RPEI, The New RP Standard
 

RPEI, a new standard in Roleplay.

We are going to the standard of RPEI - Role Play Enforced Intensively.

We welcome anyone to join this standard who meet the following qualifications. These qualification have been shown in some circles to provide a higher standard in Role Play Intensity and Enforcement of quality roleplay in the genre:Join the RPEI standard by mailing our quality control team that will review your game and if warranted grant you the coveted RPEI stamp of quality roleplay.

For more information on the RPEI standard and certification, ask in this thread or mail the control team.

Re: RPEI, The New RP Standard
 

I don't mean to sound naive, but is this a joke or are you actually serious?

Re: RPEI, The New RP Standard
 

I'm pretty sure its a joke. If it isn't, I'm sorry for laughing out loud.

Re: RPEI, The New RP Standard
 

If so, it should be under MUD Humor.

Re: RPEI, The New RP Standard
 

Maybe it's not a joke.

New Worlds, you forgot to put in contact information. I'm interested in RPEI (pronounced ra-pay?) and am sad there is no one to tell me more.

Re: RPEI, The New RP Standard
 

It didn't read like a joke to me. I read through it because I like to keep up on things going on in the community. Knowing the new acronyms can be handy.

Our gaming world is planned to be more role-play then RPE, but less restrictive then an RPI, but many of the listed conditions in the OP's post would not fit our world.

I suppose we might have to fall under the RPEI2 conditions...
;)

Re: RPEI, The New RP Standard
 

That's great, You create a newstardard not disimilar to RPI because you don't fit into the RPI catergory and then claim you're the Quailty Assurance Team.

RPEI it just sounds hilarous.

So this standard isn't about Roleplay or its merit but the features you have inplace that in your opinon enhance roleplay right?

Re: RPEI, The New RP Standard
 

I've submitted your request to the RPEI Team. Someone will contact you with information on how to have your game certified.

Re: RPEI, The New RP Standard
 

I'm creating a new standard called the USRPEI, which stands for "Ultra Sweet Roleplay Enforced Intensively!"

It's an improvement on the RPEI "standard" (sorry, I can't say that without chuckling a little) insofar as you can't allow in anyone under the age of 30, you're required to have at least 2000 levels, four flavors of ice cream in-game (no more, no less), and elves are strictly forbidden. Also, you must ban the Swiss from playing. Those neutral bastards can't be allowed to pollute the USRPEI standard. Let them go climb the Matterhorn and leave the MUDing to the rest of us.

The certification team is my dog Nixon. You send her a letter. She sniffs it. She barks once for "accepted" twice for "I smell a f-cking elf" and three times for "I have to pee now."

Once you've received the seal of approval, you will have the right to call yourself a USRPEI. Of course, nobody can stop you from calling your MUD a USRPEI anyway as, much like RPEI or RPI or RPG or MMO or MUD, it is not an actual standard, but you can pump up Nixon's ego by subscribing to it anyway (hint: soak your letter in beef broth before sending it for better chance of meaningless acceptance).

Re: RPEI, The New RP Standard
 

Might that not cause a lot of exciting barking leading you to believe your dog suffers from a urinary tract problem?

Re: RPEI, The New RP Standard
 

Rats! Only two flavors of ice cream...

Foiled again!

Re: RPEI, The New RP Standard
 

As it so happens, the USRPEI standards certification team provides a comprehensive package of design services to help you achieve and retain USRPEI certification. In this case, we would send out a team of consultants (there would be a cost associated with this of course) who would help you pick out exactly the right flavors of ice cream (2 in this case) to round out your current RPICI (Roleplay Ice Cream Index). We have one guy on board that does nothing but implement ice cream flavors into MUDs. You should see his Rocky Road implementation. It's delicious.

--matt

Re: RPEI, The New RP Standard
 

(Incidentally, I hope you don't take my joking around too personally, NewWorlds. It's just that a standard established by the staff of a single MUD is meaningless, particularly when it comes with such seemingly random, arbitrary requirements, many of which have nothing to do with what the standard implies it is concerned with - roleplaying in this case.)

Re: RPEI, The New RP Standard
 

I agree this is kind of silly. And you've deviated pretty far from what an RPI mud is. So it shouldn't even have RPI in the word.

Re: RPEI, The New RP Standard
 

It is good to see you caught on.

Re: RPEI, The New RP Standard
 

Hahahahaha. This is a new low. Now someone cannot even have those 3 letters in an acronym - even if the three letters are not consecutive?

Does this mean non-RPIs cannot even call themselves "Not Role Play Intensive" since R P an I are in that phrase? Paradox!

You must work for the US Patent Office.

Re: RPEI, The New RP Standard
 

I'm not going to expect someone to understand my view on MUDs use of the RPI acronym. Especially one that probably doesn't play RPI's.

