[John]

I was wondering what everyone thought was necessary to have a Roleplaying Intensive MU*

I can only think of 2 criteria. Having a consistent world, having players that roleplay.

From what I've seen, everything else seems to be optional.

So what does everyone else think is required?

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by I was wondering what everyone thought was necessary to have a Roleplaying Intensive MU*

It depends on whether you specifically mean an RPI, or just a roleplaying-intensive MUD. An RPI is a roleplaying-intensive MUD (as of course that's what it stands for), but not all roleplaying-intensive MUDs are RPIs - "RPI" has a more specific meaning than that of its acronym, much like many other acronyms (for example not every Object-Oriented MUD is a MOO, even though that's what "MOO" stands for).

An RPI has various criteria, include no OOC channels or who list, enforced roleplaying, short descriptions instead of character names, no levels, etc.

A roleplaying-intensive mud has only the criteria defined by its name - that it should involve intensive roleplaying.

[John]

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ Mar. 15 2004,03:07) An RPI has various criteria, include no OOC channels or who list, enforced roleplaying, short descriptions instead of character names, no levels, etc.

Ive never heard of that before. Well I meant the second criteria then. A mu* (MUSH, Mud, MOO, whatever) that is roleplaying intensive.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by (John @ Mar. 15 2004,10:05) Ive never heard of that before. Well I meant the second criteria then. A mu* (MUSH, Mud, MOO, whatever) that is roleplaying intensive.

Well MUSH/MOO/etc are all types of MUD...

And as I mentioned before, there is no real criteria, other than that it have "intensive roleplaying", which is really very subjective - even a basic talker could be classified as having "intensive roleplaying".

[Linnia]

You say that a role-playing intensive world requires a consistant world and players that RP, but that's saying next to nothing. The purpose of the moral life is to do good and avoid evil, but that kinda goes without saying, too...the question is more of how to make an immersive world and how to encourage RP.

Being overly general here, the MUD community has two groups: the powergamers and the RPers. The best way to encourage the powergamers to RP is IC competition. Make resources limited and fought over by two factions that hate each other for some reason in the world's background. They won't cooperate, since they want their power. Instant RP-enforced tension.

The best way to keep the RPers happy with the RP possibilities is 1) the intricacies of the struggle (people don't wake up one day and say, "What damage can I cause? I must do eeevilll! [insert evil laugh here].") There should be legitimate ideological differences...maybe the "evil" caste spent most of its life oppressed and has to work harder to make it on evil footing...their evil is really just ensuring that they don't get trampled by the overly-theoretical "good" people. Maybe some powerful force almost destroyed the world once...one faction harnesses it in an attempt to understand and focus it for the benefit of their community, while another thinks it's dangerous and sacreligious to dabble in it (or shelter those who do). If the RPers start debating in some public fashion, that's a good sign.

Also, a consistant world allows for real, concrete changes. It should be theoretically possible to win the ancient struggle (even if practically impossible). The characters should have the option to RP a change of heart and switch factions. If you use a class-based system, they should be able to change classes. It might be good for balance reasons to make this a costly choice in terms of the powergaming aspect, though.

[Robbert]

None of the above qualify the product as an RPI, however. RPI's match a specific set of criterion, as generalized by KaVir in his previous post. To be an RPI, one must make the deliberate choice to follow their requirements - which (in my opinion) does not necessarily justify a better roleplaying experience.

It is entirely possible to have an intensive roleplaying MUD without it having the moniker of "RPI". Intensive roleplay is intrinsic to an RPI, but may also exist independent of such.

[Raeven]

Originally Posted by (Linnia @ Mar. 16 2004,16:15) The best way to encourage the powergamers to RP is IC competition.  Make resources limited and fought over by two factions that hate each other for some reason in the world's background.  They won't cooperate, since they want their power.  Instant RP-enforced tension.

I would like to explain a perfect example of what you are talking about when you said that, by relaying it through something that happened in my mud.

A player of my mud decided she wanted PK, so she left the clan she was in and joined another clan and in doing so started a war between the two clans. She is a powergamer and merely wanted a little more PK in her game. But for alot of the rest of us it created a brand new way to RP with each other (as enemies), and also brought on more PK for the people that wanted it.
It is great fun and I am enjoying myself RPing and PKing in these two clans.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by (Linnia @ Mar. 16 2004,20:15) Being overly general here, the MUD community has two groups: the powergamers and the RPers.

