Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

Robbert · 04-08-2004, 01:20 PM

"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.

04-08-2004, 01:20 PM	#27
Robbert Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: #### Paso, Tx Posts: 89	"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.