Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Here's what I think the guidelines are for an RPI mud, seeing as how there's been a decent amount of discussion related to it recently. Maybe this forum can clear up answers, brings up more questions, and direct discussion into one thread.

1. Permdeath: This is not disputed, 99% of all RPI players/admins will agree to this.
2. Description-based: Meaning there are no names displayed, you need a short description, main desription, and long description. Also characters need to be well-described as well as with a good background.
3. Account based: RPI muds should use accounts to keep track of their playerbase, as well as their characters. Considering this, RPI muds should only allow 1 character active on players accounts at any given time. Accounts also allow the staff of the RPI to make notes and keep track of your characters you've played so that in the future perhaps you will be considered for a special role based on these notes.
4. No levels: Since levels are an OOC concept, RPI's should not have them.
5. Extensive, player controlled emote system - Players may create open-ended, custom emotes and have commands to help create these emotes. Stock emotes are not present.
6. Slower Paced World: RPIs should have a slow pace to the game in order to allow for and promote extensive emotes and reactions between players. This should be accomplished by slow paced combat and crafting systems and promoted heavily by administrators.
7. Items are descripion based: No Swords of Ultimate Doom, or Spears of Destiny. Every item has a description much like players are forced to have.
8. Immersive code: Via scripting an RPI mud should but isn't necessarily required to have various things that immerse the experience of the player, such as coded echoes that happen at certain times of the day, the sun setting, the sun rising. Also room descriptions should have a day description as well as a night description.
9. Mechanics Based World: Coded systems should be in place for most gameplay systems such as combat and crafting, and these systems are fully supported by code.
This will help differentiate it from more MUSH/MUX type games.
10. Open PK - An RPI mud must have an open PK system that allows for PK at any time and any place.
11. No Global OOC channels: This is debateable.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

That's the best list I've seen yet.

I would leave off #10 and #5. Honestly, if you don't require it, don't put it on the list.

I would also change #6, 7, and 9.

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

7) (Dump realism. Slower pace doesn't denote realism in any shape or form.) Rewrite follows:

Slow-paced world - RPIs should have a slow pace to the game in order to allow for and promote extensive emotes and reactions between players. This should be accomplished by slow paced combat and crafting systems and promoted heavily by administrators.

I'd also add one:

Mechanics based world - Coded systems should be in place for most gameplay systems such as combat and crafting, and these systems are fully supported by code.

This will help differentiate it from more MUSH/MUX type games.

---------

You're a brave man for posting the list, so I'll forgive you for skimming my posts and flying off the handle.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

I agree for the most part.
You make a few good points, I edited my post down a bit and changed a few things.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Feel free to have "No levels" as a requirement, but you are making a mistake when you say "they are an OOC concept."

Levels are extremely realistic and have tons of real world analogues. I will give one example and stop there, for the sake of brevity:

E-1 - Private E-1
E-2 - Private E-2
E-3 - Private First Class (PFC)
E-4 - Corporal (CPL)
E-5 - Sergeant (SGT)
E-6 - Staff Sergeant (SSG)
E-7 - Sergeant First Class (SFC)
E-8 - Master Sergeant (MSG)
E-9 - Sergeant Major (SGM)

(yay! time to remort and become an officer, or pick my epic class, or some other game-like similar thing) =>

O-1 - Second Lieutenant (2LT)
O-2 - First Lieutenant (1LT)
O-3 - Captain (CPT)
O-4 - Major (MAJ)
O-5 - Lieutenant Colonel (LTC)
O-6 - Colonel (COPL)
O-7 - Brigadier General (BG)
O-8 - Major General (MG)
O-9 - Lieutenant General (LTG)
0-10 - General (Gen)

I understand why some folks don't like levels. But saying they are "OOC" or "unrealistic" is patently absurd and false.

If you are listing requirements for RPIs, you don't have to justify the reasons. If that is a requirement, then just say:

4) No levels. We don't like them.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

I don't think you're comparing apples to apples there to be honest, Threshold.

Ranks in an organization are -not- the same thing as player levels as instantiated in D&D and most MUDs with the kinds of 'levels' we're talking about here.

Ranks are an external thing granted by an organization, and they only have any importance if other people recognize them. For instance, start your own one-man organization and bestow the rank of "God Emperor" upon yourself. You won't actually be any more powerful, in any way, since nobody else will recognize it. Ranks, such as military ranks, are nothing more than titles that are backed up solely by the fact that some other people will recognize that rank and respect it (try ordering a fleet around when you're only a major, for instance....nobody is going to respect your rank enough to follow that order as majors don't get to command fleets). Further, a rank may be taken away at any time by the organization that granted it. Even a general can be stripped of his command by a single order. Gaining a rank grants you no instrinsic personal powers. You do not magically become capable of lifting a heavier object or thinking through a brain teaser when your rank changes from lieutenant to captain.

Player levels as used in MUDs, on the other hand, are presented as something intrinsic to a person (in a way that makes sense as a game mechanic, but really seems like a fairly OOC concept). Simply being "level 50" inherently grants you more power than being "level 10", and it is presented as being part of you rather than simply a label. Things intrinsic to you are presented as having suddenly and inexplicably changed when your level changes. Suddenly you can get hit by a sword more often before you die, typically, for example, or suddenly you have the capacity to be more skillful at something or learn more than you did an instant previously. It's pretty hard to see that as anything other than an OOC artifice invented to allow people to measure their achievements easily (something people like doing, but something which is much fuzzier in reality).

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Fine. No levels. We don't like them..

They are still an OOC concept. What am I a level 10 PHP administrator? Come on. You can't gauge things with levels, it's best to simply list the skill PHP and my knowledge upon the skill is either not known, I simply see the skill in my skills list or there are a few adjectives to show the player where they stand with that skill such as beginner, journeyman, master, whatever.A

Also repeat Logos post. Nothing else to say.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

The only comment I would make after some research and visiting the RPIMUD site is that it should be very clear that these Guidelines set forth in this thread are specifically Delerak's opinions. The RPIMUD site has several paragraphs of what some of the differences between a mud and rpimud are and how most RPIMUD's (from their site) are based on a DIKU modified code.

It is important to note this since alot of the definitions of RPIMUD are opinions of the creators and do not necessarily reflect easier roleplay or quality roleplay.

If anyone would like a new thread based solely on RPIMUD definitions taken directly from that site I would be happy to do so and give commentary on the same. If no one really cares, I'd rather not take the time to do such extensive work.

These comments above should in no way reflect a good or bad opinion of the Delerak's Guideline's only that his Guideline's are specifically his opinion.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

This is true. I'm hoping other people will chime in though and give feedback, that way we can compile a real list of what the general community feels what embodies an RPI and what doesn't.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

No need, NW. I already did that here. :)



I should note that the listed owner of the site is no longer the person who runs it now. There's a new-ish team on board, and they're working on sprucing things up, I believe. That's very nice to know.