Unfortunately that generalisation is just too over generalised - I prefer the bartle categorisation of killers, achievers, explorers and socialisers. RPers tend to be a subcategory of socialiser, while powergamers would be a subcategory of achiever. There are still plenty (a majority in fact) of players who fall outside of either classification.

[Geras]

Don't forget griefers/carebears is a category.

Personally I think an RPI MUD is one where a character is never OOC, be it for mobkilling, exploring, whatever, and where you can be successful in the MUD by only roleplaying.

[UnderSeven]

Charector approval is nessicary, I'm surprised no one metioned it before.. Why? I'll get to that.  

True perm death is nessicary too, why?

Here we go.  .

One of the things that will make people rp their chars more is if their chars hold some value to them.  The char approval ensures only serious chars, or damned good fakers get through, but also makes getting a new char take time and effort.

This will mean with perm death, you are less likely to play your char in a careless, I just wanna screw with people manner because you then end up having to wait for a new char every one person you screw with or so, bad ratio for people who arn't serious about rpi.

When I go into a supposed 'rpi' mud, the first thing I type is help death.

I also think the post by Linia held a lot of water.  You MUST have pc to pc conflict.  Rpi muds that try to base everything on quests or imms holding pcs hands are only going to be as cool as they have enough imms to support every single pc.  It's best to try to make the games more self reliant with more pc power and clans that compete.  

Unfortunately, there really is no sure way to make people play icly and not act with ooc info or ooc intentions (like ooh fun, pk!   The best way to do this is limit options.  no one metioned leveless systems, but those go without saying.  A heavy focus on non combat related skills helps, with this there needs to be caps and checks and balances on heavily advanced combat pcs so somenoe can't just get their fighting skills up and walk through cities slaying everything in sight.  Also skills need to take time and effort to build, so those long time pcs arn't doing it just to screw with things.

All of this makes a game very bloated in restrictions, but it's nessicary, in that it will discorage people who arn't serious about rpi from wasting their time and others.  Rpi is a much more involved and invested form of mudding than hack and slash or even mu*'s.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by Geras wrote: Don't forget griefers/carebears is a category.

Well you could divide players up into as many different categories as you wanted - you could even divide them into "players who eat live penguins" and "players who don't", if you wanted to.

But as I mentioned before, I find the bartle categorisation to be the most well thought out. It's still quite general, but does divide players into four distinct categories - killers, explorers, socialisers and achievers. A "griefer" could fall into any of those categories, depending on what sort of griefer they were (eg someone who searched for bugs to exploit would be a type of explorer, while someone who went around sexually harrassing other players would be a type of socialiser).

Originally Posted by Personally I think an RPI MUD is one where a character is never OOC, be it for mobkilling, exploring, whatever, and where you can be successful in the MUD by only roleplaying.

That is part of it, sure, but as I said before an RPI mud doesn't really have that much to do with opinion - it's a very specific type of mud.

Originally Posted by UnderSeven wrote: Charector approval is nessicary, I'm surprised no one metioned it before.. Why? I'll get to that. True perm death is nessicary too

Yes, for an RPI mud, although they are not at all necessary for a roleplaying-intensive mud.

Originally Posted by Rpi is a much more involved and invested form of mudding than hack and slash or even mu*'s.

RPI and HnS are styles of mud ("mu*" is a redundant term). Neither are inherently more or less involved or invested, that fact depends entirely on the players and the mud in question.

[Realedazed]

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ April 06 2004,02:53) Originally Posted by UnderSeven wrote: Charector approval is nessicary, I'm surprised no one metioned it before.. Why? I'll get to that.   True perm death is nessicary too Yes, for an RPI mud, although they are not at all necessary for a roleplaying-intensive mud.

Now, I'm confused. Doesn't RPI mean Role-play Intensive? Or am I just reading KaVir's sentence wrong?

Sorry, I just woke up.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by (Realedazed @ April 06 2004,16:21) Now, I'm confused. Doesn't RPI mean Role-play Intensive? Or am I just reading KaVir's sentence wrong?

Please read the thread - I already explained this in my first post.

[UnderSeven]

When I said Mu* I was refering to mushes.

I stand by RPI muds being a more involved form then Mushes or regular muds. In Rpi you're playng someone who other people may very well depend on. Since everything done in game is ic and players depend on each other a lot, I feel like you have to invest more.

For a hack slash it's whenever you feel like logging in, it's no more invested then getting on an xbox live game or logging into Eq for a bit.

For mushes, since everything is up to the player, you can say whatever you want has happened, is happeneing, will happen, therefore the individual investment of players is less important, you get out of it whatever yuo put in.