Re: RPEI, The New RP Standard
 

Also. You shouldn't jump to conclusions on a forum. I never said he couldn't use the RPI acronym, but he's an acryonym and pawning it off as a hybrid of an RPI mud. Honestly it's silly, either it's an RPI or it's a normal MUD.

Re: RPEI, The New RP Standard
 

Can you define "normal MUD"?

Re: RPEI, The New RP Standard
 

Not an RPI mud.

Re: RPEI, The New RP Standard
 

Hate to change the topic slightly, but it really grates me when people call RPI or RPEI acronymns. They aren't in the true form of the word. They are initials (or if you want to be technical initialisms). An acronymn is a pronouncable word (like MUD) not RPI or FBI, etc.

Secondly, I once wrote a short definision on the difference between the RP and Non RP muds and here it is:
------------------------
A. Roleplay mud: Each character is unique. It acts, reacts, and makes choices based on the character and its surroundings.

B. Any other type of mud: You may go in and out of character at any time. Talk about life, dinner, football, or the base roll of your weapon within the game environment.

There are pros and cons to both systems, it is a matter of choice. Whether a game is type A or Type B is dependant more upon the playerbase than the game system. The term Hack and Slash doesn't necessarily define that it is not a roleplay game, but rather that the focus of the game is about killing and leveling vs. character interaction.

Nearly every roleplay mud, and I would go as far as to say every roleplay mud (unless it is a non combatative MUSH) can be turned into hack and slash by virtue of the player's choices.
------------------------

This whole argument over RPI, RPEI, and on is silly in the extreme and comes from people trying to call their mud better or elitist. There would be no other reason for it. I started this thread as a parody as a better way to show how comical it can become.

Now quit arguing and get out there and have some fun!

Re: RPEI, The New RP Standard
 

That's not why the term RPI came into use. It wasn't an attempt to brand any MUD "better or elitist". It was about creating a term to describe a specific set of characteristics, characteristics which were shared by a small number of MUDs otherwise lost in a sea of others with which they differed significantly. The charges of elitism came about from MUDs which did not fit those characteristics after those MUDs began using the term, apparently because they viewed it as a means of denoting superiority. The purpose of the term becomes hindered when it is used as a substitute for existing terms.

No doubt there are some who use the term RPI to denote some form of superiority however that would be as historically inaccurate a use of the term as suggesting it was created out of some sense of elitism. It would be like someone calling a motorcycle a mini-van and then taking offense and accusing mini-van manufacturers of elitism for objecting to the inaccurate use of the term. But if half the motorcycle dealerships started calling their bikes mini-vans, can you imagine how frustrating it would be for people honestly trying to buy a mini-van? Can you see how frustrating it would be for mini-van dealers if people started showing up and asking them why their mini-vans had four tires instead of two? Just as a mini-van and a motorcycle are sufficiently different to warrant different terms to describe their characteristics, so too do RPI MUDs differ from other kinds of MUDs and assorted text-based games.

Jason

Re: RPEI, The New RP Standard
 

Yes, quoted for truth.

Re: RPEI, The New RP Standard
 

ROFL! Says the guy who claims that anything other than an RPI is a "normal MUD". Funny, funny. They're not an RPI, so they should all be lumped into the same category.

And you guys wonder where the elitism stamp comes from!

Seriously, I doubt anyone created the term RPI to be elitist. It's just evolved to that. RPI, like just about everything else, has gone through growing pains to be what they are now.

Re: RPEI, The New RP Standard
 

Here's the difference. A mini-van dealer can define exactly what a mini-van is in non-vague terms that is not subject to interpretation or opinion.

A mini-van has more than 4 seats.
A mini-van has removable seats.
A mini-van runs on 4 wheels.
A mini-van has a standard car engine.

Of course a mini-van dealer would be offended if someone claimed a motorcycle was a mini-van.

However, say like I create a van that's smaller than standard vans but bigger and longer than mini-vans. It also has 4 wheels, it also has removable seats, and it also has a standard car engine. It also has a cup-holder for every seat. It has a built in TV, and it has Bose surround sound stereo systems. They've however, removed the sliding doors and the regular doors and replaced them with cool Lamborghini-like doors, because that would be totally cool mini-vaness. Then I chose to call my van a Mini-Van Elite, aka as the MVE. Then, I go ape-bonkers if ANYONE tried to categorize my MVE as a mini-van, or anyone tries to categorize their mini-vans as an MVE. Then, Mercedes makes a mini-van that has everything my mini-van has but they make it with the cool Mercedes logo and a few extra gee-gaws. Well, I'll allow them to call their van an MVE. Wait a minute. Ford has a mini-van with at least 75% of my features, but I don't like the people who drive Ford cars. I'm SURE Ford's vans simply just can't be as good as mine. They CANNOT use the MVE term. Ford asks me what they have to do in order to use the MVE stamp on their mini-vans. I reply with vague instructions such as "Make a van with more luxury features." Ford asks, "What luxury features?" I reply, "Maybe some more cupholders." Ford says, "Our drivers don't like more cupholders." I reply with, "I guess your drivers shouldn't drive an MVE." Ford tries again by trying to find the industry standard for an MVE. Ford can't find one. I still insist that it is an exclusive standard for luxury mini-vans, but I never produce a list of what an MVE is. MVE drivers just know what an MVE is and find it incredibly frustrating that others do not.

