[prof1515]

Originally Posted by shasarak 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.

Just like PK or MUD or H&S. PK MUDs don't involve killing players and it's quite a "dangerously imprecise term" to suggest to players inexperienced with them that they do. MUDs don't have consist of "dungeons". H&S games need not be limited to only hacking and slashing as a means of gaining experience. They're all imprecise terms.

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.

Again, for the nine millionth time, "intense role-playing experience" is not what RPI means. If it did, the abbreviation would be IRPE. Go back, read what was said, stop for a moment, and then speak. It wasn't the RPI community alone that created the term nor applied it to a group of MUDs bearing a particular core of features.

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.

There is no such definable thing as an "intensive RP MUD". "Intensive" role-play is completely subjective. RPI was not a subjective term. It was an objective term for three MUDs in reference to their concentration on features solely with the consideration of creating a world for role-play, not killing monsters for points and levels. There was no opinion on RP, it was applied to a particular group of features. RPI stands for Role-Play Intensive and not Intense Role-Play. I find it hard to believe that in a literate community of text-based games so many people have difficulty understanding this.

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.

The term RPI was created to describe that set of features. Before Arm, HL, and FEM, there was no such thing as RPI. The term was used to describe those MUDs. It was only later that other games began to bastardize the term for their own games. So why would the games to which the term applied "need to stop using the term" that was created specifically for them?

Jason

[ender]

I think a lot of people are really missing the point on what Delerak and a lot of members of the RPI community are trying to achieve with guidelines like this.

We are not trying to invalidate the RP of other MUDs, we are simply trying to make it known what YOU, the gamer, should expect when you run across a MUD that calls itself an RPI.

This has come from the fact that big three did not have a designation and were forced to call themselves MUDs when they were vastly different from all the various other categories of MUDs out there. Too much unforgiving code to be called a MUSH and such a strict RP environment as to really sour someone who was expecting one of the various styles of RP encouraged MUDs and even RP enforced.

What the RPI standards are trying to do is not to say "HEY JACKASSES YOUR RP IS AWFUL AND I HATE YOU!" to any other style of MUD or game out there that does have "intense RP", but just to let people know what they're getting into when they begin to play an RPI.

This has been fine for awhile, and everyone was happy until other MUDs starting picking up on the term that were vastly different experiences than one would expect from an RPI, they weren't necessarily bad games, they were just different enough that they couldn't really be accurately compared to the other games using the designation.

And the whole point of a designation is to define something, whether people are getting their panties in a bunch because it's a term that holds some sort of importance outside of RPIs, it's not a perfect term, it was coined by those who played the RPIs, not something a haughty MUD owner used to fluff themselves up. And it's just stuck for a long time now.

I suggest to those who are arguing against the use of the term. Give one of these RPIs a try, see how different they really are from other styles of MUDs.

[wantacookie]

Hi there. First post (took a few days to get validated, though I've been reading in the meantime). The only problem I see with this is there is no 'industry standard'. While I agree it would be nice to know what you're getting yourself into if a MUD advertises itself as RPI/RPE/Whatever they want to call themselves this week, who decides exactly what the guidelines are and which MUDs meet them? What stops a MUD that does not fit *insert random name here*'s version of an RPI from calling themselves an RPI? More importantly, how do the PLAYERS (you know, the people you are trying to entice to your MUDs) figure it all out?

Slapping acronyms on MUDs is all well and good but, without a clear consensus across the board by every single MUD admin, it's confusing and sometimes misleading. One man's RPI is another man's nightmare and so on and so forth. Confusing the very players you want to entice is never a good idea, which is why I ignore the acronyms and read what the MUDs have to offer me.

[Threshold]

Originally Posted by ender We are not trying to invalidate the RP of other MUDs ... What the RPI standards are trying to do is not to say "HEY JACKASSES YOUR RP IS AWFUL AND I HATE YOU!" to any other style of MUD or game out there that does have "intense RP", but just to let people know what they're getting into when they begin to play an RPI.

Yes they are. Read the posts. Every time one of the RPI defenders gets their back in a corner, they lash out with "haha! Your mud's RP sucks." That is the dirty little sentiment that is always hidden (or sometimes not hidden) below the surface of every post. It is part of the magnanimous way they list features with explanations like "because this feature is better/more realistic" when that feature is neither better nor more realistic, but is just a preference.