Seriously, I know you guys must be wondering why I even care since I don't use the RPI tag and wouldn't use it even if every bit of my game fit every spec RPIs had for personal reason. I mostly just care because it affects roleplayers in the gaming community, and that's my community!

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

1. Permdeath - agreed, no qualifications, other than there might be instances in which a character would get resurrected - such as in the case of bug abuse by the character's killer or a game-side error.

2. Description-based: I feel that "well-described" and "good background" should be replaced with "a staff-approved description and background fitting with the game's IC history and setting." "Well" and "good" are just a bit too subjective, and getting too deep into proper punctuation and grammar and sentence structure could cause the #2 guideline to go on for pages and pages :)
3. Account based: I would personally simplify this: RPIs are one character per account, with one account allowed per player at any given moment.
4. No levels - just leave it like that: No levels.
5. Extensive, player controlled emote system - Players may create open-ended, custom emotes and have commands to help create these emotes. Stock emotes are either nonexistent or inconsequential (added that last bit, because sometimes brevity is best, such as "nod" or "smile.").
6. Slower Paced World: I'm not sure about the wording of this. I understand the intention, but saying "slower" is comparative. Slower than what? And how slow is too slow? And "should" have a crafting system - I've seen some crafting systems that are so complex that they detract from RP rather than add to it. No idea how to fix it but I think this point needs to be worked on.
7. Items are descripion based: I would say items must all have descriptions. Not be description-based, because that would make them part of a mush, not an RPI. Items in RPIs for the most part have coded functions. Unless they intentionally don't (such as "a huge boulder that you can't climb and just sits there doing nothing but we wanted it there for you to look at).
8. Immersive code: I would simply say: The code must support the roleplay, rather than the roleplay managing to exist despite or around the code.
9. Mechanics Based World: Agreed.
10. No visible "experience" points; obviously code in all games is numeric by nature, everything is boolean if you get down to it. But players in an RPI have no need to see the number of points required before they get a boost to this or that skill. Once again it goes to the code supporting the RP rather than the RP existing despite the code.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

For the sake of discussion, please understand that if I did not list something, I agree with it.

Description Regulation present - Players are required to provide a detailed background and description for themselves. All character descriptions and backgrounds are reviewed and approved by the staff.

Single Character Requirement - All players may play only one character at any given time. Your character must die or be retired before you can create an new one.

I agree. This one gave me fits on how to phrase it. I didn't want to say "Slow" because that has a somewhat negative connotation to it. What about the following?

Controlled Paced world - The game is designed to promote a pace that allows players ample time to create detailed emotes/poses. All systems, including crafting and combat, should be designed to create this pace.

I think this should totally be nixed. It's completely subjective and a matter of opinion on what one person feels like supports their RP. You also don't need a list that's bogged down by opinions rather than serious, non-subjective requirements.

Numberless experience system - Experience gained by RPI characters should be denoted solely via written descriptions.

Leave off the "code supporting the RP" stuff or any opinions when you create this list. That's a total matter of opinion on whether or not it supports or detracts from RP. Well, that is unless you want RPIs to keep sounding like a list of personal preferences and judgment calls.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Actually, in a lot of operating systems and software packages, that is exactly what you would be. Your security level would be a number and it would directly reflect the amount of trust, capability, and access you are given.

Human beings are absolute fiends for classifications, rankings, and categorization. To say such constructs are fake or unrealistic is to ignore absolutely everything around you in the world and in life.

If you don't like them, fine, just say you don't like them. I can completely understand that. But they are extremely realistic and have real world analogues.

Now, if you are talking about people running around the game saying: "I am a level 10 fighter" then I can understand a little more what you are saying. But levels as a behind the scenes abstraction are not fake, "OOC", or unrealistic whatsoever.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

What if the level is behind the scenes and the player never knows what their level is? Still a no-no?

I am trying to get a handle on this anti-level thing. To me levels are an abstraction that is no different, better, or worse than skill levels. They are just numbers behind the scenes used to represent and adjudicate game mechanics. The salient point is whether or not such things are visible in numeric form to players (levels, skill levels, xp, etc.) rather than the mechanics themselves.

Also, assuming you guys are serious about improving these definitions, it really is time to come up with a better term/acronym/whatever.

RPI is extremely generic, and sounds more like someome saying "RP, but better than everyone else" when in fact RPI is really just a feature set some people prefer.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Got another one that I think MUST go on the list:

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

Explanation:

The reason that this has to exist is that death should be a real possibility in player vs. player conflicts. Systems that have opt-in or flagged PK shouldn't be permitted. It's a given that there should be RP reasons behind PKs, but we're assuming that RPI players are there to be RPing, not PKing people for kicks. Thus, we'll keep it simple.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Just some quick thoughts before I turn my attention to dinner. Mmmmmm...food!

Not completely true. There are examples in both combat and other areas which do not allow ample time for detailed emotes or even any emote at all. A pair of good examples would be falling and death. Both can be role-played around but at times circumstances simply do not allow for it. With the use of a climb skill, it is possible for a player to fail the skill check, resulting in a fall. The effect is sudden, as a fall would be. Additionally, it is possible for there to be areas where fall rooms exist. Stepping into them immediately sends a player into a fall to the room "below". Now, while a player can identify the potential for a fall and emote accordingly, once the actual fall is activated, they do not have the opportunity to emote before the action occurs. Some RPIs, SoI was the first I believe, use color to denote fall rooms (if the direction north is red in the exits list, it's a fall room), this allows a player to emote the necessary emotes before executing the command. However, given that the player can not ascertain what may lie beyond the fall (outside a notion based off of the present room's description), most are loathe to RP such an action. Hence, most falls occur due to unintentional causes and no emotes accompany them.

Likewise death typically does not afford one the ability to control the pace. A classic personal example I can give is a guy who walked up to the gates of an enemy fortress. He was immediately spotted by the NPC guards in the watch towers who hailed down a rain of a dozen arrows into him. Dead near-instantly, as he should be for doing such a thing and given the nature of the response.

Thus, use of the term "all systems" is not accurate in describing RPIs.

Rather than the word "experience", I would suggest aptitude, ability, or another like term which is not used by many MUDs to denote a completely different thing the way "experience" is.

That's really the heart of it though. The original RPIs were massively re-written code, so much so that aside from some familiar syntax and commands, they were almost indistinguishable from their original codebase. Rather than "RP", I would however suggest the term "code supporting the world design" to delineate it from "world design supporting the code". That would be a factual description of the process by which the code came into being. It was designed to support the features of the world design (Harshlands' world is based off the Harn gaming system world, Armageddon's gameworld has similar P&P roots). The design and implementation of perma-death code is a classic example of this. While permadeath is a feature, the "code follows world design" is a philosophy, but both are part of the defining characteristics of RPI.

Concern for others and for the community is a noble concept. I rarely question why someone cares. I typically question when people say they don't care. ;)

Take care,

Jason
Mmmmmm...food!