For RPi, while the return is definatly based on what you put in, it's also largely based on the other players, because RPI's ultimately IMO are built on player involvement. The staff can't be large enough or invested enough to substitute a playerbase that does things on their own.

[Vhaemiel]

Another excellent way to promote role-playing is to take away numbers and replace them with descriptions instead. For example, instead of telling the players that a weapon can do 20 pts of damage describe it as being capable of devastating damage. Instead of saying that armor will reduce damage by 15 points, you can say that it will provide moderate protection.

Dragonrealms is an excellent example of how translating everything into words will steer people away from reducing their characters to a sheet of numbers. If everything is described in character then the average conversation will undoubtedly be in character as well.

[Realedazed]

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ April 06 2004,11:25) Please read the thread - I already explained this in my first post.

Darn. I've been keeping up with this thread when it started almost month ago. Your definitions RPI and roleplaying intensive really just slipped my mind. A RPI is a RPI is a role-playing intensive game to me, I guess.

As for the question asked it the frist post. I'm fully awake so I guess I can add something good to this thread. I agree with most of the other posters.
One of the things that I think make a RPI different are the absence of global channels of any kind. The only exception maybe a newbie help channel available for the frist couple of hours (or levels, if the game has them).

A few other things is a on going theme or story that included the players in almost everyway: player-run econony, goverment, etc. Perma-death, because most likely players can be braver than normal when they know that the only thing their character will lose is a chunk of experience. Lastly, a RPI might need to leave out numbers when talking about skills.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by When I said Mu* I was refering to mushes.

Which are also muds (MUSH is a derivative of TinyMUD).

Originally Posted by I stand by RPI muds being a more involved form then Mushes or regular muds. In Rpi you're playng someone who other people may very well depend on. Since everything done in game is ic and players depend on each other a lot, I feel like you have to invest more. For a hack slash it's whenever you feel like logging in, it's no more invested then getting on an xbox live game or logging into Eq for a bit.

Or how about the perspective of an HnS player:

In a high-quality hack and slash mud, you have to thoroughly learn the ins and outs of the game, and constantly keep up-to-date with the latest changes to the mud in order to successfully compete with other players who are doing the same. Furthermore, in an HnS mud which uses clan systems you're playing someone who other people may very well depend on. Therefore you have to invest more.

For an RPI it's whenever you feel like logging in. It requires no more investment than a talker or going down the pub for a chat.

But you need to see the bigger picture. As I said before, neither are inherently more or less involved or invested, that fact depends entirely on the players and the mud in question.

[Threshold]

Originally Posted by KaVir wrote: An RPI has various criteria, include no OOC channels or who list, enforced roleplaying, short descriptions instead of character names, no levels, etc.

KaVir, by making that list are you saying that an RPI mud would have many of those features or are you saying that an RPI must have ALL of them or else it is not an RPI.

If you are saying the latter, then I have to disagree with you. Having OOC channels has absolutely nothing to do with whether a game is an RPI or not.

In my opinion, not having OOC channels on any game is a terrible mistake. OOC channels provide one the most important and successful means of building community around a game. When people have a chance to get to know the people behind the characters they tend to have more respect for their fellow gamers and more empathy for the person behind the character. This helps people not only engage in less griefing but it also helps people understand that sometimes you have to let someone else have center stage for a while. If you do, then later on they will do the same.

I believe one of the most important things in a successful RPI or RP oriented mud is that players understand the fact that role play is inherently a co-operative process and that they respect the other players of the game.

Griefers ruin any game so I don't have to explain that.

The "center stage" phenomenon is also important in a role playing game. Most RPers out there have had to deal with those people who feel their character has to be the center of attention at all times. Often, such people are good RPers. But it just isn't fun if someone shows up to any situation, event, whatever and just takes control and makes everything about them.

We had a person like that on Threshold who was a marvellous and very creative RPer. But as the months rolled by he started to be really annoying and he was more of a negative presence. He would show up at an event that other players had planned and organized and make everything about him. In one case, he showed up at an elaborately planned wedding (yes, cliche I know) and started having such enormous fits of emotion and crying that nobody else could do anything. The event could not even proceed. About 30 or so people were involved and all their work was totally wasted.

It took some time but he became a much better citizen and RPer once this person understood that part of RP was letting other people have center stage sometimes. An important part of his understanding was the fact that he had chatted with some of the people on an OOC channel and he respected them as people. It made it a lot easier for him to see things from their point of view and have empathy for their enjoyment as well.

Originally Posted by UnderSeven wrote: True perm death is nessicary too, why?

