[Milawe]

Originally Posted by KaVir Actually, yes it did - that's the real problem. The term "RPI" was coined by a tiny number of muds which had a very specific feature set (including permadeath, etc), and they invented it to differentiate their style of roleplaying mud from the competition. Other muds later came along and thought "Aha, RPI stands for roleplaying intensive! My mud has intensive roleplaying, so I think I'll use the term as well". This subject has also been discussed before, see here: What is necessary to have an RPI?

Actually, the evolution is pretty clear, especially if you go back to the topic you referred to.

Refer to Jez's post #56 and #58. Even she, who I associate instantly with an RPI, was willing to call Inferno an RPI. You clearly cannot do that nowadays!

Reading through the past topic, again, it's clear that the word "RPI" never had a set of laid out conditions, which is probably why so much debate has come over the term.

And clearly, there's STILL some confusion because the OP obviously thought he was wanting to play on an RPI only to be told that what he's looking for is NOT an RPI.

Honestly, never really seen a mud who isn't an Armageddon Style mud declare themselves an RPI. Threshold has always been heavily roleplay enforced, and they've never bothered to call themselves an RPI or wanted to.

Not sure what the post linked above was supposed to show me. It only seemed like there's been confusion and argument over the term for a while, and it is obviously continuing on today! Keep in mind that this discussion was started because a PLAYER was requesting what HE thought was an RPI.

I can't respond to your MOO thing either because I'm not sure what MOOs are supposed to be now, and I've never tried God Wars. I wouldn't know if it's a MOO or not! I wouldn't have a problem with you wanting to call yourself a MOO. I would probably have a problem with you if I was running an object-oriented game, and you tried to tell me I couldn't be a MOO!

[Jazuela]

Originally Posted by Mina Actually, the evolution is pretty clear, especially if you go back to the topic you referred to. Refer to Jez's post #56 and #58. Even she, who I associate instantly with an RPI, was willing to call Inferno an RPI. You clearly cannot do that nowadays! Reading through the past topic, again, it's clear that the word "RPI" never had a set of laid out conditions, which is probably why so much debate has come over the term. And clearly, there's STILL some confusion because the OP obviously thought he was wanting to play on an RPI only to be told that what he's looking for is NOT an RPI. Honestly, never really seen a mud who isn't an Armageddon Style mud declare themselves an RPI. Threshold has always been heavily roleplay enforced, and they've never bothered to call themselves an RPI or wanted to. Not sure what the post linked above was supposed to show me. It only seemed like there's been confusion and argument over the term for a while, and it is obviously continuing on today! Keep in mind that this discussion was started because a PLAYER was requesting what HE thought was an RPI. I can't respond to your MOO thing either because I'm not sure what MOOs are supposed to be now, and I've never tried God Wars. I wouldn't know if it's a MOO or not! I wouldn't have a problem with you wanting to call yourself a MOO. I would probably have a problem with you if I was running an object-oriented game, and you tried to tell me I couldn't be a MOO!

That's part of the problem Mina. In my posts on that other thread KaVir linked to, my experience with actual RPIs was extremely limited. I didn't know any better, because my experience was primarily with a game that advertised itself as RP Intensive (not RPI), and GemStone, which claims it's an RP-enforced RP game, when in fact it's primarily a pay-for-play trading-card game (meaning, players -do- buy and sell characters, game items, and game currency for real-life money and for other characters and game items) with roleplay allowed.

I was naive, uninformed, uneducated, and ignorant. Ignorant because I had nothing really to compare my understanding of things to, because I had never attempted to try. Inferno isn't an RPI. It's roleplay enforced, but not particularly intensive. The code doesn't support roleplay; it supports levels and skill min-maxing. But because I had come from Gemstone to Inferno, I was obviously completely floored by the quality of roleplay in Inferno and realized that what I came from was cartoonish and 2-dimensional.

Then, I went to Armageddon, and experienced difficulty getting into the whole idea of that genre, because what I came from was so different, I couldn't imagine myself enjoying it. But then I came to realize how 2-dimensional and cartoonish Inferno was...and that's when I started to actually pay attention to the differences. And the criteria, and the "unofficial" rules of terminology. It wasn't until after I stopped posting in that thread that I finally "got it." And in fact it's probably WHY I stopped posting in that thread; because I realized how stupid I sounded to people who actually knew what they were talking about.

[Milawe]

Originally Posted by prof1515 I came up with a new term myself and mentioned it to Wade Gustafson, founder of The RPI Network (RPIMUD Network @ RPIMUD.com). He liked the term though he used it in a slightly different context lumping the majority of the second and third groups together under the title of the second. However, my original basic outline of Role-Playing MUDs went something like this:

I'm not sure how I missed your post. That is a really pretty site, and I'm always a huge fan of MUD promotion sites. In addition, the nicer it looks, the better.

I think, though, that even as nice as that site is, it doesn't even give a really solid definition of an RPI mud. Here's a quote from the site:

The majority of RPIMUDs have no character levels and are classless, focusing instead on skills and crafts that players may pursue during the lifetime of their characters.

The majority? That means that some don't, right? This seems like there's a lot of wiggle room, and it just depends what games they want to let in.

Out-of-character communications are often restricted in RPIMUDs, if present at all.

Several roleplay-enforced muds have restricted OOC communications. I'm going to guess that they won't make the RPI list, not that they'd want to, but you never know!

There is absolutely no mention of perma-death on the site, especially in the "What separates the RPIMUDs from other MUDs?" which is where I would expect a list of criteria for RPIs. From what everyone is saying here, an absolute in RPIs is perma-death. Shouldn't that be on the site dedicated to RPIMUDs then? Most of the "What separates" list focuses on describing the roleplay:

The majority of RPIMUDs have no character levels and are classless, focusing instead on skills and crafts that players may pursue during the lifetime of their characters. RPIMUDs tend to focus more on role-playing interaction between characters, as well as against the game world or environment, often going as far as to request their players to engage in role-play with inanimate creatures and objects. Such dedication to role-playing, in addition to creating a vivid experience for other players, is often rewarded by staff members who invisibly monitor the game. The best role-players often find themselves able to aquire new skills and roles for their current, and subsequent characters, and are often key figures in the ongoing storylines. Out-of-character communications are often restricted in RPIMUDs, if present at all. If you want to communicate with other characters you have to go find that character and talk to them as your character would talk to theirs. OOC banter is typically not a part of an RPIMUD.

Again, this is all very vague and open to interpretation. Ask any player who plays on a game where roleplaying is enforced-- most put their very utmost effort into roleplaying. Games like Threshold and New Worlds, where there's plenty of hack and slash capabilities but also lots tons of roleplaying, have players who RP with NPCs and inanimate objects all the time. They're encouraged to do so, especially in specific areas. I still don't think they'd qualify as an RPI, and I don't really think either mud wants to be designated as one.

The RPIMUD requirements for an RPI mud is a prime example of why this debate still exists. RPI mud requirements are always changing, very vague, and, ultimately, seems to be just a gauge of the roleplaying skills of the players involved in various muds and a put down on other mud's roleplayers. (You can't be a REAL roleplayer if you chose to roleplay on anything but an RPI! Granted, this is more of a player's attitude than an admin's attitude. I've never heard any of the RPI mud admins say anything like that!) So, I honestly think the RPI community's refusal to actually acknowledge what the requirements are for being an RPI play a HUGE part in the confusion that the original poster obviously had.

If *I* were to define an RPI based on what players on this site have been saying, I would list the following qualities:

• Classless
• Leveless
• No OOC channels/chats in game
• No global channels
• Crafting system required
• Roleplay enforced
• Roleplay rewarded
• Admin supported RP events
• Perma-death mandatory
• Robust emoting system

Otherwise, RPI will always be a judgement call, and this confusion will always be around in some form or another. Until then, I think that RPIMUD is leaving things open-ended in order to incorporate the muds that they wish to and exclude the muds they wish to based on the judgement of a handful of people. Though, honestly, that's totally legit, too. Who knows! Maybe RPIMUD simply wants to end up incorporating ALL RP Enforced muds. I have no clue!

