Looking for an RPI, where the 'I' stands for "Immersive"
 

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?

Re: Looking for an RPI, where the 'I' stands for "Immersive"
 

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

Re: Looking for an RPI, where the 'I' stands for "Immersive"
 

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.

Re: Looking for an RPI, where the 'I' stands for "Immersive"
 

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.

Re: Looking for an RPI, where the 'I' stands for "Immersive"
 

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!

Re: Looking for an RPI, where the 'I' stands for "Immersive"
 

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...

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...

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:

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'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?

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.

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

Re: Looking for an RPI, where the 'I' stands for "Immersive"
 

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!

Re: Looking for an RPI, where the 'I' stands for "Immersive"
 

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.

Re: Looking for an RPI, where the 'I' stands for "Immersive"
 

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.

Re: Looking for an RPI, where the 'I' stands for "Immersive"
 

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.

Re: Looking for an RPI, where the 'I' stands for "Immersive"
 

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?

Re: Looking for an RPI, where the 'I' stands for "Immersive"
 

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.

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.

Re: Looking for an RPI, where the 'I' stands for "Immersive"
 

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.

Re: Looking for an RPI, where the 'I' stands for "Immersive"
 

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.

Re: Looking for an RPI, where the 'I' stands for "Immersive"
 

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.

Re: Looking for an RPI, where the 'I' stands for "Immersive"
 

Fair enough.

***

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)

Re: Looking for an RPI, where the 'I' stands for "Immersive"
 

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

Re: Looking for an RPI, where the 'I' stands for "Immersive"
 

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.

Re: Looking for an RPI, where the 'I' stands for "Immersive"
 

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.

Re: Looking for an RPI, where the 'I' stands for "Immersive"
 

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.

Re: Looking for an RPI, where the 'I' stands for "Immersive"
 

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! :)

Re: Looking for an RPI, where the 'I' stands for "Immersive"
 

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 (). 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

Re: Looking for an RPI, where the 'I' stands for "Immersive"
 

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.

Re: Looking for an RPI, where the 'I' stands for "Immersive"
 

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. :)

Re: Looking for an RPI, where the 'I' stands for "Immersive"
 

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:

Re: Looking for an RPI, where the 'I' stands for "Immersive"
 

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

Re: Looking for an RPI, where the 'I' stands for "Immersive"
 

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!

Re: Looking for an RPI, where the 'I' stands for "Immersive"
 

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.

Re: Looking for an RPI, where the 'I' stands for "Immersive"
 

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.

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.

Re: Looking for an RPI, where the 'I' stands for "Immersive"
 

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.

Re: Looking for an RPI, where the 'I' stands for "Immersive"
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Looking for an RPI, where the 'I' stands for "Immersive"
 

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

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

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

Re: Looking for an RPI, where the 'I' stands for "Immersive"
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Looking for an RPI, where the 'I' stands for "Immersive"
 

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

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

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

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

Re: Looking for an RPI, where the 'I' stands for "Immersive"
 

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

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

Re: Looking for an RPI, where the 'I' stands for "Immersive"
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Take care,

Jason

Re: Looking for an RPI, where the 'I' stands for "Immersive"
 

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

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

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

Re: Looking for an RPI, where the 'I' stands for "Immersive"
 

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

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

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

Re: Looking for an RPI, where the 'I' stands for "Immersive"
 

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

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

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

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

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

Take care,

Jason

Re: Looking for an RPI, where the 'I' stands for "Immersive"
 

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Re: Looking for an RPI, where the 'I' stands for "Immersive"
 

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

Here are things that are not really subjective:

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

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

Re: Looking for an RPI, where the 'I' stands for "Immersive"
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Take care,

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

Re: Looking for an RPI, where the 'I' stands for "Immersive"
 

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



Enjoy!

Re: Looking for an RPI, where the 'I' stands for "Immersive"
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Looking for an RPI, where the 'I' stands for "Immersive"
 

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

Re: Looking for an RPI, where the 'I' stands for "Immersive"
 

Woah. What?

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

Re: Looking for an RPI, where the 'I' stands for "Immersive"
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Take care,

Jason

Re: Looking for an RPI, where the 'I' stands for "Immersive"
 

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

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

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

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

Re: Looking for an RPI, where the 'I' stands for "Immersive"
 

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

Re: Looking for an RPI, where the 'I' stands for "Immersive"
 

Operational:

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

No longer operational or failed to open:

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

In development:

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

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

Jason