[Burrytar]

It's time for my bi-yearly search for a hopelessly narrow ideal.

For my next character, I want to play a woodland trickster who is small, adumbral, and fey. I want to steal, heal, forage, summon/charm, and quest for trivial curiosities. I want to banter with the ancient, dark god, gobble up his foodstuff offerings, void my bladder on his altar, run for my life, and then flatter his daughter into staying his curses...and end up owing them both favors. I want to ambush unsuspecting friends and enemies with strictly non-lethal combat: sleep-poisoned slingshot, taunting evasions, trips and disarms, minor concussions, shadowy illusions, and primitive traps -- meaning not to harm, but to get the upper hand in bargaining. Flashy sword duels are fine in the heat of the moment; I just don't want to kill or die in one. Death is the end of roleplay -- better to end it begrudging or forgiving a grievous wound or humiliation.

I want to explore for obscure awesomeness and abundant atmosphere, but I don't want to be expected to "know the areas" in order to be considered a competent player.

I want to enter the game into a close-knit family of other characters. I want to share a home/headquarters with this family, and I want to know that's it's always a good place to begin roleplay. I'm a shy roleplayer. If I linger in the shallows, I'll never step in any further. I need a deep end into which I may jump. The closest I've ever found, ironically, was on a roleplay-light mud where players were rewarded huge XP bonuses for grouping with newbies. That was more like a satisfactory business transaction than a roleplay experience.

I'd guess I'd better not make any more finicky demands, or I won't even get the "We're not what you're looking for, but look at me!" posts.

***

Oh, while I'm here, has there been any credible we're-gonna-revolutionize-muds chatter lately? I used to follow Falconer and Lindahl with their Cathyle Project before they split up, and then Falconer and Traithe with their project, and then Traithe and Iron Realms... I'll bet Kavir is still carefully fine-tuning his combat system, but I was never tactically-inclined enough to appreciate that sort of innovation. What's new and happening?

[prof1515]

I'm not aware of any game that would feature a character like the one you described, at least not an RPI. I'm sure there are numerous RP* MUDs that might allow something like that and have a loose-enough world to add something to that effect in but off the top of my head I can't think of any.

I'd like to think my own project will be a "revolutionary" RPI when it opens but the perils of the real world (boo, hiss) continue to drag us like an anchor. Maybe more like four or five anchors, to be honest. I'm resolute in overcoming this impediment but it's very slow going and I can't ask anything more than that my staff continue to deal with the crises in their lives first because ultimately that takes precedent over *any* game. I had hoped to get our major code push started in late February but it looks like April might have to suit us instead. Just this evening I was looking over stuff related to that and contemplating just how much work we have to do to get our present codebase to a minimal point where it will meet our needs. Suffice to say, it could entail more work than it originally took to get the codebase from the original base DIKU to where it's presently at. Even once we complete that, there's still the massive job of *building* the world itself. The original plan back in 2005 was beta-testing in 2008. Right now, I'll give a tentative date for beta-testing at 2011.

And for the record, the character you described would not be possible in the game as we're going for a more realistic setting. It will be a thoroughly complete world though in terms of creating a living, breathing socio-cultural setting. ;-) Now if only we can prevent the slings and arrows of life in this living, breathing world we call life from reducing us to a slow crawl!

Take care,

Jason

[Ide]

I don't know what you've played before Burrytar, but it sounds like you might want to give some mushes a try. Maybe a WoD Changeling game if you can stand it.

[Newworlds]

Originally Posted by Ide I don't know what you've played before Burrytar, but it sounds like you might want to give some mushes a try. Maybe a WoD Changeling game if you can stand it.

I'd have to agree with Ide. Your character descript sounds pretty immature for a true RPI. You can try NW, but we require adult behaviour.

[Milawe]

I'm wondering why high fantasy can't also be RPI if the world is built well enough.

It sounds like Burrtyr wants a high fantasy, heavy mechanics game. That kind of sounds like the kind of game I want!

[prof1515]

Originally Posted by Mina I'm wondering why high fantasy can't also be RPI if the world is built well enough. It sounds like Burrtyr wants a high fantasy, heavy mechanics game. That kind of sounds like the kind of game I want!

Well, you sort of answered your own question with the second sentence. However, passing by that for the moment, let me begin by saying there is NO reason high fantasy can't also be RPI. In fact, there is at least one high fantasy RPI: Armageddon. But let's look again at his post...

For my next character, I want to play a woodland trickster who is small, adumbral, and fey. I want to steal, heal, forage, summon/charm, and quest for trivial curiosities.

There really isn't much in terms of RP involved with those things. They're not really a matter of RP but of skills, many of which exist in RPIs as well as non RPIs. It seems like a rather one-trick pony, rather self-centered as it seems everyone will have to come to him and be the subject of his entertainment. On that note...

I want to banter with the ancient, dark god, gobble up his foodstuff offerings, void my bladder on his altar, run for my life, and then flatter his daughter into staying his curses...and end up owing them both favors.