And then once again, when PROVEN wrong, they lash out with personal attacks against your mud, the RP on your mud, your family, your spouse, your children, anything they can think of.

Originally Posted by ender we are simply trying to make it known what YOU, the gamer, should expect when you run across a MUD that calls itself an RPI. ... And the whole point of a designation is to define something

That may be the goal for some, but it definitely is not the goal of the most prolific RPI-supporting posters. If that was truly the goal, then a set of features would simply be listed - without including snarky comments about how their feature set was better or more realistic.

And they would come up with a non-vague, non-generic, non-qualitative term like RPI. They'd come up with a term like "PRP" - Prof's RP rule set or "ARP" Armageddon RP rule set or something of that nature.

There is a very clear and simple path they could take if the goal was truly listing a set of features so people who like those features could find that kind of mud. But that path never gets taken.

[prof1515]

Originally Posted by wantacookie Hi there. First post (took a few days to get validated, though I've been reading in the meantime). The only problem I see with this is there is no 'industry standard'. While I agree it would be nice to know what you're getting yourself into if a MUD advertises itself as RPI/RPE/Whatever they want to call themselves this week, who decides exactly what the guidelines are and which MUDs meet them? What stops a MUD that does not fit *insert random name here*'s version of an RPI from calling themselves an RPI? More importantly, how do the PLAYERS (you know, the people you are trying to entice to your MUDs) figure it all out?

I agree there needs to be more community responsibility. I once noted years ago that numerous MUDs on TMS' rankings were inaccurate, from H&S MUDs calling themselves RPI to stock worlds calling themselves "nearly all original". There seems to be no great movement within the community to hold MUDs accountable for their claims.

I believe I mentioned it in one of these threads and have definitely mentioned it before that I favor the removal of such dishonest MUDs from the listings and their placement on a "Liar's List" denoting that they've used deceitful assessments of their games.

Slapping acronyms on MUDs is all well and good but, without a clear consensus across the board by every single MUD admin, it's confusing and sometimes misleading. One man's RPI is another man's nightmare and so on and so forth.

Hence the need to identify and denote a set of characteristics that the term refers to. To do this requires an assessment of games defined as RPI. As the term has been used by games ranging from strict IC-enforcement to (sadly) games where RP wasn't even required, how could such an assessment be determined? This range of MUDs share only such basic characteristics that any MUD could be called RPI. And yet, there are plenty of MUDs which would not claim nor would be claimed to be RPI. Basing such a determination on present-day use would hardly give one an accurate definition of the word, especially if the possibility exists of misuse of terminology. How then to know which MUDs were misusing the term? The best way to determine this would be to compare the MUDs which were undoubtedly considered RPI, the ones to whom the term was first employed to describe. Comparitive examination of those games would reveal a pattern of common features for while they were representative of two different code developments, they each had distinct features not shared with the others as well. Discounting the dissimiliarities, a core of features might be determined. This core could then be compared to other MUDs to determine if they too matched up reasonably well.

When done, a group of games begins to take shape. While most are descendents of those first three, there are examples of other games which are not. The feature set reveals a list of MUDs that match those parameters originally described as RPI. Just as those original MUDs were not disputed as RPI, so too can such a positive identification be derived for those games today bearing the same characteristics. The term gains clarity and usefulness once more.

Confusing the very players you want to entice is never a good idea, which is why I ignore the acronyms and read what the MUDs have to offer me.

Always a good idea and still a good idea when looking at individual MUDs. The term RPI would serve much the same as the term PK MUD or H&S. It's a means of narrowing the search. Just as someone looking for a pure player-killing MUD would be looking for a set of characteristics quite different than someone looking for a RP-enforced, so too could someone seeking the core features of an RPI use the term to narrow down the field. The term could even be used to eliminate from consideration games bearing such features as are found in RPIs. The point is that it becomes a tool for a player to use in searching the hundreds of MUDs that exist to narrow the parameters and assist in finding those games that have the features that they're looking for or looking to avoid, whichever the case.

Jason

[Jazuela]

Every time one of the RPI defenders gets their back in a corner, they lash out with "haha! Your mud's RP sucks."

And this is why there is such a bruhaha over the issue. Because you, Threshold, like taking things to extremes, talking in absolutes, and possibly even snickering when someone who doesn't know any better, reads what you post and takes it seriously.

