[prof1515]

No, it's you that's being obtuse by constantly employing straw man arguments like the ones below....

It's not a personal preference, it's the result of a comparitive analysis of the original games to which the term was applied. I looked at those games, broke down a list of features they shared with one another and features they shared with other games. The resulting feature set was derived from those results.

As for "little to do with actual role playing", the term didn't denote role-playing. Quit bringing up a misinterpretation of the term to attack its accuracy.

It is an issue for that very reason. In its present (ab)use, the value of the term to really describe anything is all but lost. That's why I believe it's important that this issue be addressed.

It's perfect for people who a) stop to consider the meaning of the term and how it was applied, b) have the English skills to recognize that "intensive" is not an adjective of "role-play" (if it was it would precede, not follow). I think that most people have the latter but fail to consider the former.

I haven't arbitrarily chosen anything. The term was first used to describe those games. In doing so, that "arbitrarly chosen suite of features" was part of the definition of the term, though those features were never clearly delineated. But those features were present in all three and thus form the basis for the differentiation from other games to which the term applied.

Armageddon has features (and a lack thereof) that are not found in the other two RPI codebases (or as many as five if you chose to differentiate the FEM, SoI RPI Engine and Argila from the original Harshlands code). The group to which the term RPI applied can be broken down further by saying "Armageddon-type RPI" or "Harshlands-type RPI" and so forth to further denote the specific approaches to the implementation of that feature set they share as well as to denote the variations in other aspects (for example, the original Harshlands code didn't feature ranged weapons or accounts).

Again, it didn't take on a more accurate meaning, it took on a more confused meaning because as it's used now, there are really no commonalities in the games calling themselves "RPI".

That said, a group of players and administrators got together a few weeks back and performed another comparitive analysis of the shared features of RPIs. We put together a list of 18 (though further research on my part revealed one more, or more precisely the absence of an old H&S feature, that had been overlooked). I was going to post them with this message but in looking just now I realize the log is on the computer downstairs so I'll do it next time I post since I have a lot of forum catching up to do and I've been on my ankles too much today already (been busy for the last couple weeks and if the discussion on the visually-impaired is any indicator, there may be some other good topics to read).

Take care,

Jason