Necessary? You should not be so bold as to declare your PREFERENCES as necessities.

It is not necessary. It is one option. There are good RP based reasons for both permanent death and non-permanent death.

You already provided the main arguments for it. It is realistic and it makes people value their characters.

Some arguments against it: non-permanent death results in a richer history where the actual historical personages can be talked to, they can tell stories of days past in taverns/pubs/inns, it provides continuity to the past, etc. Basically, all the reasons older people are respected in modern society and why when people write books like "The Greatest Generation" the book sells quite well.

I'm not saying one is better than the other. I like both. The point is that there are roleplay benefits to both systems. Therefore, neither one is "required" for an RPI game.

In general, I think it is very dangerous to pick your favorite feature and say that is a *requirement* for a game to be an RPI.

For example, I think combat via emotes is horrific, arbitrary, and contrived. I personally feel it takes away from RP if the resolution to a violent encounter is handled by any method other than a fully coded system of combat resolution. In fact, the more elaborate the better in my view. A more elaborate system makes things more interesting and realistic.

However, I would never say coded combat is a requirement of an RPI because I am open to the fact that different people prefer different systems and that there are benefits to both.

[UnderSeven]

Threshold, I personally think the issue here isn't whose right or wrong, it's a matter of what we're talking about.  When I say RPI, I am envisioning a mud that strives to be as close to realism as possible, while providing an enjoyably play enviroment.  

So more or less, when talking about what sort of ooc things to give players, I ask myself if it would affect playability (enjoyment of the game) and if it's more or less realistic.  Some things are given over for playability, like fantasy, magic and such is clearly not realistic, but it's also fun.  However, on the games *I* would consider RPI, magic for instance is limited heavily.

What's my point?  I'm not going to try to argue with your post because I disagree on many levels, but I don't think you're exactly wrong, I just think you and I have deathly different ideas.  I almost wish games like Armageddon, Harshlands, SOI, Fourlands, had their own classification, because frankly they fit so few molds it's not even funny.  

I can't really compare a game like Threshold to a game like Armageddon, because frankly, they're not going for the same thing.  Yes both are after RP, but they're different enough that I would find it hard to classify them together.

So then, I ask is this a thread about what exactly? When we say RPI what do we mean? Clearly there is disagreement on this factor, I wouldn't consider most games out there (99.9%) who claim to be RPI, actual rpis.  

It's hard to find a game that falls into my classification, for one, because there are so few of them, for two because most people don't reconize them as diferent.  Many people would throw harshlands and threshold together, but I would play one and not the other.  It's not a matter of quality, it's a matter of what I'm looking for in a game.  I think it would be nice if the mudding community as a whole would reconize these games 'Murpe' or 'RPI' or whatever you want to call them as being in their own catigory.

[Threshold]

Originally Posted by UnderSeven wrote: Threshold, I personally think the issue here isn't whose right or wrong, it's a matter of what we're talking about. When I say RPI, I am envisioning a mud that strives to be as close to realism as possible, while providing an enjoyably play enviroment.

First, I honestly do not see resurrection as any less realistic than casting fireballs or performing other feats of magic. Even most pen and paper RPGs have some sort of resurrection, cloning technology, etc.

Second, I agree that this is not a matter of right or wrong but a matter of personal preferences. That was my main point in my previous post. I caution people to be careful when they are sharing personal preferences so they do not make it sound like their preferences are canon.

Originally Posted by UnderSeven wrote: What's my point? I'm not going to try to argue with your post because I disagree on many levels, but I don't think you're exactly wrong, I just think you and I have deathly different ideas.

While we do not agree on our favorite set of features, I think we DO agree on the larger issue. The larger issue is that the more precisely you try to define the term "RPI" the more you will start getting into personal preferences.

I have absolutely no problem with someone saying:

"For me, an RPI game has permanent death."

What I take issue with is:

"For a game to be an RPI, it must have permanent death, no OOC channels, etc. etc."

In other words, I take issue with someone taking issues of personal preference and attempting to make them definitive traits that are bare minimum requirements.

Incidentally, I am not against the concept of permanent death. I think it is a great game design concept. I also see benefits in non-permanent death, however. While it is not a "role playing" game, I have made hardcore Diablo 2 characters that were a blast. Knowing that death was final definitely added to the excitement. Despite that, I still prefer games (as both player and designer) where death is not permanent. I have always felt a more long term, visceral attachment to such characters. That's just my personal preference.

Originally Posted by UnderSeven wrote: Many people would throw harshlands and threshold together, but I would play one and not the other. It's not a matter of quality, it's a matter of what I'm looking for in a game.

