Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

the_logos · 03-25-2008, 01:53 PM

Using that same logic - that whatever doesn't share the characteristics originally applied to a class of MUDs shouldn't label themselves an RPI - would invalidate an RPI MUD (or indeed essentially any MUD listed on TMS) from calling itself a MUD. They don't share the same set of features that the original games to which the term MUD was applied had. In fact, they share almost none of the same set of features of the original MUD.

If you accept that something can be a MUD even with vastly different features from what was originally called a MUD, then I don't see why you wouldn't accept that something can be an RPI even with different features than the original MUDs to which the RPI label was applied.

Language and its meaning evolves.

--matt

03-25-2008, 01:53 PM	#82
the_logos Legend Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Mill Valley, California Posts: 2,305	Re: Guidelines for an RPI mud. Using that same logic - that whatever doesn't share the characteristics originally applied to a class of MUDs shouldn't label themselves an RPI - would invalidate an RPI MUD (or indeed essentially any MUD listed on TMS) from calling itself a MUD. They don't share the same set of features that the original games to which the term MUD was applied had. In fact, they share almost none of the same set of features of the original MUD. If you accept that something can be a MUD even with vastly different features from what was originally called a MUD, then I don't see why you wouldn't accept that something can be an RPI even with different features than the original MUDs to which the RPI label was applied. Language and its meaning evolves. --matt