Here's where it begins to become problematic. This isn't a request for RP so much as self-indulgence. Note that the entire course of what will happen is already determined and completely centered around himself. If he's allowed this, is everyone? Sort of defeats the concept of an "ancient, dark god" when he can't stop some little pansy from ****ing on his place. This becomes all the more blocked out with this line:

Flashy sword duels are fine in the heat of the moment; I just don't want to kill or die in one. Death is the end of roleplay -- better to end it begrudging or forgiving a grievous wound or humiliation.

The best way to avoid dying is not getting into a situation where one is likely to die. Acting completely self-indulgent (ie, "void[ing] my bladder on [the ancient, dark god's] altar") is something you have to do with acceptance of circumstance on any RPI. Now, most RPIs will attempt to find ways other than killing a player. But as a former clan leader on a RPI, I often faced PCs who wanted to do just what he's talking about. Ignore the setting, do as they please, and then not want to face the consequences. I tried being lenient and that only inspired them to go further. Finally, I was faced with being a hard-ass and taking the appropriate measures. Some got upset. Sadly, in my case, the staff was trying to recruit players and kept bringing in more and more by lowering standards. Quality-control had taken a back-seat to expanding the playerbase and the game's setting had suffered. I opted to quit because it ceased to be the high quality world it had been. I wasn't alone in that decision.

However, the real key problem is in this statement:

I want to explore for obscure awesomeness and abundant atmosphere, but I don't want to be expected to "know the areas" in order to be considered a competent player.

I'm not sure what is meant by "know the areas". If this is referring to the H&S tendency to know every zone layout in order to run it effectively/quickly, then that's fine. No RPI does expect players to do that and in many cases discourage against it. However, if "know the areas" is in reference to learning the world's ins and outs, social or cultural, then it is a problem. In order to RP in a setting, one should know that setting as well as one can (or at least as well as your character should). As I said in my own experience, players who don't want to learn and fit into the game's setting have to accept the consequences of not doing so. If they're not expected to, what good is the setting?

I want to enter the game into a close-knit family of other characters. I want to share a home/headquarters with this family, and I want to know that's it's always a good place to begin roleplay. I'm a shy roleplayer. If I linger in the shallows, I'll never step in any further. I need a deep end into which I may jump.

This statement shows promise but seems a bit contrary to the woodland imp type he described earlier, especially if the aforementioned dark god chose to exact some revenge. Choosing a more carefree path is one thing. Expecting to do that and commit acts which might bring about disastrous repercussions upon the rest of one's clanmates is another thing altogether. Most RPI staff would frown on a character who does that.

The closest I've ever found, ironically, was on a roleplay-light mud where players were rewarded huge XP bonuses for grouping with newbies. That was more like a satisfactory business transaction than a roleplay experience.

That it is. XP isn't an element of role-play. It's not necessary to role-play and is a purely mechanical means of determining factors which don't relate to role-play.

The original poster sounds like they are interested in role-play. However, as I stated before I don't know of any game where the character he described would exist. Most, if not all, RPIs possess an established game setting, not a free-form create-anything sort of setting. A well-designed, established setting is crucial to the ability to immerse oneself in the game. It's been my experience that chaotic characters unwilling to adhere to the setting mark the decline of an RPI. I think a lot of RPI admins would agree.

Take care,

Jason

[Jazuela]

I think the OP is simply applying the term "RPI" to something that isn't what most people know of as an RPI.

He's looking for autoquests - RPIs tend to shy away from those, because they detract from roleplay rather than support it.
He's looking for multi-classing - he wants to be the uber thief/assassin/ranger/warrior/mage all in one, and he wants the potential to be good at all of those things. In an RPI, you are good at what makes sense for your character to be good at; if you strive for uberness in everything, your character won't be believable and you will ultimately fail.
He's looking to -not- die. RPIs are perma-death.
He's looking for giggling hobbits and bouncy elves who worship the dark gods when they're "being" dark elves, but have no particular reason to worship those dark gods, except that those gods were one of the several options available in chargen to pick from. Well that and maybe he gets the "ultimate eye-poke of doom" skill as a bonus for picking those gods over the other gods with the "uber dastardly destructive clothing crafting of death" skill.

I don't see any part of his post describing what most people refer to as an RPI, except the term itself, which in his case I'm pretty sure is a misnomer. I suggest he try GemStone. A true, pure hack-n-slash high fantasy pay-to-play with tons of autoquests and opportunities to roleplay, though roleplay certainly isn't required. They even have altars that his character can empty his bladder on, and a cackle command!

[Ide]

Wait, what?

The OP sounded like someone who would like a WoD Changeling MUSH game -- fae folk running around, doing fae things in a tight community of RPers -- which is why I recommended that. Sure, it's normally a little self-indulgent but that comes with the territory. And normally MUSHes use consent or a liberal perma-death policy.

I don't think the OP wants to be chaotic in a mud's setting -- they want precisely the setting they're describing, or at least a setting that includes this sub-setting.