Excellent point. I agree completely.

SIDENOTE: While I agree Harshlands and Threshold are very different types of games, they aren't completely incompatible. One of the long, long, long time admins of Harshlands has been playing Threshold religiously for 6 years. I imagine if I had the time I would probably enjoy Harshlands as well.

Originally Posted by UnderSeven wrote: I think it would be nice if the mudding community as a whole would reconize these games 'Murpe' or 'RPI' or whatever you want to call them as being in their own catigory.

Actually, I think it is somewhat dangerous to attempt the creation of arbitrary acronyms for every type of game out there. The amount of arguing would be prodigious and it would most likely degenerate into countless flame wars.

I think it would be more helpful and less divisive to develop a few general categories and agree on some important options WITHIN that category that differentiate games of the same genre.

For example:

Mandatory RPI Mud Features:

* Role Playing is *ENFORCED* and is not optional.
* OOC banter is not allowed in any IC location, mode of communication, etc.
* Character development/design of some sort is required before a character can become a part of the game.

Then when you read more about a certain game it would be nice to have a list of how the game treated issues such as:

[y/n] Death is Permanent.
[y/n] Game has global IC channels of any sort.
[y/n] Global IC channels are very limited in scope or utility.
[y/n] Game has IC tells or some similar method of IC cross-realm individual communication.
[y/n] Game has channels, forums, or special rooms for OOC communication.

[Riga]

I remember this exact argument being hashed out on usenet years ago. Then, though, it was about what constitutes a MURPE. I remember it because I was at the time a Threshold player and arguing to maintain the purity of the term MURPE.

The problem, I believe, lies in the fact that people choose words for the acronym that, in themselves, carry meaning.

For instance: Role Playing Intensive. If you're saying that we aren't an RPI, are you trying to say that we don't have intense roleplay?

Multi-User Roleplaying Environment: If you say that we're not a MURPE, are you saying that we don't have multiple users and roleplaying?

If we're going to make an objective classification of MUDs, I think it would be beneficial to choose arbitrary names for the classifications like, Type A, Type B, Type C, etc.

Of course, this goes against every marketing ploy out there, as you want a descriptor for your mud that is that: descriptive. And that's what these classifications, and the arguments surrounding them, are really about in my opinion (marketing). A type of mud becomes buzzworthy (RPI now, MURPE in the past) and others want to jump on the bandwagon. They get mad when they're told that their mud doesn't fit the category and they can't be a part of the buzz.

I will say that, traditionally, the "RPI" class of muds (by that I mean FEM, HL, Armageddon, 4Lands, Southlands) all had certain objective game features in place. These included, but aren't limited to the following:
Permanent death, character creation, No global channels, and limited OOC communication ingame. There are probably a few more, but those are the ones that come to mind.

Anyway, it's a cyclical thing. For a while now, RPIs have been growing and burrowing out a niche in the mudding world. In the future, I wouldn't doubt it something else becomes the flavor of the month and we're debating what features make up a MUTE or RUT or who knows what.

Cheers,
Riga

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by Threshold wrote: KaVir, by making that list are you saying that an RPI mud would have many of those features or are you saying that an RPI must have ALL of them or else it is not an RPI.

I am saying that those are the features defined by the term "RPI". The label RPI stands for "Role-Playing Intensive", because RPIs are all Role-Playing Intensive muds. However the label represents more than just having intensive roleplaying - it represents a specific style of mud.

The same applies to other things as well, for example a "PK mud" stands for "Player Killing mud", yet it would not apply to a mud in which players were only killed by mobs, because it means more than the literal definition of its words. It represents a specific type of mud.

Equally, every mudder is playing the role of someone other than themselves - their characters have skills and knowledge different to that of the player, and often belong to entirely different races. So in theory every mud requires roleplaying - indeed, unless the mud allows you to play yourself, you could even say that it was "roleplaying enforced". However we don't list every mud as an RP mud, because RP is used to represents a specific type of mud.

Originally Posted by If you are saying the latter, then I have to disagree with you. Having OOC channels has absolutely nothing to do with whether a game is an RPI or not.

It has nothing to do with whether or not the game is a roleplaying intensive mud - but it is one of the criteria for labelling a mud as an RPI.

Originally Posted by In my opinion, not having OOC channels on any game is a terrible mistake. OOC channels provide one the most important and successful means of building community around a game.

I agree. In fact I find many of the RPI features contrary to what I consider a good mud, and some of them contrary to encouraging roleplaying. However no OOC channels is one of the features defined by RPI muds.

