Determining the Origin and Meaning of RPI
 

I'm separating this so as not to derail a thread but the inaccuracies below bear pointing out.

First, we'll address a recent inaccurate "alternative" to the term RPI.

RPI isn't a flame. It's a historically used term. Creating another term that is inaccurate is not useful since it only serves to present false information which will further confuse. If you say SoI has Armageddon's feature set, then you'd be incorrect; likewise if you said the same about Harshlands.

Armageddon has its own feature set. Harshlands has its own feature set. Shadows of Isildur has its own feature set. For example...

One of the characteristics of RPIs is that they do not present players with precise information regarding skill aptitude. They all do not present this information the same way however.

Armageddon simply presents a skill without any indication of a character's aptitude at that skill. Everything is hidden.

Harshlands and its descendants utilize a very basic system featuring four (formerly three) terms to denote a general idea of skill aptitude without affording the player any precision whatsoever. The numbers are all hidden including skill caps.

Each finds a different method to present this information in vague terms, Armageddon's method being the most ambiguous. Regardless, they achieve the same effect by preventing players from ascertaining their precise ability. So, while employing different feature styles to achieve it, their goal and effect is the same: the prevention of players from ascertaining precise skill aptitude.

This is but one example of the differences in how they achieve a desired effect. The philosophy is the same, but the method differ. There are also other significant differences between the features of each, even more so at the time the term RPI was coined.

For example, Armageddon features ranged weapons. Until recently, Harshlands had no ranged weapon code. Even still, while they now have the code capability courtesy of Shadows of Isildur, it is restricted in its application in the game world. Shadows of Isildur dispenses with the typical inventory command by employing right and left hand slots for manipulation and storage of objects. Harshlands and Armageddon (at least at last check) both still employed a standard inventory. So, while each has some similarities, they also feature differences in their code which would make any attempt to denote their shared similarities confusing if a name were attached to it.

But they all share a set of some features even while differing in others. Games with these similarities were all called RPI. Obviously if the term was used to describe a small number of games with some similar features but not used to describe other games with different features, the term was being used in reference to an identification of these similarities. What were these similarities? They were the shared characteristics I listed in another thread, one of which was permanent death. That was what made them RPI.

They didn't get flamed. They were corrected in the hopes that more accuracy in their terminology might help them find what they were looking for. Asking for something when you mean something else is a good way to not get what you want. The flames started when people began to argue their opinion that anything could be RPI, an opinion that others, not to mention the historical record, dispute.

It's confusing because you're identifying a single game as the source of similarities when at least two games would be required to form a comparison. Other RPIs share at least 19 characteristics with Armageddon but even there differ in the means by which several are applied. Armageddon does things its own way. Harshlands did things its own way. Shadows of Isildur does things its own way. They share 19 characteristics but are each their own. That set of 19 characteristics leads each of them to possess similarities that make them distinct from most other MUDs. That difference from other MUDs led to the use of a term to describe them: Role-Playing Intensive or RPI.

They also share distinct differences. Armageddon differs in numerous ways from the others. Saying that something is a Godwars style mud is neither a slam on Godwars nor a declaration that the game is just a rip off KaVir's original work. It's naming a very well known style of mud and paying KaVir a bit of tribtue on the side.[/quote]

In which case coming up with a new term after an established term already existed would be redundant. Additionally, if games which did not resemble Godwars started calling themselves "Godwars style", it would prove just as confusing and inaccurate as the present misuse of RPI by MUDs which do not possess the features that the term applies.

No, I did not. I said that in addition to Armageddon and Harshlands, the third was derived from Harshlands. From one of Harshlands' other descendents, Shadows of Isildur, the code of the vast majority of RPIs is now descended. Additionally, a third (and a fourth and possibly fifth in development) RPI codebase came into existance years later separately derived from a H&S codebase.

As far as I know, Armageddon is the sole representative of its particular take on RPIs.

I used to play H&S. There's a distinct difference between the two and a H&S calling themselves RPI would be a grossly inaccurate statement. Likewise, a RPI calling themselves H&S would be inaccurate too. So would be calling any H&S a RP-enforced. Or calling any particular type of game by a term used to describe a different type of game with features and characteristics that don't apply. It's just plain inaccurate if it's unintentional and downright dishonest if done deliberately.

Role-Playing Intensive, or RPI, is a term that was applied to a small number of MUDs. They were role-playing enforced MUDs. But they weren't the only role-playing enforced MUDs. There were others. A small group of them was singled out by the use of a specific term to refer to them: Role-Playing Intensive, RPI for short. What separated these games from other games that had required role-play?

Each RPI had numerous code changes from the base codes from which they were derived, so many changes that they barely resembled the codebases from which they started. They were gutted and existing systems were added to or replaced with completely new ones. Basic MUD concepts like experience points and levels were taken out altogether. But there was more than just code changes.

Different policy philosophies were employed. Some of these were practiced on other games, others were not. In most cases, code changes were made to support these policies whether it meant disabling global OOC channels for player use or eliminating the ability to simply enter a game without staff approval.

An examination of the first games to which the term applied reveals at least 19 characteristics shared by each of them. That's not to say they don't share other similiarities, but these are the code features and policies which are not dependent upon specific conditions which might be unique to that game's setting or theme beyond enforced role-play hence the term Role-Play Intensive.

(To avoid character limits, I'm continuing in the next post)

Re: Determining the Origin and Meaning of RPI
 

In examining the first games which were called RPI, the following similarities were found. This list is based in part off of my own study of the term which began in 2002 as well as discussions on various forums dating back at least as early as 2004.

Now, can anyone add any other distinctive features common to the original RPIs, be it code or policy? What other distinct philosophies or code features were found on Armageddon, Harshlands, and its direct descendants? Were these features base features found in the original unmodified codebase? If so, how were they modified to make them distinct from other games using that codebase?

Please omit opinion from the discussion. This isn’t about what you, I, or anyone thinks is “best” or “superior” (or “worst” or “inferior” for that matter). This isn’t a discussion to throw in what you think or want the term RPI to mean. This isn’t a discussion on the quality of role-play found on a RPI or any other type of MUD. This is an examination of the original RPIs to try and discern as comprehensive as possible a list of features that would have been common to those games at the time in which the term RPI was coined to describe them.

Also, please refrain from personal attacks, character assassination, straw man arguments, videos, threats, or anything else which is not of analytical nature pertaining to the determination of the questions above. I might also go so far as to say that if you don’t have first-hand experience with RPIs you should avoid this discussion but there are numerous members of the community who possess knowledge on the topic and it would be both unfair and unwise to exclude their input and analysis.

Thank you.

