View Single Post
Old 09-27-2010, 09:35 AM   #130
prof1515
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Illinois
Posts: 791
prof1515 will become famous soon enoughprof1515 will become famous soon enough
Send a message via AIM to prof1515 Send a message via Yahoo to prof1515
Re: Veterans of Roleplay Intensive MUDs

It's important to separate the subjective "RPIs are better" comments from the objective "RPIs have this feature" comments. I agree all too often this isn't done and in the past I've been guilty of this myself. Mind you, RPIs aren't what they used to be so it'd be hard for me to maintain such an attitude anymore.

The real problem I see quite often is people being unable to distinguish the difference between "role-play intensive MUD" and "intensive role-play MUD". They do not mean the same thing. I offer the following example to illustrate the difference.

red rose ball

rose red ball

The former is a ball made from red roses. The term rose is an adjective for ball describing the ball while red refers to the roses. In the latter example, red is the adjective describing the ball and rose is describing the word red. The second ball is red but it isn't necessarily made of roses. It could be made of dandelions, plastic or rubber.

Hence despite possessing the same three words, the two terms have different meanings. The same is true of "role-play intensive MUD" and "intensive role-play MUD".

I coined the term Role-Play Oriented or RPO back in 2006 to describe games which are far more than merely H&S codebases with enforced role-play yet do not meet the particular characteristics of the RPIs. Attempts to differentiate further or provide a more precise definition were difficult owing to the lack of specific similarities between various RPOs (one may not have permadeath but has no levels and no global OOC channels while another may have permadeath and no levels but possesses global OOC channels and yet another may have permadeath and no global OOC channels but possesses levels).

Agreed, although I would note that sometimes Qzzrbl's statement would be appropriate if a game described itself as RPI without meeting the 19 characteristics. I've seen games which examined separately were very good but which insisted that they were RPI despite clearly not meeting the characteristics of the term. They were not up to RPI standards so far as their description of themselves as RPI was concerned.

It's a lot like describing a Honda Accord as not up to Indycar standards. It's not up Indycar standards and would suck major monkey balls if it ran the 500 in May. However, the Honda clearly bests the Indycar in miles per gallon and road handling (Indycars can't make sharp turns or drive in reverse). The context of the "standards" must always be taken into consideration.

Role-play quality is a subjective assessment and should be taken in context of how it's determined and to what it's compared. For example, I made the comment that the quality of RP on the RPIs isn't what it used to be. This isn't a comparison to non-RPIs. My comment is in regard to the role-play on the same games over a period of a decade and the differences that can be noted.

I think they're more blinded by the desire to attract more and more players. When I started playing RPIs, it wasn't uncommon to see less than 5 people on at any time and to often times be the only player online. That's not the case any more though I've found that quite often while there may be more players online, the role-play experienced interacting with them is lacking compared to that of years past.

(continued below)
prof1515 is offline   Reply With Quote