Originally Posted by Riga wrote: I remember this exact argument being hashed out on usenet years ago. Then, though, it was about what constitutes a MURPE. I remember it because I was at the time a Threshold player and arguing to maintain the purity of the term MURPE.

However the difference then was that Threshold wished to use the term MURPE as a replacement for being a MUD. RPI is not a replacement - it is a specific type of mud, no different from many of the other labels we use.

Originally Posted by Role Playing Intensive. If you're saying that we aren't an RPI, are you trying to say that we don't have intense roleplay?

MOO stands for "Mud Object-Oriented". Yet I don't see every object-oriented mud claiming to be a MOO, nor do I see anyone claiming that if you're not running a MOO your mud is not Object-Oriented. The label RPI is no different. An RPI gets its name from the fact that it's roleplaying-intensive, just like MOO gets its name from the fact that it's object-oriented, but in neither case is there any implication that that is the only type of roleplaying-intensive (or object-oriented) mud.

So what happens if people start redefining terms? The people running RP muds which don't fit the criteria for an RPI are generally the ones that seem to take a dislike to the definition of an RPI, yet they are often highly critical of pseudo-RP muds that list themselves as RP muds. If you were to use RPI purely by its acronym meaning, then why not the others?

So lets say Bubba is running a typical stock mud, except he's renamed the classes to "smurf", "pokemon" and "ninja turtle". He knows that none of his players are smurfs, pokemon or ninja turtles, therefore he can safely say that every player is playing a role. Therefore, following the actual definition of RP (Role-Playing) he can quite legitimately refer to his mud as an RP mud. The main focus of his mud is PK - indeed, there is little purpose for mobs, as the main goal of the game is to beat other PCs to death with clubs or blow them up with C4. However Bubba can safely say that, while dozens of characters get killed every hour, no actual player gets killed. As the literal definition of "PK" is "Playing Killing", and no actual players are killed or do any killing, Bubba is also able to refer to his mud as a non-PK mud. As the word "intensive" is rather subjective, and Bubba feels that his players play quite intensively, he decides to call his mud a "non-PK RPI mud".

Do you think that would be useful for new players, who are searching for specific types of mud?

[Threshold]

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ April 08 2004,03:47) However no OOC channels is one of the features defined by RPI muds.

According to whom?

Is RPI some kind of ANSI codified acronym?

It sounds to me like a couple of personal preferences became popular among a handful of people and now they want to claim some sort of "intense RP" superiority over others. I cannot support that kind of arrogance and I also think some of those criterion have absolutely nothing to do with role playing.

It is tantamount to saying to be an RPI you must use an Intel chipset server running Red Hat linux. Those criterion would be absurd.

Unless something is managed by a standards body like ANSI or IEEE I do not think anyone can lay claim to what exactly defines RPI or any other game related acronym. Yes, people can share their opinions but nobody has the authority to outright declare what the precise and exact criterion are.

Ultimately, the owner of a game has the right to label his/her game however he/she chooses. They are the ones who suffer the consequences if their labelling is deemed misleading by customers/players. It is true that it is in the best interests of the game owner and the community as a whole if people make an effort to label and advertise their game accurately. But that does not mean any single individual or handful of individuals can declare themselves the arbiter of what exactly makes a game an RPI mud or a MURPE or whatever.

There are PK purists that think any game that puts any limits on PKing cannot be called a PK mud. That is outrageous in my opinion. There are multiple levels of PK muds. For exmaple, a clan/side based PK mud (one in which you can only kill people in a different clan/kingdom/side than yours) is no less a PK mud than a total free-for-all PK mud. Yet some purists would say a clan/side based PK game should not be allowed to call itself a PK mud.

This is even true in commercial games. The term RPG certainly has gone through quite an evolution (devolution?) considering the types of games that call themselves RPGs nowadays. You certainly don't see PC Gamer, Gamespot.com, Xplay, or any other gaming journalism sources challenging them on it. Fortunately, even players of commercial games rarely challenge such classifications.

They see them for what they are: guidelines. That is all they are and it is all they should be.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by (Threshold @ April 08 2004,10:13) Originally Posted by (KaVir @ April 08 2004,03:47) However no OOC channels is one of the features defined by RPI muds. According to whom? Is RPI some kind of ANSI codified acronym?

Initially according to the people who created the first RPIs presumably, in order to clarify their style of mud, although it's now fairly commonly accepted (except by those running RP muds which don't satisfy the RPI criteria).