By 'know the areas' I think the OP refers precisely to the GoP ethos of running an area for XP and loot, or at least the speedwalking mentality.

In short the OP sounds to me like a RPer through and through, and it's kind of funny to see this RPI backlash. It never fails to amaze me that people have this definition of RP that they think is the one-and-only.


edit: And autoquests? How does someone read that into the OP?

edit+: and uber multi-class?

Look, I actually have a point here. I've long wanted to play a druid assasin on a mud. Very few muds would support this kind of role. This doesn't mean I want to be an 'uber' anything. My stats could be level one across the board for all I care. All I would want is support of the concept. I don't see where the OP is saying they want to be the best. Only that they want support of the concept they have in their head. In fact I see the OP has a highly collaborative RPer.

[BrettH]

My impression from reading the OP was, I think, not quite as literal but that may be my mistake.

It seemed to me that it was more of an (overstated) expression of desire for interaction, storyline responsiveness/consequence regardless if the character is the usual type that gets storyline attention - especially while trying not to be a character that kills everything that moves. I think this is a fair desire and one that I hear often.

However, the sticking point to me is if this is the case, then the player is going to have to accept the death of their character as a possible consequence. Without this fear, there is no 'running for [my] life' from a dark god, I guarantee. That's when you get people just thumbing their noses at the Powers that Be.

I think the OP just needs to re-evaluate what they're looking for and perhaps reword the request. If, in fact, they want a crazy imp that farts in the face of gods and will get massive game/staff response for solo actions done in the dark of the wood, while wanting immersion but no ultimate consequence, that IS a problem. Well, it might not be if they join a very small, tight knit MUSH, where whenever even one person is in the game, the GMs are of their every move and can tailor the game experience to said person.

But if the OP really just was trying to illustrate a desire to have more interaction and story possiblities despite not having a warlord character that lives next door to the NPC ruler, there's larger MUDs that might be able to help.

I'd be curious to see a new post from the OP explaining the stance a bit better.

[Newworlds]

Prof1515,

I agree with just about all you say there and would have written it myself, but I'm too lazy, so thanks for your long post.

As for RPI (Roleplay Intense) or RPI(Roleplay Immersed) I think is virtually the same thing. If it is immersed it will by virtue be intense. How intense and what defines intense is subjective from player to player perspective.

But as IDE stated the best thing might be a MUSH where you do whatever you want and to hell with the consequences.

[Burrytar]

Originally Posted by Ide Look, I actually have a point here. I've long wanted to play a druid assasin on a mud. Very few muds would support this kind of role. This doesn't mean I want to be an 'uber' anything. My stats could be level one across the board for all I care. All I would want is support of the concept. I don't see where the OP is saying they want to be the best. Only that they want support of the concept they have in their head. In fact I see the OP has a highly collaborative RPer.

Thanks, Ide. This is also my view, if I read you right.

Although, I think I see where they are coming from. My character concept would likely be disastrous unless they were devoted to simulating a myth/fable feel. Not that simulationism is the only way it could go. You can also have immersive narrativism, freeing up the possibilities for character concepts even more. I spoke of RPIs instead of MUSHes because I feel the strongly automated resolution subsystems of MUDs allow for a more immersive form of narrativism, freeing people up to think about where the story should go next while still greatly experiencing the character's perspective of the events.

I am surprised to hear RPI advocates imply that you can't have an exciting conflict without mechanically-enforced death. Maybe you can't in your games, but it's a pretty flimsy generalization to make for all games, and particular for games focused on immersive roleplaying. Even if a character won't actually be killed, that doesn't mean they can't believe they will be killed, or that the player can't buy in to this construction. Have you never heard of a player allowing their character to die, despite its not being mandatory, simply because it felt right at the time? I'll wager even H&S muds occasionally have such moments of immersive roleplaying when it's an option.

Don't get me wrong: I like permadeath. Death is a fine way to end a story, but it's a terrible way to tell a story. Death makes a poor story because, in most cases, it's the easy way out. Inexperienced storytellers who can't decide how to escalate or resolve a conflict often decide to just kill or die their way out of it. Ugh. MUDs with death as a major subsystem often have that sort of thinking ingrained in their culture. I think this is a major reason why many roleplaying-mandatory muds seem little different from H&S muds.

Another thing that surprises me is the assumption that dark, ancient gods can only be roleplayed by GMs. But I'm not surprised that someone who thinks that would have a hard time understanding me. No hard feelings, just different cultures is all.

I'll probably just have to be patient until the indie storygaming industry and the mudding industry cross over into one another. See ya in a couple of years?

[BrettH]

I am surprised to hear RPI advocates imply that you can't have an exciting conflict without mechanically-enforced death. Maybe you can't in your games, but it's a pretty flimsy generalization to make for all games, and particular for games focused on immersive roleplaying.