Now, I could resolve this simply by issuing a precise guide to what an MVE is, but instead of doing that, I write up something like:

MVE
You must be a mini-van.
You must have lots of luxury upgrades. All features must be designed towards luxury.

Then some MVE owners go around telling the world that MVE are the best cars. Everything else is a normal car.

Can you see how frustrating that might be for the people who make mini-vans, and people who drive mini-vans? Can you start to see how this might seem like a "club" and not a standard?

Seriously, I have no vested interested in what anyone does with the term RPI, especially not the administrators of those muds. I think I wouldn't be involved at all if I didn't find it quite ludicrous that a player thinks he wants an RPI but gets ridiculed for thinking he wants one because of his preferences. The person didn't seem to take offense, though, so no harm, no foul!

Don't take me too seriously, though, Prof. I admire that you are at least TRYING to create a specific standard that is so much less vague that what others have posted. RPI Muds could benefit a lot from sitting down and figuring out what they are in a way that can be communicated to the rest of the mudding world.

Until then, RPI is just going to seem like a confusing list of personal preferences rather than an industry standard to me. I'm totally down with that, too!

Re: RPEI, The New RP Standard
 

Interesting. Where would one find this information? All the posts I've seen here speak the opposite, hence the confusion.

Re: RPEI, The New RP Standard
 

I was going to post, but I can't add anything more than Mina's last post.

That was awesome.

Re: RPEI, The New RP Standard
 

Add a sidecar and let a friend sit on the handlebars, and you've got a mini-van. According to your criteria.
Car engine: check.
4 wheels: check
removable seats: check.
more than 4 seats: check.

Then there's also the Handi-Van bus that has all the above, but is -also- not a minivan. And how about most SUVs on the market these days? They have every one of those criteria, and are not minivans. And of course normal-sized vans meet all those criteria, and are also not mini-vans.

THen, there's the mini-vans that don't have car engines. Does that mean they're -not- mini-vans? Or what about the ones that don't have removeable seats? Maybe they have seats that are moveable..they slide back to give more room in the middle, or fold down to make a back-seat-bench..but the seats themselves can't be taken out of the vehicle. Does that mean they're not mini-vans?

Thing is, RPIs all come with certain criteria, and also have any of a list of other criteria. At least a couple, not necessarily all. Non-RPIs are not required to come with that initial criteria, and may or may not include any, let alone some, or all, of the additional criteria. For example, and RPI will have permanent death. Now, that doesn't mean that any game with permanent death is an RPI. But if it doesn't have permanent death, then it won't be an RPI. It will be something else. Does that make the RPI a better game? Not for anyone who doesn't want their characters to die. In fact I'd say the vast majority of gamers would scoff at a permanent-death game, and some might even say that no one in their right mind would ever play one. So who in that case is the elitist, I wonder? The people who like the permanent death RPI, or the people who reject the idea of permanent death and make fun of anyone who likes it?

Re: RPEI, The New RP Standard
 

What? You just turned a simple analogy into a chaotic mess of poo.

He was simply saying that you can't and shouldn't call a normal stock DIKU/ROM/CIRCLE an RPI Mud. Why? Because there ARE standards for RPI muds. There is an entire website dedicated to RPI's. . There have been numerous discussions on what an RPI is, and the huge difference between an RPI and a normal "run of the mill" mud. These include: Permanent death, descriptions instead of names (short descs, main descs, long descs). A background for your character. An account system. A highly innovative emote system where you can target many different grammatical forms to a fellow player. Roleplaying enforced obviously. And the list goes on for several other things, but these are the main ones. Your long-winded rant about the mini-van/motorcycle analogy means nothing, that's not the point of the analogy. If you call a stock DIKU mud an RPI you're going to be a laughing stock amongst serious RPI mud players. Period.

That's all I have to say on the matter for now.
-D

Re: RPEI, The New RP Standard
 

Okay, please realize that I didn't go look up the ACTUAL definition of a mini-van. I slapped some down quickly to express a point. :) However, ALL mini-vans do fit the mini-van criteria listed above!

But I also want to point out that a van is not required to have removable seats!

Right, but what are the criteria for an RPI? That's the point. You state that there's the common demoniator. I'm just looking for what it is.

Permadeath might not make an RPI mud, but permadeath, enforced-RP, and permitting hobbits might! Of course RPI muds aren't going to be cookie cutter and have ONLY the the same features. The point is... what makes an RPI mud an RPI mud?