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Maybe not military ranks (although that's arguable because surely, in theory, someone with a higher rank is better at their job than someone with a lower rank) but things like belts in martial arts are very analogous to levels in my mind. A black belt karate master is, in nearly all cases, going to be stronger, faster, fitter, and able to take more punishment than a yellow belt student. I'd have to agree with Threshold and say just because you don't like levels doesn't mean they can't be applied in a wholly-realistic RP way.

Actually, the same could be said about permadeath. For some reason a lot of people equate "good RP" with "realistic RP", where realism is based on how real-world it is, and that's just not true. If your world happens to be one, for instance, where everyone has a clone and their mind is instantly transported to it upon death, as long as the RP of the players is in keeping with the world then there's no reason permadeath has to be part of an RPI. For people who say "it's not realistic because there's no way of getting rid of someone" well, it might not be realistic when applied to real-world concepts, but good RP is surely gameworld-based and if that world has no death can you really sneer at it and say it can't be RolePlay Intensive?

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

I knew I was forgetting something. I totally agree.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

To say that a game requires a "slower" pace is simply a crutch being used because a player can't type fast enough to react to a situation or the environment around them. It is a lot like being pumped up with painkillers and trying to deal with a conveyor belt. Does anyone think that a real life soldier under fire in a foxhole in Afghanistan is in a "slow" or "controlled" environment? Effective communication in any kind of environment is a skill in itself.

SOME people can type as fast as they can speak, others can't. This same problem exists even on graphical muds, hence the usage of Ventrillo and other speech programs for combat-intensive and other "special" situations.This is also why a good number of commands in muds are abbreviated.

As for levels...life is made up of patterns and numbers; there is math everywhere, completely invisible to most. I could sit down and speak to someone about my management experience/ability for an hour and still not get them to understand (for whatever reason). However, if I say, "On a scale of 1 to 10, I'm an 8," anyone that can speak English will likely understand right away.

Quantifying oneself with numbers in any fashion isn't unrealistic at all, they are simply a tool to understanding. I might be an "A" student, have a 1650 SAT score, have a 185 IQ, etc. These are all ways of personally quantifying myself. Heck, in traditional D&D, a character's intelligence score multiplied by 10 was supposed to represent one's IQ. Since I have been a gamer for years, I often quantify myself with levels by how many years I have spent in any particular field (level 6 soldier, level 13 manager, etc.).

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

The problem with lag-free, fast-paced environment is it doesn't allow time for roleplay, emotes, and it isn't realistic. To be able to run from one end of the mud to the other in under 1 minute is not realistic at all, hence the reason for delays when you move. Saying it's because people can't type fast enough is ridiculous, I type 140 WPM and I would never play a delay-free roleplay mud, it's unrealistic and doesn't cater to the RPI player.

Also using levels on an RPI is again unrealistic, the only way you know you're an 8 on a scale of 1 to 10 is self-knowledge. Our knowledge of ourselves is something that makes us unique, it allows us to say that, the question is should every character know how powerful they truly are? Does any boxer or fighter, or police officer ever truly know how good they are? If they practice every single day, yes. They do, but not in terms of code. If I practice with my gun everyday and hit the bullseye 20 times out of 25, I know I'm a pretty good shot, but by no means do I know the potentenial of everyone else compaerd to me, and where I stand on that potential scale of numbers. When you use levels, you're telling the players, this is how powerful you can get, and now you know where you stand: when you don't give them levels to go by, it increases the realism, of now knowing how you stand compared to others, and you yourself not truly knowing unless you practice with the character everyday and know that he's getting stronger. Also skills might have adjectives to describe how good you are in that skill.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

I still disagree, forcing any pace in a game is simply a crutch, period. If one's goal is to create the "illusion" of space and distance, so be it.

Your argument for not using levels is justifying WHY levels and structure ARE placed in any game; so that everyone is being judged/measured and set within the delineated structure in a "fair" relation to eachother (the other players) by an outside party (the implementors/game masters). The core argument here is whether levels and other numbers should be used (i.e. viewable to players) or not, so that immersion is maintained.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Forcing the pace is the whole point of keeping the game realistic, just because it's not lag-free doesn't mean it can't be fast-paced. There might be spells that can speed up your movement delay, and you can always change the speed of your character by either typing run (on armageddon), or by using other commands to get your character moving faster, so that the pace is faster, however there is more movement drain becasue of this. Again, it ties back into realism.

My arguement was pretty simple, the only reason we can gauge ourselves on a scale is because we have the self-knowledge as human beings to do so. The characters on a mud, most likely do not. Unless it's a cyberpunk/future/modern RPI, (which I have never seen), then I would agree, sure, they might have levels and have the in-character knowledge of mathematical genius to know how powerful they are, or where they stand in the of the universe. Characters on a fantasy based MUD would not have this knowledge, they simply practice and get good or they don't. Even so, the arguement that I know I'm good at this or that is still moot, can you give me mathematical numbers on how good mike tysons skills were in his fights and then give me mathematical numbers on how good buster douglas was or is? That's the great thing about fighting, and life in general, you never know what is going to happen, and numbers aren't always right.

It's that which makes levels an OOC concept, so using them on a mud where in-character immersion is the number one goal detracts from the overall gameplay. Typing score and seeing my level would be a total turn-off while I was roleplaying a character on an RPI. Whereas typing score and seeing basic info like my height/weight, name, my basic stats would be okay.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

If what you are saying is simply using a "descriptor" for one's abilities is the goal here, then technically levels are still being used. If a skill's proficiency advances in degree at all (unskilled, poor, skilled, advanced, master, etc.), levels are still being used, just not presented in a numerical values. I have published such table-top systems in the past, I understand the concept.

I think the issue here (for establishment on any list like this) isn't whether an RPI game should be without "levels," but that information regarding a game's mechanics should be PRESENTED as levelless and/or without so many numbers. When it comes down to it, everything behind the curtain in a mud is numbers; the point here is where the curtain should be drawn.

To state that a game has no levels is not the same as stating it has "descriptors."

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

While what you're saying is technically true, within the MUD community, "levels" has a denoted meaning. Just take a look at your average DIKU or CircleMUD and you'll see clearly to what the term "levels" means in general usage. By contrast, the term "level-less" has been used in many MUDs (TMC even has a category for it if I recall correctly) and although you're right in saying that there is some measurement of skill occurring behind the scenes, the term "level-less" is a reference to the lack of numeric indicators denoting specific tiers of advancement. The lack of this system is also a characteristic of RPI MUDs.

Take care,

Jason

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

I agree, sure, numbers are everywhere, essentially if you break down a computer it's all binary. Zeroes and Ones. But the point of it is the concept of levels in muds. Yes levels are going to be used but for an RPI to function and immerse players as much as possible, I don't think levels in the traditional sense and RPI's can co-exist.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

I disagree.
While RPIMud might disagree with Delerek here, I think most players of RPIs would agree with his list. Including 5 and 10.