Re: Determining the Origin and Meaning of RPI
 

Is this qualification only for posters that may disagree, as the posts in this thread already contain opinions? Just asking.

Re: Determining the Origin and Meaning of RPI
 

Note: This post is intended to clarify the source of the AFS term and why I created it. It is not to be taken as a chance to derail this thread. The purpose was to help alleviate the chance that people would argue the appropriateness of AFS.. or lack thereof.. since the original post did have a lot of things saying why it was not applicable.

Okay, since I kinda started the whole AFS thing, I think I should speak up. That term was coined merely as an example. I have little experience with the type of MUD in question, so I took the one that I have heard about the most.

Here is an excerpt from a post at another site that talks about what I was intending, and my thoughts on the term RPI.


(Excerpt begin)
I also want to state that I have nothing against the RPI muds. The only real problem is that the moniker is misleading for those that aren't accustomed to them. I honestly think that the best solution for the whole RPI mud debacle is to accept that the MUD community has evolved to where there are more games out there that do require RP, and are pretty intense about it. Thus the RPI moniker will continue to be used by them. Instead of fighting over who can use it, and it's actual meaning (you guys have to admit that it is a bit confusing for those not in the know so to speak), I would suggest actually taking those central core features that are seen in most (if not all) of the games you consider to be 'true' RPIs, and simply codify that into Such&Such Feature Set.

Allow RPI to stand for the quality & level of RP for the game. Keep the RPI tag to denote your RP playstyle, but also have a tag of Armageddon Feature Set (yes I know you don't all want to reference Aramageddon) or something. I only used AFS in my post to Jaz on TMS as an example.. didn't intend for it to continue really, lol. Simply find a generic one.. maybe RFS for Realism Feature Set or something.
(Excerpt end)

As has been said by everyone on both sides, the term RPI has been confusing and misleading as the MUD culture has changed. New comers to the scene have taken the term at face value. The AFS (note only using this to denote exactly the type of game.. not the Armageddon game soley) style play is designed to create an intensive roleplaying environment, which we can all agree is wonderful. However, there are other games which can generate an intensive roleplaying environment, but yet have a different take on the presentation.

That is why I feel the term RPI has become such a confusing term for people, and a major sore spot it seems. This is why, in my excerpt, I suggested letting RPI stand for the level and quality of roleplay, but that the AFS (again used solely just to differentiate) style people get together and design a new moniker that is labeled upfront with it's shorthand initials as a Feature Set. This, in the end, will help eliminate the trouble we are having today and stands a better chance at not being misconstrued in the future since it will not be vague or at the very least less open to debate as to its' meaning.

Re: Determining the Origin and Meaning of RPI
 

This is actually impossible, as the very term RPI is opinion. Trying to measure the "intensity" of RP, which is by definition wide open to vast individual emotion and creativity, is impossible. There's no factual way to do it, it can only be done by opinion. At best you could say "95% of role players agree that feature xxx makes their roleplay more intensive". It would still be a value judgement, but at least it would be one backed up by the majority of roleplayers.

However, by your description of how the term came about, it is clear that did not happen. There was no massive, representative poll of RPers. Instead a group of RPers on a small selection of muds that shared similar characteristics decided for everybody what defines intense RP. The sample size was small, and inherently biased. The methods used to decide what makes intense RP were not sufficient to make RPI a factual label, and I'd go so far as to say that there is -no- method that could possibly make such a label factual, because it by nature is open to individual opinion.

If you want to stop having arguements about it, stop using a label that by it's very nature is a value judgement. If you don't like AFS, find another label that isn't a value judgement instead.

Re: Determining the Origin and Meaning of RPI
 

Mabus, you are a wealth of comedic introspection.:)

Re: Determining the Origin and Meaning of RPI
 

This is where the whole argument fails, as the basis of your logic is at fault in the argument.

You state that:
1) Part of my definition, before my recent modifications, is what has been accepted by a small group in the past.
2) A new definition has developed independent of this small group, and been accepted by a larger group recently.
3) Therefore others are wrong and my older, but now modified, definition is correct.

It is (partially) the logical fallacy of "Appeal to Antiquity".

I normally would not point out logical fallacies in an open public forum debate, as I believe that opinions matter and can be taken as a valid means of communicating. But since you asked that no opinions be used you have asked for a higher standard of debate.

Re: Determining the Origin and Meaning of RPI
 

I was not using the first part to validate the second part. I was attempting to address some misconceptions in earlier posts from another thread without derailing that thread.

The old version is not modified. It is not my definition. I am attempting to ascertain the original definition as it was at the time of its inception. The first part of my post was not being used to support the second. This was explained to you in the personal message. Please do not attempt to derail the discussion by veering from the questions posed. As I told you in the message, I'm not looking for a wish list definition, I'm not looking for people's personal preferences. I'm only looking for their thoughts on similarities between the first RPIs when the term was first applied to them, similarities which would have contributed to the identification of two different games being identified as the same and distinct from others.

Re: Determining the Origin and Meaning of RPI
 

It's pretty simple. The oldschool ones, Armageddon, Harshlands, Forever's End started using it between them. Who started it? Who knows. The point is they chose RPI because it was true about the features they used as well as the roleplaying going on at the mud. I don't think anyone disputes the roleplay that takes place at RPI's, if you do well you're simply uneducated and inexperienced with the mud probably. Either way, SOI started using it and gradually it gained more and more exposure and fame, and a lot of roleplay muds I guess are starting to use it. Which obviously ****es us RPI players off to a certain extent, because we don't want the word that was originated from our muds to start being applied to every other "roleplay intensive" mud out there. Why? Because most RPI players like to see what else is out there, we want to experience the best roleplay and find MUDs that have the concept, meaning, and spirit of the original RPI's had and still have to this day.

The point is, we didn't want it to become what it has, it just eventually did I suppose. We want to be able to differentiate a true RPI from a fake one. Heh.

Re: Determining the Origin and Meaning of RPI
 

So the "best" roleplay is found at RPI muds? I dare ask the question with the risk of appearing 'uneducated'.

Re: Determining the Origin and Meaning of RPI
 

Re: Determining the Origin and Meaning of RPI
 

So come up with a less ambiguous acronym and use that instead. I don't know how many times this has to be said before it sinks in. Stop whinging that the original, ambiguous term got hijacked and deal with the future instead of complaining about how much better things were in the past.