Originally Posted by prof1515 RPI (Role-Play Intensive) MUD Policy: Strict dedication to and enforcement of in-character behavior. Code: Modified or written to remove non-RP characteristics.

See, ultimately, this is where I start getting weird feelings (oogies?) about RPI, the people who try to define it, and some of the players involved. The term "non-RP characteristics" makes very little sense to me and is completely subjective. What I feel adds to my RP could very well be something someone else feels detracts from their RP. In fact, I KNOW that some of the stuff I love and I feel adds to my roleplaying is stuff other roleplayers hate! While there's stuff on other muds that people love for RP that I think is simply a nuisance and actually breaks immersion including some of the extremely unwieldy emote systems out there.

Anyway, sorry to keep the debate going. I guess I was just feeling bad for Burrtyr.

[Milawe]

Originally Posted by Jazuela That's part of the problem Mina. [snip] I was naive, uninformed, uneducated, and ignorant. [snip] Then, I went to Armageddon, and experienced difficulty getting into the whole idea of that genre, because what I came from was so different, I couldn't imagine myself enjoying it. But then I came to realize how 2-dimensional and cartoonish Inferno was...and that's when I started to actually pay attention to the differences. And the criteria, and the "unofficial" rules of terminology. It wasn't until after I stopped posting in that thread that I finally "got it." And in fact it's probably WHY I stopped posting in that thread; because I realized how stupid I sounded to people who actually knew what they were talking about.

I totally agree, Jaz. Don't view my post as a criticism or trying to point out your past flaws. I honestly go to you and prof when I start wondering what in the world an RPI actually is, and both your posts have inspired me to try to find out. (It's also why I was psyched to go back and find that post from prof linking to the RPIMUD site.) I'm not real big into mud designation and only get involved because I always ALWAYS defend people's attempts to roleplay, and I admire the effort that many, many players put into roleplaying whether or not they chose to play an RPI. When that comes under fire or is ridiculed, I always tend to speak up.

I only pointed out your post that this is a confusion that LOTS of people have had, and I'm not really sure that the RPI community helps to resolve the confusion. And, honestly, I think that "roleplay immersive" or "roleplay intensive" applies to SEVERAL games that I would not think were Armageddon-style. Armageddon/Harshlands/SoI have a very distinctive style to them, in my opinion. I would never lump them in with something like Threshold or New Worlds, and they're even further removed from something like Ancient Anguish or BatMud.

Anyway, I doubt that anyone thinks you sound stupid, or maybe you think I sound stupid talking about RPIs! I was more trying to find out if high fantasy and heavy mechanics (which is what I got from Burrtyr's post) is somehow anathema to RPIs.

P.S. I was totally agreeing with the fact that it's confusing to try to figure out what an RPI is, which resulted in you referring to Inferno as an RPI, not that you were ignorant. Snipped a little bit too much.

[Newworlds]

I say we cut to the chase. This is about Armeggedon wanting a unique tagline for their game and games like it. I'm all for that, I just think RPI is the wrong tagline as Kavir, Mina, Threshold and everyone here attests in some form or another. While I agree with Threshold's premise that ARP would define it better (Armeggedon style mud) I think that is much too direct. I doubt many games would tag themselves with another mud's name saying they are in the same style. I think the name would have to be more generic and fit what Mina posted below on all the features such a game would proport to embrace.

If this isn't done, people are going to use RPI whether others of like genre like it or not. Which will in the end be confusing for all players.

[prof1515]

Originally Posted by Mina I'm not sure how I missed your post. That is a really pretty site, and I'm always a huge fan of MUD promotion sites. In addition, the nicer it looks, the better. I think, though, that even as nice as that site is, it doesn't even give a really solid definition of an RPI mud. Here's a quote from the site: The majority? That means that some don't, right? This seems like there's a lot of wiggle room, and it just depends what games they want to let in. Several roleplay-enforced muds have restricted OOC communications. I'm going to guess that they won't make the RPI list, not that they'd want to, but you never know! There is absolutely no mention of perma-death on the site, especially in the "What separates the RPIMUDs from other MUDs?" which is where I would expect a list of criteria for RPIs. From what everyone is saying here, an absolute in RPIs is perma-death. Shouldn't that be on the site dedicated to RPIMUDs then? Most of the "What separates" list focuses on describing the roleplay: Again, this is all very vague and open to interpretation. Ask any player who plays on a game where roleplaying is enforced-- most put their very utmost effort into roleplaying. Games like Threshold and New Worlds, where there's plenty of hack and slash capabilities but also lots tons of roleplaying, have players who RP with NPCs and inanimate objects all the time. They're encouraged to do so, especially in specific areas. I still don't think they'd qualify as an RPI, and I don't really think either mud wants to be designated as one. The RPIMUD requirements for an RPI mud is a prime example of why this debate still exists. RPI mud requirements are always changing, very vague, and, ultimately, seems to be just a gauge of the roleplaying skills of the players involved in various muds and a put down on other mud's roleplayers. (You can't be a REAL roleplayer if you chose to roleplay on anything but an RPI! Granted, this is more of a player's attitude than an admin's attitude. I've never heard any of the RPI mud admins say anything like that!) So, I honestly think the RPI community's refusal to actually acknowledge what the requirements are for being an RPI play a HUGE part in the confusion that the original poster obviously had. If *I* were to define an RPI based on what players on this site have been saying, I would list the following qualities: Classless Leveless No OOC channels/chats in game No global channels Crafting system required Roleplay enforced Roleplay rewarded Admin supported RP events Perma-death mandatory Robust emoting system Otherwise, RPI will always be a judgement call, and this confusion will always be around in some form or another. Until then, I think that RPIMUD is leaving things open-ended in order to incorporate the muds that they wish to and exclude the muds they wish to based on the judgement of a handful of people. Though, honestly, that's totally legit, too. Who knows! Maybe RPIMUD simply wants to end up incorporating ALL RP Enforced muds. I have no clue! See, ultimately, this is where I start getting weird feelings (oogies?) about RPI, the people who try to define it, and some of the players involved. The term "non-RP characteristics" makes very little sense to me and is completely subjective. What I feel adds to my RP could very well be something someone else feels detracts from their RP. In fact, I KNOW that some of the stuff I love and I feel adds to my roleplaying is stuff other roleplayers hate! While there's stuff on other muds that people love for RP that I think is simply a nuisance and actually breaks immersion including some of the extremely unwieldy emote systems out there. Anyway, sorry to keep the debate going. I guess I was just feeling bad for Burrtyr.

I agree that the site doesn't give a good definition of RPI. Part of the problem was that very problem we're discussing here and the fact that it had not come to the attention of the site's founders until well after the site was operational.

Wade left the definition vague and as soon as he created the site, a bunch of games that don't fit the traditional meaning of the term entered the site. Needless to say, I don't believe that had he included a more specific definition it would have prevented this from happening as there were even some H&S (which even stated that they were "role-play accepted" and not even enforced) which created listings; they were removed as soon as the obvious was noted. Unfortunately, there was no device in place to confirm acceptance to the listings, merely an after-the-fact check by staff and manual removal then. As a result of that, and due to the site's staff being unable to do the extensive confirmation at the time, several MUDs that clearly did not meet the criteria of the term slipped in and were established within the community. While a few were rejected, ultimately, by the time others were reviewed it was clear that the listings were not composed of the original intent. The problem existed of what to do as the very problem of confusing use of the term which we here are discussing was now present at that site.

Removal of numerous games already on the site would only serve to create animosity while accepting some and rejecting others would create hypocrisy. That was one of the reasons I suggested the RPI-RPO-RPE distinction. Wade agreed but chose to use a different angle on my term RPO (pretty much splitting RPO and combining most RPO with RPE) by using the simple definition of "more natural" versus "more mechanical" skill advancement as the determining factor (a summary of some but not all the characteristics which originally defined the term RPI). Regardless, I don't think Wade had yet implemented at the time of his retirement from managing the site.

