[prof1515]

The problem is that it makes a term which once had more specific meaning nothing more than an alternate term for the generic term MUD.

Why was the term RPI first used? To distinguish a group of games from others (This doesn't constitute elitism, mind you, because that involves a bias of superiority). You had hundreds of MUDs. Some of them were hack-and-slash, others were role-play while others were a combination. While there were scores of new features put into them, most had the same code found on hack-and-slash games. A few of the hack-and-slash games however didn't even have those characteristics.

Of the role-play MUDs, you had a variety of different ones but they all shared one thing in common: they were still using the codes and features found therein that originated for purposes other than role-play be it levels, experience points, death evasion, OOC channels, etc. Some were enforced role-play, some were less stringent about it and settled for "encouraged" rather than "enforced". And yet, amongst the "enforced" group, you had another type of MUD develop. These MUDs didn't just require role-play. They stripped down their code and rebuilt it from the ground up, making it role-play intensive code. Role-play intensive code, that is to say code which was strengthened or emphasized for role-play purposes. This was different than all the other role-play enforced or encouraged MUDs which either rationalized ("when you die, your soul can be reunited with your body with only a small loss of skill ability", etc.) or attempted to play down ("the levels are there but we ignore the levels") the hack-and-slash origins of their features.

Someone coined the term RPI for this philosophy of role-play MUD design. I don't know who and I doubt we'll ever be able to track down the person who did. I will say one thing for them, they understood the English language. They used a term which describes in only three words the origin and purpose of the game design. Sadly, used in a different context the word "intensive" has other meanings and despite this being a text gaming community, language skills aren't all equal. Instead of "intensive" being read as an adjective to code or MUD, people confused it and somehow applied it as an adjective to "role-play" (have to wonder if you said you had a "brick red car" would these same people think the car was made of red bricks?).

At least some MUDs used this misinterpretation to refer therefore to "intense" role-play. Reasoning that their role-play was as intense as any other they began to adopt the term. There may have been other motivations for using the term as well. I know that when I first started role-playing, I found the quality of role-play on the original RPIs to be vastly superior to that I found anywhere else. It's possible that some mistakingly viewed RPI as a quality branding (when quality of something like role-play is a personal, subjective preference and therefore difficult to gauge in such a manner). Thinking this, they adopted the term RPI as a means of feeding off this perception. In any regard, the term began to be used outside the original application.

The problem you have though is that what good is the term any more if it's just become one more synonym for role-play MUD (or even just MUD in general given that there are games who use the term and don't even concern themselves with role-play much)? Sure, RPIs could adopt a new term but what term would be really as descriptive as role-play intensive? Perhaps role-play designed? Role-play intended? (uh oh, same initials)

Role-play Intensive is the perfect adjective to describe the nature of these games and the code, world design, and policies they employ. And even if RPIs did adopt another term, if this term came to be coveted as much as RPI apparently is, what would stop everyone and their grandmother from suddenly calling their games by this new term? It's sad to say it, but there's a distinct lack of ethics in the MUD community. Everyone wants to win over players using whatever tactic they think will work regardless of the accuracy or honesty of how they describe themselves.

For some of us though, we just want to be able to find games with the features we used to be able to find when one said RPI. We don't want to try out dozens of games which call themselves RPI only to find a dozen different combinations of features, none of which constitute the kind of game we're looking for. For others, we want to be able to advertise our games as RPI and not have people come in who have no interest in or desire to learn or adapt to the code and policies that RPIs, in the traditional use of the word, have long employed.

MMO* games are pretty popular right now. What if either game manufacturers misunderstood what that type of game was or deliberately used the term to market their game in order to capitalize on the popularity of the format, regardless of whether or not their game was the same? If you wanted to play one, wouldn't you be frustrated if dozens, if not hundreds, of games advertised themselves as MMO* and when you tried them out you found they were single-play side-scrolling games nothing like what you were looking for?

That's the root of the issue with RPI. The few vocal players and RPI administrators that have posted here are far from the only ones that experience frustration over this topic. They're just the ones that choose to speak up. There are lots more. Some of them are downright social hermits who wouldn't be comfortable posting on a forum. Some are apathetic about taking any action that doesn't involve typing emote first. But I've talked to a lot of them over the years. I've heard them grumble about games they "wasted their time trying" only to find it wasn't what they were looking for. 'Role-play MUD" adequately describes any MUD which features role-play (RPIs included). "Role-play enforced" adequately describes any MUD which has an enforced role-play policy (RPIs included). But RPI means different things to different people. For some, it means the same as "role-play enforced". For others, it means the same as the same as "role-play MUD". But for others, RPI doesn't just mean either of these two things alone. For them, RPI harkens back to that unique combination of features and philosophies of code and world design that sprang from saying, "We want to design our game around role-play, not the code that was created for a different purpose."

That's lost if the term is turned into a generic term for a smorgasbord of MUDs.

But what's really lost if it's used more discriminately? Just one more synonym to describe anything you want?

Take care,

Jason