Honestly, I don't even know how this discussion has lasted so long. The history of this should really have gone something like:

1 - RolePlaying Intensive term coined by players of original three "RPI" games.
2 - Term gets hijacked due to it being ambiguous in its meaning, despite intentions of original coiners, because no matter how much they say "it defines a set of features as well" there's no mention of that in the acronym.
3 - Original coiners go "Oops, I guess what the acroynm stands for could be used by other MUDs. Better come up with something that's not so easily used by any MUD that considers itself to have intensive roleplay."
4 - New term adopted.
5 - End of argument.

Instead we get thread after thread on here about this whole silly mess, with the same people on both sides arguing and flaming each other. I, and I think a few people on here will share this sentiment, am getting sick of the whole thing. As we all know hindsight is a wonderful thing, but so is the ability to know when obit's funny and oh-so-accurate dead horse photo is the reality and move on.

Re: Determining the Origin and Meaning of RPI
 

How about RRPI for Really Role Play intensive?

RPINRWMI Role play intensive-- no we really mean it!

You can label the mud anyway you want. You can give it any number of features, but in the end, it's really the players who determine the intensity of the roleplay that goes on, isn't it?

Re: Determining the Origin and Meaning of RPI
 

Oh here's one: RPITDASOFAW.

Stands for: RPI that defines a set of features as well.

You can shorten it to simply RPI.

Sounds familiar somehow, but it's got a nice ring to it.

Re: Determining the Origin and Meaning of RPI
 

Huh. Just like the term MUD. The MUDs you're talking about have gameplay that bears almost no resemblance to what the original MUDs had.

The term MUD evolved and you seem to be happy to use that to refer to games that aren't really anything like the original MUDs, but god forbid anyone did that with the term RPI. Does that about sum it up?

--matt

Re: Determining the Origin and Meaning of RPI
 

QFT. :)

How about ALRP as a new term? (Armageddon-Like Role Play).

Re: Determining the Origin and Meaning of RPI
 

I've said it once, I'll say it again. This thread holds no weight until one of the three ORIGINAL MUD owners decides to drop by and weigh in on this concept. It is silly that other people are trying to describe the origin and meaning of RPI when they have nothing to do with the three original games.

BTW - Another good post Xerihae.

Re: Determining the Origin and Meaning of RPI
 

It doesn't matter. MUDs are a broad term that have been generally, widely, publicly used for two decades or more. RPI however was specifically being used by only a small group of muds, to say that it's the same is a poor analogy of sorts. Even though you make a good point, my point is that since it's the internet there's not much we can do about it first. Secondly it's just a word so I honestly don't care as much about it as others do, I just don't want to search RPI and find Achaea is all.

Re: Determining the Origin and Meaning of RPI
 

Noooo!!! It's jsut a mispelling of LARP!! They can't have that, because I accidentally type that all the time when refering to LARPs (no joke either, just I usually catch it and correct it)

Sorry I couldn't resist!

Re: Determining the Origin and Meaning of RPI
 

More or less retired mudder and former staff member of Armageddon weighing in here:

I think what tends to rankle the RPI crowd is that for a long time the RPI world was this little unpopular niche of the mudding community. For years, it was a self-referential term really only used among the players of certain games. Then, as the MMORPGs came along, more and more muds started trying to specialize in roleplaying, as it was something that text muds actually could do better than MMORPGs. First you saw the rise of roleplay enforced. Then you saw the rise of roleplay required. In the constant battle to gain players and one-up each other, other games started saying, "We're RPI" because that was seen as one step further than RPE. The RPI crowd (or at least those that care enough to actually engage in such debates) felt these interlopers were trying to steal their thunder (albeit, it's some pretty quiet thunder).

Anyway, that whole thing has been debated ad nauseum. It doesn't really matter to me, but I do think that some of the muds who are now claiming RPI are some of the same muds who check every feature box on their ads, because they're taking the "throw enough poo on the wall and see what sticks" approach to gaining players. And those same muds are the ones who make it almost impossible to have any sort of objective standards for categorizing muds.

Re: Determining the Origin and Meaning of RPI
 

Um. No and no. If you are going to "weigh" in as someone with authority, at least get the facts straight. RPI came about in 2004 with RPIMUD.com, not "years ago" like last decade. Roleplaying enforced MUDS and intensive roleplaying muds were around since the early 90's not AFTER WoW or Ultima Online. They were before these graphical powerhouses.

Finally, if you are going to "point out" these muds, point them out, do not make a global statement.

Thanks.

I'm still waiting for someone who is actually the owner of one of the original 3 MUDS from the creation of RPIMUD to step forward and clear up the mess in the mud.

Re: Determining the Origin and Meaning of RPI
 

You should probably stop posting. No offense.

Re: Determining the Origin and Meaning of RPI
 

Really? A search of usenet says otherwise:
Here's a from 1998 which is... a decade ago. ;)

I didn't say there weren't RPE or such before MMORPGs. I said that it became an increasingly attractive aspect of mudding that many, many muds started trying to emphasize as a way of attracting players. I mean, do you not remember the tons and tons and tons of arguments on TMC and TMS about what it means to have RP-encourage or RP-enforced? It was a result of muds that previously weren't concerned with RP trying to cash in on players from the RP niche.

Fair enough.

Re: Determining the Origin and Meaning of RPI
 

I was off on RPIMUD, it began in 2005, not 2004.

Somewhat true in a global sense I will grant you that, and even more true today as Roleplay is basically defunct in MMORPG's.

Re: Determining the Origin and Meaning of RPI
 

I'm not sure that really matters, as the term was in broad use at least as far back as 1998, as evidenced by the linked usenet post. If you'll look at the context of some of the RPI posts from back then, it's pretty obvious that the term was in common use elsewhere prior to that, and that it was applied specifically to Arm, FEM, HL, and 4Lands. I imagine if you could search the ISCA BBS posts from their mudding forums, which is where most of the RPI community (I told you we were insular back then) hung out and communicated, you'd find frequent use of the term. Of course, the ISCA deal does also serve to show that the term might not have been used broadly in the mudding community at large to reference that particular set of games. Anyway, I digress.

Re: Determining the Origin and Meaning of RPI
 

I'm certain that as early as 2002 at least, RPI was a term being used, because I was developing a game that aspired to be one. RPImud.com came about to group together MUDs that had been using the term RPI for years prior.

Re: Determining the Origin and Meaning of RPI
 

I first started playing an RPI in 1999 (prior to that I had only played H&S). In 1999 the term RPI was firmly established to refer to a small group of MUDs sharing a set of features despite different codebase origins (with the exception of FEM which was derived from HL). The RPIMUD Network (rpimud.com) was created in 2005 by the creator of FEM, long after the term had been first used and bastardized as well.