Originally Posted by It sounds to me like a couple of personal preferences became popular among a handful of people and now they want to claim some sort of "intense RP" superiority over others.

I fail to see any claim of "superiority", any more than muds which claim to be RP or PK. It is simply another classification of mud.

Originally Posted by I cannot support that kind of arrogance and I also think some of those criterion have absolutely nothing to do with role playing.

In your previous post you yourself specifically suggested features you felt should be mandatory for an RPI. Yet when I point out that someone else has already defined those features (and over 12 years ago as well, I might add), you claim that it's "that kind of arrogance" that you "cannot support"?

Originally Posted by Unless something is managed by a standards body like ANSI or IEEE I do not think anyone can lay claim to what exactly defines RPI or any other game related acronym.

The definitions arise through use. You're right though - there's no official body who can refute Bubba from listing his pure PK stock mud as a non-PK RPI mud. In fact there are many mud owners who go to the effort of misleading the public in order to try and attract new players. However most people will not take such muds seriously, and listings are likely to be audited, because sites such as this and TMC generally prefer to give the players accurate information based on their expectations. If I listed my mud as a MOO, it would no doubt be changed - not because my mud isn't a "Mud Object-Oriented", but because it doesn't fall into the definition of what a MOO is.

[Riga]

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ April 08 2004,03:47) Originally Posted by MOO stands for "Mud Object-Oriented".  Yet I don't see every object-oriented mud  claiming to be a MOO, nor do I see anyone claiming that if you're not running a MOO your mud is not Object-Oriented.  The label RPI is no different.  An RPI gets its name from the fact that it's roleplaying-intensive, just like MOO gets its name from the fact that it's object-oriented, but in neither case is there any implication that that is the only type of roleplaying-intensive (or object-oriented) mud.

For the record, I agree with you on the dilution of accepted terms. I dislike it as well. My post was intended to address the motivating factors behind these little arguments. As for MOO vs. RPI, there's a big difference. Object Oriented isn't particularly marketable in the current game world. Intense roleplaying is.

Were Object Oriented to become an attractive selling point in the mudding community, I imagine you'd see similar disputes cropping up around the term MOO.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by (Riga @ April 08 2004,13:25) As for MOO vs. RPI, there's a big difference. Object Oriented isn't particularly marketable in the current game world. Intense roleplaying is. Were Object Oriented to become an attractive selling point in the mudding community, I imagine you'd see similar disputes cropping up around the term MOO.

I think you've hit the nail on the head - IMO that's certainly the big reason for most of the complaints. However there's nothing stopping people from listing their muds as "roleplaying intensive" (in fact I believe Robbert does that, as he runs a high-quality roleplaying environment which doesn't fit the RPI criteria).

[Robbert]

Originally Posted by I think you've hit the nail on the head - IMO that's certainly the big reason for most of the complaints. However there's nothing stopping people from listing their muds as "roleplaying intensive" (in fact I believe Robbert does that, as he runs a high-quality roleplaying environment which doesn't fit the RPI criteria).

"Did", rather than "does". I and my wife shut down our game last year. And we chose to tout ourselves as "Intensive roleplaying" rather than "RPI (Roleplaying Intensive)" to avoid the connotation implied by RPI. Since our game had been developed after the de facto standards implicit in the term RPI were developed, and we did not - by choice - meet all of those criterion, it was decided that, while we were roleplaying intensive and that roleplaying was enforced, it was simpler to bill ourselves by a different moniker.

Having been involved directly in the interpretation and application of RPI as a criterion, I have an understanding of both sides. The same argument can be applied to MMORPG as a definition - at what point does one qualify to bill their product as such, and who has defined the standard? I submit that, were I to release the game I am currently developing, and bill it as an MMORPG, I would be derided by the operators of established games which meet that billing for falsely carrying my product as such. The definition exists - both for MMORPG and for RPI; making ones product meet that definition is up to the prospective implementor, rather than the public. The criterion does not change.

Note that there is a difference, which I do not believe has been stressed, between "RPI" as a moniker and "RolePlaying Intensive". The former means the game meets the criterion established by members of that (select) community. The latter simply stipulates that intense roleplaying exists on that game.

[Threshold]

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ April 08 2004,06:02) In your previous post you yourself specifically suggested features you felt should be mandatory for an RPI. Yet when I point out that someone else has already defined those features (and over 12 years ago as well, I might add), you claim that it's "that kind of arrogance" that you "cannot support"?

Those were just my opinions. I have absolutely no problem with someone saying "in my opinion an RPI has <feature 1>, <feature 2>, and <feature 3>."