It is perfectly fine to disagree with this notion, however, speaking for myself, I've been in multiplayer RPG games and staffed some, professional and otherwise, for about 17 years (I am not counting small group or tabletop experience.) The reason I said what I did about permadeath is because after that many years of experimenting with alternatives, you won't get people on the whole to RP risk seriously without even a remote threat of permadeath. This has nothing to do with pet theories or even my preferences; this opinion is the result of experience.

I cannot tell you how many times I was there on the groundfloor of an exciting new concept that was supposed to be an immersive, roleplay enhancing system that expected people to 'play right' in order for the stories to work out. They all fail, because most people simply won't do what you're suggesting without enforcement. I could name names that many of you would recognize, knowing they are no longer in the business, because 10 years ago their grand dream died in the face of what Gamers Really Do; and these are people I was dealing with back when they developed their ideas and were telling me how great it was going to be to finally do all this right. Been there, done that, wore the T-Shirt, it's a rag, I think I use it to sop up oil spills now.

Even if a character won't actually be killed, that doesn't mean they can't believe they will be killed, or that the player can't buy in to this construction. Have you never heard of a player allowing their character to die, despite its not being mandatory, simply because it felt right at the time?

I have. I've done it. It's also massively rare in any given group of players. Again, you cannot rely upon it in game design. It may be that you're one of those great folks that will play as if death matters even when it doesn't, but you are in a minority, my friend.

There is probably a reason you can't find a game that runs the way you're suggesting. This is likely because the games that have survived are the ones that have worked the best out of countless attempts, and the people starting up new games have a lot of experiences with their pet theories being shot down in favor of What Really Happens When People Play Games, and are ready to work with what they have, taking human (gamer) nature into account.

I may be wrong about all this, but I really have to go with my experience in terms of what works and what doesn't work with a group of gamers. I think that's a fair way to form an opinion, and is in no way flimsy.

You may want to examine why it is you aren't playing a RPG year after year and if your requirements are just not feasible. Or you may want to start up a game and see for yourself how this concept works out. People rarely listen to others, I've learned; they have to touch the fire themselves to see if it burns.

[Burrytar]

I don't expect it would be an easy community to build -- and, I agree, that is what makes it so difficult to find -- but I do think such a community could be sustained given the right foundations.

Yeah, those are big claims for someone who has no intention of proving it.

But I know from experience that optional-death can improve both the storytelling and the fun of roleplaying in anonymous, face-to-face groups (provided there is also support for creating good storytelling and fun roleplaying). And I've experienced a lot of bad storytelling and unfun roleplaying in RP-focused MUDs where combat-to-the-death became the default means of resolving a conflict.

Finally, bear in mind that permadeath debates still regularly pop up even among you successful mud designers -- it makes me wonder if the kind of death is really the issue that should be examined.

[Jazuela]

The permadeath debates don't normally occur on RPIs, because by -general consensus over all the RPIs and those who have coined these terms in the first place,- RPIs involve permadeath by definition.

In other words, if the game doesn't have permadeath, it isn't an "RPI." It might be a roleplay immersive game. But it doesn't get the designation "RPI." Just like if a game doesn't have code that allows you to kill mobs and/or other characters, then it doesn't get to use the term "hack-n-slash." If it's a game that requires players to pay a monthly fee, it doesn't get to call itself a free-to-play game. EVEN if it -could- be free if you earn credits by writing the monthly newsletter.

RPI is an actual designation. It has certain criteria, one of which is permanent death. What you are looking for isn't a RPI, however "immersive" you want your roleplay to be. That is why some people (including myself) are trying to tell you that you are looking for the wrong thing. Because - you are.

[Ide]

Originally Posted by Burrytar I'll probably just have to be patient until the indie storygaming industry and the mudding industry cross over into one another. See ya in a couple of years?

Yeah, I'd be down to see how a Polaris mud or an In a Wicked Age mud would fare.

However, though at a gut level I'm bothered by it, I think Jazuela is pretty much correct to say that RPI has come to mean a certain set of properties, much as MUSH has come to mean something other than what we talk about when we use the term mud.

You might want to check out the mud Blood Dusk. It's a pretty great mud though I'm not sure what the level of RP is lately; however, it does have incapacitating, rather than fatal, combat.

[Burrytar]

Originally Posted by Jazuela RPI is an actual designation. It has certain criteria, one of which is permanent death. What you are looking for isn't a RPI, however "immersive" you want your roleplay to be. That is why some people (including myself) are trying to tell you that you are looking for the wrong thing. Because - you are.

Fair enough.

***

Originally Posted by Ide Yeah, I'd be down to see how a Polaris mud or an In a Wicked Age mud would fare.

Now you've given me one more reason to get off my butt and check out IAWA. (I'll check Blood Dusk out too, thanks. From the name, I'm guessing that's WoD. :P)

[Ide]

Originally Posted by Burrytar Now you've given me one more reason to get off my butt and check out IAWA. (I'll check Blood Dusk out too, thanks. From the name, I'm guessing that's WoD. :P)

It's Gothic, but not WoD. Unique for a mud.

