[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.