[prof1515]

I'm separating this so as not to derail a thread but the inaccuracies below bear pointing out.

First, we'll address a recent inaccurate "alternative" to the term RPI.

RPI isn't a flame. It's a historically used term. Creating another term that is inaccurate is not useful since it only serves to present false information which will further confuse. If you say SoI has Armageddon's feature set, then you'd be incorrect; likewise if you said the same about Harshlands.

Armageddon has its own feature set. Harshlands has its own feature set. Shadows of Isildur has its own feature set. For example...

One of the characteristics of RPIs is that they do not present players with precise information regarding skill aptitude. They all do not present this information the same way however.

Armageddon simply presents a skill without any indication of a character's aptitude at that skill. Everything is hidden.

Harshlands and its descendants utilize a very basic system featuring four (formerly three) terms to denote a general idea of skill aptitude without affording the player any precision whatsoever. The numbers are all hidden including skill caps.

Each finds a different method to present this information in vague terms, Armageddon's method being the most ambiguous. Regardless, they achieve the same effect by preventing players from ascertaining their precise ability. So, while employing different feature styles to achieve it, their goal and effect is the same: the prevention of players from ascertaining precise skill aptitude.

This is but one example of the differences in how they achieve a desired effect. The philosophy is the same, but the method differ. There are also other significant differences between the features of each, even more so at the time the term RPI was coined.

For example, Armageddon features ranged weapons. Until recently, Harshlands had no ranged weapon code. Even still, while they now have the code capability courtesy of Shadows of Isildur, it is restricted in its application in the game world. Shadows of Isildur dispenses with the typical inventory command by employing right and left hand slots for manipulation and storage of objects. Harshlands and Armageddon (at least at last check) both still employed a standard inventory. So, while each has some similarities, they also feature differences in their code which would make any attempt to denote their shared similarities confusing if a name were attached to it.

But they all share a set of some features even while differing in others. Games with these similarities were all called RPI. Obviously if the term was used to describe a small number of games with some similar features but not used to describe other games with different features, the term was being used in reference to an identification of these similarities. What were these similarities? They were the shared characteristics I listed in another thread, one of which was permanent death. That was what made them RPI.

They didn't get flamed. They were corrected in the hopes that more accuracy in their terminology might help them find what they were looking for. Asking for something when you mean something else is a good way to not get what you want. The flames started when people began to argue their opinion that anything could be RPI, an opinion that others, not to mention the historical record, dispute.

It's confusing because you're identifying a single game as the source of similarities when at least two games would be required to form a comparison. Other RPIs share at least 19 characteristics with Armageddon but even there differ in the means by which several are applied. Armageddon does things its own way. Harshlands did things its own way. Shadows of Isildur does things its own way. They share 19 characteristics but are each their own. That set of 19 characteristics leads each of them to possess similarities that make them distinct from most other MUDs. That difference from other MUDs led to the use of a term to describe them: Role-Playing Intensive or RPI.

They also share distinct differences. Armageddon differs in numerous ways from the others. Saying that something is a Godwars style mud is neither a slam on Godwars nor a declaration that the game is just a rip off KaVir's original work. It's naming a very well known style of mud and paying KaVir a bit of tribtue on the side.[/quote]

In which case coming up with a new term after an established term already existed would be redundant. Additionally, if games which did not resemble Godwars started calling themselves "Godwars style", it would prove just as confusing and inaccurate as the present misuse of RPI by MUDs which do not possess the features that the term applies.

No, I did not. I said that in addition to Armageddon and Harshlands, the third was derived from Harshlands. From one of Harshlands' other descendents, Shadows of Isildur, the code of the vast majority of RPIs is now descended. Additionally, a third (and a fourth and possibly fifth in development) RPI codebase came into existance years later separately derived from a H&S codebase.

As far as I know, Armageddon is the sole representative of its particular take on RPIs.

I used to play H&S. There's a distinct difference between the two and a H&S calling themselves RPI would be a grossly inaccurate statement. Likewise, a RPI calling themselves H&S would be inaccurate too. So would be calling any H&S a RP-enforced. Or calling any particular type of game by a term used to describe a different type of game with features and characteristics that don't apply. It's just plain inaccurate if it's unintentional and downright dishonest if done deliberately.

Role-Playing Intensive, or RPI, is a term that was applied to a small number of MUDs. They were role-playing enforced MUDs. But they weren't the only role-playing enforced MUDs. There were others. A small group of them was singled out by the use of a specific term to refer to them: Role-Playing Intensive, RPI for short. What separated these games from other games that had required role-play?

Each RPI had numerous code changes from the base codes from which they were derived, so many changes that they barely resembled the codebases from which they started. They were gutted and existing systems were added to or replaced with completely new ones. Basic MUD concepts like experience points and levels were taken out altogether. But there was more than just code changes.

Different policy philosophies were employed. Some of these were practiced on other games, others were not. In most cases, code changes were made to support these policies whether it meant disabling global OOC channels for player use or eliminating the ability to simply enter a game without staff approval.

An examination of the first games to which the term applied reveals at least 19 characteristics shared by each of them. That's not to say they don't share other similiarities, but these are the code features and policies which are not dependent upon specific conditions which might be unique to that game's setting or theme beyond enforced role-play hence the term Role-Play Intensive.

(To avoid character limits, I'm continuing in the next post)