And what's important about the tag RPI is that you want something that lets players find the mud they're looking for. I was pretty appalled upon trying out many of the muds listed on RPIMud to find that they did not in any way conform to my idea of an rpi (See Delerek's list) and felt further that my time had been wasted.

I'm sorry that so many people feel excluded by the elitist values of the RPI community, but as it's a niche market it helps to have very distinct terms that help players find the muds that do conform. Not only does it help me find muds I do want to play, it helps those who don't like the qualities of an RPI avoid them, and saves them their precious time as well.

I was curious Mina why you objected to those two particular entries. While I think I will disagree with you, I am still interested in your thought

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

It is unfortunate, but it appears the term "RPI" is doomed to confusion in the MUD community for several reasons.

Every other classification of RPX in the mudding community is a classification that refers specifically to the type of roleplaying environment on the game - Encouraged, Enforced, Mandatory. What follows the "RP" directly describes the RP environment. From what I have read, those deep in the RPI community are saying that the "I" in RPI doesn't relate to the roleplaying specifically but a set of features that make the game world "intensive" and more "realistic".

When people know what the "I" stands for the assumption most likely will be that intense roleplay is the defining factor of these games. The most common definition of "intensive" is that it is "of or relating to intensity" or that it is characterized by "a high degree of intensity". Even the terms such as "labor-intensive" or "research-intensive" refer to a heightened degree of labor or research or as one dictionary entry states, "possessing or requiring to a high degree".

If you do a search on "RP intensive" with Goggle all the gaming entries refer to games, modules, or groups that have more enhanced RP.

From a thread on "Super Groups" on City of Heroes: "RP Level: RP-intensive. Because the basis of the group is in-character social interaction, base and VG channel are in character, unless indicated by some means e.g. ((OOC)): Words and stuff., (()), [], whatever."

Looking for coders: "Coders sought for original, RP intensive MURPG" - Hrielith is an ongoing project incorporating many innovative aspects of play and design, with a focus on novelty, creativity, and high RP.

Necromancer Games thread - "Most RP intensive modules." asking "I'm just wondering what adventures you guys think do the best job of encouraging roleplaying?"

On top of all of this some people assume that the "I" stands for "immersive" and refer to games that immerse an individual into RP. Place on top of that the mudding community misuses the terms we already have such as "RP Mandatory" and "RP Enforced".

"RPI" is an understandably confusing term to individuals. I am truly sorry to say if you don't change the designation it will always be misused for the reasons I've stated above. I would suggest the term

RPM-CR or Roleplay Mandatory - Coded Realism

I can't even suggest "RPE-CR" because we can't seem to agree if the "E" stands for "encouraged" or "enforced" in many cases.

You have a handful of these games in operation with more to come it sounds like. I truly wish you the best of luck on your expansion. If all of these games have RP mandatory environments I will be sure to take a look.

Good luck!

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

I'm not sure which entries we're talking about, but whenever making a list that defines something, I tend to remove anything that is subjective, applies opinion, or creates misunderstandings.

For example, something RPI players often cite is something like this:

"RPI mechanics support RP rather than having roleplay around the mechanics."

You can already see that lots of people disagree on what supports their RP. A better wording of what I *THINK* they're trying to convey would be something like this:

"An RPI's codebase is derived from a hack n' slash, non-RP-enforced game. Systems have been removed or introduced by the administrators to support a the roleplay enviornment."

I believe both of the wordings I objected to involved claims "our code enforces roleplay better". That's incredibly subjective. I think that it's my years of law school that make me try to word things in order to avoid less confusion and possible arguments from an opposing lawyer.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Skill based experience system rather than a level based experience system.

The goal in any RPI is realism and the skill based experience system does a better job of emulating that than a level based system and here is why.

In a skill based system you receive bonuses in a skill for actually practicing it as opposed to a level based system where you get boosts or the ability to learn skills from completely unrelated actions.

If you want to get stronger, you lift weights.
If you want to get better at a sword, you spar with a sword.
If you want to get better at pickpocketing, you actually practice pickpocketing people.

A lot, if not most MUDs already integrate a skill based and a level based system, RPIs just do away with the need for levels. Instead of focusing on an ultimately arbitrary level, they focus more on their IC accomplishments and goals.

As for the analogy of the use of ranks in everyday life, these are completely subjective ranks not given to you by how many smurfs you kill. I'm playing a leveless RPI right now in a military organization, and we just assign ranks ICly by merit and experience, not experience points. Infact, sometimes people who are less skilled than others can become higher ranks based on their ability as leaders rather than their hard coded stats.

The point here is while -yes- we as humans love to categorize and identify absolutely everything, these classifications should not have any bearing on stats of a PC. If Delerak is a level 10 PHP admnistrator he still might have less HP than a level 5 PHP administrator because ultimately it's an utterly superfluous distinction.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Specifically I meant this one: . Extensive, player controlled emote system - Players may create open-ended, custom emotes and have commands to help create these emotes. Stock emotes are not present.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Quoted for truth. Ultimately, people are going to go by what your initials stand for because that's supposed to give information quickly. You can see how even players don't know what they're looking for if you refer to Burrtyr's thread that sparked this all. Role Play Intensive (or immersive), if I was not heavily involved in the mudding community, would mean "lots of intense roleplay!" to me. Role Play Enforced would mean "players and admins enforce the roleplay". Role Play Optional would mean "roleplay is accepted but I don't HAVE to roleplay". Role Play Encouraged would mean "I don't have to roleplay but they want me to". People who are new to the mudding community or simply don't go outside their own mud's community cannot be expected to simply infer what Role Play Intensive means. And honestly, there are plenty of admins who aren't heavily involved in the community as well who probably use RPI thinking it means that the Roleplay is Intensive on our mud.

When I tell people that CoT stands for Center of Town, I really do mean the town's center with the short description Center of Town. No one has to really do research on what the center of town is before they understand it.

On the other hand, MUD stands for multi-user dungeon, but in reality, MUDs are mechanics-heavy, text games, etc. Still, no one really enforces it, and I'm not sure that anyone really cares to do so. MMORPG stands for Massively-Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game. They're basically just the graphical muds. The big differences in this situation is that MUDs encompass thousands of games. MMORPG encompasses millions of players. There's really just a handful of RPIs and a handful of players involved (compared to MUDs overall or MMORPGs). There's no critical mass.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Oh, that's a confusion that's resulted from the fact that Delerak has updated his list. #5 was removed, I believe.

I don't have a probelm with that one. I wrote it. :)

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

This isn't actually true. Threshold is roleplay enforced. I believe there's some extremely immersive and extensive roleplaying there. Our players do a great job. The roleplay that happens on Threshold is extremely fast-paced, though, and consists mostly of dialogue punctuated by emotes. If you spend too much time posing, you could be dead, have a jihad declared against you, or been kicked out of your guild by the time you're done with your beautiful and brilliant pose. That's simply the pace of the mud, and I believe NW is much the same way.

