if the ability is not limited to "divine beings" alone. Again, this is an issue with code design following world design rather than vice versa. It's little more than the excuse of "everyone's telepathic" to justify the existance of stock code global channels. World design should dictate the code, not the other way around.

Take care,

Jason

[Jazuela]

Threshold, you might want to re-check the position of your foot. I think it's stuck in your mouth again.

I'm not a member of the "hardcore RPI community." I don't play any RPIs, and haven't for quite some time.

[Threshold]

Prof, I never, ever, said you deserved anything about your ankles. You have either mistaken me for someone else or grossly misinterpreted something I said. I actually expressed genuine and sincere sympathy to you over your health issue when you told us about it (see here). I even shared a personal experience where I also suffered from a chronic illness. No good deed goes unpunished apparently.

Both past and present, I fail to see how going after people's family members is at all appropriate when discussing and debating issues related to MUDs.

Moderator note: Agreed. If either of you still needs to work this out, please use PMs or email. Let's keep the topic to what is (or isn't) RPI.

[Newworlds]

Valg,

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

Originally Posted by Jazuela I'm not a member of the "hardcore RPI community." I don't play any RPIs, and haven't for quite some time.

Jazuela,

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

[DurNominator]

Originally Posted by Jazuela Why not change the term MMORPG and call them Graphical RPGs instead, to make them fit what they are known to be at the present time, to distinguish them from muds such as Achaea and Gemstone, which are most assuredly not graphical, but absolutely ARE MMORPGs, by definition of each word in the initials?

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

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

[Newworlds]

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

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

[Jazuela]

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

[prof1515]

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

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

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

Take care,

Jason

[Newworlds]

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

Hey Jazuela,

Sorry for mistaking that. Thank you for clarifying.

[KaVir]

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

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

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

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

[RP Kris]

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

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

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

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

[Jazuela]

Originally Posted by RP Kris After reading these threads for a while, I think I have a clearer way to explain why the RPI community is going to continue having a hard time claiming the title RPI as their own. Before the term RPI or "RP Intensive" was adopted by three games with a specific feel or feature set, it already meant something in the gaming community and continues to mean something to the vast majority of gamers. RP Intense = The RP on or with this game is intense or the RP is the focus of the game. Now a subset of the MUDing community is trying to claim it for their own saying that it not only refers to the RP on their games but also a list of specific features. They can continue to call themselves whatever they wish and continue to use the term, but they don't have a right to be upset when people use the term or initials as it is commonly defined with almost everyone else. It was a very poor choice, and if the Armageddon style games don't change the name they are going to have live with the consequences of that poor choice. Please don't get me wrong, I don't have anything at all against these games. I've played several of them myself. For their own sake and sanity, I do hope they come up with a more unique term to categorize their games.

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

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

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

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

[shasarak]

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

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

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

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

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