[prof1515]

I think what's at issue more is the element of design intent. Is it any surprise that the vast majority of stock codebases do not possess permadeath and the vast majority of MUDs do not possess permadeath? Not at all. The world design simply tends to follow the code. Some may disguise it with a lot of explanation and mysticism, but in the end it really comes down to the established code and mindset of the games' creators. This isn't the case with permanent death.

Most games which have incorporated permadeath have done so because the world design has dictated the code needs. The "realism" approach isn't so much about "real" versus "fantasy" as it is looking at the gameworld design from the position that the code will follow the world design rather than thinking in terms of gaming concepts (levels, experience points, etc). In some cases this has been for the benefit of creating a more realistic role-play world but that's not the only reason. Permadeath can increase the stakes in a variety of gaming concepts (that's not to suggest it can't also be destructive in some types of games).

Role-Play Intense does not mean that the role-play is intense. If it did, the phrase would be "intense role-play" with an adjective complimenting a noun. Like "red ball" or "stupid person", the adjective would be first. Now look at "Role-Play Intensive" or even "Role-Play Intense" and notice that the word "intense" or "intensive" is not in in front of "role-play". Applying your interpretation to the use of an adjective, do you say "I own a ball red because I am a person stupid"? No, of course not. You would own a "red ball" and would be a "stupid person".

RPI is often used as a noun. This isn't necessarily incorrect because they're using it as such with an implied meaning. For example, people will say "I play a RPI". What they're really saying is "I play a RPI MUD." It's the same as if I alternately chose to say "I'll give you all the reds" instead of saying "I'll give you all the red M&Ms." It helps to establish the term through the complete sentence first but unlike many adjectives, RPI has a much more limited application of use.

RPE and RPI aren't quite interchangeable. RPI is merely a type of RPE. All RPIs are RPE but not all RPEs are RPI. In fact, the vast majority of them aren't.

What you seem to have experienced is poor design and administration of the game world if PKers aren't punished for killing and can thus "run the show". The advantage of permanent death is that killing carries consequence. When the consequence isn't made to have an impact, permanent death tends to result in PKers simply ruining the established role-play by resorting to violence knowing the gains outweigh the risks.

Mina brings up a good point about players creating disposable characters and that point is the very reason that character creation on a game with permadeath should be anything but simple. The more depth and effort put into a character, the less likely players may be to invite death and act without consequence. To ensure that disposable characters don't exist, it does require a good degree of staff attention to ensure that such characters aren't roaming and that players who routinely create such characters are eventually shown the door. Mind you, I've played MUDs where you had very basic character backgrounds turn into well-played, enduring characters and I've played (and quit) MUDs with players who'd created detailed disposable characters. Hence, the real key is to identify the player's behavior patterns. That's where some games fall short.

Either for lack of effort or lack of concern, they allow players who think in terms of death being an acceptable risk as long as they can achieve their goals, regardless of role-playable feasibility or reasonable consequence (there's a word for that attitude: twink). I suspect it's these types of players and poorly-run games that Newworlds (unfortunately) seems to have encountered in the past. All I can offer is that it wasn't permadeath that was the problem. It was the players who behave in this manner and the game staff which don't take efforts to punish such players. As a former administrator who took a very, very, VERY dim view of twinkish players, I can sympathize with Newworlds or any other player who found permadeath distasteful on account of such reasons. It shouldn't have been so and the responsibility for ensuring it wasn't so lies firmly on the shoulders of those game staff that didn't take adequate measures to prevent it happening in the first place.

Well, like the term permadeath or RPI, RPE is often misused and/or abused as well. It's entirely possible the confusion arises from the "encouraged" and "enforced" issue too.

As for permanent death being anything but die and that's it, "soft" permadeath is really a term that means anything and thus nothing. Being able to die a million times before it's "permanent" would be just as accurate a use of the term as a three-deaths-and-it's-permanent policy. Likewise, the concept of "soft" permadeath could just as easily apply to a game where you have unlimited lives unless you happen to die to an armored turnip with a really bad attitude as long as there was an armored turnip with a really bad attitude in the game. Even if the aforementioned vegetale were located on a difficult-to-reach mountain on a distant island, that possibility exists that you might die to it and hence "permadeath" exists.

However most people looking for permadeath aren't thinking about the various ways that one can rationalize game circumstances to provide a label of "permadeath". They're thinking what you and I think when we stand alongside a cliff or in front of a moving train: if I die, that's it. No escape clauses, no conditional "you get two more deaths before it's permanent", no "this is the morning train and I can only die if I'm ground up beneath the wheels of the afternoon one". Nope, it's die and that's it: permanent death, be it for the player in front of that morning train or the character who just got killed by an unarmored carrot with a sunny disposition.

Take care,

Jason