[Newworlds]

Originally Posted by Jazuela The permadeath debates don't normally occur on RPIs, because by -general consensus over all the RPIs and those who have coined these terms in the first place,- RPIs involve permadeath by definition. In other words, if the game doesn't have permadeath, it isn't an "RPI." It might be a roleplay immersive game. But it doesn't get the designation "RPI." Just like if a game doesn't have code that allows you to kill mobs and/or other characters, then it doesn't get to use the term "hack-n-slash." If it's a game that requires players to pay a monthly fee, it doesn't get to call itself a free-to-play game. EVEN if it -could- be free if you earn credits by writing the monthly newsletter. RPI is an actual designation. It has certain criteria, one of which is permanent death. What you are looking for isn't a RPI, however "immersive" you want your roleplay to be. That is why some people (including myself) are trying to tell you that you are looking for the wrong thing. Because - you are.

This is total hogwash. Saying a MUD is RPI because it has permadeath is like saying a MUD is a RP MUD only if it has unique languages or specific religions or skills levels and guilds. I've heard this argument about "permadeath" being the end all of Roleplay Intensive games and find it rediculous. NW has Permadeath and Resurrected death but neither define the game as Roleplayable or Roleplay Intensive. Nor does the ability to PK define it as intense. By that argument you could say you are not a truly roleplayable world or intense world without ships that sail at sea with the risk of being sunk by pirates or sea monsters or gods that can smite you down for heresy at any moment.

Roleplay by definition means that you act and react in concert with how your character will act and react not how many emotes the game has, how emotes are done, how death occurs, or how many languages and variants of currency the game holds. Roleplay intensive has nothing to do with whether your character can be nuked, die easily on every quest, never come back or takes you four years to reach level 2. Intensive Roleplay is self defined by the individual subjectively not by some consensus from a MUD that has all out pk or permadeath.

Roleplay Enforced on the other hand, while it can vary from game to game slightly, can at least be more definable in that the game management enforces players to stay in character by definition of rules.

[Jazuela]

Originally Posted by Newworlds This is total hogwash. Saying a MUD is RPI because it has permadeath is like saying a MUD is a RP MUD only if it has unique languages or specific religions or skills levels and guilds. I've heard this argument about "permadeath" being the end all of Roleplay Intensive games and find it rediculous. (and then some gratuitous plugging of your game, which you seem to enjoy doing in every thread you participate in) (and then some stuff about your interpretation of what the letters R, P, and I stand for, which are only marginally related to the DESIGNATION of an RPI as a TYPE of mud.

RPI is an actual designation. It has certain criteria, one of which is permanent death.

Are you noticing something in the above two sentences, both of which you quoted but obviously didn't read? The first, is that RPI is an actual designation. The second is that *one* criteria of an RPI is permadeath. Not that an RPI is an RPI "because" it has permadeath, which isn't what I wrote, and which isn't what anyone has written, anywhere, at any time. Except you...because you need the strawman in order for you to include your game in the category it cannot fit into.

If you wish to play a strawman, in an effort to (as usual) puff your chest up about your own game, do so somewhere else. Your game isn't an RPI either. It isn't even close to an RPI. I've played it. It violates just about every criteria of an RPI.

[Newworlds]

Originally Posted by Jazuela Are you noticing something in the above two sentences, both of which you quoted but obviously didn't read?

Um, yes, that is what you wrote, let us quote you:

Originally Posted by Jazuela if the game doesn't have permadeath, it isn't an "RPI."

Again I maintain that this is hogwash as stated before. I won't reiterate the points made because you cannot seem to grasp the concept that RPI is "subjective" not "objective." RPI is defined by the player not the admin.

I also take issue with your "strawman" designation. Do you really have to stoop to name calling to argue your point? Are you afraid of any game but your own being considered RPI? RPE? Even Roleplayable? You are similar to the poster in another thread that complained about admin trying to define what is or is not good roleplay. You are like an action film lover that loves "Kill Bill", but claims that all other films are not true action if they do not have arms flying off with blood squirting out in buckets.

I mean really. If you are going to claim you know NW so well, please define exactly when did you play NW and how long? Did you actually get involved with a guild, religion, plot? Were you ever murdered or put on trial? Were you ever involved with thieves, assassins, intrigue, or secret societies? Exactly what do you call RPI? Logging onto a game and being pk'd in the first hour? Please define it for all of us less experienced roleplayers that do not know the meaning of the word intensive.

I find your comments offensive and lacking substance. You do not include your "criteria" that you claim is RPI criteria. You do not include your background or references to exactly "who" is defining RPI. I can only guess what game you play or what game you are building because your profile conveniently hides these facts.

So Jazuela, if you want to present an argument, please do so by actually reading your own post before you misquote yourself.

[Xerihae]

Ooooo where's my nuclear weapons...

Keep it on topic and avoid personal attacks please. If you want to get into a discussion on what RPI does/should/could stand for it would be better off in a new topic in a different section of the forum.

