|
|||||||
This is a discussion on "RPEI, The New RP Standard" in the Top Mud Sites Roleplaying and Storytelling forum : 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 ... |
|
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our MUD community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you are a registered member of the old TMS forums, please click here
|
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools |
|
|
#31 | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Home MUD: Threshold RPG
Posts: 693
![]() |
Re: RPEI, The New RP Standard
Jaz: You realize you actually made Mina's point for her with your examples, right? An inexplicit standard is of no use to anyone, and certainly isn't a "standard." And furthermore, nobody has the right to get huffy if people "misuse" a category that is incredibly amorphous and generic.
Quote:
![]() 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#32 | ||
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 335
![]() |
Re: RPEI, The New RP Standard
Quote:
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!) Quote:
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. ![]() |
||
|
|
|
|
|
#33 |
|
Senior Member
|
Re: RPEI, The New RP Standard
Well I started a new thread and listed what I think defines an RPI mud. We can continue this debate there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#34 | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Name: NewWorlds
Home MUD: New Worlds
Posts: 365
![]() |
Re: RPEI, The New RP Standard
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#35 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 101
![]() |
Re: RPEI, The New RP Standard
Quote:
So not so simple. An entire website! Wow! Now THAT is impressive! I could care less what terms people use to describe their games. I do find the whole attitude expressed here by some posters as silly. It is all text, numbers and methods for presenting, saving and reading information. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#36 | |
|
Senior Member
|
Re: RPEI, The New RP Standard
Quote:
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! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#37 | |||||
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 335
![]() |
Re: RPEI, The New RP Standard
Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
#38 | |||||
|
Senior Member
|
Re: RPEI, The New RP Standard
I have tried for years to determine from where or whom the term RPI was created. I have not been able to single out a particular name or even a particular MUD. It was definitely not a deliberate "club of three" MUDs or individuals or anything that said, "We/This is an RPI." The term began to fall into use to describe three different MUDs, all of which possessed similar characteristics but I've not seen any evidence that it was the result of any cooperative decision.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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 |
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
#39 | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 335
![]() |
Re: RPEI, The New RP Standard
Quote:
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.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#40 | |||
|
Senior Member
|
Re: RPEI, The New RP Standard
Quote:
![]() Quote:
Quote:
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 Last edited by prof1515 : 03-14-2008 at 07:55 PM. Reason: Typo on the [/quote] |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
#41 | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 335
![]() |
Re: RPEI, The New RP Standard
Quote:
I feel like this discussion has actually made progress, and that seems to be pretty rare on internet forums. It's a beautiful thing! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#42 | ||
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Name: NewWorlds
Home MUD: New Worlds
Posts: 365
![]() |
Re: RPEI, The New RP Standard
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
||
|
|
|
|
|
#43 |
|
|