I believe the wording used on rpimud.com to describe an RPI MUD is in need of revision to more accurately denote the context and origin of the term itself and recommended on the forums that it be used while simultaneously opening the site to any role-play enforced MUD (thereby not removing any MUDs already welcomed into the community despite their clear failure to meet the term). Incidently, acceptance of all Role-Play Enforced MUDs was opposed most strongly by one of the MUDs which would best fit the RPE category I outlined (they of course referred to themselves as RPI despite possessing very, very few of the characteristics that term originally applied to).

Personally, I am not opposed to the greater inclusion of Role-Play Enforced MUDs on the site so long as an effort is made to draw distinctions which will allow potential players to know whether or not a game has the characteristics they are looking for. When the site will reflect this change I can not say as the site's staff member responsible for creating the listing features has other responsibilities elsewhere which occupy his time as well.

Finally, I personally applaud Threshold and New Worlds for their honesty in not using the term RPI. I only wish more MUDs were willing to be honest in that regard. It would save players a lot of confusion.

Take care,

Jason

[Threshold]

Originally Posted by Threshold This issue seems to come up every few months, and I sympathize with both sides of the issue. I understand the importance of a term like "RPI" both for creators and players. People who know what an "RPI" is want a way to find other "RPIs" to play. Creators of "RPIs" want to be able to advertise as such and attract gamers who like that type of game. But I also understand and agree with Newworlds that there is a very real problem in the choice of term. It is not very distinctive, and the term itself does not have a clear connection to what they are really getting at. I am not an expert on what features are mandatory for RPIs. I believe permadeath is mandatory, and classless and/or level-less may be mandatory as well. The problem is, those concepts are not inherently any more "Role Play Intensive" than their alternatives. Some people prefer those concepts, and some people think they tend towards better RP, but that is pure opinion. Thus the term has serious problems. It is vague and not very descriptive on its face. I do not presume to tell this type of game what they need to call themselves, but I think they would be better served by coming up with a more unique term that does not use general words. For the sake of making a point, I'll give an example: ASRP - Armageddon Style RP. A term like that is unique and does not use general terms that other people could legitimately lay claim to or use for describing their game. Someone could not reasonably just come along, put up a hybrid hack n slash/RP optional game and call it "ASRP." That would be patently false. That is probably a pointless suggestion, because I can't see any of these games willingly changing their designation. But in the long run, I do feel it would actually be in their best interests. But hey, I don't make "RPI" style games so to some extent it is none of my business. I am only chiming in because the confusion is probably not good for any of us. But in all seriousness, telling someone they cannot call their game "Role Play Intensive" seems a bit dodgy to me. Like I said... I understand and sympathize with the reasons. But "Role Play Intensive" is just an incredibly generic term that could have a lot of different interpretations - all of them relatively accurate.

This got completely ignored. Perhaps because I didn't flame anyone and decided to be calm and reasonable.

Originally Posted by Jazuela It's roleplay enforced, but not particularly intensive. The code doesn't support roleplay; it supports levels and skill min-maxing.

Yeah, because in real life people don't try to min max their lives or level up at their job..... Oh wait, they do. Honestly, what you are talking about is nothing more than a difference in features. I think where the RPI crowd goes really wrong is when they lay claim to a superior form of RP. And that is what they always do whenever "Role Play Intensive" gets discussed. They say they have no OOC stuff, but then their forums are massively used OOC to set up IC activities. I have no problem with that, and I think that kind of OOC communication can be useful. But it really is no different than global OOC channels once you put it all down on a balance sheet. I realize you will disagree, and that's fine too. But that's the point: this is not a fact issue. This is an opinion and a preference issue.

And that is why RPI muds would be much better off calling themselves Armageddon Style RP or something of that nature. What RPI folks are talking about is a specific set of FEATURE CHOICES. They really are not, honestly, talking about RP that is factually more "intensive" than many other games. There is a list of features that RPI fans and creators like. That's great. Give that set of features a proper name and you'd be golden.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by Newworlds I doubt many games would tag themselves with another mud's name saying they are in the same style.

It's not so common, as most muds try to make themselves stand out, and claiming that you're like another game isn't a very effective way to do that. But it does happen from time to time, with muds claiming to be "Diku-like", or "GodWars-like", etc.

And I've got to say, I wouldn't be too impressed by someone advertising their mud as "GodWars-like" just because it featured a war between gods. But what qualifies a mud as being "GodWars-like"? Is it just the codebase? I would say "no" (after all, God Wars II is written from scratch, as I still consider that to be a "GodWars-like" mud). Equally, if someone downloaded the GodWars codebase and removed the signature GodWars features, I wouldn't consider it to be "GodWars-like" (even though it would still be a GodWars derivative).

Likewise, if you downloaded the RPI Engine and used it out-of-the-box to run a roleplaying-enforced mud, I think most people would consider that an RPI. And if you created your own mud from scratch, but duplicated the signature features of that codebase and ran it as roleplaying-enforced, I think most people would consider that an RPI as well. But if you downloaded the RPI Engine and turned it into a pure GoP non-RP mud, I don't think anyone would consider that an RPI - but at what point during your modifications would it cease to be an RPI? I guess, like many things, that would be a matter of personal interpretation.

[prof1515]

Originally Posted by Threshold Yeah, because in real life people don't try to min max their lives or level up at their job..... Oh wait, they do. Honestly, what you are talking about is nothing more than a difference in features. I think where the RPI crowd goes really wrong is when they lay claim to a superior form of RP. And that is what they always do whenever "Role Play Intensive" gets discussed. They say they have no OOC stuff, but then their forums are massively used OOC to set up IC activities. I have no problem with that, and I think that kind of OOC communication can be useful. But it really is no different than global OOC channels once you put it all down on a balance sheet. I realize you will disagree, and that's fine too. But that's the point: this is not a fact issue. This is an opinion and a preference issue. And that is why RPI muds would be much better off calling themselves Armageddon Style RP or something of that nature. What RPI folks are talking about is a specific set of FEATURE CHOICES. They really are not, honestly, talking about RP that is factually more "intensive" than many other games. There is a list of features that RPI fans and creators like. That's great. Give that set of features a proper name and you'd be golden.

No RPI MUDs, at least none that I'm aware and I'm pretty neck-deep into them, claim they are RPI because they have better RP. They may claim both, but without linking the two. And pretty much every MUD claims they have great RP. RPIs claim a particular set of features. Those features are designed around role-play and staying within character, not skill advancement or leveling.

The confusion seems to stem from believing Role-Play Intensive MUD and Intensive Role-Play are one and the same. They are not. In the latter, "intensive" refers to the role-play, saying that it is marked by an intensity of experience. In the former example, "intensive" refers to the MUD in the same way the term "labor-intensive" does mean that the labor itself is "intense". The word "intensive" means that the expenditure of emphasis, be it coding or policy, is on the word that precedes it: in the case of RPI, role-play.

Role-Play Intensive therefore isn't a reflection on the word Role-Play. What the term is referring to is that the features are designed around role-play, not around the traditional nature of MUD gameplay (ie, leveling, skill advancement, etc). While skills advance on an RPI, the emphasis, via policy, is on role-play and the features reflect the ambiguity that the mechanics should be paid attention.

I have a friend who's an English professor and I keep meaning to have him write a technical explanation of this but alas every time I talk to him it slips my mind. I must be getting senile. :-D

On the issue of OOC channels, I have been on numerous RP-enforced MUDs with them and despite claims to the contrary, the channels are not used sparingly and in a manner similar to RPIs. I heartily remember one RPE claiming they had never had a case of OOC channel abuse in the history of their game. Within a matter of days I learned they had recently been forced to temporarily shut down their OOC channel on account of abuse. Perusing their forums using the keyword OOC, I discovered this was not the first such instance. Now, there are always bad apples and MUDs without global channels are just as prone to such individuals using any existing means to carry out similar behavior. But not all players utilize AIM or forums or other means of OOC contact. And when such individuals use in-game channels to inappropriately convey IC information, the effect is limited. Say something to someone in a room and that person hears it as does everyone else in the room. Say it over a global channel and everyone playing has been exposed. Regardless of whether or not other means of abusing IC information over OOC could occur, such as AIM or forums, this particular danger isn't possible if there exist no OOC global channels (I use that term to distinguish between IC global channels used by administrators for purposes of managing the game and which are typically shielded from players anyway).