What I have a problem with is someone picking an arbitrary feature that amounts to no more than personal preference and saying it is a requirement to be a Role Playing Intensive (RPI) game. Part of why I took issue with it so strongly is because some of those traits were no more related to role playing than the chipset or operating system used on the server.

Also, what I was suggesting in the last part of the post was that if someone wanted to attempt to create acronyms for classification (perhaps for use her at TMS) that it would be better to stay general as far as mandatory traits and then have further questions to differentiate within a classification.

[Threshold]

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ April 13 2004,05:58) Harshlands is 2 years older than Threshold, while Armageddon is 5 years older, so I don't think it can be simply dismissed as "the latest trendy phrase".

So the term RPI is 10-13 years old? Can you provide a citation for that? Since after all, what we are talking about is the TERM here. The statement of mine you quoted was one where I explained why I decided to just use the generic and non-controversial term "RPG" and eschew latching on to the latest trendy term every few months.

RPI is indeed the latest trendy phrase- like it or not. To argue otherwise is to descend into silliness and absurdity.

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ April 13 2004,05:58) So does "Mud Object-Oriented", yet I don't see people complaining about MOOs.

Why would they? Being Object-Oriented isn't something players care about. They do, however, care about game play, and intensive role play is a highly desireable type of game play. That is why any acronym developed around the concept of "role playing" will be controversial if a little group of people act like they own it.

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ April 13 2004,05:58) Nor, in fact, does RP (Role-Playing) - a term which I've seen you defend on more than one occasion when HnS muds have claimed to be RP muds.

You have a really bad habit, KaVir, where instead of staying on topic you try to drag in discussions that may have taken place YEARS in the past. Furthermore, you cite them completely out of context and twist them to take on a new meaning that suits your needs in the present.

You have been roundly and widely criticised for this habit and have been politely asked to stop by numerous people. Please stop doing it. Please make an effort to argue the topic at hand- not some discussion that took place in the distant past.

My opinion on this matter is clear: any game developer can freely call their game whatever they wish. They just better be able to back it up with a logical justification or they are going to subject themselves not only to public ridicule but also to angry players who will be mad that they were misled.

I don't think any little clique of people can lay exclusive claim to an acronym like RPI. Furthermore, I think some of the "requirements" are so arbitrary and unrelated to role playing that they are no better than saying a game can only be an RPI if they run their game using Knoppix.

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ April 13 2004,05:58) And if every mud is an RP mud, and the "Intensive" part is agreed to be subjective, does that mean you believe that every mud should be classified as an RPI mud?

Wow KaVir. You just slaughtered that Straw Man. I have certainly never claimed every mud is an RP mud so I have no idea where you are getting that.

I don't even know who you are arguing against now with such statements.

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ April 13 2004,05:58) Delayed response as I was away over Easter.

Bad timing for that poor Straw Man. He missed his shot at a resurrection.

I guess he was on an RPI with permadeath.

[KaVir]

Delayed response as I was away over Easter.

Originally Posted by Of course it is easier for us since Threshold has been well established for 8 years now. Latching on to the latest trendy phrase might be more important to a new or a small game trying to get noticed.

The two most well-known RPIs are probably Armageddon and Harshlands.  Harshlands is 2 years older than Threshold, while Armageddon is 5 years older, so I don't think it can be simply dismissed as "the latest trendy phrase".

Originally Posted by The phrase "Role Playing Intensive" has a very obvious, prima facie meaning.

So does "Mud Object-Oriented", yet I don't see people complaining about MOOs.  Not even "MUD" (Multi-User Dungeon) fulfills its prima facie meaning.  Nor, in fact, does RP (Role-Playing) - a term which I've seen you defend on more than one occasion when HnS muds have claimed to be RP muds.  So if you're arguing against people using the term "RPI" for a specific type of mud, does that mean you believe that every mud should be classified as an RP mud?  After all, every mud consists of a player playing the role of a character, which is the very definition of "role-playing".  And if every mud is an RP mud, and the "Intensive" part is agreed to be subjective, does that mean you believe that every mud should be classified as an RPI mud?

Originally Posted by Further, there are other reasons why RPI is a poor choice of acronym. The acronym already has at least two extremely well known definitions.

So does RPG, the term you use to describe your mud.  RPG is the cross-cultural abbreviation for "Rocket Propelled Grenade" and "Raketniy Protivotankoviy Granatomet".  It also has an official dictionary entry (in Merriam-Webster) as "report program generator".  Finally, it's also a registered trademark of RPG Diffusor Systems Inc.