Have a nice day!

[prof1515]

Originally Posted by Newworlds Um, yes, that is what you wrote, let us quote you: Again I maintain that this is hogwash as stated before. I won't reiterate the points made because you cannot seem to grasp the concept that RPI is "subjective" not "objective." RPI is defined by the player not the admin. I also take issue with your "strawman" designation. Do you really have to stoop to name calling to argue your point? Are you afraid of any game but your own being considered RPI? RPE? Even Roleplayable? You are similar to the poster in another thread that complained about admin trying to define what is or is not good roleplay. You are like an action film lover that loves "Kill Bill", but claims that all other films are not true action if they do not have arms flying off with blood squirting out in buckets. I mean really. If you are going to claim you know NW so well, please define exactly when did you play NW and how long? Did you actually get involved with a guild, religion, plot? Were you ever murdered or put on trial? Were you ever involved with thieves, assassins, intrigue, or secret societies? Exactly what do you call RPI? Logging onto a game and being pk'd in the first hour? Please define it for all of us less experienced roleplayers that do not know the meaning of the word intensive. I find your comments offensive and lacking substance. You do not include your "criteria" that you claim is RPI criteria. You do not include your background or references to exactly "who" is defining RPI. I can only guess what game you play or what game you are building because your profile conveniently hides these facts. So Jazuela, if you want to present an argument, please do so by actually reading your own post before you misquote yourself.

The term RPI has been co-opted by a lot of MUDs to describe themselves even though they bear little resemblance to the type of MUD the term was first used to describe. It's only become subjective because of the desire of other types of MUDs to use it. Personally, I am not a fan of this as it has greatly hurt RPIs in terms of player expectations. Far too often those who complain about RPIs have fit into one of two categories, neither totally dissimiliar from the other.

The first group are H&Sers who object to being "forced" to RP and not be allowed to mob-bash. Why they don't simply play H&S MUDs is beyond me but inevitably you find players who simply want to go around killing things and looting corpses showing up in RPIs and then complaining when they're either told by staff or other players that what they're doing is not appropriate for the game.

The second group are players from games that call themselves RPI but don't possess the criteria of the traditional RPIs, namely a lack of levels, lack of experience points, lack of traditional class implementation (an example of non-traditional class implementation is Armageddon which employs classes but more so as a means of skill determination/potential rather than skill/profession restriction), skill-based advancement, extensive crafting, strict IC role-play enforcement at all times, a lack of global channels, limitations on PK and NPC killing (ie, only where appropriate via role-play circumstances), descriptive identities, and veiled ability and attribute mechanics. It is not the fault of these players that they find these characteristics difficult to adapt to nor is it uncommon for them to express question as to why they're missing or appeal for their institution. They're used to these things and unaware that traditional RPIs don't possess these things. That's where the problem arises.

It's an annual ritual, sometimes more than once a year in fact, to have to explain to players via the forums or over email why there is no way for them to see another character's name when they walk into a room or why they can't know how far they are from mastering a skill.

"Why can't I see a character's name? I've met them before so I should be able to remember it."
"Every character has a different short description and even if there are two with similar ones, they each have a unique physical description."
"That's too hard. I should be able to see their name if I met them before."
"Well do you remember it?"
"No, but my player should be able to."
"If you can't, why could they?"
"There should be a command so I can 'remember' the name of any person my character meets."
"But unless they tell you their name, how are you to know it?"
"The RPI I used to play had this command."

I can remember a time when players didn't ask these questions (I know I didn't when I first started because I was trying out a RPI, not a H&S, and naturally expected there to be differences). But now, it's far more frequent and that's because in the many years since I started playing RPIs the term has been used by far more MUDs and MUD types than it was when I started. There were three games that were called RPIs when I first started playing MUDs (two of which are still operating). Now, the term is used by dozens upon dozens of MUDs, the vast majority of which resemble H&S MUDs more than they do those three RPIs.

Confusing the issue are games which resemble RPIs in most aspects but still retain traces of the H&S code from which they're derived. They may possess many characteristics of RPIs but employ global OOC channels or clear skill mechanics (ie, raw numbers from which players can gauge more data than they realistically could). These games are close enough to RPIs that I've never felt their exclusion was completely just but still not close enough to the original characteristics of an RPI to warrant inclusion (lest it further lead to the problem I illustrated above). What to call them, I asked myself.

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:

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

RPO (Role-Play Oriented) MUD
Policy: Strict dedication to and enforcement of in-character behavior.
Code: Modified or written for RP purposes but still retaining some trace elements of non-RP characteristics (examples include retention of global OOC channels, means of displaying character names, etc).

RPE (Role-Play Enforced) MUD
Policy: Strict dedictation to and enforcement of in-character behavior.
Code: Slight or no modification of the code; most aspects retain the H&S-conceived mechanics.