Take care,

Jason

[Threshold]

Originally Posted by prof1515 No RPI MUDs, at least none that I'm aware and I'm pretty neck-deep into them, claim they are RPI because they have better RP.

Well, you might want to re-read Jazuella's posts again. When non-RPI muds have their RP called "two dimensional", I think the point is relatively clear.

Originally Posted by prof1515 RPIs claim a particular set of features. Those features are designed around role-play and staying within character, not skill advancement or leveling.

I agree that is the intention behind the use of the term. But that is why they would be better served by a term other than RPI. Because the "required" feature list really has less to do with intensive role play and more to do with "we like these types of features." An argument could be made that non-codified advancement is extremely fake, and far more "OOC" than something that is actually indigenous to the game world itself. Personally, I find non-codified advancement to be arbitrary in the extreme, and therefore about as OOC as you can get. You don't have to agree, but I feel mine is certainly a fair argument.

Originally Posted by prof1515 Role-Play Intensive therefore isn't a reflection on the word Role-Play. What the term is referring to is that the features are designed around role-play, not around the traditional nature of MUD gameplay (ie, leveling, skill advancement, etc)

But that is even more vague than a feature list. It seems like the more we talk about RPIs and what makes an RPI, the more vague the requirements become. From my point of view, that just continues to demonstrate the real need for a more specific term for this "RPI" feature set - something concrete that does not rely on generic terms like "role play" and "intensive."

Originally Posted by prof1515 Regardless of whether or not other means of abusing IC information over OOC could occur, such as AIM or forums, this particular danger isn't possible if there exist no OOC global channels.

Huh? In the first half of the sentence, you admit the abuse can occur, and then say it isn't possible?

If you don't like global OOC channels, that's fine. Everyone is free to have their own preferences. But don't try to argue that eliminating them has any real, long term effect on people staying IC or inappropriately mixing IC/OOC information. AIM, forums, email, etc. are all avenues people will use regardless of your OOC channel set up. That just gets us back to the main point: the RPI designation is more about describing a preferred feature set than actually designating intensive role play. That is why this issue crops up all the time. That is why people "misuse" (in the eyes of RPI mudders) the term. That is why other people find its use to be snooty and superior.

Personally, I think it is safer (and overall better for RP) to have OOC global channels that everyone can see and that get logged by the game, than to not have them. If you don't have them, you push people towards third party programs that the admins of the game have no idea about and obviously cannot monitor or review. Those third party programs become their ONLY outlet for OOC discussion. At least with global OOC channels you have some idea regarding the OOC "traffic" related to your game - and no matter how intensive you think your RP is, there *WILL* be OOC discussion of your game.

Now, that is pure opinion. I understand that. But that's the point.

[Milawe]

Originally Posted by prof1515 Role-Play Intensive therefore isn't a reflection on the word Role-Play. What the term is referring to is that the features are designed around role-play, not around the traditional nature of MUD gameplay (ie, leveling, skill advancement, etc). While skills advance on an RPI, the emphasis, via policy, is on role-play and the features reflect the ambiguity that the mechanics should be paid attention.

Again, I think that this demonstrates why RPI needs to be define with a specific set of categories in mind. An RPI mud, one that everyone agrees is RPI, has a crafting system that is indeed extensive. I, however, find it totally an OOC context game. Most of the time spent crafting is spent trying to guess the words needed to craft things and which ones to combine. That, to me, is not an emphasis on roleplay. It's a game design choice that creates an OOC burden on the player. If I want to sew myself a smock, I would go and find a pattern to a smock or find a smock and try to copy it. I wouldn't sit around guessing how it might be done. I can't ask IC what the syntax is because syntax is a completely OOC concept. I can't use a help file to give me any clues due to the fact that they don't have help files on this. It's just actually an incredibly frustrating game design prospect that just made give up on their crafting system, and ultimately, on their mud. That's simply not the kind of challenge I want, and I did not find it to be immersive. I still have no object to the mud in question being considered an RPI, but you can start to see how subjective these criteria can be and why it starts to seem more like a "club" than an actual designation. The sad fact is that many people don't want to be excluded from a club that makes overtures at superiority. That's why clubs like that are created. Our members are special. Yours are not. It's not a bad marketing tool, but it IS very vague and has vastly contributed to the debate.

Here are things that are not really subjective:

perma-death
classless system
skill through use
non-stock emoting system
crafting system (even if I personally think some of them suck. rofl)
roleplay enforced
combat mechanics present
hobbits allowed

That's just a sample list. I'm not even saying that that is what RPIs SHOULD be defined as. I just think that it's clear that saying "we only have systems with RP in mind" is extremely subjective and is prone to abuse.

[prof1515]

Originally Posted by Threshold Huh? In the first half of the sentence, you admit the abuse can occur, and then say it isn't possible?

It's not possible to abuse a global OOC channel if none exists. Abuse via other means is still possible. But abuse via a global channel is not possible if there is no such feature available.

If you don't like global OOC channels, that's fine. Everyone is free to have their own preferences. But don't try to argue that eliminating them has any real, long term effect on people staying IC or inappropriately mixing IC/OOC information. AIM, forums, email, etc. are all avenues people will use regardless of your OOC channel set up. That just gets us back to the main point: the RPI designation is more about describing a preferred feature set than actually designating intensive role play. That is why this issue crops up all the time. That is why people "misuse" (in the eyes of RPI mudders) the term. That is why other people find its use to be snooty and superior.

It presents one less feature typically used to discuss game mechanics in non-RP MUDs. While the intent may not be to allow such use with a global channel, the fact that many H&S MUDs use those channels to discuss game mechanics can lead to the thought that the presence of such a channel in an RP MUD is there for the same purpose.

"Snooty and superior" is an opinion that is entirely dependant upon perspective. As Eleanor Roosevelt said, "No one can make you feel inferior without your permission." I can not speak for all RPI MUD administrators or players, but I personally have no intention of making anyone feel inferior through the use of the term RPI. I'm willing to wager the same would be said by many others as well.

Personally, I think it is safer (and overall better for RP) to have OOC global channels that everyone can see and that get logged by the game, than to not have them. If you don't have them, you push people towards third party programs that the admins of the game have no idea about and obviously cannot monitor or review. Those third party programs become their ONLY outlet for OOC discussion. At least with global OOC channels you have some idea regarding the OOC "traffic" related to your game....

That falls into the realm of player quality, something which is very difficult for a staff to control short of possibly driving out those unwilling to adhere to game policy by punishing them. Unfortunately, many games' administrators are unwilling to do this. I personally was not one such adminstrator and did issue a number of player bans during my time on the staff of another RPI when I caught players engaging in such policy violations. I've had at least one player who did not know my staff identity once say that while [my staff identity] was considered a hard-ass, they were encouraged to think less in terms of game mechanics and OOC use as a result of it. Do not suppose that just because many players are over-eager to discuss game mechanics that all share this tendency. All do not. In fact, I know a few, myself included, who get rather irritated when such questions are repeatedly brought up.

...no matter how intensive you think your RP is, there *WILL* be OOC discussion of your game.

It's not about RP being "intensive". The code design is. The "intensive" in Role-Play Intensive does not refer to the role-play. You're using the word out of context, applying the adjective to the wrong noun. Sealing an envelope is labor-intensive work. But it's hardly "intense" labor. Likewise, it's not the role-play which is intense. The MUD however may be Role-Play Intensive even if all the role-play is itself mundane. Role-Play Intensive is akin to Role-Play-Centric as opposed to Intensive-Role-Play.

That really seems to be the misunderstanding which lies at the root of the issue: a tendency to apply a subjective use of the word to describe the role-play rather than the intended objective use of the term to describe the code and world design.

Take care,

Jason
(thank goodness my head cold or flue or whatever it is has begun to ease or all this reading and typing would be creating havoc on my eyes *grin*)

[Newworlds]

I was going to post the RPEI standard for a reply, but thought a new thread would be better.

