Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post - Determining the Origin and Meaning of RPI

Disillusionist · 05-05-2008, 10:44 PM

I can't really agree that it comes down to narrative POV, simply because POV changes in almost any feature set.

A third-person feature set would get annoying pretty quickly in my opinion. Are there even any third-person formats out there?
In every game I've ever played, the POV changed, depending on whether you were using code-supported verbs, or just emoting, but is done to emulate a first-person experience as much as possible.

>smile broadly
You see: YOU smile broadly.
Others see: YOURNAME smiles broadly.

>emote rubs HIS salt-and-pepper temples.
YOU emote: YOURNAME rubs HIS salt-and-pepper temples, and glances at OTHERGUY.
You and others all see the same output as the emoter, even the OTHERGUY target, who should technically be seeing 'glances at YOU', instead of his name.

The POV changes within the same sentence, and this is true even in some "RPI" feature sets.

My one-line catchall stance for this discussion is that assigning a very strict set of "RPI" features will marginalize some games that lack perhaps 1 or 1.5 of the features on the list, and in that light, is misleading, both to me and others. I know of one game that has this set of issues:
1. No mandated permadeath (although permadeath can be enacted on a character by admins for IC consequences, and more importantly, CHOSEN AT ANY TIME by a player, for any reason.)
2. Global channels, although each and every one of them may be toggled off, including adding the off-toggle as login output with most clients, so getting rid of globals is a one-time effort.
3. Stats for combat, although it has a customizable output to ditch the numbers if you don't want them.
4. Names, instead of descripts. I grant that this can be jarring for some, and I'm not advocating whether names or descripts are more or less conducive to RP, but this is the only solid feature at this particular MUD example you can point to that isn't on this list of must-haves. And yet, nothing prevents a RPer from pretending he doesn't know someone's name that he doesn't know. I overcame that pretty easily with colored highlights, which seems no more or less cumbersome than a coded introduction system.

A game like this wouldn't qualify as an "RPI" by "definition", although 90% of the salient features of RPIs are there, and it has the added quality of making the personal playing experience customizable by player choice, in every case except one.

By the proposed definition of "RPI" following a specific feature set, I'm certain most of the RPI-advocates would say "Not an RPI", and it wouldn't be, because that will have been defined by a preferential (and somewhat malleable) feature set. This 'miss-by-a-millimeter' demographic of games are the ones that would be hurt by such a narrow distinction, despite the very high quality of RP that can be found there (which really is NOT the focus of this debate), and perhaps for no more reason than the term "RPI" has seen its day come and go, having never been truly defined from the beginning.

Retroactive attempts to exemplify RPI-alikes as more conducive to RP, and therefore more deserving of what seems like an elitist distinction.

That's my opinion.

05-05-2008, 10:44 PM	#59
Disillusionist Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 83	Re: Determining the Origin and Meaning of RPI I can't really agree that it comes down to narrative POV, simply because POV changes in almost any feature set. A third-person feature set would get annoying pretty quickly in my opinion. Are there even any third-person formats out there? In every game I've ever played, the POV changed, depending on whether you were using code-supported verbs, or just emoting, but is done to emulate a first-person experience as much as possible. >smile broadly You see: YOU smile broadly. Others see: YOURNAME smiles broadly. >emote rubs HIS salt-and-pepper temples. YOU emote: YOURNAME rubs HIS salt-and-pepper temples, and glances at OTHERGUY. You and others all see the same output as the emoter, even the OTHERGUY target, who should technically be seeing 'glances at YOU', instead of his name. The POV changes within the same sentence, and this is true even in some "RPI" feature sets. My one-line catchall stance for this discussion is that assigning a very strict set of "RPI" features will marginalize some games that lack perhaps 1 or 1.5 of the features on the list, and in that light, is misleading, both to me and others. I know of one game that has this set of issues: 1. No mandated permadeath (although permadeath can be enacted on a character by admins for IC consequences, and more importantly, CHOSEN AT ANY TIME by a player, for any reason.) 2. Global channels, although each and every one of them may be toggled off, including adding the off-toggle as login output with most clients, so getting rid of globals is a one-time effort. 3. Stats for combat, although it has a customizable output to ditch the numbers if you don't want them. 4. Names, instead of descripts. I grant that this can be jarring for some, and I'm not advocating whether names or descripts are more or less conducive to RP, but this is the only solid feature at this particular MUD example you can point to that isn't on this list of must-haves. And yet, nothing prevents a RPer from pretending he doesn't know someone's name that he doesn't know. I overcame that pretty easily with colored highlights, which seems no more or less cumbersome than a coded introduction system. A game like this wouldn't qualify as an "RPI" by "definition", although 90% of the salient features of RPIs are there, and it has the added quality of making the personal playing experience customizable by player choice, in every case except one. By the proposed definition of "RPI" following a specific feature set, I'm certain most of the RPI-advocates would say "Not an RPI", and it wouldn't be, because that will have been defined by a preferential (and somewhat malleable) feature set. This 'miss-by-a-millimeter' demographic of games are the ones that would be hurt by such a narrow distinction, despite the very high quality of RP that can be found there (which really is NOT the focus of this debate), and perhaps for no more reason than the term "RPI" has seen its day come and go, having never been truly defined from the beginning. Retroactive attempts to exemplify RPI-alikes as more conducive to RP, and therefore more deserving of what seems like an elitist distinction. That's my opinion.