(Role-Play Encouraged and Role-Play Accepted do not meet the policy criteria listed above and therefore are not included)

In no way does this differentiation define the quality of role-play found within a MUD and create some claim of better role-play in one category or the other. There may be, and likely are, RPE MUDs with vastly better quality role-play than you'll find on some RPIs and RPOs. The quality of role-play is determined not by code or policy, the latter does however ensure consistency, but by the skills of the staff and players themselves. The different terms are merely to serve as guidelines for players so that they may better know what to expect when beginning a RP MUD. The terms have yet to receive widespread use though the term RPO has been used more and more by players and staff on some RPIs. Games that would fall under the term RPO and RPE have on the whole been reluctant to use the term as they were enthusiastic about employing the term RPI before.

Through its use on The RPI Network and hopefully in the RP Community, I hope the confusion the evolution of use of the term RPI will be minimized. It remains to be seen if it will be used beyond that site and within the general MUDding community.

Take care,

Jason

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by Ide However, though at a gut level I'm bothered by it, I think Jazuela is pretty much correct to say that RPI has come to mean a certain set of properties, much as MUSH has come to mean something other than what we talk about when we use the term mud.

Indeed. RPIs are a type of roleplaying intensive mud, but not all roleplaying intensive muds are RPIs - just as MOOs are a type of object-oriented mud, but not all object-oriented muds are MOOs.

[Milawe]

I think the problem that's actually come in with the RPI thing is actually pretty basic. RPI has evolved to have a certain set of "must-haves" by the people who have basically decided that their mud falls into this category and a few select mud that they agree fall into this category. Originally, RPI didn't mean perma-death, nor did it mean "crafting system", nor did it mean any of the stuff that's been listed. It mean roleplay intensive or immersive, which a number of roleplay enforced games out there actually ARE. There are some people who still believe that's what it means, obviously, since a PLAYER believes he's looking for an RPI only to be told that what he is looking for ISN'T an RPI.

As RPI evolves further to mean this very select group, it'll become a misnomer for the games who aren't interested in being pegged down with those specifics. Then someone else will come up with a new term, and people will try to narrow that popular term down into a very specific set of criteria that they hope to exclude other games from in order to be called that very thing!

It's just taking a while for people to decide what is RPI territory and what isn't. Personally, I really couldn't give a hoot! As RPI evolves further and further away from just being roleplaying immersive/roleplaying intensive, games who just care about roleplaying enforcement and the roleplaying environment but not any of the other stuff will dump this argument.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by Mina I think the problem that's actually come in with the RPI thing is actually pretty basic. RPI has evolved to have a certain set of "must-haves" by the people who have basically decided that their mud falls into this category and a few select mud that they agree fall into this category. Originally, RPI didn't mean perma-death, nor did it mean "crafting system", nor did it mean any of the stuff that's been listed.

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".

It would be like me saying "Hmmm...MOO stands for Mud Object Oriented. God Wars II is a mud, and it's object oriented, so I think I'll advertise it as a MOO". I think can you imagine what sort of response I'd get from the MOO community

This subject has also been discussed before, see here: What is necessary to have an RPI?

[prof1515]

Originally Posted by prof1515 ...a lack of levels, lack of experience points, lack of traditional class implementation (an example of non-traditional class implementation is Armageddon which employs classes but more so as a means of skill determination/potential rather than skill/profession restriction), skill-based advancement, extensive crafting, strict IC role-play enforcement at all times, a lack of global channels, limitations on PK and NPC killing (ie, only where appropriate via role-play circumstances), descriptive identities, and veiled ability and attribute mechanics.

Let's not forget detailed character creation and approval before entry.

I forgot a few more things no doubt which will come to me when I've had some sleep and am not sick with the flu.

Kavir has it right. The term was used by a very small number of games to differentiate themselves from the array of RP-enforced MUDs out there. Role-Play Intensive (RPI) is less a reference to the role-play than it is to the nature of the game and how its features are designed for and around role-play.

Take care,

Jason

[Newworlds]

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". It would be like me saying "Hmmm...MOO stands for Mud Object Oriented. God Wars II is a mud, and it's object oriented, so I think I'll advertise it as a MOO". I think can you imagine what sort of response I'd get from the MOO community This subject has also been discussed before, see here: What is necessary to have an RPI?

I like this post it does explain things clearly. The only issue of confusion and the problem stated by Kavir is the choice of RPI. Stating that I created the RPI tagline and telling everyone that only this subset of MUD can be considered RPI would be akin to creating a standard called RRP Mud or Real Roleplay Mud and claiming the standards for a Real Roleplaying Mud are (among others):

1. The Mud must have at least 6 specific Gods.
2. The Mud must have guilds, clans, three distinct nations, and heirarchy of political structure.
3. The Mud must only allow players over 18.
4. Etc.

The trouble is that I am now defining what Real Roleplay is based on my limited subset of rules and conditions that do not validate what is real roleplaying.

