|
I remember this exact argument being hashed out on usenet years ago. Then, though, it was about what constitutes a MURPE. I remember it because I was at the time a Threshold player and arguing to maintain the purity of the term MURPE.
The problem, I believe, lies in the fact that people choose words for the acronym that, in themselves, carry meaning.
For instance: Role Playing Intensive. If you're saying that we aren't an RPI, are you trying to say that we don't have intense roleplay?
Multi-User Roleplaying Environment: If you say that we're not a MURPE, are you saying that we don't have multiple users and roleplaying?
If we're going to make an objective classification of MUDs, I think it would be beneficial to choose arbitrary names for the classifications like, Type A, Type B, Type C, etc.
Of course, this goes against every marketing ploy out there, as you want a descriptor for your mud that is that: descriptive. And that's what these classifications, and the arguments surrounding them, are really about in my opinion (marketing). A type of mud becomes buzzworthy (RPI now, MURPE in the past) and others want to jump on the bandwagon. They get mad when they're told that their mud doesn't fit the category and they can't be a part of the buzz.
I will say that, traditionally, the "RPI" class of muds (by that I mean FEM, HL, Armageddon, 4Lands, Southlands) all had certain objective game features in place. These included, but aren't limited to the following:
Permanent death, character creation, No global channels, and limited OOC communication ingame. There are probably a few more, but those are the ones that come to mind.
Anyway, it's a cyclical thing. For a while now, RPIs have been growing and burrowing out a niche in the mudding world. In the future, I wouldn't doubt it something else becomes the flavor of the month and we're debating what features make up a MUTE or RUT or who knows what.
Cheers,
Riga
|