RPEI, The New RP Standard

Enjoy!

[Threshold]

Originally Posted by prof1515 It presents one less feature typically used to discuss game mechanics in non-RP MUDs.

Which accomplishes what? Does it actually eliminate such discussions? Does it even significantly reduce them? OOC discussions are going to happen, and they often happen for very harmless (or even positive) reasons. Sometimes players just get along and want to get to know each other as friends outside their characters. That also happens to be a very valuable thing for your MUD, as it increases "stickiness" and thus the likelihood they will keep playing your game.

I would rather such discussions take place in a controlled environment with social pressures to keep things "appropriate" than have them all happen via third party programs outside the game with no rules, no guidelines, no peer pressure to "be good", etc. Furthermore, once you've forced people to use outside sources of communication for *ANY* OOC stuff they want to talk about, now you got them in the habit of doing so. It is similar to the crazy PC industry obsession with copy protection. They don't stop any pirates, but they motivate legitimate customers to seek out cracked .exe sites so they can play their games without having to keep the disc in the drive (or other copy protection related hassles). But then the customer has learned, for a legitimate reason, how to find cracked .exes. And once they see how easy it is to find such cracks, the little seed of temptation is planted. Now they start to think "wow, if its this easy, why do I even buy games at all?" Well the same temptation applies once you've motivated them to seek external ways to have legitimate OOC discussions with other players.

Here's a similar example. Dark Age of Camelot did not allow players from different "realms" (the 3 sides in their RvR war) to talk to each other. As this was not a role play focussed game, this turned out to be a pretty bad idea. Over time, people wanted to be able to the people on the other side of those characters they kept meeting on the battle field. They wanted to thank them for exciting battles, or talk a little playful smack, or give someone praise if they got stomped. Since the game completely forbade this, what evolved was an IRC channel that people of all 3 realms would login to every time they were going to RvR. This was harmless at first, but once people were in the habit of it the lines started to blur. Soon they were engaging in "cross teaming" (2 sides ganging up on one, arranged outside of game), and all manner of other illegal behavior. If they game had just allowed some method of in game discussion across the realms (perhaps only /says and not /tells), the IRC channel may never have been created, probably would never have reached critical mass, and would mostly likely have never been abused.

Originally Posted by prof1515 Do not suppose that just because many players are over-eager to discuss game mechanics that all share this tendency. All do not. In fact, I know a few, myself included, who get rather irritated when such questions are repeatedly brought up.

Absolutely. That is very common. But once you prevent them from having harmless OOC discussions inside your game, you force them to have these harmless OOC discussions via a third party program. And once they are doing it "off game", all bets are off. Now they are talking to people OOC with absolutely no guidelines in place.

Originally Posted by prof1515 It's not about RP being "intensive". The code design is.

But honestly, the code design really isn't any more RP intensive than a lot of contrary code design concepts. RPI stands for a certain type of features that SOME PEOPLE like and SOME PEOPLE want in their RP oriented game. But this feature set has more to do with personal preference than RP. Equally good arguments can be made that some of the "RPI" style features are actually a detriment to role play. I'll give five examples:

1) Some people think totally free form emotes are actually absurd, unrealistic, and bad for role play as they let people do absurd, impossible things that make no sense. (I disagree with this, but I can certainly see and understand the reasoning behind it.)

2) As I already noted, I find things like non-codified advancement extremely arbitrary, unrealistic, and a detriment to role play.

3) And as I argued above, I think a total lack of an OOC "pressure valve" coded within your game is also a detriment to role play.

4) I think skilling up through use unfortunately ends up being one of the most OOC things ever. It just results in people standing in a corner typing (or even scripting) a command over and over. It reminds me of how people playing Morrowind would jump everywhere so they could raise their jump skill and related stats "for free."

5) Then there is the whole classless and/or level-less concept. I won't go into detail, since this could be its own 500+ post topic, but this has *NOTHING* to do with RP. This is purely a game design decision. There are plenty of real world analogues to classes and levels.

Now, I am not saying the above 5 things are "right" (in fact, I totally disagree with one of them, and I partially disagree with another). But they are valid points, and they illustrate the fact that the RPI feature set is more about game design preferences than anything to do with RP or RP intensive code design. The fact that nobody seems to be able to hammer down an explicit set of features that defines "RPI"ness just exacerbates the problem. And Mina already pointed out the natural result of that problem: it makes "RPI" seem more like a "club" than an actual philosophy of game design.

[Milawe]

I believe that most OOC channels aren't policed like Threshold's. Game discussions are not allowed on any of our OOC channels, and discussion about game mechanics are not allowed either. It's purely for socializing with other players. Perhaps that is not true for other muds with OOC channels.

[Delerak]

Originally Posted by Newworlds I say we cut to the chase. This is about Armeggedon wanting a unique tagline for their game and games like it. I'm all for that, I just think RPI is the wrong tagline as Kavir, Mina, Threshold and everyone here attests in some form or another. While I agree with Threshold's premise that ARP would define it better (Armeggedon style mud) I think that is much too direct. I doubt many games would tag themselves with another mud's name saying they are in the same style. I think the name would have to be more generic and fit what Mina posted below on all the features such a game would proport to embrace. If this isn't done, people are going to use RPI whether others of like genre like it or not. Which will in the end be confusing for all players.

Woah. What?

This has nothing to do with armageddon. Armageddon is one of the original RPI's yes. But there are dozens of RPI muds that exist, are being built, and have solid player bases.

[prof1515]

Originally Posted by Threshold Which accomplishes what? Does it actually eliminate such discussions? Does it even significantly reduce them? OOC discussions are going to happen, and they often happen for very harmless (or even positive) reasons. Sometimes players just get along and want to get to know each other as friends outside their characters. That also happens to be a very valuable thing for your MUD, as it increases "stickiness" and thus the likelihood they will keep playing your game. I would rather such discussions take place in a controlled environment with social pressures to keep things "appropriate" than have them all happen via third party programs outside the game with no rules, no guidelines, no peer pressure to "be good", etc. Furthermore, once you've forced people to use outside sources of communication for *ANY* OOC stuff they want to talk about, now you got them in the habit of doing so. It is similar to the crazy PC industry obsession with copy protection. They don't stop any pirates, but they motivate legitimate customers to seek out cracked .exe sites so they can play their games without having to keep the disc in the drive (or other copy protection related hassles). But then the customer has learned, for a legitimate reason, how to find cracked .exes. And once they see how easy it is to find such cracks, the little seed of temptation is planted. Now they start to think "wow, if its this easy, why do I even buy games at all?" Well the same temptation applies once you've motivated them to seek external ways to have legitimate OOC discussions with other players. Here's a similar example. Dark Age of Camelot did not allow players from different "realms" (the 3 sides in their RvR war) to talk to each other. As this was not a role play focussed game, this turned out to be a pretty bad idea. Over time, people wanted to be able to the people on the other side of those characters they kept meeting on the battle field. They wanted to thank them for exciting battles, or talk a little playful smack, or give someone praise if they got stomped. Since the game completely forbade this, what evolved was an IRC channel that people of all 3 realms would login to every time they were going to RvR. This was harmless at first, but once people were in the habit of it the lines started to blur. Soon they were engaging in "cross teaming" (2 sides ganging up on one, arranged outside of game), and all manner of other illegal behavior. If they game had just allowed some method of in game discussion across the realms (perhaps only /says and not /tells), the IRC channel may never have been created, probably would never have reached critical mass, and would mostly likely have never been abused. But once you prevent them from having harmless OOC discussions inside your game, you force them to have these harmless OOC discussions via a third party program. And once they are doing it "off game", all bets are off. Now they are talking to people OOC with absolutely no guidelines in place.

Most, if not all, RPIs also have forums through which such socialization can take place. They've also incorporated other features such as SoI's Guest Lounge or Harshlands' chat room to allow players to socialize. Out-of-character interaction is just that, OOC, and shouldn't be taking place in the in-character environment. It's against the policy, so why incorporate (or more aptly, not remove from the code as it's pretty standard in many H&S codes) features which violate the policies put in place?

