[Threshold]

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.

Originally Posted by Jazuela 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.

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.

Originally Posted by Jazuela Does that make the RPI a better game?

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.

[Milawe]

Originally Posted by Delerak What? You just turned a simple analogy into a chaotic mess of poo.

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!)

Originally Posted by Delerak 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. RPIMUD Network @ RPIMUD.com. 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.

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.

[Delerak]

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

[Newworlds]

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

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.

[Mabus]

Originally Posted by Delerak He was simply saying that you can't and shouldn't call a normal stock DIKU/ROM/CIRCLE an RPI Mud.

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.

Originally Posted by Delerak There is an entire website dedicated to RPI's.

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.

[prof1515]

Originally Posted by Mina 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.

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!

[Milawe]

Originally Posted by prof1515 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 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?

Originally Posted by prof1515 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...

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.

Originally Posted by prof1515 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:

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."

Originally Posted by prof1515 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.

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.

Originally Posted by prof1515 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.

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.

[prof1515]

Originally Posted by Mina So is it a club of that three muds started?

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.

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?

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.

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'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.

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.

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".

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."

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).

Delerak, honestly, is the first to attempt to produce a series of requirements that define an RPI.

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

[Milawe]

Originally Posted by prof1515 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.

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.)

[prof1515]

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

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

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!"

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.

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.)

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

[Milawe]

Originally Posted by prof1515 However, if you prefer, I'll post some points on Delerak's thread. I have noted a couple things which don't completely jive.

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!

[Newworlds]

Originally Posted by prof1515 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.

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.

Originally Posted by prof1515 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.

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.

[prof1515]

Originally Posted by Newworlds 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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

As with Mina, NW would never join a group based on a narrow (codebased) style of definition regardless if NW fell into that category.

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

The same way NW would not claim to have a monopoly on quality roleplay despite the attempt to promote good, quality roleplay.

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.

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.

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

[Newworlds]

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:

It wouldn't be fair to classify them alongside games which were nothing more than H&S code.

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.

[prof1515]

Originally Posted by Newworlds 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....

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.

I see no reason to use a baseline of H&S as if they are somehow less than other games.

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 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.

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

[Newworlds]

Originally Posted by prof1515 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.

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.

Originally Posted by prof1515 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".

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.

[prof1515]

Originally Posted by Newworlds 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.

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.

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.

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.

Claiming you are an RPI because you are leveless is as assanine as claiming you are an RPEI because you have levels.

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

[Delerak]

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.

[Voidrider]

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.

[Delerak]

Originally Posted by Newworlds 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.

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.

[Maelgrim]

This deflectory argument is all well and good, Newworlds, but I'm sorry, 6 of your eleven points have absolutely NOTHING to do with roleplay whatsoever.

If an attempt is to be made to enforce a new 'standard' of roleplay, perhaps the criteria should actually focus around roleplay? (Seriously, what in the name of raptor jesus do levels, enforced classes, and channels have to do with anything?)

This seems like a great big 'I'm going to make my own club, and it's going to be cooler than yours, and have a tree house and ice cream and caek!', in response to some people's disagreement with how you classify your game.

In short, why are you even bothering?

[Newworlds]

Originally Posted by Maelgrim This deflectory argument is all well and good, Newworlds, but I'm sorry, 6 of your eleven points have absolutely NOTHING to do with roleplay whatsoever. If an attempt is to be made to enforce a new 'standard' of roleplay, perhaps the criteria should actually focus around roleplay? (Seriously, what in the name of raptor jesus do levels, enforced classes, and channels have to do with anything?) This seems like a great big 'I'm going to make my own club, and it's going to be cooler than yours, and have a tree house and ice cream and caek!', in response to some people's disagreement with how you classify your game. In short, why are you even bothering?

Wow, you must have missed the point of the thread so I'll repeat it. None of the RPEI module items which are functionary of the games related to them have any more weight to what true roleplay is than any of the RPI module items which are functionary of the RPI games. In other words, RPEI is no more or less accurate than RPI for a tag on a mud. Example Permadeath vs. Resurrection death, Skilless vs. skills, no guilds vs. guilds, no channels vs. channels.

All of these things are "preferences" and do not relate to whether a game in Roleplay enforced intensively or just Roleplay Inforced.

In short I was making a parody for the sake of clarity.

[Milawe]

Originally Posted by Maelgrim This seems like a great big 'I'm going to make my own club, and it's going to be cooler than yours, and have a tree house and ice cream and caek!', in response to some people's disagreement with how you classify your game. In short, why are you even bothering?

Hey, Maelgrim! Miss you!

This post was made after a heated debate in another thread that started when a player was requesting an RPI only to be told (quite brutally) that what he wanted was NOT an RPI. So, the definition of RPI came under fire, and in the process, some people believed that the "standards" of what makes an RPI really was more of a list of preferences with a misleading name than anything else. In other words, some people believed that the RPI designation seemed more of a "club" than an industry standard.

Thus, New Worlds made his own list of preferences to illustrate this point. That's why he bothered.

[Maelgrim]

Aha! Obviously I did miss said point. My apologies Newworlds.

[Newworlds]

Originally Posted by Maelgrim Aha! Obviously I did miss said point. My apologies Newworlds.

None needed!

[Throttle]

The OP seems more like a regular MUD advertisement than anything else. NW has always fought tooth and nail to proclaim themselves an RPIMUD despite the fact that they differ from such in practically all aspects other than requiring that the players act in-character. Virtually none of the staple RPI mechanics and ideals exist on that MUD, and this RPEI standard's criteria make little sense beyond "this is what our MUD has to offer". Between this and NW's habit of recommending their MUD to every single help-me-find-a-MUD poster, even ones that never mention a desire for roleplay, I'm left questioning the integrity of this MUD.

[Rathik]

Originally Posted by Throttle The OP seems more like a regular MUD advertisement than anything else. NW has always fought tooth and nail to proclaim themselves an RPIMUD despite the fact that they differ from such in practically all aspects other than requiring that the players act in-character. Virtually none of the staple RPI mechanics and ideals exist on that MUD, and this RPEI standard's criteria make little sense beyond "this is what our MUD has to offer". Between this and NW's habit of recommending their MUD to every single help-me-find-a-MUD poster, even ones that never mention a desire for roleplay, I'm left questioning the integrity of this MUD.

Thanks for digging this old thread up. I missed reading it the first time around, and it's rather humorous on a couple levels

[Newworlds]

Originally Posted by Throttle The OP seems more like a regular MUD advertisement than anything else. NW has always fought tooth and nail to proclaim themselves an RPIMUD despite the fact that they differ from such in practically all aspects other than requiring that the players act in-character. Virtually none of the staple RPI mechanics and ideals exist on that MUD, and this RPEI standard's criteria make little sense beyond "this is what our MUD has to offer". Between this and NW's habit of recommending their MUD to every single help-me-find-a-MUD poster, even ones that never mention a desire for roleplay, I'm left questioning the integrity of this MUD.

I say hang 'em high!

(Iincidently NW only recommends NW on posts that are specifically close to their style of game. NW also recommends other MUDS when they are not. NW nearly always recommends a few other games even when recommending themselves. If you want examples of this I can research them all if you disbelieve this).

And since Throttle didn't get the purpose of this whole thread, is was a spoof on RPI. Clue in, Throttle.

Because Proph1515 is trying really hard to be more mature about the whole RP Organization he is creating and building with the team, I respect what he is doing and would rather encourage his success than banter about silly threads of the past here.

[Delerak]

Silence! There is no need for this petty argument to continue here. Both sides have valid opinions.