The RPIMUD Network was somewhat hastily thrown together and seemingly without knowledge of the abuse of the term that had developed. Wade's definition of "RPI" was so vague that it literally didn't require anything more than the presence of role-play to qualify. By that definition, TMS could qualify as RPI under such vague terms so long as a couple of us role-played via a thread. Almost immediately, a variety of games appeared on the list that ranged from traditional RPIs to "role-play accepted" H&S MUDs. Within no time, the majority of games on the site was comprised of non-RPI MUDs. That process has lately reversed itself with a slew of new RPIs under development and the ratio of RPIs to non-RPIs is around 3:2 (as some are still under development it's not easy to ascertain their features).

In late 2005 and early 2006, in response to this problem, I began using a new term to describe those games which made a genuine effort of code overhaul that separated them from being simply "role-play enforced" H&S-code MUDs. The term I used was Role-Play Oriented, or RPO. Wade liked the term and adopted it for his own use (though not in the original context of meaning I had given it) when redesigning the site. He left before completing the site overhaul but the page bearing his use of RPO can be found .

The RPIMUD Network is now run by a committee of three (interviewing for a fourth) of which I am a member. We've thus far agreed that it would be unfair to just boot affiliates who have been with the site for years and thus we're looking to expand the qualifications to be listed on the site to include all role-play enforced text-based games (not just MUDs but MUSHes as well). We're trying to establish some working definitions, hence the purpose of this thread, in order to differentiate the MUDs on the site for the purpose of equal representation in the committee. By coming up with working definitions of RPI, RPO, etc. we can then expand the committee without the fear of one group, be it RPIs or any other, being unequally represented on the Operating Committee (as the management of the site is called).

Now, can we please get back to the question at hand seeing as it's only the first of several the committee would like to have input on? In other words, can anyone add any other distinctive features common to the original RPIs, be it code or policy? What other distinct philosophies or code features were found on Armageddon, Harshlands, and the other original RPIs? Were these features base features found in the original unmodified codebase? If so, how were they modified to make them distinct from other games using that codebase?

Thank you, and take care.

Jason

Re: Determining the Origin and Meaning of RPI
 

Here's a possible 20th feature similarity between the original RPIs: code-implemented delays in movement execution. I'm still checking to verify, but didn't all of the original RPIs utilize a coded delay when moving from room to room? I know that between Armageddon and Harshlands this feature similarity exists but that they execute it differently. On one, the delay is assessed before the PC moves to the next room while on the other the transfer to the next room occurs first and the delay afterward. Regardless, the intent and effect is the same by removing the rapid fire movement from room to room that can occur in the base codes from which these games were derived.

Re: Determining the Origin and Meaning of RPI
 

Sheesh, why did you hide that fact for so long. I assumed as much as you were so gung ho about the term RPI.

Re: Determining the Origin and Meaning of RPI
 

I'm relatively certain all ROM MUDs also have this. My reasoning? If you spam in a bunch of commands and hit enter, you still move at a (relatively) sedate place. If you place the same commands in a mobprog and have the mob execute it, it's done lightning-fast because the mob has no movement/speed restrictions placed on it. I would imagine it was put in to stop people with expansive macro/alias sets from running rings around people who just type. I'm sure someone with more familiarity with the ROM coding could point out the relevant section of code, but I can't be bothered to go find it because I am lazy ;)

Re: Determining the Origin and Meaning of RPI
 

Interesting. I'm not very familiar with ROM so I'll have to do some inquiries with folks who are. I'm not completely certain but I think the movement command delays on the RPIs extend to NPCs as well which might therefore help define the implementation of this change. RPIs like HL were Diku-derivitives and thus the change was a custom one and might have been across the boards with PCs and NPCs alike. Thanks for the heads-up on ROM though. Like I said, more research on this needs to be done which is why I'm hesitant to put it on the list. :)

Take care,

Jason

Re: Determining the Origin and Meaning of RPI
 

A question: why would anyone imagine that the origin of the term "RPI" is even faintly relevant to anything? Words change their meaning over time, and once they have changed it's pointless to carry on trying to use them in their original sense; that simply obscures your meaning rather than clarifying it. Language is dynamic.

Re: Determining the Origin and Meaning of RPI
 

That's really interesting...

Now, for the sake of argument, how did you try to be one? Did you work on a really good backstory and try to encourage the right players to come by, or did you just try to implement a specific set of features?

Re: Determining the Origin and Meaning of RPI
 

Because when the term was invented it referred to a very small group of MUDs. While no one set out a clear definition of exactly what constituted RPI, it served a purpose by assisting those who coined and used it to reference the specific type of MUD design and philosophy they were referring to and seeking. As used today, it serves little to no purpose because there's no standard definition and is used to describe pretty much the same thing as several other terms.

Think of the term "monkey". People use it to describe a lot of creatures including gorillas, chimpanzees, and the other apes as well as some types of prosimians. But apes and prosimians are not monkeys. Many people can't tell the difference and use the word in such a generic sense but to someone who knows the difference, it's quite clear. The term "monkey" has a definite meaning and refer to specific types of primates, even if the general public couldn't tell a bonobo from a baboon. The same is true of the term RPI. Six or seven years ago if you said you were looking for a RPI, the people using the term knew what you were talking about even if there wasn't a concise definition of the characteristics written down.

The same set of characteristics is still referred to as RPI. The only difference is that a lot of people started using the term but without any clear understanding of it, many based on a linguistic misunderstanding and in a manner to refer to subjective characteristics that can't be quantified ("intense role-play" means different things to different people after all). But just as a lot of people call a gorilla a monkey, it's not nor does their misuse of the term mean that the term RPI means any MUD any more than monkey is an acceptable word to describe a gorilla. Yes, "monkey" has other definitions but they refer to completely different uses such as addiction ("monkey on your back") or to a foolish person ("those monkeys at the tavern") but those are completely different uses, not misuses.

The problem facing use of the term RPI to describe anything but those games to which it originally referred is that there's no standard definition. The games to which it was first applied shared certain characteristics, characteristics which have been present now in over two dozens different games over a period of more than a decade and a half. No such set of characteristics is present in the other games as the term has been used by everything from role-play enforced games to role-play accepted H&S games. Look at Armageddon and you see those 19 characteristics mentioned at the beginning of this thread. Look at Harshlands and you see the same 19 of 19. Look at Shadows of Isildur and you see 19 of 19 as well. Look at any of the other two dozen or so games that are clearly identified as RPI and all 19 are present there too. A clear definition can be formed as to what kind of game the term is referring to. Now look at some of the games over which use of the term is contested and you see 15 of 19, 13 of 19, or 6 of 19 and in some cases the 6 on one game are not included in the 13 on another. There's no consistency.