1) Labeling people who agree on a term "RPI defenders" is silly. There's nothing to defend, because RPI isn't an official title of anything. Unless you are referring to people who disagree with you being defensive, thus making you offensive, then I suggest you do away with the melodrama.

2) I am (theoretically) "one of the RPI defenders" and I haven't once lashed out with anything against your mud. I've never played your mud, I've never looked at your website, I've never had any interest, of any kind, at any time, in your mud. I have no idea if your mud's RP sucks. I don't know why you feel so threatened by RPIs that you feel you have to accuse me of insulting your mud. Maybe there's something to the phrase "thou doth protest too much," hm?

Lay off the self-righteous sanctimonious histrionics long enough to realize that most people just don't give a damn about the term RPI, and the vast majority of people who do give a damn, are playing them. And, that vast majority, is a miniscule minority. And, you and your game is not included in that minority. Is that so hard to swallow? Does it hurt your feelings -that- much, that you have to pop a vein over it?

[Threshold]

Originally Posted by Jazuela And this is why there is such a bruhaha over the issue. Because you, Threshold, like taking things to extremes,

Really? Go read your own post where you trashed New World's MUD and then come back and tell me I am taking anything to an extreme.

Originally Posted by Jazuela Lay off the self-righteous sanctimonious histrionics long enough to realize that most people just don't give a damn about the term RPI

If that were true, then why does this issue even come up? It sure as heck isn't the rest of us poor, unwashed masses creating the argument. The only reason this is EVER an issue is when some RPIers decide to trash someone for calling their MUD an RPI or when a player says "I am looking for an RPI with <these features>" and an RPIer trashes the player for thinking an RPI could ever include such features.

In fact, the latter is how the whole thing started up this go around.

[prof1515]

Originally Posted by Threshold Yes they are. Read the posts. Every time one of the RPI defenders gets their back in a corner, they lash out with "haha! Your mud's RP sucks."

"RPI defenders" haven't had their back in a corner. They have gotten frustrated at the constant straw man arguments and inaccurate statements and overall ignorance of the history of the term that is continually brought up by some members of the forum, even after such arguments, inaccuracies, and ignorance are proven erroneous.

That is the dirty little sentiment...

To say nothing of biased, attacks like that.

...that is always hidden (or sometimes not hidden) below the surface of every post.

Or like this baseless accusation.

It is part of the magnanimous way they list features with explanations like "because this feature is better/more realistic" when that feature is neither better nor more realistic, but is just a preference.

Or blanket statements like that.

And then once again, when PROVEN wrong...

You have yet to prove anything and have succeeded only in derailing this discussion. If you wish to provide a counter to the points discussed, disprove the following:

1. The term RPI was first applied to a small group of MUDs and used both by and in reference to those MUDs by members of the MUD community besides those associated with said games.
2. Those MUDs share the same features agreed upon earlier in this discussion.
3. That the use of this term to describe three different games utilizing two independently-derived sets of near-identical code features which were later adhered to by more games including a third independently-derived codebase.
4. That the term RPI has since been appropriated for use by MUDs not bearing similarity to any of the above.

...they lash out with personal attacks against your mud, the RP on your mud, your family, your spouse, your children, anything they can think of.

And again statements like this are deceitful. As I already explained to you and to to your spouse no slight was ever intended toward her or your children. The remark was solely directed at you and persisting to claim otherwise is an example of demonizing those you disagree with rather than countering their arguments with facts.

Despite whatever reason you have for doing so, these repeated attacks have only served to provoke the sort of response you then point to as a substitute for an actual counter argument to their points. Whether your behavior is a result of fear that some community members' assumption that the term RPI denotes greater quality or simply jealousy on your part in regard to that assumption, as accurate or inaccurate as it may be, I can not say. But your repeated denial of the purpose of this discussion has only been backed by accusation and aggravation of those individuals, myself included, who are attempting to distill a reasonable and accurate definition of the term RPI. I repeat that any comment I just made is directed solely at you and not your family because I have yet to hear any legitimate argument from you to counter those four points of discussion which have been arrived at before the derailing of this thread.

That may be the goal for some, but it definitely is not the goal of the most prolific RPI-supporting posters.

