[Fifi]

Originally Posted by Newworlds I do believe there is already an option to dictate whether a game has permadeath or not. I seriously wouldn't think it hard to find those games just by searching for permadeath. I took five minutes to find your three muds that have permadeath. Here they are: 6 Dragons Archaic Journey SoulMUD: Age of Dogma Shouldn't take long to try these three out! (hint: My guess is that there are a lot more than three muds with permadeath. I think if it is such an important traight they ought to have it in their descripts)

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

[the_logos]

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

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

--matt

[Jazuela]

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

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

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

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

[Xerihae]

Originally Posted by Jazuela I can easily point to evidence. Check out the membership list of the forum. Check on how many registered users exist on it. Now compare that with the subset of users who "think it's important enough to voice an opinion," and you will find that the vast majority of the forum is not part of that subset. It's simple math. Out of all the people who are registered on this forum, only a small minority thought it was important enough to voice an opinion one way or another. The rest of the membership might very well have an opinion on the subject, but didn't feel any particular need to express that opinion on the forum to which they are registered.

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

Lies, damn lies, and statistics!

[Threshold]

From the front page:

1) StockMUD: Tired of MUDs with hundreds of features to try to entertain you? -- Try StockMUD! The original and best. PS: we are also an RPI.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by Jazuela Originally Posted by Jazuela I can easily point to evidence. Check out the membership list of the forum. Check on how many registered users exist on it. Now compare that with the subset of users who "think it's important enough to voice an opinion," and you will find that the vast majority of the forum is not part of that subset. It's simple math. Out of all the people who are registered on this forum, only a small minority thought it was important enough to voice an opinion one way or another. The rest of the membership might very well have an opinion on the subject, but didn't feel any particular need to express that opinion on the forum to which they are registered.

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

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

--matt

[Lasher]

Originally Posted by Threshold From the front page: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

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

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

[Jazuela]

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

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

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by Jazuela It is ALSO just a handful of people who are trying to *oppose* some arbitrary definition of RPI.

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

That was my point. Something has actively been a certain way, for over a decade, according to the handful of people who thought it was worth identifying at all.

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

And for over a decade, an almost equal-sized handful of people have wanted to change that, and have not been successful. And everyone else - has been content enough with how things are, for the past decade plus, that they didn't think it was important enough to bother trying to change.

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

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

--matt

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

[Delerak]

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

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

[shasarak]

Originally Posted by Jazuela Originally Posted by thelogos In other words, it really IS just a handful of people who are trying to impose some arbitrary definition of RPI on Topmudsites. It is ALSO just a handful of people who are trying to *oppose* some arbitrary definition of RPI.

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

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

[nass]

Originally Posted by Lasher Funny thing is, there really was (still is) a stock mud on here behind the listing. At one point there were even 4 people playing it The 'out' counter went up over 400 times, but alas the poor stockmud got no real inbound votes.

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

1 StockMUD Tired of MUDs with hundreds of features to try to entertain you? -- Try StockMUD! The original and best. PS: we are also an RPI. 9321 7893 O_O ... <_< ... O.O! WTF?!

[Delerak]

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

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

[Xerihae]

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

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

[Delerak]

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

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

[Newworlds]

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

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

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

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

[Delerak]

Originally Posted by Newworlds That's kind of a silly argument. The RPIMUD forums are pretty much dead. I've been there. Even if it were active, it would be akin to telling all the players of Iron Realms, NW, Threshold, and so on to come here and register and become Trolls to further a dead point. Perhaps you will one day finally accept that the term RPI is and was a poor term. You were not part of the creation of it, you are not in authority to speak on it beyond your own personal opinion of it as we agreed at the beginning of this thread. I have no problem with you deciding what RPI means to "you" or your friends specifically. I do have a problem with you trying to incorporate your defination as a global definition. I think that is all of our problem. Your definition is not and will not be accepted by others as a global definition.

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

We still haven't gotten anywhere.

[Newworlds]

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

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

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

[Delerak]

Originally Posted by Newworlds I think you always should use RPI if that is what you want to do. Just remember it is your definition of RPI not a global one. On the note of arrogant and elite. I don't have much of a problem with that if it is warranted. I hate to say it, but calling all other muds hack & slash would be akin to calling your defined RPI's MUSH's which is the direction you sort of go. Let's face it, if you want paragraph long emotes, a set system of etiquitte to slow down roleplay, a lack of guilds and levels (even though I see no difference between guild levels and skill levels) and very limited combat, aren't you really just a MUSH with Permadeath and PK? And being a MUSH isn't a bad thing, just a different form of roleplay. Maybe call it MUSHI (MUSH Intensive?).

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

[Spoke]

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

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

Just an observation

[Delerak]

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

This is true.

[prof1515]

Originally Posted by Newworlds I think you always should use RPI if that is what you want to do.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Take care,

Jason

[Newworlds]

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

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

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

[Delerak]

Originally Posted by Newworlds Oh contraire, I have played two MUSHI's and one for an extended time frame. Many players at NW have come from MUSHI's. Many features are in fact very MUSH'like. Mainly the features I spoke about in my previous post. I can certainly detail them if you like, but I think that is redundant. Having said they are Mushlike, doesn't mean they aren't MUDlike too. But the direction you push with many features gives me the feeling you aim for a MUSH more than a MUD.

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

[Threshold]

Originally Posted by prof1515 The problem you have though is that what good is the term any more if it's just become one more synonym for role-play MUD (or even just MUD in general given that there are games who use the term and don't even concern themselves with role-play much)? Sure, RPIs could adopt a new term but what term would be really as descriptive as role-play intensive? Perhaps role-play designed? Role-play intended? (uh oh, same initials)

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

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

Originally Posted by prof1515 Role-play Intensive is the perfect adjective to describe the nature of these games and the code, world design, and policies they employ.

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

Once again:

ARP - Armageddon style RP.

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

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

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

[Threshold]

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

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

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

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

[Valg]

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

The term for this particular logical fallacy is "No True Scotsman". You're merely defining the term in order to produce your desired outcome-- games that are the style you like to play.

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

[Valg]

Originally Posted by prof1515 Role-play Intensive is the perfect adjective to describe the nature of these games and the code, world design, and policies they employ. And even if RPIs did adopt another term, if this term came to be coveted as much as RPI apparently is, what would stop everyone and their grandmother from suddenly calling their games by this new term? It's sad to say it, but there's a distinct lack of ethics in the MUD community. Everyone wants to win over players using whatever tactic they think will work regardless of the accuracy or honesty of how they describe themselves.

Except you, yes?

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

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

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

[Valg]

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

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

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

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

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

[Delerak]

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