Thus there really isn't another definition for the word, merely a lack of understanding of the existing definition. Therefore, has the definition really changed or does it just mean people don't know the definition and simply use it improperly. The purpose of this thread is to aid in clarifying what was meant and dispelling linguistic misinterpretations (such as the grammatically incorrect reading of the term as "intense role-play") which have clouded the context of the original definition. Just as the term monkey doesn't mean gorillas and chimpazees regardless of its misuse by some in reference to these creatures, so too does RPI not mean other MUDs just because of misunderstanding. The definition hasn't really changed, it's just misused since there doesn't seem to be any real definition to replace it. It's just, to quote more than one person in earlier discussions, "what people want it to mean". That's not a definition though.

There seems to be some question as to "what difference does it make" if the term is used in such a general sense. For those seeking the type of games that the term originally applied, it serves the important purpose of distinguishing such games from the hundreds of other MUDs out there, just as it did when the term was coined. But what of the opposite? What difference does it make if the term is only used in its original context? Role-play MUD is a term that equally serves the purpose that such a general use does without an original meaning that can lend an alternative earlier definition. If some feel that all that is required to be RPI is the presence of role-play and not even an enforced role-play policy, is that not simply a role-play MUD? RPI has a specific meaning which has existed as long as the term itself. Other uses lack any clear similarity of characteristics beyond that which is already denoted by the term role-play MUD (or if one need be more specific, role-play encouraged or role-play enforced MUD).

Take care,

Jason

Re: Determining the Origin and Meaning of RPI
 

After seeing this go 'round and 'round, I think it can be boiled down to this: the RPI folks are trying to create a "brand" or "trademark" well after the creation of their "product". However, the term they used originally has been co-opted by the community at large. Furthermore, the term RPI, unlike "monkey", is formed of 3 words that have generic meaning, and even the order is nothing special as other terms like "RP enforced" and "RP accepted" is the common way to describe a MUD.

Why are brand names nowadays usually some sort of "made-up" word? Because of this very reason, I think. You can't get people to consider a branding unique if they already have an understanding, right or wrong" about the words you choose, unless you are very, very successful and ubiquitous.

So the way I see it? Don't beat your heads against the wall. Make a new term and trademark it. Or maybe, drop the notion that the "I" means "intensive". Create an graphical trademark around the letters RPI and say that it just means "RPI". Or if you want, pick a new word, like "Initiative".

I imagine there are legal ways to protect your brand, and ways to license games to use it, but I don't know the specifics.

Re: Determining the Origin and Meaning of RPI
 

To further shasarak's point that language is dynamic, how many of you would feel offended if told:

"You look very gay, like a fag-smoking guy on his element"?

Well, maybe in England, 50 years ago, this would have been received in a much different light than today's US.

Re: Determining the Origin and Meaning of RPI
 

Good post. This is pretty much my suggestion as well. Just drop the meaning for the acronym altogether.

My question, I guess is: what is the motivation of mud owners to label their games RPI now? How is it different from role-play enforced? I guess that part of it is the trendiness of the term RPI.

Why, though, is RPI a trendy term? Because of a buzz that was created around the term... by the original RPI muds.

Predictably, the "buzz" around RPI will die out as the term becomes basically another meaningless term like roleplay enforced or roleplay mandatory. No one is really at fault, it's just the way things happen. I think this dynamic repeats itself in real life all the time. For example, when a small, trendy hip town like Austin, Boulder, or Portland becomes "discovered." Suddenly, everyone wants to move there and enjoy the coolness of that thing. When all of the outsiders move in, there is a backlash from the "locals" because they perceive the interlopers as destroyers of the very thing which makes the locations special. The people moving in, meanwhile, appreciate and love the very things that the town represents, and they don't understand why they're being accused of trying to change things or destroy the good things in the town.

The same dynamic repeats itself in life all the time, with bands, bars, sports, etc... It would probably be an interesting subject for a Freakonomics style book.

Re: Determining the Origin and Meaning of RPI
 

Problem is that it's a made-up list of features co-opted by several muds. You can't really license it or trademark it because it's not actually a product. It's kind of like how "cola" is a kind of drink that is sweet and has carbonation except that people try to enforce how "cola" is used rather than cola evolving to mean what it means now. (Well, and cola doesn't really stand for some real words that could be taken to mean something else.) There's pretty much nothing you can legally do with it unless all the muds with that feature set want to come under one business that holds the trademark. It wouldn't be worth the money to do that anyway since only a few people are probably this adamant that this specific feature set is the only type of game they'll ever play. Trademarking isn't cheap!

Re: Determining the Origin and Meaning of RPI
 

I still think they should just go with AFS. Drop the Armageddon and just have it be "A Feature Set". As far as I know, no other mud groups really try to categorize themselves so specifically with a list of preferred features, so making it as simple as "A Feature Set" would be clear enough. It'd be at least as clear as "RPI". RPFS? Roleplay feature set? That's probably more clear than all of them.

Yeah, I think I heard about it a few years back with some disgruntled Threshold player made some post about playing a roleplay intensive mud where the roleplay was really intense. Thus, my first impression of the term RPI was always that it stood for "roleplay intense." I didn't really pay attention to it then.

Then it cropped up some in the past three years on TMS when I was reading the site on and off. Again, I actually didn't really pay attention except to think it was not really that different from the terms MUD, MUSH, roleplay enforced, roleplay encouraged, roleplay accepted, etc. It wasn't until this thread happened that I something seemed a bit off to me:



So there was a buzz, but the buzz wasn't really loud and clear for people who weren't really involved in that specific community or for people who didn't keep with every trend that happens in the mudding world. I know now that that the players of this particular feature set want a distinction from other roleplay enforced muds, but I still maintain that it's not quite as clear as its made out to be. Half of the muds listed on RPImud.com don't fit what is posted here as the features required to actually be a part of the group. The standard, before now, just seemed to be "We think this mud's roleplaying is intense, and their code promotes it." Perhaps the people who have spent 300 hours of research on the subject of RPI know better, but most of the world (even the mudding world) probably don't care enough to spend even 1/100th of that time looking into it.

I had kind of thought that it had already gone "generic" since the term's kind of just slung around by tons of the newer muds. I figured they were just trying to say, "Hey, we've got RP here!" and players would be expected to research the individual mud's features themselves.