The scoffer is the person who is being elitist. I don't like permadeath for myself, but I can intellectually understand why someone might. Making fun of permadeath simply because one wouldn't play it is also elitism. However, insisting that permadeath is the ONLY way to play and all muds that do not have permadeath has unrealistic and un-immersive RP is also elitism. Putting down someone's playing preferences in order to tout your own is pretty much a form of elitism in my book.

Re: RPEI, The New RP Standard
 

Jaz: You realize you actually made Mina's point for her with your examples, right? An inexplicit standard is of no use to anyone, and certainly isn't a "standard." And furthermore, nobody has the right to get huffy if people "misuse" a category that is incredibly amorphous and generic.

That seems to be the only specific criterion that is readily agreed upon. Are there others? I think that's the point. Maybe RPI fans should spend less time flaming players who think they are looking for an RPI, or developers who "incorrectly" call their game an RPI, and more time clarifying this "standard." And at the same time, think of a better, less generic name for it that doesn't reek of superiority. :)

I don't know. But didn't you call all the other ones "2 dimensional." And then there is the silly guy in this forum who lumps all the other muds that aren't RPIs into a the "stock DIKU" category. I'd reply to him directly, but every time I hit quote I just laugh too hard. I can't tell if he is serious or if he is just creating a parody of the snooty, RPI elitism we've all seen on these forums a million times in the past.

Re: RPEI, The New RP Standard
 

His analogy was oversimplified and totally didn't fit the situation.

I'm sorry that my analogy was obviously too hard for you to comprehend. I shall endeavor to make things easier for you in my next posts. All others who understood me... well, you're pure geniuses! (Especially Jaz who took the time to point out where my examples where wrong!)

I've already been there. I've already read that, and no, there is no such list as you claim.

permanent death - not listed under "What Seperates an RPIMUD from a Regular MUD?"
descriptions for characters instead of names - also not listed there
background for your character - also not listed
account system - definitely not listed
highly inno... nevermind, not listed!

Actually, not a single thing you've listed is on that site which barely touches on the RP one might expect to find on RPIs. (Maybe it's in the forums, but that could be any random joe posting. It's NOT on the actual site.) In addition, several of the muds listed on that site are NOT RPI and do not fit the RPI criteria. Attempts to remove them have been met with an onslaught of accusations. I recommend you actually READ the site and what it says before you start discussing what you THINK it says. The whole point of this discussion is because there IS no such list, and the RPIs seem extremely reluctant to make the list. (For what reason, I don't know.) They just slap up some vague terms that leave way too much room for certain muds to rock the RPI tag because no one knows what the heck it's supposed to be except RPI players. (I'll bet you, though, that the players who play RPI even if they're not really RPI think they're on an actual RPI! How's that for confusing?)

You also mention only stock DIKU/ROM/CIRCLE muds. Seriously, do you really think that ALL other muds are stock DIKU/ROM/CIRCLE? Let me inform you that they most DEFINITELY are not.

You obviously are out of touch with the RPI discussions, and you're so quick to get defensive and attack that you really haven't bothered to read what's already been posted. Perhaps the analogy is actually apt, and it's touched a sore spot. :)

Re: RPEI, The New RP Standard
 

Well I started a new thread and listed what I think defines an RPI mud. We can continue this debate there.

Re: RPEI, The New RP Standard
 

Okay, now I have to say that was completely lame. Here you are quoting what is an RPI as if you had the authoritative position on it and now I come to find out you were talking out of your freaking hiney?! What the heck?

This entire thread I created to prove that anyone could decide at anytime to make a personal tag for their own mud and call it "Roleplay Whatever" as long as it sounded better than just Roleplay Mud.

The point was clear before, and remains clear RPI is a id tag to define one or two games that have features unlike others. The comments about "Run of the Mill" likely is the cause for other Admin calling you on the carpet about your silly definitions.

Re: RPEI, The New RP Standard
 

It was stated in this thread that there are "RPI's" and "normal MUDs". Nowhere was it stated that these normal MUDs were "stock", merely that all other text games that did not fall under the term, and loose definition, of RPI were "normal MUDs". The term "normal MUDs" was even defined as " Not an RPI mud".

So not so simple.
An entire website! Wow!

Now THAT is impressive!

I could care less what terms people use to describe their games. I do find the whole attitude expressed here by some posters as silly. It is all text, numbers and methods for presenting, saving and reading information.

Re: RPEI, The New RP Standard
 

It's not what I believe, or you believe or anyone believes. The term was applied to three MUDs, one of which used code derived from one of the others. There were thus two different, independent projects to take existing H&S code and turn it into something completely different. The term RPI began to be used to describe these games. Since then, a third code has been independently created which also meets these same attributes and one of the original RPI codebases has been overhauled twice creating two variations which still possess the original elements but also more advanced features such as literacy code, etc. These 3-5 codebases have so far been used to create about two dozen games, only six of which are presently open for play and at least a third of which are no longer running.