1) Some people think totally free form emotes are actually absurd, unrealistic, and bad for role play as they let people do absurd, impossible things that make no sense. (I disagree with this, but I can certainly see and understand the reasoning behind it.)

There's a degree to which a free-form emote begins to violate the setting. Policy on RPIs specifies remaining in-character within the game's setting. Sadly, I have seen some RPIs loosen this strict adherence a bit in the hopes of attracting and retaining more players but this has had the effect of driving off some of their veterans, myself included.

2) As I already noted, I find things like non-codified advancement extremely arbitrary, unrealistic, and a detriment to role play.

Which however is how the real world works. Do we elect our leaders based on them being the most advanced in the skills of leadership? If so, we wouldn't have Bush right now. Code mechanics in RPIs are designed to emulate those areas of the game world that are outside of the socio-cultural realm while leaving aspects which are not inherently biological/physical to the control of the player and society. Most MUDs, by comparison do the exact opposite (players can spam up the skills they want at the rate they want using points, etc. while they can't change professions from their original selection...once a fighter, always a fighter).

3) And as I argued above, I think a total lack of an OOC "pressure valve" coded within your game is also a detriment to role play.

The policy in RPIs is toward strict in-character role-play at all times. An OOC "pressure valve" like global OOC channels is thereby contradictory to such policy. It should be noted that most, if not all, RPIs have a local OOC channel but that its use is strictly regulated for the purpose of short, unobtrusive assistance. Anything requiring further and more extensive use is usually regarded as requiring staff assistance via communication with staff that is not visible to the rest of the game world, not even locally within the same room.

I think skilling up through use unfortunately ends up being one of the most OOC things ever. It just results in people standing in a corner typing (or even scripting) a command over and over. It reminds me of how people playing Morrowind would jump everywhere so they could raise their jump skill and related stats "for free."

Skill advancement through use on RPIs typically employ fail checks and timers to prevent spamming skill use to advance. True that doesn't stop some players, most of which are not likened to RPers in some cases but rather to H&Sers, but for all their skill spamming they won't get any better any faster than players who use their skills reasonably (and in some cases RPIs have been known to incorporate penalties for skill spamming which slow down the ability of the spammer to advance...spar over and over again and your health weakens to the point that you are unable to spar when the timer is up because realistically you've sparred yourself into a weakened bedridden state).

Then there is the whole classless and/or level-less concept. I won't go into detail, since this could be its own 500+ post topic, but this has *NOTHING* to do with RP. This is purely a game design decision. There are plenty of real world analogues to classes and levels.

Classes and levels as used in MUDs share real world similarities in name only. Classes and "levels" in the real world are social constructs. In MUDs, these terms describe physical barriers inherent within the character itself. The closest real world example would be gender. However, as gender is defined in MUDs separate from class and level, that eliminates the comparison.

The fact that nobody seems to be able to hammer down an explicit set of features that defines "RPI"ness just exacerbates the problem. And Mina already pointed out the natural result of that problem: it makes "RPI" seem more like a "club" than an actual philosophy of game design.

An explicit set of features that defines RPI is possible. The controversy arises when games which don't meet those criteria object and some then throw out the accusations of "elitism". Some of the "club" mentality I've seen has actually been from games that don't match the characteristics of the MUDs to which the term RPI was first applied. Ironic, no?

Take care,

Jason

[Milawe]

Originally Posted by prof1515 An explicit set of features that defines RPI is possible. The controversy arises when games which don't meet those criteria object and some then throw out the accusations of "elitism". Some of the "club" mentality I've seen has actually been from games that don't match the characteristics of the MUDs to which the term RPI was first applied. Ironic, no?

I believe the controversy arises from much more than that. For example, I'm pretty involved in this controversy. I have no desire to use the RPI tag for any of my games, even if those games fit every criteria for an RPI. (Of course, I wouldn't know what they are, but through these discussions, I'm starting to find out.)

I've, personally, found the elitism stemming from the way RPI players have posted on this forums, and even the RPIMUD site has some of it in their attempt to explain how RPI muds distinguish themselves from "other muds". It's pretty mind-boggling to me that you don't see how some of even what you posted comes off as very elitist. Face it, a LOT of RPI players believe that their style of playing is BETTER RP than on games that don't meet their RPI tag requirements and that the games they play support RP BETTER than say... New Worlds. This comes across pretty clearly in many, many posts. It's okay to be elitist about your choice, honestly, because there's a reason you CHOSE to play those specific games. What becomes a problem is when your personal choice/elitism for your game style of choice is actually cited as the industry standard for RPIs.

No, I don't find that ironic because I believe that RPI has been so poorly defined for so long that muds could legitimately believe they are one. What mud that enforces roleplay doesn't believe that their players roleplay intensively? Additionally, there are muds listed on the RPIMUD site that clearly do not fit the even vague standards that once existed for RPI, so it appears that RPIMUD doesn't even know what an RPI mud is. Frankly, without a standard, it IS a club with people saying "Well, no, I don't think that feature should be for an RPI mud. Well, I found this aspect of the game extremely immersion breaking, so really, their code doesn't suport RP. They aren't an RPI."

You can always tell when something is a matter of opinion when it's much easier for the people involved to tell people that they DO NOT belong rather than to tell them HOW to belong.

[Newworlds]

Originally Posted by Delerak there are dozens of RPI muds that exist, are being built, and have solid player bases.

Dozens that follow your RPI set of rules? Really? Name them.

[prof1515]

Originally Posted by Newworlds Dozens that follow your RPI set of rules? Really? Name them.

Operational:

Armageddon
Dark Horizon
Dark Sun (Delerak, are you officially open?)
Harshlands
Shadows of Isildur
Southlands

No longer operational or failed to open:

Forever's End (FEM)
Forever Ends (FE2)
Chronicles of Ritnarium
Forever's End 3
Shadows and Mist
Death's Omen
Hadrian's Wall
Stone MUD
Syrian Sands
Camino Real
Dead6

In development:

Mythic Shores
The Streets of Yesterday
Wild West RPG
World of Vale
Subterranea (though this one has been halted at least temporarily)
(two others I can't recall the name of; one was set in the Crusades, another was set in a medieval fantasy world)

That's 25, so "dozens" is accurate as there is more than one dozen.

Jason

[prof1515]

And should it interest you as to the development of the RPI Family, here's a rough breakdown.

Original Three:

Armageddon
Harshlands
Forever's End (derived from Harshlands)

Derived from Harshlands:

Forever's End
Shadows of Isildur

Derived from Forever's End

Forever Ends (FEM2)
Forever's End 3
Chronicles of Ritnarium
Shadows and Mist
Dark Horizon

Derived from Shadows of Isildur or Project Argila (a clean-up of the SoI RPI Engine):

Dark Sun
Death's Omen
Hadrian's Wall
Stone MUD
Syrian Sands
Camino Real
Dead6
Mythic Shores
The Streets of Yesterday
Wild West RPG
World of Vale
Subterranea
(and the other two whose names escape me)

Armageddon and Southlands each had their own independent code development.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by prof1515 And should it interest you as to the development of the RPI Family, here's a rough breakdown. Original Three: Armageddon Harshlands Forever's End (derived from Harshlands)

Originally Posted by prof1515 Armageddon and Southlands each had their own independent code development.

So in summary, they're all derived (codebase-wise) from Harshlands, except for Armageddon and Southlands - and even those which don't share actual code still copied their game style from the same mud (presumably Armageddon, as it came first)?

In that case, I suppose I must ask, is it unreasonable for me to use the term "GodWars" to refer to the many muds derived from the original God Wars mud, as well as God Wars II (which doesn't share any code, but copies the overall concept)? Or would it only be if I'd used the term "PKI" instead of "GodWars" that people would have objected?

[prof1515]

Originally Posted by KaVir So in summary, they're all derived (codebase-wise) from Harshlands, except for Armageddon and Southlands - and even those which don't share actual code still copied their game style from the same mud (presumably Armageddon, as it came first)?