I have to say that I find it a bit silly that a certain players expect to basically have things dumbed down to three letters for them, and then they are horribly offended when the features on the mud don't meet their expectations. That's just me, though. Most people don't know what the three letters stand for except for the generic terms they represent. They have no idea that it involves things like permadeath or a class-less, skill-based system or whatever else gets tacked onto the feature set. They didn't do it to offend the players of such games. They probably just thought, like I did, that it stood for roleplay intensive, and they probably had such lofty goals as to making the roleplay "intense" on their mud. For a while MURPE was extremely popular for roleplaying games, and a ton of people started tacking that on to their muds. Then people got bored of it and moved on with other acronyms and fancy-pants names for their muds. Seriously, though, most mud admins barely pay attention to what's posted on any of these mudding sites. I know that I didn't for a long time.

You always had a wonderful way with words. This seems like an apt analogy.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter if the term remains as it is, or it changes. People can't just be expected to know that roleplay intensive means something other than the "roleplay is intense". Crying about it and railing at the injustices of the world won't really change that. We could post our little hearts out, but most players and a whole lot of admins don't really give a crap what we post on these sites. :)

Re: Determining the Origin and Meaning of RPI
 

Or, in victorian writing, you might encounter a sentence describing a man running around "ejaculating furiously". That roughly translates to "exclaiming furiously" or "shouting furiously" in more modern English. Of course you're perfectly at liberty to use this sort of victorian terminology if you wish, but you can't expect most users of modern English to understand what you mean if you do.

Re: Determining the Origin and Meaning of RPI
 

No, I wouldn't say that "exclaiming furiously" is what comes to mind...

:eek:

Re: Determining the Origin and Meaning of RPI
 

No one's trying to "create a 'brand'...well after the creation" of anything. The "brand", to use your term, was well established. The term is not a new one. The "brand" has existed since the term RPI was created. It was created to specifically describe a group of games sharing a similar code and policy philosophy. The second interpretation of the term really wasn't some long evolution over time but a rather sudden one over a period of a few years. The problem seems to have stemmed from other games who began to use this term, a term which was established in its use, primarily because they either a) didn't understand it and mistakenly believed it referred to a subjective assessment of the quality of role-play, or b) deliberately attempted to capitalize on the belief that the quality of role-play found on RPIs was of a higher degree than found elsewhere. In most cases I suspect it was the former though in a couple I'm not so sure that it wasn't the latter that motivated and continues to motivate them to use the term. Either way, the use of the term was established to denote a particular style of game even though no one bothered to spell out just what that style entailed. It was sort of like that definition of pornography: "I know it when I see it."

The order is important however, because if they'd called the first RPIs "intensive role-play" MUDs/code/games, the meaning would match the now-erroneous interpretation. They did not however and there is a difference between "intensive role-play" and "role-play intensive". The placement of a word in such a phrase means everything.

An example would be if I were holding a flower petal and said, "I am holding a rose-red petal." In no way does that imply that the petal is from a rose. However, saying "I am holding a red rose petal" would indicate a completely different meaning. In the first example, the petal could be from any flower but in the second example it is from a rose. The order of words in the English language does determine their meaning. Thus, "Role-Playing Intensive" is not the same thing as "intensive role-playing".

Personally I don't think it's an unreasonable expectation that people in a text-based gaming community be literate, at least not those for whom English is their primary language (and no, this is not intended as a flame). I don't know when they're teaching it nowadays but when I went to school this stuff was drilled into our heads by the time we left junior high.

Additionally, the misconstrued use of the term RPI to denote "intensive" role-play is actually something that can't be assessed objectively (or at least not easily, if at all). As has been pointed out by all sides, the quality of role-play, including how "intense" it is, is a matter of opinion. Thus, it's meaningless as a term for describing a game's role-play quality because such a designation is a purely subjective one and relevant as a designation only for the person using the using it.

There is no evidence of an understanding in the general community before the term was created. Perhaps there was an understanding of the term "intensive role-play" though I would wager that the term didn't find its way into use until after "Role-Play Intensive" debuted and was misinterpreted. When you look at the way in which RPI code was developed in comparison to other role-play MUDs, you can see very clearly that the design followed the function they wanted. It wasn't H&S code with a role-play policy and a world design molded to fit the existing code parameters. They didn't have policies of "ignore the levels" or other such rationalizations to deal with unwanted code nor did they have to create elements of theIt was role-play intensive in design, concentrating on their goals of the role-play.

What good does RPI mean if others continue to use the ungrammatical interpretation to describe their games? We're still left with RPI being used in two different contexts, one of which would remain a based on a grammatical error to support a subjective opinion really only valid to the person making the claim.

Perhaps Newworlds' "IRP" designation is a good alternative so far as creating a vague term to describe a subjective opinion of an aspect of a game that really can't be assessed objectively. It really means nothing which is pretty much the same thing the present misinterpretation of RPI means. So long as the distinction between RPI and IRP is made clear, MUDs could continue to hype their games with that term. Though the similarity between the two might still confuse some, it might alleviate some of the confusion.

Trademarking a term costs money and there are other considerations that must be met beyond the simple desire to possess a trademark. I do have some experience with this having gone through the process myself with the name of my MUD. Speaking of which, I need to make a call about that....

Jason

Re: Determining the Origin and Meaning of RPI
 

We did both. The mud never got off the ground while I was staffing it, but we did decide to implement features like permadeath, short descriptions, barriers between IC and OOC, and so on, features common in MUDs you'd associate with the RPI term. We also put a lot of time fleshing out the world and cultures and backstory.

Re: Determining the Origin and Meaning of RPI
 

The really dead horse is the word 'groovy'.
It was kinda co-opted from the jazz culture, shortened from 'in the groove'. Interestingly enough, people who used the word 'groovy' ... weren't. I can only recall the Brady Bunch using it. And just see if you feel 'groovy' listening to Simon & Garfunkel's 59th Street Bridge Song (popularly called "Feelin' Groovy").

But, people were trying to relate an emotional set in language. I remember all the hubbub (okay, I don't because there really wasn't any) when 'in the groove' and hence 'groovy' gave way to 'in the pocket'. I mean, come ON, the groove, as everyone knew, was when the music got really -sweet- and made you feel good, although some people erroneously thought it meant 'in the groove of a vynil record album'. What does that have to do with pockets? That much larger and inferior bunch of people obviously were confused by people who had nothing to do with jazz. Damn hippies.

'In the pocket' enjoyed a pretty long run, even though it was broadened to mean a a foregone conclusion (billiards), a bribed official, or a secure location, but it did still retain a meaning about finding that little niche of emotions close enough to its original meaning that it wasn't entirely lost (even though jazz had given way to rocknroll, which gave away grudgingly to disco, which finally died a much-needed death only to be replaced by friggin' hiphop). By this point, however, no one was even saying 'groovy' any more, although it was clear the Brady Bunch was going into eternal syndication. Marsha Marsha Marsha!