So, it's not a matter of me listing my preferences or anyone else doing likewise. Preferences are irrelevant. The most accurate criteria for the term RPI can simply be determined by looking at the three MUDs that the term was originally applied and noting the characteristics shared by all three (excluding silly superficial similarities such as "they all have the letters n and r in their name" which, while true, has no bearing on the games themselves). It was those shared aspects which inspired the term, not personal preferences, an attempt at elitism, some subjective standard of quality, or any attempt to belittle other types of games. There are clear similarities which all of them possessed and which newer games, at least one using its own independently-derived codebase, possess. Then there are games using the term RPI which do not...

My own reasoning for the term RPO was that there were several games which possessed many elements similar to the group of characteristics shared by those three original RPIs and yet did not possess all. One might not have permadeath, another might have global OOC channels, and yet another might have visible player identities. All of them had adopted the term RPI without adopting all of the characteristics to which that term originally applied. It wouldn't be fair to classify them alongside games which were nothing more than H&S code with an enforced-RP policy as they were clearly different. But the range of similarities and differences was by no means standard across the board. If the term RPI were extended to include any one of them, it would be at the expense of ignoring at least one characteristic shared by the original RPIs and would result in excluding another game which possessed that characteristic but not another. A simplified example:

Charateristics: A, B, C, D, E

MUD #1 (original RPI) possesses: A, B, C, D, E

MUD #2 (original RPI) possesses: A, B, C, D, E

MUD #3 (original RPI) possesses: A, B, C, D, E

MUD #4 possesses: A, B, C, D

MUD #5 possesses: A, C, D, E

MUD #6 possesses: A, B, D, E

MUD #7 possesses: A, B, C, E

MUD #8 possesses: A, B, D

50 or so other MUDs possess: A

The last five examples all contain at least three characteristics shared with the first three. None however possess all five. Additionally, the only characteristic all five games share with the first three games is also shared by 50 other games which possess none of the other four. How, then to classify MUDs #4-8? I did "lump them together" but not as a means of derision. Quite the opposite. It was an attempt to denote that they share some features of RPI even though they do not possess all the characteristics shared by the original three to which the term was applied.

So, I'll firmly accept that RPO is a flawed term which isn't very accurate. But it's not an attempt at elitism either. RPI, on the other hand, is more accurate if one looks at the shared features found in the three original games to which the term was applied. Then examine every MUD calling themselves RPI and you will find there are several which also share these same characteristics. With one exception, they're all derived from the code of the original three but it is that exception which proves that the term need not refer only to that code family and doing so would ignore that one of the original three also did not share the same code evolution. But the vast majority do not. These games are not RPI.

It's really not a hard thing to do. Most of the controversy seems to stem from personalizing the arguments ("you're elitist" or "you're inferior") rather than simply looking at the facts. I might add that I personally don't care for every RPI (see my comments in the thread about what will make a player NOT play a MUD). That's personal preference. But it's not a factor in saying that they are or are not a RPI MUD.

Take care,

Jason
****ed because a button just popped off his shirt when he snagged something on it...I'm too thin to be popping buttons off my clothing!

Re: RPEI, The New RP Standard
 

So is it a club of that three muds started? If not, then what are the requirements of an RPI? Three different games share the same designation. Then what are the characteristics that these 3 different game share that designated them an RPI? They obviously aren't three copies of the SAME game. Thus, what is it that put them together? Some arbitrary RP line? Our RP is leet enough so we're all RPIs? If not, then they had a specific set of characteristics that they share that make them RPI. Is it codebase? You say no. Then what is it?

You're assuming that it's your preferences that we're discussing. It's the preferences of the people who created RPI as a term and then determine who is an RPI and who is not. See, that's what I think as well. We're simply asking for a list of characteristics. If you KNOW what an RPI is, surely it can be defined with specific terms rather than the RPI. What I think you don't understand is giving inconclusive answers is what's allowing this debate to exist.

I don't honestly care if RPI people WANT to be elitist or not. I only point out that some of the statements made by RPI players give them an extremely elitist image. Frankly, your intent does not really matter when it comes to creating a reputation. If you're going to say, "Well, to define an RPI, you need to look at these three games." then you guys just formed a club, not a standard.


Quite easy to do when even avid RPI players can't seem to list what those standards are. They spend their time telling everyone that they're NOT an RPI. What makes something an RPI? It's fine to flat out admit that "RPI people get to chose who is an RPI". Please do not take this an insult, but I don't think games, lots of successful games, care if they get an RPI or an RPO or an RPX or an RPSLSQKESFKLSEJFSKLFJL@$#$# designation from some random group of people who think they are the RPI control team. I honestly don't care if people want to call themselves a MUX or a MOO or a MUGDOO. Players are going to play what they want to play. Another big reason this debate exists is because of the exclusionary nature of RPIers. "YOU are not an RPI. YOU are not an RPI. Okay, you're an RPI."