Whereas if you go the other extreme and say play on KushielMux, the standard is to often have 5-15 minutes of wait between player poses if you're roleplaying with one other person. People in the mud know this, and they don't have a problem with it. When you, however, stick a Thresh player in a KM setting, it's quite a jarring change.

I'm guessing the RPIs need to fall somewhere in the middle of this, and that's what they're trying to convey with this rule. In Threshold, unless you have two like-minded players, you have about 30 seconds to finish your emoting. Other players, however, may take 1-2 minutes to write elaborate emotes, but when it comes down to conflict, they will switch to the faster style of communication where most of the RP occurs in using the say command punctuated by short, fast emotes.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Mina once again you provide a perfect analogy:
That is what MMORPG has come to mean, that is commonly accepted and acknowledged meaning. The vast majority of gamers won't have any problem with it.

However, there are games that are online, offer roleplaying, and are massively-multiplayer games, that are NOT graphical. Games such as Achaea and Gemstone, for example. And interestingly enough, MMORPGs as they are understood to be now, are also understood to be commercial. So are Achaea and Gemstone.

Why not change the term MMORPG and call them Graphical RPGs instead, to make them fit what they are known to be at the present time, to distinguish them from muds such as Achaea and Gemstone, which are most assuredly not graphical, but absolutely ARE MMORPGs, by definition of each word in the initials?

Why not? Because - the community as a whole has accepted that MMORPGs are graphical. There will always be a few individuals who reject the standard. There will also be the new member of the community who simply doesn't know any better, and will either accept the education or become one of the few who reject the standard. But the standard remains.

Just like the standard criteria of what constitutes an RPI remains, whether a few reject that standard, or don't know about the standard, or not.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Says who? Says you and people like you. That's it. Skill based systems are no better or worse of an abstraction than a level based system. It is nothing more than pure preference. Neither is more realistic or better than the other. You prefer skills over levels. GREAT! There's nothing wrong with that. But when you start declaring your preferences better than everyone else's, then there is a problem.

And by practicing it, you mean standing with your face in a corner duplicating the action over and over again, right? Because that's what happens very often in pure skill based games - especially skilling up through use systems.

The point is: neither is more realistic as a concept. It is all about the implementation. One implementation can be more realistic than another, but skills or levels are both abstractions designed to adjudicate a result in a reasonable and believable way. That's it and that's all.

... they focus on an ultimately arbitrary skill level.

Yeah, we get it. :)

Well, I wager the main reason is because if someone decides to call their MUD an MMORPG, they aren't going to have their game unfairly bashed by an irrational, foaming at the mouth WoW fanatic.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Skill-based does not imply RPI. RPIs, as I've pointed out before, do not accept this kind of behavior and employ several methods to guard against it. As a last defense, you have staff like me who would notice players doing that, check the logs, discover they'd been doing it for some time, then adjust their skill level back down to eliminate the gains they had made through such behavior (if they were 95% of the way from "familiar" to "adroit" I'd reset them so they were just at the minimum for "familiar"...guess with all that sparring they pinched a nerve...so sad) . Then I'd fire off a friendly warning to them not to do that again.

Not true. Using a skill to increase your ability with that skill is more realistic than being assessed points based on actions not related to that skill. Killing a wolf with a club should not allow you to increase your skill at weaving nor should being able to tell interesting stories in a pub all day allow you to become better at forging a horseshoe. These mechanical stat-based methods are employed by stat-based RPEs but NEVER by skill-based MUDs including RPIs. The result is a more realistic manner of skill development. Use can allow one to improve but only at the skill used (and in RPIs, the use of the skill does not guarantee it will always cause your skill to increase)

Jason

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Here's the distinction between standard level-based and skill based systems that I think RPI players are trying to make: (I say standard because I know of at least one mud that does it differently, and I think that's why Threshold is objecting.)

In a level-base system, a character gains the level and gains abilities based on acquiring a general knowledge ('experience') for that level. The reasoning is that your character has "progressed" far enough in his/her field to suddenly know this ability.

In a skill-based system, however it's implemented, your character "practices" the same skill over and over, and performing that skill enough "teaches" them something. So, in order to get certain abilities, you have to pick which skill to perform repeatedly before you move further down that chain.

The realism really comes with the players and the administrators not the system, but the system can help promote realism. It all depends on the game. On an RPI, you could get a player who decides he's going to min-max the system and start spamming the 4 different abilities in order to skill up what he believes is best for leveling his character and PKing his enemies. Whether or not he gets busted, the "unrealistic" factors of the mechanics have already been exposed. On the other hand, a roleplayer could go to a level-based system and spend his/her entire time roleplaying studies for the abilities he/she knows is going to come when he/she levels. The idea is that using all their previously learned abilities from previous levels expands their "general" knowledge and unlocks a new ability for them. There have been plenty of times when I've been coding when I have a "Eureka" moment, and I've truly understood something new. I liken this more to a level system than a skill system. I haven't been learning about call_outs over and over and over. I code entire projects, and thus, I gain more knowledge in the area of coding in general. That player just brought lots of realism into a level system, and if that becomes the norm on the mud, it's going to seem more "realistic" than a system that allows people to simply write a script to spam an ability over and over to raise a skill.

Arguing that one is more realistic than the other one, again, is completely subjective. They are both systems that are abstracts of real life, and both can be powerful and useful tools for roleplaying. RPIs chose to use a skill-based system. It's neither more realistic or promotes more roleplaying. It's simply a game feature that helps define an RPI.

In addition, many of us keep assuming that "realistic" is "better" for roleplaying and that somehow being realistic is more challenging. That's not necessarily true. Playing a role where you have no basis in realism, making it believable and coherent, and selling it to an audience can be argued to be quite more difficult than simply basing a character off the Marquis de Sade and sticking it in some random fantasy/sci-fi setting. Realism is often nice for roleplaying because it gives you a strict guide to follow, and it's easier to keep everyone on the same page. If you have a group of good enough roleplayers, though, realism matters little as long as there's enough details in the game for everyone to be on the same page and those details are consistent, has patterns that players can easily follow and grasp, and the world operates in a believable manner. The key is building or finding such a world. :)

Honestly, if I wanted realism, I know this game called real life and the graphics are totally awesome.

I think RPI players would be taken more seriously if they quit using such judgement calls as "this is BETTER for roleplaying" or "this is more realistic". That's probably a very inaccurate statement anyway and not really what you mean. RPIs have picked systems that are harder for irresponsible builders and players to mangle and easier to police. This allows them to spend less time tracking down infractions and spend more time nurturing the game world. I'll attempt to explain.