But the -final- straw was 'in the zone'! How DARE people clinicize 'groovy' into such a banal generic term like zone??? It lacked artistry, and it usually meant 'oblivious to everything around you but the task at hand'! How could that -possibly- be groovy?

Yeesh!
I'm just glad the military doesn't give a rip that 'RPG' has be 'co-opted' by people in a relatively short span of time. I mean, Rocket-Propelled Grenades vs. Roleplaying Games...I don't want -those- guys mad at me.

I guess I'm playing the 'age card'. I've seen the language change drastically in a generation (I remember when you only heard the word 'gay' in a Christmas carol, and it meant 'happy', not 'homosexual' or 'generally bad'), so I just don't get my 'knickers in a twist'....no wait (modernize, Dis, Modernize!)....'undies in a bunch'....erm...that's dated....what is it now? "Panties in a wad"?
Next year, when the expressions change to 'in the chip', I won't get my 'thong in a noose'.

...because it just doesn't feel groovy.

Re: Determining the Origin and Meaning of RPI
 

It was requested that my previous post be pulled because it 'contributes nothing to the topic at hand.'
While I disagree with that notion, since my post makes sure that the topic is groovy, I thought I'd add something, a comment on the -nature- of the topic, and post a link that encapsulates a very rational perspective on the stated and perceived motivations for the discussion in the first place.

Re: Determining the Origin and Meaning of RPI
 

Dang Dis, I should have posted the link before I gave it to you. You beat me to the punch. :(

From what I see, the RPI thing is basically a simulateonist movement, that is committing the "* Mistaking the part for the whole, for all of role-playing: claiming that a particular sort of Simulationism is role-playing (and nothing else is)." mistake mentioned in the article. Let's take Delerak's listing of required features for an RPI mud, for example:

"1. Permdeath: This is not disputed, 99% of all RPI players/admins will agree to this."

Permdeath is a clearly simulationist feature. The dead don't come back in real life, thus they shouldn't in game. The neccessity of perm death for narrativist or gamist play is highly debatable. Simulation is the only one that really requires it.


"2. Description-based: Meaning there are no names displayed, you need a short description, main desription, and long description. Also characters need to be well-described as well as with a good background."

This is another simulationist feature. You don't recognize somebody unless you the player know what they look/act like. In a narrativist game, your character may recognize some people, despite you the player not recognizing them.

"3. Account based: RPI muds should use accounts to keep track of their playerbase, as well as their characters. Considering this, RPI muds should only allow 1 character active on players accounts at any given time. Accounts also allow the staff of the RPI to make notes and keep track of your characters you've played so that in the future perhaps you will be considered for a special role based on these notes."

This has nothing to do with being "role play intensive" whatsoever and only serves to highlight the ridiculousness of the label RPI.

"4. No levels: Since levels are an OOC concept, RPI's should not have them."

Another simulationist feature. Because levels don't appear in reality, they shouldn't appear in game. Levels are obviously fine from a gamist view, and can work from a narrativist view as well.

"5. Extensive, player controlled emote system - Players may create open-ended, custom emotes and have commands to help create these emotes. Stock emotes are not present."

This may seem narrativist at first glance, but it isn't. Open ended custom emotes are definitely narrativist. However, "stock" emotes contribute heavily to the theme of a game, and narrativism is all about theme. If you want to create a light hearted game, adding some funny stock emotes is a good idea. If you want a gritty game, adding some stock emotes for common swear words and cursing might help towards that goal.


"6. Slower Paced World: RPIs should have a slow pace to the game in order to allow for and promote extensive emotes and reactions between players. This should be accomplished by slow paced combat and crafting systems and promoted heavily by administrators."

This one is actually a narrativist feature, which is a nice change.

"7. Items are descripion based: No Swords of Ultimate Doom, or Spears of Destiny. Every item has a description much like players are forced to have."

Another simulationist feature, and I'd actually call it an anti-narrativist feature as well. Calling a weapon "The Spear of Destiny" is a very narrativist thing to do.

"8. Immersive code: Via scripting an RPI mud should but isn't necessarily required to have various things that immerse the experience of the player, such as coded echoes that happen at certain times of the day, the sun setting, the sun rising. Also room descriptions should have a day description as well as a night description."

Again, a simulationist feature.

"9. Mechanics Based World: Coded systems should be in place for most gameplay systems such as combat and crafting, and these systems are fully supported by code.
This will help differentiate it from more MUSH/MUX type games."

This is an effort to identify RPIs as a mud, which is pretty reasonable.

"10. Open PK - An RPI mud must have an open PK system that allows for PK at any time and any place."

This one is pretty gns neutral.

"11. No Global OOC channels: This is debateable"

This is another admin issue and isn't really about rp.


From the GNS perspective, this list of features is HIGHLY simulationist biased. Attaching the "role play intensive" label to this list of requirements is going to annoy the heck out of any serious rper that doesn't value simulation as highly as they do gamism or narrativism. The idea that this set of features is "role play intensive" is ridiculous. Simulation intensive is what it really is, and simulation is absolutely NOT the whole of rp.

Re: Determining the Origin and Meaning of RPI
 

Firstly, the linked article is only one theory on the breakdown of roleplaying. While I don't really have a problem with it, it's not a definitive text from what I can tell.

However, I'll play along with the premise outlined in the article, because it certainly has merits. With that in mind, I'll just say that you seem to make the same mistake as Delerak, in that you're emphasizing narrativist as more integral to roleplaying than simulationist. I don't know that that was your intention, but that's the way your post came off to me.

Re: Determining the Origin and Meaning of RPI
 

Ah, that certainly wasn't my intent. I'll flat out admit that the type of RP I enjoy(lots of game and nar, not much sim) isn't more integral to RP than other types. It's just what I prefer. I don't think I really indicated that narrativism is more "role play intensive" than simulation. I just indicated that they are different, and that the RPI requirements actually focus on simulation to the point that they sometimes damage narration in the process. Whether that is a good thing or not is in the eye of the beholder.

As far as this being a theory though, it's a pretty solid one and I think it really gets at the crux of the RPI argument. Different people are looking for different things from RP. That's okay. The things I am looking for aren't neccessarily "better", "superior", or more "role play intensive" than the things you or Delerak or Milawe are looking for. It's all RP, just emphasizing different aspects.

Re: Determining the Origin and Meaning of RPI
 

Grassy Plain [North East South]
You aare standing on an endless field of grassy plains that extend toward the horizon. Small insects leap amidst the low laying grass, while larger animals have trampled wide sections into discernible paths. Sunlight warms the dusty earth, a light breeze occasionally floating gently through the area.
A shaggy ox is here.
Jorag is here.

