[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.