These are baseless accusations based on assumption of purpose to which I refer. You can not know the goal of anyone but yourself so unless you're speaking of yourself, any talk of other people's goals is nothing but speculation. It may be well-founded speculation or not, but to claim "it definitely is" or is not anything is not true. Spoken as is, it constitutes nothing more than a personal attack on motives you can not possibly know.

If that was truly the goal, then a set of features would simply be listed - without including snarky comments about how their feature set was better or more realistic.

This has been done and refinement of that set of features would be continuing now if it were not for the derailment of the discussion.

And they would come up with a non-vague, non-generic, non-qualitative term like RPI. They'd come up with a term like "PRP" - Prof's RP rule set or "ARP" Armageddon RP rule set or something of that nature.

We're attempting to clear up the misconceptions about just such a term: RPI. But the term RPI is a term with a historical precedent and is far from vague or generic when the context of its use is examined. It's not about my "RP rule set" or anyone's preferences. It's about definable set of characteristics that the term was historically used to denote. Even outside of the historical context in which it was used, RPI is no more or less accurate than practically any other term used to describe other kinds of MUDs (or even the term MUD itself).

There is a very clear and simple path they could take if the goal was truly listing a set of features so people who like those features could find that kind of mud. But that path never gets taken.

The first step in this discussion was attempting to discern the features that constituted a RPI MUD. There had been considerable input into this process before the derailment. My hope is that from this point forward the discussion will return to that original purpose and the analysis will be completed. As for other steps in clearing up the misperceptions about the term RPI, those are being taken as well but shall require discussion to ensure that the process is factual.

Here's to keeping the discussion civil and factual from here on out. Is that something we can all agree to?

Take care,

Jason

[prof1515]

Now, let us return to the purpose of this discussion and summarize what features were defined by the invention of the term RPI. Ideally, it'd be nice if the digression were separated from this thread but as I'm not a moderator, that would be up to one of them.

Delerak, as this puppy's your thread and thus far you had kept track, I happily defer the honor of keeping the results of this investigation presented as updated (or maybe I'm just too lazy to type it out myself :-D).

[wantacookie]

Jason,

Thank you for such clear responses to my statements. I've learned a lot by reading this thread. Namely, which MUDs I couldn't be paid to try out.

It will be interesting to me to see if some kind of consensus is actually met in what constitutes an RPI.

[Threshold]

Originally Posted by wantacookie Thank you for such clear responses to my statements. I've learned a lot by reading this thread. Namely, which MUDs I couldn't be paid to try out.

Yes, I think a lot of people learned quite a bit about certain categories of MUDs.

[wantacookie]

Originally Posted by Threshold Yes, I think a lot of people learned quite a bit about certain categories of MUDs.

No. I'd say I've learned a lot about certain MUDs, regardless of category, based on the responses of the people representing them.

[Threshold]

Originally Posted by wantacookie No. I'd say I've learned a lot about certain MUDs, regardless of category, based on the responses of the people representing them.

Yeah. We got it the first time. Want a cookie?

[prof1515]

Originally Posted by wantacookie Thank you for such clear responses to my statements.

You're welcome.

It will be interesting to me to see if some kind of consensus is actually met in what constitutes an RPI.

I don't know if there ever will be a consensus regardless of how specific a term can be derived. As numerous discussions on a variety of topics on these forums alone have revealed, opinion tends to dictate what will and won't be accepted, be it the definition of "RPI" or the definition of "Pay to Play".

I believe Delerak had a good intention in attempting to define the features. I myself have spent well over half of a decade doing so (ever since the first time I witnessed dispute over the term and back to a time when I still played H&S as well as RPI MUDs). One would think an objective examination of comparitive features would be enough but the tendency of people to simply disregard anything that doesn't fit their preference, as it's been called, means that no matter how sufficient the evidence, some simply won't accept anything less than what they want the answer to be. All one has to do to know this isn't confined merely to MUD terminology is to look at the unwillingness of some to accept the theory of evolution over the creationist mythology. Regardless of the preponderance of even the strongest evidence in support, people don't like to accept even the strongest of arguments if those arguments contradict what they want to believe.

That said, I reiterate my hope that Delerak and all those interested in discerning as objective and exact a list of criteria possible will continue to examine and compare all the MUDs in question in order to arrive at an accurate definition of the term.

Take care,

Jason

[DurNominator]

My listing for RPI feature set would be features that help