Jorag frowns at you.

>smile
You smile.

Jorag says, "Best not be huntin' my food, traveler."

[CHAT]: does anyone know how I can buy water??

>say Oh, just thought I'd try to get some hunting in before dark. Getting low on meat.
You say, "Wasn't aware that it was yers, fella. You own these grasses, do ya?"

Jorag grins evilly.

Jorag nods.

Jorag wields the Spear of Destiny.

Jorag says, "So you best just be on your way, unless you want trouble."

[CHAT]: Try going to the well in town and type "buy water"

Jorag brutally CLEAVES a shaggy ox on the neck with the Spear of Destiny.
Jorag brutally CLEAVES a shaggy ox on the neck with the Spear of Destiny.

Jorag dodges the horns of a shaggy ox and steps aside.

Jorag brutally CLEAVES a shaggy ox on the neck with the Spear of Destiny.
A shaggy ox dies!

[CHAT]: lol, I was trying fill skin and fill water and get water, nothing worked -- thanks!

>frown jorag
You frown at Jorag.

>say Well, I'm not here to quibble with you over oxen -- but I do need meat, long as we stay out of each other's way then?
You say, "Well, I'm not here to quibble with you over oxen -- but I do need meat, long as we stay out of each other's way then?"

Jorag smirks.

Jorag says, "I'm not worried about you gettin' in my way."

>nod Jorag
You nod at Jorag.

------------------------------------------------------------
Grassy Plain [North East South]
You aare standing on an endless field of grassy plains that extend toward the horizon. Small insects leap amidst the low laying grass, while larger animals have trampled wide sections into discernible paths. Sunlight warms the dusty earth, a light breeze occasionally floating gently through the area.
A shaggy plains ox is here, grazing.
The stout, raven-haired man is standing here, crouched near a plains ox.

Rising from his crouch amidst the grass, his lips turning into a deep frown, the stout, raven-haired man says:
"Best not be huntin' my food, traveler."

>emote offers a friendly smile toward ~stout, holding up his hand gently.
The slender, sun darkened man offers a friendly smile toward the stout, raven-haired man, holding up his hand gently.

>say (gesturing idly toward the surrounding grassland) Wasn't aware that it was yers, fella. You own these grasses, do ya?

Gesturing idly toward the surrounding grassland, you say:
"Wasn't aware that it was yers, fella. You own these grasses, do ya?"

Clenching the grip of a long, bone bladed spear, the stout, raven-haired man spreads a feral grin.

His chin lifting in a curt nod, the stout, raven-haired man says:
"So you best just be on your way, unless you want trouble."

The stout, raven-haired man brutally stabs a shaggy plains ox on the neck.
The stout, raven-haired man wounds a shaggy plains ox with a vicious stab to the head.

The stout, raven-haired man swiftly dodges the shaggy plains ox's gore.

The stout, raven-haired man brutally stabs a shaggy plains ox on the leg.
A shaggy plains ox cries out in pain.
A shaggy plains ox crumples to the ground.

>say (sighing as he begins to walk westward) Well, I'm not here to quibble with you over oxen -- but I do need meat, long as we stay out of each other's way then?

Sighing as he begins to walk westward, you say:
"Well, I'm not here to quibble with you over oxxen -- but I do need meat, long as we stay out of each other's way then?"

A faint smirk crossing his lips as he begins skinning the ox, the stout, raven-haired man says:
"I'm not worried about you gettin' in my way."

>emote nods slightly and begins treading west across the plains.
The slender, sun darkened man nods slightly and begins trading west across the plains.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Some people will prefer the properties of the first environment, while others will prefer the second.

As a matter of personal preference, I'd never be able to take the first MUD environment seriously -- nor glean from it what I want out of an RP atmosphere. When people talk about RPI's and some of the factors that go into them (i.e. lack of levels, color, stock emotes, proper item names, OOC chat channels, etc...) both characters might feel as if they were RPing the scene, but it's hard for me to compare the two and NOT notice the difference in both quality and immersion.

Players in both games may have been taking their roles seriously, but that style of environment doesn't seem very friendly to maintaining the suspension of disbelief and immersing yourself in the game world. And that's where the personal preferences enter the picture regarding terms like RPI; it's not just whether RP exists or doesn't exist, it's many of the game mechanics and presentation that help reinforce the RP atmosphere that can weigh into whether the experience is presented in the same way.

The example above was not presented to slam other MUDs, just to demonstrate what many of the people who I typically see favoring the RPI term see as the main differences. And it's probably one of the reasons why a term like RPI was chosen to describe the feature set that not only described the role-play, but also defined and differentiated the environments and how they could impact levels of immersion.

-LoD

Re: Determining the Origin and Meaning of RPI
 

I tend to agree that I would prefer the second example, mainly because of the annoying color scheme of the first one.
What I suppose seems lacking from the example is that ambiguous one, wherein a mud, lacking this 'defining set of characteristics' is used to its fullest.
I've played such muds, and much of what defines the "RPI" one from the "non-RPI" one can be handled with some simple toggles or a little typing.

>disable ansi
You will no longer see ansi color variants in your text output.
>chat off
You are no longer subscribed to the chat channel. You cannot turn this channel on again for 15 minutes.
>emote rises from his crouch amidst the grass, his lips turning into a deep frown, and says, "Best not be huntin' my food, traveler."
OTHER GUY
>clench spear
emote etc etc (or create a single emote line)


There's really nothing to be done to save the spammy, single-response-line combat, though, and I agree this shallow presentation wouldn't likely hold my interest for very long.

I note that both examples contain a typo in the roomlong. And it's a three-letter word. STRIKE ONE.

I could also post a log from an "RPI" or "near-RPI" where a series of random room emotes, coupled with sun/moon movement emotes and idle oxen emotes, would've dominated such a short scene.

The sun travels westward on its course toward the horizon, and its possible to imagine (DEITY)'s chariot drawing it along.
The moon (INSERT RANDOM VOWELS AND CONSONANTS TO MAKE A NAME) rises in the northwest, its gibbous face gleaming impartially on the world below.
Flatulance does not appear to bother the oxen, and the large male demonstrates this loudly.
Rippybirds call out trillingly from the nearby grasses.
Etc.

It's not that I miss some of the intent of the OP to 'define' a subset of features as more conducive to RP. It's that even in this pair (now trio) of examples, we -still- see some poor slob just trying to feed himself, and a cocky swaggerer trying to make that more difficult or even make sure that the slob knows he poses no threat level to the swaggerer. Sure, I could get immersed in the scene, but the scene itself precisely exemplifies why distinguishing 'superior' RP from 'less so' RP can be somewhat futile.