Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

KaVir · 04-16-2004, 03:44 AM

The accuracy of the listing. On TMC I've done this numerous times for the "codebase" field - Diku's listing themselves as "custom", GodWars listing themselves as "Merc", etc. Players looking for MUCKs will most likely do searches based on the codebase criteria, and "MUCK" is already a standard codebase. If everyone were allowed to write what they wished, then it would render the by-codebase search useless.

RPI is not quite as clear-cut as MUCK, because the latter is a specific codebase while the former is a style of mud (although in many ways it is almost like a codebase). In addition there is no listing entry for "RPI", but if there were I would treat it the same as any of the other fields.

The same could be said for many of the other fields. If you think "RPI" is subjective, you should try quantifying something like "Detailed Character Creation" or "Extended Race Selection" (a certain infamous mud actually tried to claim the latter on the basis that, although it didn't actually have any races implemented, players could pretend to be whatever they liked). Most of the definitions are open to mis/interpretation, but at the end of the day, if the listing is to be of any use to its target audience (ie potential players), there needs to be some amount of consistancy. And IMO the best way to do that is by precedent and common sense. It's not perfect, but if you want to be completely non-subjective you're really not going to be able to provide much information.

There are enough bits and pieces around to work it out, but I've not yet found a full definition (RPIs aren't really my thing - they're just something I've stumbled over a few times over the years - so maybe someone else can point out a link).

What I believe happened is that many years ago someone created a specific style of RP mud, and over the years other people have copied that style of mud, and thus the term RPI has sprung up among the players of those muds to represent their genre. Sort of like an "adopted codebase" I suppose (derivatives without the physical source code itself).

Regardless, the term "RPI" has a well established meaning among those who play such muds. If you list some random mud as an RPI, then players who like RPIs will connect, quickly discover you're not what they were expecting, and leave. Meanwhile those who dislike RPIs will simply ignore your mud, expecting it to be something other than what it really is. It's a misrepresentation that nobody benefits from (unless you're specifically trying to dilute the term RPI, which would be one possible long-term goal).

I've already provided a link to July 1997, that's the earliest reference I've been able to find on usenet (although I've not had time to search thoroughly).

04-16-2004, 03:44 AM	#50
KaVir Legend Join Date: Apr 2002 Name: Richard Home MUD: God Wars II Posts: 2,052	The accuracy of the listing. On TMC I've done this numerous times for the "codebase" field - Diku's listing themselves as "custom", GodWars listing themselves as "Merc", etc. Players looking for MUCKs will most likely do searches based on the codebase criteria, and "MUCK" is already a standard codebase. If everyone were allowed to write what they wished, then it would render the by-codebase search useless. RPI is not quite as clear-cut as MUCK, because the latter is a specific codebase while the former is a style of mud (although in many ways it is almost like a codebase). In addition there is no listing entry for "RPI", but if there were I would treat it the same as any of the other fields. The same could be said for many of the other fields. If you think "RPI" is subjective, you should try quantifying something like "Detailed Character Creation" or "Extended Race Selection" (a certain infamous mud actually tried to claim the latter on the basis that, although it didn't actually have any races implemented, players could pretend to be whatever they liked). Most of the definitions are open to mis/interpretation, but at the end of the day, if the listing is to be of any use to its target audience (ie potential players), there needs to be some amount of consistancy. And IMO the best way to do that is by precedent and common sense. It's not perfect, but if you want to be completely non-subjective you're really not going to be able to provide much information. There are enough bits and pieces around to work it out, but I've not yet found a full definition (RPIs aren't really my thing - they're just something I've stumbled over a few times over the years - so maybe someone else can point out a link). What I believe happened is that many years ago someone created a specific style of RP mud, and over the years other people have copied that style of mud, and thus the term RPI has sprung up among the players of those muds to represent their genre. Sort of like an "adopted codebase" I suppose (derivatives without the physical source code itself). Regardless, the term "RPI" has a well established meaning among those who play such muds. If you list some random mud as an RPI, then players who like RPIs will connect, quickly discover you're not what they were expecting, and leave. Meanwhile those who dislike RPIs will simply ignore your mud, expecting it to be something other than what it really is. It's a misrepresentation that nobody benefits from (unless you're specifically trying to dilute the term RPI, which would be one possible long-term goal). I've already provided a link to July 1997, that's the earliest reference I've been able to find on usenet (although I've not had time to search thoroughly).