No one is really asking you to lump, de-lump, or create some sort of RP* list. Most of us are simply asking, "What characteristics, in precise language, what an RPI is." It just seems impossible to get this point across.

I don't think so. This isn't really about personalizing anything. What we're trying to find ARE the facts, not a series of personal opinions and vague references to what an RPI is. Delerak, honestly, is the first to attempt to produce a series of requirements that define an RPI.

Re: RPEI, The New RP Standard
 

I have tried for years to determine from where or whom the term RPI was created. I have not been able to single out a particular name or even a particular MUD. It was definitely not a deliberate "club of three" MUDs or individuals or anything that said, "We/This is an RPI." The term began to fall into use to describe three different MUDs, all of which possessed similar characteristics but I've not seen any evidence that it was the result of any cooperative decision.

I'll get to this in a moment as well as why I have thus far, so much as this recent discussion is concerned, said.

I'm not assuming that it's my preferences that we're discussing. I'm simply trying to provide some guidance on how a framework can be created to define RPI and mentioning some attempts to do so which have already been made. And as I pointed out above, the identity of the person or persons who coined the phrase is not clear and hence their preferences are equally unknown.

No, it didn't form a club. This wasn't some arbitrary choice of "these three games" on my part. I was merely pointing out the three games to which the term was first applied and thus to which characteristics of an RPI would therefore be found. Ascertaining from where relevant data would be found is not forming a "club".

I've been researching the origins of RPI for at least five years now and despite my efforts, I have been unable to verify who exactly coined the term. One thing I have been able to verify however is that the term was used to describe three particular MUDs of the mid-to-late 90s which possessed many of the same characteristics: Armageddon, Harshlands, and Forever's End (the last being derived from the code of the second).

Actually, he's not. Numerous attempts, including at least two by me, have been made to spell out those similarities. Each has been met with charges of "elitism" and lots of other vitriol, some from staff/players of games which wouldn't quite meet the definition and others by players/staff of games which were vastly different and had no interest in RPIs anyway. Every time it's been the same. So, rather than spell it out, if people ask, I tell them to do the research themselves. The facts are there and if they're really interested, they can look for themselves first before accusing me of "elitism" and "making up" stuff based on "personal preferences".

But if you must know, much of what is being listed in Delerak's thread is spot on. I may chime in at some point with some points but for now I'm just watching because personally I'm sick of being accused of this or that.

Take care,

Jason

Re: RPEI, The New RP Standard
 

I should state that I meant on this site. He is the first to make a list on this site.

You can claim that you are being accused of elitism if you wish, but pointing out that something smacks of elitism doesn't necessarily mean that YOU are an elitist. If you do not wish to come off as an elitist, which seems like a big concern to you, isn't good for someone to point out what statements they find elitist and attempt to explain them? No one has actually simply said, "You're an elitist. Away with you!" Multiple attempts have been made to state why this APPEARS to be elitist, which, I think, is much different from saying it and writing you off as a snob. I think, honestly, that's what is preventing you from getting any of my points. You can't wish away the fact that something has created an elitist perception for itself simply by believing yourself to not BE elitist.

Personally, I don't try to discuss anything with snobs. Obviously, I don't think you're a snob, but that's not going to stop me from saying, "Well, that sounds kinda elitist." And honestly, if you're a bit of a snob about the games you chose to play, you obviously just believe you've picked the quality product. (I, for one, a total anti-WoW snob.)

Re: RPEI, The New RP Standard
 

Again, one of the spots I've attempted to formulate some definition of RPI has been here. ;)

It's really not so much a matter of what is being said now but rather in the past. Historically, accusations here (and elsewhere) against myself and others have not been leveled on the charge of appearing elitist but on the charge of being elitist.

Agreed, WoW isn't my cup of tea either. However, I did start playing H&S MUDs which were basically just text versions of WoW many years ago. I simply tired of that format and longed for something different. RPI MUDs offered me what I personally was looking for though admittedly I've grown rather distressed with the state of many of them over the last few years. Hence my decision to start my own, working off the principles of old while trying to address from the start problems that came to light in other RPIs over a period of years. One of my greatest worries is with the abandonment of RPIs by veteran players which I've been seeing over the last few years (myself being one of them). If they keep leaving and simply giving up text-based gaming altogether for lack of a MUD which still respects the philosophy that first attracted them, I fear there will be even less of a player pool for my game than the small one which presently exists. Not that such considerations will stop me from pushing on, slowly as it may be, with the project.

However, if you prefer, I'll post some points on Delerak's thread. I have noted a couple things which don't completely jive. :)

Take care,

Jason

Re: RPEI, The New RP Standard
 

Not that you should live your life by my preferences, but I do prefer it.

I feel like this discussion has actually made progress, and that seems to be pretty rare on internet forums. It's a beautiful thing!