I don't know if Charles Rand based Harshlands' code on Armageddon's or if it was merely a case of convergent evolution. The two do take slightly different means of performing the same thing. For example, both hide the specific numbers of skill advancement but Harshlands uses the terms "novice", "familiar", "adept" or "adroit" (depending on HL or SoI), and "master" to describe skill proficiency while Armageddon provides no such generalized statement.

As for Southlands, I once emailed them asking a few questions about their code development but got no response. They've also been invited at least once to check out and join rpimud.com but thus far have not so I have to wonder if the email contact they provide is correct.

Also, though I'm not aware of any others, there may be other MUDs which were developed from Armageddon or Southlands. I heard rumor that Southlands itself was derived from another MUD but I don't know if this was a reference to the original codebase or to another now-gone RPI (part of what I asked in my email to them).

In that case, I suppose I must ask, is it unreasonable for me to use the term "GodWars" to refer to the many muds derived from the original God Wars mud, as well as God Wars II (which doesn't share any code, but copies the overall concept)? Or would it only be if I'd used the term "PKI" instead of "GodWars" that people would have objected?

Actually, Kavir, I've heard the terms "Godwars MUDs" and "Godwars-type MUDs" used quite often though I can't say more in regard to what types of features they were referring to beyond PK. I have to plead ignorance on the specifics as I'm not that familiar with those kinds of games and have yet to ask anyone for implicit details when they use such phrases. Myself, I always use a generic term of PK MUD to avoid misidentifying code-similar groups. If I weren't as familiar with RP MUDs as I am, I'd probably not be as inclined to use more specific terminology with those either. But you pose a very good question that I'm eager to hear others' responses to.

Take care,

Jason

P.S. - I might add that Harshlands has since adopted the SoI RPI Engine and the new features, such as literacy and ranged weapons (though they have yet to full employ those), found therein. The basic similarities between the HL/SoI code and Arm still exist even if new features have been added onto it.

[Newworlds]

Actually Prof1515 your response was a tad misleading. The original quote was:

But there are dozens of RPI muds that exist, are being built, and have solid player bases.

Exist and have solid player bases does not include defunct muds. Your list actually contained 11 so let's be realistic. I like sticking with facts and arguments that contain factual basis.

And even with these eleven, are you staying (as I original asked) are these games all following every requirement he lists? I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm trying to be realistic.

[Milawe]

Originally Posted by KaVir In that case, I suppose I must ask, is it unreasonable for me to use the term "GodWars" to refer to the many muds derived from the original God Wars mud, as well as God Wars II (which doesn't share any code, but copies the overall concept)? Or would it only be if I'd used the term "PKI" instead of "GodWars" that people would have objected?

I don't think it would be a problem if you used GodWars or GW to denote muds that base themselves off of the original GodWars project. That sounds pretty reasonable, and in a nutshell, seems much more explanatory than PKI. (I'm assuming PKI is PK Intensive?) I would predict that lots of PK muds would not look beyond whether or not they thought their PK was intense and start using PKI whether or not their style is anything like those that resemble GodWars. It's pretty easy to look up information on GodWars and get an idea of what is meant by that style of game, which is what I would do if I were going to see if my game was GodWars-style. (I guess I'd already know that, though, since it's probably hard to just stumble onto a GodWars styled game.) Whereas, if I were to build a PK mud and see Player-Killing Intensive, I would probably think my game was pretty intense and not knowing that it stood for a very specific set of criteria, I might slap it on my page to give new players an idea that there's lots of intense PK on my mud.

Honestly, I thought that GodWars was a code-base for a long time before I started really getting into muds not an actual game. It's pretty well-known.

[prof1515]

Originally Posted by Newworlds Actually Prof1515 your response was a tad misleading. The original quote was: Exist and have solid player bases does not include defunct muds. Your list actually contained 11 so let's be realistic. I like sticking with facts and arguments that contain factual basis. And even with these eleven, are you staying (as I original asked) are these games all following every requirement he lists? I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm trying to be realistic.

I cited the very wording you chose to cite in your response. "Exist" and "are being built" can suggest two completely different types of games, ie. operational, which I listed, and in development, which I listed. Otherwise, all that's needed is "exist" as that would encompass open and not open. In the context of Delerak's statement, he was referring to your erroneous claim that the term RPI was a device used by Armageddon alone.

This is about Armeggedon wanting a unique tagline for their game and games like it.

He stated that there were over two dozen examples of RPIs and this was not merely Armageddon. Additionally, as I've pointed out, there is no clear evidence who coined the term but its use originally applied to three MUDs and was eventually used by many. In fact, the term has been used by games which are not at all like Armageddon, Harshlands, or Forever's End. Hell, I once checked out a MUD that called itself "RPI" only to find it was a stock CircleMUD complete with the stock mobs wandering the street! But that's not a MUD that I or Delerak would be referring to. The list of MUDs I gave would be, some open for play and some "are being built" and some have a very large playerbase (Armageddon and Shadows of Isildur are routinely in the TMS Top 20).

So I would say you don't like sticking by facts. No offense, but I haven't seen much in the way of facts from you, just a lot of accusations of "personal preference" and a lack of understanding regarding the historical context of the term RPI.

And yes, all of these games are following the requirements of the list. I've played every one of the games that was open now or in the past except Dark Sun which I have yet to try (because as far as I know still, it's not open for public play, just testing). I've also had the opportunity to look over and talk with the creator(s) of several other never-opened games. If any of the RPIs on this list weren't adhering to the features noted, I'd have included a couple games which come very close but don't meet all the similarities shared by Arm, HL, and FEM. There is at least one which comes very close but has made a few choices regarding features which would be contrary to the shared features of that list.

You seem to be arguing about a subject that you have little or no knowledge of. How many RPIs have you played? Have you EVER played any of them? Prior to this discussion did you ever invest any time in researching the subject matter you are disputing? Prior to me naming the above list, how many of them had you even heard of? Prior to me naming the original three were you even aware of the original three? Could you name them? Without looking, can you name them now?

Jason

[Newworlds]

You keep talking about RPI as some standard and even you have declared that the standard was established by 2 MUDS-Harshlands and Armeggedon. The third was a derivative of Harshlands. So your RPI tag no matter how much you argue it can be used by anyone who has a Roleplay Intensive game. Yes, I know you want to resurrect the RPI standard for only your game and your subset of games, based on the RPIMUD website, but I really think you are going to have issues trying to stop other muds from using the term RPI as in "roleplay intensive" unless you go copyright it.

Originally Posted by prof1515 You seem to be arguing about a subject that you have little or no knowledge of.

I run a roleplay intensive game, so I know quite a bit about it. As for RPIMUD, I have read all the forums there and every page on the site, so I'd say I know quite a bit about what they are about. Certainly not as much as you of course. I never claimed that.

Originally Posted by prof1515 How many RPIs have you played?

Numerous. RPI's of your description? Sadly I've only played two and only Armeggedon for any length of time and years ago, so I can't comment on the current system.

Originally Posted by prof1515 Prior to this discussion did you ever invest any time in researching the subject matter you are disputing?

Yes, I have researched over fifty games and roleplay and intensive roleplay throughout the creation of NW. To take on the features that would be most welcomed by a roleplay enforced community. It is almost funny to see the RPIMUD's first few sentences on the site about what an RPIMUD is are nearly verbatim of what a new player reads just before then enter into the RP world of NW.

Originally Posted by prof1515 Prior to me naming the above list, how many of them had you even heard of?

I had heard of some of them and even read their descripts and/or visited their sites.

Originally Posted by prof1515 Prior to me naming the original three were you even aware of the original three? Could you name them? Without looking, can you name them now?

I had heard of two of the three. Did I know they were the founding members? No I did not.

I think (and I say think so you don't call me a stickman again), you are really asking my credentials in commenting about RPIMUD or RPI standard as it relates to your muds. To be honest I'm only casually versed in your gaming style. My biggest and only issue the attempt to lay claim on the term RPI as role play intensive and trying to set a standard for that term with only a small subset of similarly coded games.

I suppose my questioning such a thing could be seen as offensive.