By the same token, again as Kavir stated, this is the real problem, RPI is a poor distinction. Perhaps a better definition would be RPP (Roleplay Permadeath), RPL (Roleplay Leveless system), and on. These distinctions are much more identifiable and do not imply the MUD is somehow more roleplay intensive than any other Roleplayable game. Unless of course, that is what the originators are trying to define.

The sad point is that most of us aren't even MUD's anymore (Multi User Dungeons) though we are Multi User Domains (another definition of MUD), yet we all call ourselves a MUD.

I remember when a similar argument about FREE came up and costed over 500 posts of arguing over the definition of FREE. What a headache. I think it silly we even argue amongst ourselves for no better reason that to feel better about our games or those that we play. Let's face it. Every single text MUD you play (even those I may not like) have qualities in them that draw interest, whether you are RPE, RPI, RPP, RPO, MOO, MUSH, HS, or MMORPG.

As for the staff, players, and admin of NW. We are none of the above. We are a game. Play if you want. Only requirement: You have to stay in character (eg. Roleplay). Have fun!

[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.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by Newworlds I like this post it does explain things clearly. The only issue of confusion and the problem stated by Kavir is the choice of RPI. Stating that I created the RPI tagline and telling everyone that only this subset of MUD can be considered RPI would be akin to creating a standard called RRP Mud or Real Roleplay Mud and claiming the standards for a Real Roleplaying Mud are (among others):

I think the main problem is that some people take offence at the literal definition of the label, particularly those who feel that their mud has very immersive roleplaying. If that label had instead been something like "RPA" (standing for "Role-Playing Armageddon-style"), implying that such games have a similar roleplaying environment to Armageddon, I doubt there would be so many objections.

Unfortunately the label chosen was "RPI", and it's been used for many years among those who play the Armageddon-style muds; when they look for similar muds to play, they're going to ask for RPIs.

Originally Posted by Newworlds The sad point is that most of us aren't even MUD's anymore (Multi User Dungeons) though we are Multi User Domains (another definition of MUD), yet we all call ourselves a MUD.

It's the whole "label means more than the literal definition" thing again. Technically, not even the original MUD was a Multi-User version of Dungeon (i.e., they didn't download a copy of Dungeon and make it multiplayer, they just borrowed the name). But MUD was still a Multi-User game in the style of Dungeon, so the name stuck, and was applied to the entire genre. As all of our games belong to the same genre, we are all MUDs.

An interesting comment by Richard Bartle: "AberMUD was, for a while, known as AberMUG. The reason it was known as AberMUG was because I asked Alan Cox not to call it AberMUD because otherwise people would think MUD was a generic term. I used to use MUA ("Multi-User Adventure") as the generic term. It didn't catch on, and despite my efforts, MUD did become the generic term."

It's very difficult to stop people using a particular term; I don't think you can realistically stop people from using "RPI" to refer to roleplaying muds with an Armageddon-style feature set. You might be able to dilute the term over time, but I don't think that's a very constructive solution.

[Jazuela]

This subject has also been discussed before, see here: What is necessary to have an RPI?
I like this post it does explain things clearly. The only issue of confusion and the problem stated by Kavir is the choice of RPI. Stating that I created the RPI tagline and telling everyone that only this subset of MUD can be considered RPI would be akin to creating a standard called RRP Mud or Real Roleplay Mud and claiming the standards for a Real Roleplaying Mud are (among others):

1. The Mud must have at least 6 specific Gods.
2. The Mud must have guilds, clans, three distinct nations, and heirarchy of political structure.
3. The Mud must only allow players over 18.
4. Etc.

The trouble is that I am now defining what Real Roleplay is based on my limited subset of rules and conditions that do not validate what is real roleplaying.

---------------Another straw man arguement.

Oh and Newworlds, calling your arguement a strawman arguement isn't namecalling. Do you even know what a strawman is?

What you garbled above - let's apply see how ridiculous it looks with another term:

It would be akin to stating that Hummel's created the term hotdog and telling everyone that only this subset of meat can be considered a hotdog, and that this subset must have the following standards:

1) The meat itself must come from a cow.
2) The spices must not include MSG
3) The paprika must be from anywhere other than New Zealand.

And your trouble is that you are now defining hot, by your limited subset of rules and conditions.

See what I just did? See what you are doing? You are taking a term, that has been defined, and used by a "general consensus" with a general, overall meaning, and taken that term apart and nitpicked on a single word, or declared it false because a single word of that term can be defined in other ways.

Yes, the I in RPI can mean this. The R in RPI can be interpreted that way. The P can be used for this purpose. However - the term, the phrase, the collective grouping known as RPI - has a defined and generally regarded as functional purpose.

Just like "hot" can mean a few things, and "dog" can mean a few things. "Hotdog", in the hypothetical example above, would have been a very specific term, created by a specific company, to be used to describe a specific food. Just because you think "hot" refers to your sister's beautiful legs, and "dawg" is how you feel about your best buddy, does -not- mean that "hotdog" means your sister and your best buddy are getting jiggy with each other.