Re: RPEI, The New RP Standard
 

RPI is no more accurate a term than the proposed RPEI. Both are discriptively innacurate and based on preferences derived by style of code. At best, they are propoganda for a certain gaming style.

You use that term alot. Hack and Slash code. I defined this before and will again more directly with this comment: Players define whether a game is H&S devoted or RP devoted (be it RPI, RPO, RPEI, etc.) Unless your game is a MUSH without any combat code, a player can hack and slash (aka borg) all night and day and do not have to roleplay at all.

Furthermore, I found crafting to be something promoted by RPIMUDS. What is the difference between killborg and craftborg? They both require a player to do monotanous keystrokes for some skill increase (even on leveless systems).

I do not understand why it is so hard just to admit that the RPIMUD group were attempting to classify themselves as a "higher standard" of roleplay. If you scan the website this becomes clear. I am not saying this is a bad thing. The only thing bad about it is trying to claim otherwise.

There is nothing wrong with attempting to have a better world for roleplay. The problem arrives when you take a few game styles and say that this is the definition of more authentic roleplay based on that style. Similar to saying your Picante sauce is more authentic because it was made in El Paso Texas vs. New York City.

As with Mina, NW would never join a group based on a narrow (codebased) style of definition regardless if NW fell into that category. The same way NW would not claim to have a monopoly on quality roleplay despite the attempt to promote good, quality roleplay. Why? Good, immersive/intense roleplay is created by the players, not the game. The only thing the game needs is promotion of such and enforcement to stay in character. And that, only on an RPE. There are several games not even RPE classified that have good, immersive/intense, roleplay.

Re: RPEI, The New RP Standard
 

Crafting isn't really promoted as something that's required. It's a feature but I'd like to know which RPIs promoted crafting as required. The closest I've seen is RPIs encouraging players to assume roles as crafters rather than all going for the same kind. This is meant more as a means of creating diversity in the IC community and of recycling capital (NPC merchants don't spend it) through patronage of PC shops.

The difference between killborg and craftborg would be that the first is destructive to setting and an irrational means of role-playing anything but a psychopath. Craftborg, which I will repeat isn't something RPIs promote, is less destructive and usually undertaken to generate money. As a result, it can be made so unprofitable that players are more likely to abandon it. Players don't go around killing things merely as a means of generating income. That makes it harder to regulate. This is why you see MUDs devoted entirely to PK and H&S but not MUDs devoted entirely to crafting. Regardless, neither is the focus of RPIs which leads me to wonder if you've ever played an RPI. If so, which?

As for the code, most of the original MUD code was designed with the goal of hack-and-slash. Kill to gain experience points in order to level and gain more skills/spells so that you can go out and kill more mobs. Mob-killing to advance, experience points, levels. These are role-play. They point to the purpose of the code design and its purpose is fairly clear.

Also, attributing player behavior to the MUD itself is not accurate. The policy of RPIs doesn't support botting and skill spamming (which is why there are some checks built into the code to make it unsuccessful). H&S MUDs are designed with the intention of going around killing things. If similar behavior exists in an RPI, it's due to player actions, not the MUD itself.

You're attributing an intent. I can't say as to the intent of the person who coined the term. I can however recognize to what they were referring when they used the term by examining the targets for similarities (as it was more than one game with more than one code development). Were they attempting to classify themselves? Yes, they were. Were they classifying themselves as "higher"? That's where there is no evidence to that point. In later years, it may have been so but only after the term had been bastardized by use to describe MUDs ranging across the spectrum in features.

I'm starting to wonder if you bother to read what I've said or simply resorting to straw man arguments to bolster your position. The term RPI is about code design and policy centered around the needs for role-play without consideration for traditional MUD goals of killing, leveling, training, and repeating the process.

There's no "joining a group". There is no "club" mentality within RPIs. Hell, some of them can't stand one another.

Again, fabricating an argument. RPIs don't claim an monopoly on quality role-play and if they do, certainly no more than just about any other MUD does.

Yes, that's why all RPIs are RPEs, but that doesn't mean the reverse is true. RPIs are Role-Play Enforced MUDs sharing a common set of design and policy characteristics. That's it. Everything else is pretty much a stick up other people's ass because a small group of games share similar traits and a term (the origin of which is not clearly attributed) was adopted to describe those games. OTHERS PERCEIVED this term as something describing the quality of RP, which may have been of a higher quality on the three RPIs but again that's not what the term referred to, and hence they began using it despite not being similar to the games to which the term originally applied. That's the story in a nutshell.

Also, you mean RPE as in Role-Play Enforced and not Role-Play Encouraged, right? To be RPE(nforced), you would need to fulfill the requirement of having a policy of enforced role-play. It's not about the role-play itself. It's about the policy.