[Jherlen]

The thing about classifying roleplay muds is that everybody has their own favorite brand of roleplaying, with its own standards and rules. It's easy enough to say if a game is an RP game or not, but I think any further definition beyond that shouldn't be used as a measure of "how" roleplaying focused a game is as much as what kind of roleplaying a game is focused on.

RPI is just one of many terms of roleplaying games that have similar features, similar policies and are played by people of similar mindsets. I don't think the administrators themselves of Armageddon or SoI or Harshlands or Accursed Lands or other RPIs in development are trying to promote that term in order to set their games apart from others (certainly not to imply a kind of elitism, though unfortunately it seems like some people take it that way.) Instead I think the community of players of those games created a term for itself to identify the kind of games they preferred apart from the much larger umbrella of RP games.

You'd get different styles of roleplaying in different genres of games; MUSHes, for instance, have a lot different style of roleplay than RPI games, but I wouldn't call either one more "intense" or "immersive". They're just different.

If it's the term RPI itself that people seem to have a problem with, maybe a different term should have been chosen (probably too late to coin another one by now.) But I think the intent was just to qualify a subset of RP games with similar features and set them apart from the larger whole, for players interested in games like those.

[prof1515]

Originally Posted by Newworlds You keep talking about RPI as some standard and even you have declared that the standard was established by 2 MUDS-Harshlands and Armeggedon. The third was a derivative of Harshlands. So your RPI tag no matter how much you argue it can be used by anyone who has a Roleplay Intensive game.

Anyone that meets the similarities that all three possessed, yes.

Yes, I know you want to resurrect the RPI standard for only your game and your subset of games, based on the RPIMUD website, but I really think you are going to have issues trying to stop other muds from using the term RPI as in "roleplay intensive" unless you go copyright it.

Trademarking, not copyright, of a term already in use would probably be denied unless the USPTO failed to properly research it (which I doubt).

I run a roleplay intensive game, so I know quite a bit about it. As for RPIMUD, I have read all the forums there and every page on the site, so I'd say I know quite a bit about what they are about. Certainly not as much as you of course. I never claimed that.

You run a role-play (enforced?) MUD. Your game does not meet the historical definition of the term, merely the bastardized use which has served to confuse the general MUD community. Using a term RPI beyond the original intent is similar to calling your game a PK MUD. The use of the term would be confusing. But use or non-use of the term RPI does not change the quality of role-play found in a MUD. That's dependant upon the staff and players, not the terminology used to describe the features and policy.

And I have tried out New Worlds (twice, the second time at your request if you recall) and did not find it similar to Armageddon, Harshlands, Forever's End, Shadows of Isildur, or any of the other games which all bear the same characteristics to which the term RPI was first applied.

I might add that at least one attempt has been made to take the Argila codebase (a cleaner version of the RPI Engine) and use it to create a non-RPI MUD. I'm not sure as to what code changes they have thus far made but policy-wise, they've got no RP-enforced policy and as it was described to me seemed to be a PK MUD (though my memory on the details is foggy because as soon as I was told the game wasn't going to be used for role-play, I sort of droned out). There are also lots of other level-less and skill-based MUDs out there but that too does not denote RPI (and in many cases they don't claim to either).

Yes, I have researched over fifty games and roleplay and intensive roleplay throughout the creation of NW. To take on the features that would be most welcomed by a roleplay enforced community.

And that's great. More MUDs should do that. But the entirety of the role-play enforced community is not seeking out the features and characteristics of what became known as RPI MUDs. That was why coining a term to describe that particular code/policy format became a good idea. As not everyone was looking for the same thing in role-play enforced MUDs, a different term was needed for clarification. Over the years, the abuse of the term has nearly rendered it useless again just like role-play enforced failed to originally differentiate different code/policy styles enough.

It is almost funny to see the RPIMUD's first few sentences on the site about what an RPIMUD is are nearly verbatim of what a new player reads just before then enter into the RP world of NW.

I discussed the wording with Wade a lot and, unlike me, he's not as verbal about taking a proactive stance on such things. He was also more liberal with the use of the term (indicating that the term RPI probably didn't originate from use by Forever's End itself, merely in reference to it). In the year before he stepped down, he was preparing for the implementation of the term RPO however because the massive difference between what he had always thought of as RPI (the traditional usage) and what was being employed by so many MUDs (several games that had role-play ACCEPTED policies created listings on the site), it was clear there needed to be further clarification. This brought out complaints from some MUDs listed on the site, notably only those that didn't meet the original use of the term. Real-life issues (common theme lately...everyone, myself included, seems to have had a rough couple years) as well as I suspect some disgruntlement at the controversy delayed implementation of the RPI-RPO differentiation which was supposed to have gone into effect over a year ago. The former continues to slow down reorganization of the site under the new management as well.

I think (and I say think so you don't call me a stickman again), you are really asking my credentials in commenting about RPIMUD or RPI standard as it relates to your muds. To be honest I'm only casually versed in your gaming style. My biggest and only issue the attempt to lay claim on the term RPI as role play intensive and trying to set a standard for that term with only a small subset of similarly coded games. I suppose my questioning such a thing could be seen as offensive.

My apologies if I seemed harsh. I do appreciate the use of "think" and "believe" to denote an opinion from a fact though. Thank you for the amended use. And again, I will state that RPI does not imply greater or lesser quality of role-play. As a former staff member on my game once said, "You can RP in a cardboard box." And he's right. I only lay claim to the use of the term as it was originally applied. Later use was not in keeping with that and has only led to confusion and a weakening of the usefulness of the term. Perhaps there was a perceived notion that the role-play on the three RPIs was greater than that of the rest of the Role-Play Enforced MUDs (I would agree, though my personal thought is that the quality of RP on the two remaining RPIs is dramatically lower than it was when I first started playing them). But that need not be the case. The standard use of that term was for a small subset of similarly-coded games. That was the original use and for a time the only one.

Questioning it is not offensive. But it is contrary to the historical precedent and only adds to the confusion that has arisen since around the millennium.

Jason

[Jazuela]

I didn't even see the "RP intensive" as in, not necessarily an RPI by definition of the historical standard, but RPI by NewWorlds' definition, when I visited his game. So I don't know where he comes off telling anyone else what an RPI should be, because his own game doesn't fit his own criteria. Go ahead and check his website - you have to be IN game to see the help files, because there isn't any place on the website to click to them - which means your character has to be idle and be NOT roleplaying, while the player is reading the help files. Real intensive there.

Then there's the RP logs - the bulk of which involve:

So and so smiles
A different so and so nods
So and so says, to no one in particular because most players here don't direct what they're saying to anyone, "yeah"
Another so and so smiles softly
So and so nods
Some other so and so smiles.

And then a dozen people pray softly and lighten the area...yet you don't see anyone attempting to shield their eyes from what must be blinding light by now. You don't see the grass wither, you don't see children scream...we're talking 5,000,000,000 candlepower light by now, clearly, and everyone is still just smiling and nodding.

(the arguement is: well that's just the echo of the pray command for clerics, or whatever. And my arguement back to them is - the game enforces, promotes, and supports "intensive roleplay" how, exactly, if no one is reacting to echoes of many people making an already-lit area lighter, and lighter, and lighter, and lighter...?)

Yeah, that just sucks me into the RP like no other game I've ever played. I don't know about anyone else but wow. And notice the creative lack of punctuation. It's so intensive I'm waiting to see someone say, "hey u no where 2 find teh mob 4 lvl 2????!!!!1111"

In addition, New Worlds claims that it's custom, here on TopMudsites. Yet on the MudConnector, it says it's LP (Custom) which implies that it is a derivitive of an LP mud, and not a "true" custom. Is it an LP mud? Or is it a custom code? Or is it whatever the forum member known as NewWorlds decides he wants it to be, just like he's decided he wants to call his RP-enforced hack-n-slash an RPI?

New Worlds just wants his game to seem more "special" and he thinks that calling his game an RPI will make it more special. It's a nice mud, as muds go, but it isn't an RPI, it isn't even RP-intensive. It's just a nice mud for people who are looking for nice muds. If you're looking for an RPI and get suckered into trying his game without first reading the website, you'll find his game doesn't remotely resemble an RPI, in ANY sense of the term.