In a level-based system, builders/coders often simply think of a cool power and stick it in wherever there's space. Often, they find a justification for putting that power in just because it's coded, and many times, coders/builders have no real thought behind the skills they're developing for a class/skill tree because there's no linear progression or guidelines. You often learn in "chunks" or across several systems at once. It takes a lot of effort to maintain a believable progression. So, often, you get a hodge-podge of abilities, often seemingly unrelated, all in one class. The linear progression of a skill-based system may have many branches, but the abilities come in a straight line, much like Civ's tech tree. You learn A which progresses to B which progresses to C, and sometimes, if you have A and B, Y becomes unlocked as well. This is much less prone to sloppy design (even though some games still manage it) because you're forced to already think of "what's next". And as is the norm for anything linear, this system is much easier to organize and organize well.

I think saying that a skill-based system is more "realistic" is a simplified and inaccurate term for what you guys really mean.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Strawman. Please re-read my post. I did not say anything about RPIs.

That's nice. Like I said, that is why it is all about the implementation, not the concept. A level based RPI could take the same measures if someone was "levelling up" in a lame manner.

Really. So if I create 100 files with the following:

it is realistic that I will get better at coding?

Oh wait, no that isn't realistic at all. So like I have said all along, skills, levels, etc. are all just abstractions used by a game to codify a system of processing results.

Really? So cross training is a myth, huh? Going for a 10 mile jog every day will not make me a better soccer player? Lifting weights doesn't make someone a better football player? If I read a lot of books, that won't make me a better writer? Improving my typing skill doesn't make me a better programmer?

Personally, I find that I am a better programmer (in terms of both code output and how rapidly I can learn new concepts) when I make sure I get at least 1 hour of exercise per day. And those two acts are not even close to being related in a pure skill-based system.

In fact, it is incredibly UNREALISTIC that a skill system completely fails to represent the benefits of cross training. But you know what... who cares? That doesn't make it a bad method of designing a game. It just makes it different.

Neither skills nor levels are better or more realistic. They are both abstractions used by a game to create a codified method of determining the success/failure of actions. It is the height of arrogance to simply declare your preference "better" or "more realistic" when that is simply false. And furthermore, it never ceases to amaze me that people (and no surprise it often tends to be RPI types) feel it is important and worthwhile to argue and prove THEIR preference is the best. Why can't you folks just leave it at "I like this best"?

And you wonder why people think RPI-ers are elitist.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

That's my point exactly. It's much easier to say "Stop spamming the same ability over and over and roleplay!" rather than say, "Hey, you know, you're just making XP and not roleplaying enough to support your leveling." One form of leveling can be a lot easier to police than the other. It's understandable why RPIs have chosen to use the skill-based leveling system, but I don't believe that it's any more realistic. It's less prone to being mangled by sloppy builders, and it's easy to police such a system for players trying to mangle the roleplay intent behind these systems.

No, but I wish it worked that way cause I'd be cutting and pasting my little heart out.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

The reason that skill based systems are better for rpis than level based is becausethe majority of us who play rpis prefer them.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

RPI refers to both code and policy, as I stated earlier. You should lift more weights to cross-train your reading skill.

It didn't improve your skill at it though. It may have made you more alert so that you reached your potential, but it did not improve your actual skill via the exercise. And "learn[ing] new concepts" is not something that would be defined by a skill in a skill-based system. That's represented by attributes like strength, intelligence, dexterity, not by skills like weaving or smithing.

Yes, it makes it different. And skill-based systems are part of what differentiates a RPI from other MUDs.

I'm curious but are you bashing a lot of gophers with a baseball bat? You type so well that you must be gaining lots of experience points bashing gophers to train up your ability to type! "More realistic" doesn't have to imply "completely realistic" but compared to stat-based advancement, it is more realistic. Although being an artificial system it simply does not equal the complexities of reality. That's pretty much the case with any artificial system.

I've never seen a player who started on RPIs leave and then state that other MUD types were better. I have seen players who started on other types of games try RPIs and go back to other types, citing (usually indirectly) their inability or unwillingness to accept the features of RPIs. I have also seen players who started on other kinds of MUDs leave those in favor of RPI. I, myself, fall into this category. Is it elitism that a greater number of players abandon other types of MUDs for RPI than the reverse? I guess it depends on which side of the move you're on. If you're the one who can lose players to RPI but can't lure them away, I guess it's elitism. If you're the game style that players would rather give up MUDs altogether than play something else, the perspective is something different. As someone who's staffed on both sides of the RPI/non-RPI difference and made the move to RPI-only, I can see why some might call RPI "elitist". But there's a green-eyed tint to that argument too.

Take care,

Jason

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Actually, bashing gophers with a baseball bat would indeed improve my typing. It would improve my hand-eye-coordination, my flexibility, my hand strength, and my endurance. All of those things would improve my typing abilities. You couldn't counter my other examples, and now you just offered up ANOTHER ONE that proves my point. Thank you!

As a concept, skill based systems are no more realistic than level based systems. It is all about the implementation.

You like skill based systems. That's great. I like them too. I don't like pure level based systems, so I am not trying to defend something that is my own preference. But I have already pointed out numerous ways in which skill based systems are "unrealistic" as well. They don't take into account cross-benefits of different activities, and they are prone to some of the most unrealistic abuses and behaviors of all (standing in a corner, using a skill over and over, or using a skill in a totally pointless way simply to improve it).

Both systems are game mechanic abstractions that a developer uses to adjudicate actions and determine a result. Neither one of them does a particularly good job of mimicking reality. Reality is far too complex. And you know what? It's ok. Realism is not and should not be the most important thing when designing game mechanics. Believability and fun are far more important and valuable goals.

If RPI folks want to make "skill based" a requirement for a game being an RPI, that's fine.

If RPI folks want to shout from the mountain top that they prefer skill based to level based, that is also fine.

If RPI folks want to declare skill based systems "better" or "more realistic", that is not fine. It is not fine when they try to pronounce their own personal preferences to be better than everyone else's. That isn't logic or reason. That is just arrogance.

Surprise, surprise! More elitism! "RPIs are better than everyone else because we lure away all your players! We're in yer playerbase, stealing yer players!" This is getting hilarious. You can't win the argument, so you fall back on more elitism. I really expected better from you, prof. True colors?

My games have attracted countless players who quit RPIs to join ours. We have even had coders (and at least one admin I recall off the top of my head) leave some of those "founding 3" RPIs to play our games. These are people who invested not just their time, but their MONEY in our games. Players move in both directions between RPIs and non RPIs. Perhaps more importantly, many players play BOTH types of games because they offer a different experience. So whatever point you are trying to make is not only elitist and desperate, but wrong.

Lets be honest here. The number of people who play and prefer RPIs is absolutely microscopic compared to the number of people who play "other MUDs" as well as the number of people who role play on "other muds." So don't break your arm patting yourself on the back.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

I think another big difference might be that when we get someone from RPIs (or any other game), we're just glad they found our game and enjoy it. If they move on to another game, we're just glad they spent some time having fun with us and hope that they have fun in their next game, even if that other game is my hated WoW. *mutter* Whereas the poster above seems to be viewing getting a player from another mud as some sort of graduation ceremony. "Welcome to RPIs! You'll never leave again because there's nothing better." I hate to rain all over your parade, but we share players. We even share players with MUSHes and MUXes. We even have players who came from RPIs and have had high builder, coder and admin positions in RPIs, and we also have players who have gone on to be builders on RPIs. Most players interested in RP aren't interested in whether a game is an RPI, and RPEI, and RPXSELFLKJSEF or whatever. They're interested in whether or not the RP in the world is enforced. Everything else is game mechanics, style and preference for them.