Jason

Re: RPEI, The New RP Standard
 

I won't quote your entire post because already it becomes convoluted. I will say that again the argument of "stickman" comes up and I will respond to that. All of my comments came directly from the RPIMUD site and from your posts throughout the threads related to this. My main argument was that you "seem" to subtly put down Hack and Slash games in your arguments such as:

While this doesn't affect NW at all, I see no reason to use a baseline of H&S as if they are somehow less than other games.

As for the rest. I can certainly quote the mud site for your answers. But the bigger issue is the issue you dodged which is the entire basis for this thread. To it:

RPI is no more accurate a term than the proposed RPEI. Both are discriptively innacurate and based on preferences derived by style of code. At best, they are propoganda for a certain gaming style.

Re: RPEI, The New RP Standard
 

The quote from me that you cite is not a put down of H&S. It's a factual statement that MUDs which are attempting to create RP-centric code are not aiming for the same type of features and policies that H&S MUDs employ.

They are less if the focus of debate is role-play alone. While you might find good RP on a H&S, you won't find consistent RP because unless everyone is required to RP, the guy you run into in the village may meet your emotes by spelling up and leveling every mob in sight, then marching on without so much as a nod to find the next zone and wipe out everything in it.

Likewise, an RPI is less if the focus of the discussion is mob-killing for experience points. Setting aside the lack of experience points in RPI code, they have RP-centric policies which do not support going around killing everything in sight. Hence, RPIs along with other RP* MUDs would constitute "less" in terms of comparison with H&S games.

RPI was very accurate as it referred to three games. Those three games were all designed in terms of code and policy around role-play. In other words they were role-play centric or role-play intensive. Other MUDs may be centered on role-play in policy but their code still retains the design originally intended for slicing through everything in sight to advance in skill use. Their code is not role-play centric but their policy is. They're Role-Play Enforced.

The term RPI was created to describe three different games utilizing two different code developments yet which shared a large number of similarities not shared with any other games at the time. The term RPEI is an abbreviation for a mish-mash of words chosen as propaganda by a single MUD. There is a distinction. One provides a means of identifying a group of MUDs sharing like features. The other is a term for a single MUD, redundant as that game already has a term to describe the exact feature set of that particular game. The term is the name "New Worlds".

Jason

Re: RPEI, The New RP Standard
 

Sorry but three games that have similar code and two that use the same library/engine is no different than establishing RPEI with features that few could be a subset of, hence the joke. And yes, more then NW could fall under the RPEI standard as set forth here.

Again, this is a wild claim as your mish-mash of words is the same style as being described in the RPI thread discussing what makes an RPI according to Delerak.

And the argument has now come full circle. Claiming you are an RPI because you are leveless is as assanine as claiming you are an RPEI because you have levels.

Re: RPEI, The New RP Standard
 

No, it's not because the differences between those three MUDs and the rest of the MUD community at the time were far greater than the differences between EVERY OTHER Role-Play Enforced MUD and the standard H&S.

If one didn't know the policy of the any of them, just looking at the vast majority of role-play enforced MUDs would have been insufficient to differentiate them from most H&S MUDs. But looking at the three RPIs, one would have noticed great differences that only a couple other MUDs could come anywhere near to resembling.

That thread is attempting to list the characteristics that those three MUDs shared which would therefore have constituted the criteria for other MUDs to be grouped with them.

There's a lot more to the definition of RPI than the absence of levels, but that is one of the characteristics to which the term was applied. Ten years ago, if you went looking for a RPI MUD, you were looking for a game without levels. The term was only applied to games without levels, experience points, etc. Looking for an RPI would have yielded those meagre results. Five years ago, the term is applied to games with levels, experience points, and even games without a policy that requires role-play!

Since then, the RPI family has not been limited to just those three. Another codebase was developed which resembled the original RPIs and off-shoots of one of the three resulted in more than tripling the number of RPIs open and in development. And through it all, they have continued to maintain a set of characteristics that first applied and apply still. That's as good of proof of a particular sub-set as you're likely to find in any situation.

Jason

Re: RPEI, The New RP Standard
 

Didn't realy want to return to this thread. But to clarify I'm not lumping all other muds into a stock category. RPI's are a rarity really, so there's stock muds, RPI muds, and then there's muds that are more established and can call themselves whatever they want. The fact remains that RPI's have certain characteristics and the acronym was designed for the players that want to try out these types of muds, not ones that DON'T have those charactistics, period.

Re: RPEI, The New RP Standard
 

Ten years ago, when I would look for RPI muds to try, the primary factor I was concerned with was roleplay *enforcement*. Outside of that I was pretty much open and simply happily surprised to see any other special features.

Re: RPEI, The New RP Standard
 

This is a mudding community, and a forums, and it's the internet -- anyone has the authority to do whatever they want. I'm not even a very respected figure in the RPI community. The point is I created the thread to lay out some guidelines that everyone in all these other threads are so confused about. Also, I don't think anyone who plays an RPI will disagree with them.