Before the implication that we must be jealous of RPIs because they're taking away all our players, I never even thought about who comes from an RPI or who doesn't come from one. Possibly it's because I hadn't bothered to keep track of who came from which mud, nor have I ever thought that "our RP is superior to other games, so once they come to Threshold they never go back". I think it'd be the height of stupidity and arrogance for me to actually believe that never occurs. I know that we share players with several of the RPIs. Sometimes they put more time into their RPI, and sometimes they put more time into us. It really depends on how things are going. There are other players that we have from RPIs that play only our game, and I'm sure that there are players from our game who now play an RPI exclusively.

For a ton of players, RP enforcement is what is the defining line for them. After that they just look for mechanics.

Ultiamtely, RPIs really consist of a handful of muds and a handful of players in the grand scheme of things. I doubt that RPIs are stealing all the players out there. :)

Anyway, this conversation has degenerated to the point where it's not worth continuing. At least some progress was made before it got derailed, though!

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

The last few posts have been pretty good, but I think it strays off topic for some reason. Mina has it right that players come and go from games all the time. NW has had numerous people join from all types of games (Permadeath, MUSH, RPE, H&S and so on) as I'm sure many have played other games coming from NW.

I know for a fact that many players of NW enjoy Threshold and Achae (which I personally enjoy too) as well as many other games on TMS and frankly I'm glad they have other outlets of enjoyment.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Your other examples were lame and didn't need countering. And bashing animals with a baseball bat will not improve your skill at typing. It will improve the physical attributes that aid in typing but it will not make you a better typist. Typing will.

Which is why skill-based systems alone are not enough to call a game RPI. It's entirely possible to have a skill-based H&S (and there are examples of this). And the implementation of skill-based systems in RPIs do take into account cross-benefits, specificially through the use of crafts.

Yes, because realism isn't believable. As for fun, that's another subjective term. Fun for one player may mean killing everything in sight. That wouldn't be acceptable in a RPI, no matter how much fun it may bring that player.

And the term RPI has nothing to do with being "better". We're straying into the realm of a different discussion than what makes a RPI. This discussion got off on a tangent when the subject of the first statement you made there was contested. From there the discussion seems to have slid into yet another digression of little bearing to the purpose of the thread.

I didn't say "RPIs are better than everyone else because we lure away all your players!" so kindly refrain from fabricating and attributing ideas that I did not say. As for the subject of luring away players, there aren't many to lure away. RPIs tend to lure very few players. In fact, most MUDs fail to lure players away from other games. Players tend to stick with the games they first connect with.

Also, there is no such thing as elitism. Elitism is a perception. If you feel there's elitism going on, it's probably due to your own insecurities.

And right there the inclusion of investing "their money" suggests that they did NOT go to your game for the role-play but for the ability to use OOC factors for H&S advancement. I don't dispute players and even staff from RPIs playing other games but that's because they're seeking something other than RP be it H&S gameplay, PK MUDs, etc. And no doubt plenty of players "quit RPIs to join" your game. But I'll wager those were never players who were dedicated to RPI MUDs, rather the type that tried it out, perhaps even tried to bend/break the rules to do what they pleased and failed, and quit because RPI just wasn't what they preferred.

I don't dispute this. In fact, I'd say it's a very accurate reason why. But I have yet to see a player who began on any RPI go to a different type of game to find RP. I have seen players who first played an RPI quit to go off to play WoW and Gemstone. RPI just wasn't their cup of tea.

I have seen numerous players who did not start on RPIs leave to go back to the system they were more comfortable with. I have seen many RPI players play other games so they could do "some mindless bashing" (as one put it). But I have seen none that have started on RPIs and left them to RP elsewhere. I've known a few who've tried and they either endlessly come back to RPIs (no matter what the circumstances that caused their departure) or quit MUDding altogether. I spoke with one just the other day (and I myself essentially fall into this category). I spoke to another a couple weeks ago. Sadly, most, I don't hear from any more as they've abandoned text-based gaming altogether. And that's what concerns me as the out-flow of talent dangerously exceeds the in-flow in some RPIs, even with staff (I still have some players come to me with questions about Harshlands because, to quote one, "[they] don't have confidence in the staff to know the answers to [their] questions...." and that's scary).

I've never said anything to the contrary. RPI MUDs are not for everyone. In fact, it's been my experience that a good number of MUD players don't have the combination of creativity and maturity to successfully play any RPI, to say nothing of the grammar and vocabulary to adequately express themselves through text-based role-play.

RPIs have always had small numbers. They were and continue to be a small niche community. In 1998 there were how many MUDs? And only three RPIs. Ten years later, that number is double, but only within the last few years (since the release of the SoI RPI Engine). Several RPIs have since seen a vast increase in player numbers. Harshlands' average online numbers are up by at least 200-300% what they were when I first started playing there almost a decade ago. SoI, despite being only half as old, has a playerbase that sometimes gains more players per month than Harshlands did in its first few years combined. But a lot of this new influx of players also come carrying the baggage of code and RP policies from non-RPIs, which in itself is not unsual. However, sometimes they have trouble adapting because they've played 20 other "RPIs" where it was perfectly acceptable to do the skill spamming you refer to or to go out killing anything they find roaming the streets.

So there's no "patting [myself] on the back". If anything, I think RPIs have experienced a horrific fall-off in quality. Part of this is due to the lowering of standards by the staff of the RPIs themselves, mainly done to attract more players but also in response to the influx of players not only unfamiliar with RPIs but also resistant to conforming to the policies. In the old days, they got booted out of the game. Now, some admins are letting them stay, accepting that two or three poor players who don't know the setting, don't care about the setting, and don't care about the game's policies are better than one good one who does. It creates a sad discrepancy between the game's policies and the reality of what occurs.

Jason

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Yeah, because jogging a lot won't make you a better soccer player. Cross training doesn't exist. Playing the piano won't improve my finger dexterity and make me a better typist. Whatever. Keep arguing for realism while ignoring reality.

You insist your preferences are superior to everyone else's preferences in the whole world. In your mind, what you like is inherently better and more realistic. And why is it more realistic?

Sorry to disappoint you, but RPIs do not have the "best" role play. They have one kind of role play. Your insistence that it is the "best" is precisely the elitism so many have spoken of since the beginning. Tons of people leave RPIs because they think the RP is better elsewhere. A lot of people think the kind of cutter, emo crap that takes place on a lot of RPIs is immature, boring, and repetitive.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Late to the party, but:

Milieu-dependent. MUDs exist where the physical death of a character results in them being sent to an underworld, etc. A futuristic MUD might consist largely of cyberspace, where 'death' simply means being forced into an organic world for some time. These MUDs might even share the same underlying engine. In these sets of physical laws, the correct roleplay decision is that traditional permadeath models would be OOC. What you really want here is internal consistency, not realism. After all, it's not 'realistic' that you have wizards and such in Armageddon, etc. It is, however, internally consistent with the rules of the world.

A) This is irrelevant because you cannot enforce it. A dedicated player who wants two or more accounts can have two or more accounts.
B) Even when a player allows you to link their characters, isn't this an OOC mechanism? I would think that in an "intensive" role play environment, the admins would be judging the quality of a performance or applications strictly on the merit of that character. The 'special' roles seem like a mock audition for a role in, say, a local community theater, except the director decides who gets the part before seeing the tryouts, based on resumes.

Already covered in detail. You are using integers to track the abilities of a character, but parse them differently (sometimes more coarsely, sometimes not) when explaining them to the character's player. All games have these sorts of abstractions.

Finally, an actual feature. I'm not sure the absence of 'stock' emotes helps more than it harms, and 'extensive' is purely arbitrary, but you have the core of something here. It's harder to roleplay when the code doesn't put power in the hands of players.

Artificially slow combat has advantages (time for unwieldy syntax, emotes/ etc.) and disadvantages (many players feel combat is enhanced by a more realistic high-stress rapid pace). I don't see what the absence or presence of a crafting system has to do with the 'pace' of the world.

All roleplaying MUDs I'm aware of have coded echoes of the sort you're describing. Day/night descriptions are an arbitrary feature that your MUD (and mine) have, but they're no more or less important that any number of other distinctions we could draw. Does your MUD have weather-dependent descriptions? Character-height-dependent? Seasonal? Are they changed by local combat? Why is day/night the only variable that matters?

What if the purpose of your game makes combat or crafting unlikely? What if you're running a purely political MUD? Why is that not able to bill itself as "roleplay intensive". Because characters don't fight to the death or spend hours making hats?

Again, you're acting to exclude games where fighting is unlikely, or else where the results are decided by the combatants or arbitrators. There exist MUDs where each combatant describes their actions to a moderator, who decides what happens next based on creativity, the storyline, who the characters are, etc. It seems odd that such a system would be considered less roleplay-intensive than your preferred system.

Milieu-dependent. A futuristic MUD set on a space station might well have a global PA system. Divine beings could likely make their thoughts known to all mortals. Etc.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

No, in the beginning people associated RPIs with quality role-play, whether accurate or not. It became an assumption that RPI somehow indicated the quality of role-play.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

The game world design drives the code, not vice versa and a good number, if not all, such examples are typically code driving world design.

It can be enforced. IP comparison is one method but it's true that twinks can find ways around that. Still, it's not irrelevant any more than "enforced role-play" is. As enforced role-play is a concept which at the heart of RPIs, RPOs, and RPEs, it's hardly irrelevant. Fact is, two accounts, one or both gets deleted along with the characters and then the decision, though some are hesitant, is whether or not to ban.

Sure players can try sneaky ways to get back. I banned the same guy two or three times for multi-play, evading previous bans, and all-around general rudeness involving anti-Semitism, racism, and sexism directed at other players and staff. Wasn't too hard to figure out who he was since he had an IQ of a rabbit and was fairly easy to spot if I caught sight of his RP and character types. Didn't take much effort on my part to do some double-checking within the community and find out that sure enough the moron had mentioned to someone he was back playing. Then it was a very quick personal message (visible only to him) of "Ban extended by six more months, goodbye asswipe" and a nuke of his character and account (and a ban of the IP of his school or friend or whoever it may have belonged to). Has the potential to be disruptive though he tended not to RP so much as mob kill and as a result every time he was alone in the woods killing animals.

But this isn't a fault of the system, it's a fault of the player who seeks to find ways to cheat. You can't necessarily stop cheaters all the time but you certainly can make it a policy to prohibit cheating, eliminating any discussion on whether or not punishment is warranted.

The point is that the play can't see the specifics of their attribute and skill aptitude meaning micromanagement of it and dependence upon the numbers to make decisions in RP is rendered difficult if not impossible. That's quite different from the original H&S code where it is routine for people to use the numbers to dictate their choices.

I wouldn't put day/night descriptions on the list seeing as this was not something widespread throughout (examples of it, yes, but not widespread use until more recently) RPIs.

I believe the more appropriate distinction would be that the systems exist to compliment the world. Crafts can also be used for a wide variety of uses. In the case of the RPI Engine, the crafting system is incredible powerful and has been used quite creatively to brilliant effect. Crafts need not be for manufacture. They can be used to simulate, with results beyond that of an emote, actual processes. This can be as simple as cutting a piece of paper with scissors, creating two smaller pieces.

My own game will feature little to no fighting whatsoever but our craft list will be huge by comparison. Many of these crafts will be for simulation of actions producing changes beyond that of what an emote can do.

Policy-wise, the example you give, is a good one of role-play enforcement. However, Role-Play Intensive was used to describe more than policy alone. It was also about code design. In the example you gave, the code for this aspect of interaction is absent altogether. There is a procedure in place for role-playing the action but there is no coded system for that action beyond emotes.

The examples you give, there is limited responsive ability. One should not be able to respond back via the "global PA system" (unless it's voice activated perhaps) unless they're capable of activating the system. So if a person were to bash the PA system, they shouldn't be able to communicate. And yet, there's a global channel still in place for their use over which they could still be subjected to hearing communication. If capable of being toggled off, another player in the room could still hear it unless they too toggled it off. This is because it's independent of the setting. Now, if it were scratch-built to accomodate the kind of situations mentioned above, that would be acceptable as it's part of the setting. But otherwise, it's really nothing more than an excuse for a standard non-RPI feature, quite often nothing more than a hold-over from H&S code.

The second example is equally vexed if the ability is not limited to "divine beings" alone. Again, this is an issue with code design following world design rather than vice versa. It's little more than the excuse of "everyone's telepathic" to justify the existance of stock code global channels. World design should dictate the code, not the other way around.

Take care,

Jason

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Threshold, you might want to re-check the position of your foot. I think it's stuck in your mouth again.

I'm not a member of the "hardcore RPI community." I don't play any RPIs, and haven't for quite some time.

Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud.
 

Prof, I never, ever, said you deserved anything about your ankles. You have either mistaken me for someone else or grossly misinterpreted something I said. I actually expressed genuine and sincere sympathy to you over your health issue when . I even shared a personal experience where I also suffered from a chronic illness. No good deed goes unpunished apparently.

Both past and present, I fail to see how going after people's family members is at all appropriate when discussing and debating issues related to MUDs.

Moderator note: Agreed. If either of you still needs to work this out, please use PMs or email. Let's keep the topic to what is (or isn't) RPI.