[prof1515]

The game world design drives the code, not vice versa and a good number, if not all, such examples are typically code driving world design.

It can be enforced. IP comparison is one method but it's true that twinks can find ways around that. Still, it's not irrelevant any more than "enforced role-play" is. As enforced role-play is a concept which at the heart of RPIs, RPOs, and RPEs, it's hardly irrelevant. Fact is, two accounts, one or both gets deleted along with the characters and then the decision, though some are hesitant, is whether or not to ban.

Sure players can try sneaky ways to get back. I banned the same guy two or three times for multi-play, evading previous bans, and all-around general rudeness involving anti-Semitism, racism, and sexism directed at other players and staff. Wasn't too hard to figure out who he was since he had an IQ of a rabbit and was fairly easy to spot if I caught sight of his RP and character types. Didn't take much effort on my part to do some double-checking within the community and find out that sure enough the moron had mentioned to someone he was back playing. Then it was a very quick personal message (visible only to him) of "Ban extended by six more months, goodbye asswipe" and a nuke of his character and account (and a ban of the IP of his school or friend or whoever it may have belonged to). Has the potential to be disruptive though he tended not to RP so much as mob kill and as a result every time he was alone in the woods killing animals.

But this isn't a fault of the system, it's a fault of the player who seeks to find ways to cheat. You can't necessarily stop cheaters all the time but you certainly can make it a policy to prohibit cheating, eliminating any discussion on whether or not punishment is warranted.

The point is that the play can't see the specifics of their attribute and skill aptitude meaning micromanagement of it and dependence upon the numbers to make decisions in RP is rendered difficult if not impossible. That's quite different from the original H&S code where it is routine for people to use the numbers to dictate their choices.

I wouldn't put day/night descriptions on the list seeing as this was not something widespread throughout (examples of it, yes, but not widespread use until more recently) RPIs.

I believe the more appropriate distinction would be that the systems exist to compliment the world. Crafts can also be used for a wide variety of uses. In the case of the RPI Engine, the crafting system is incredible powerful and has been used quite creatively to brilliant effect. Crafts need not be for manufacture. They can be used to simulate, with results beyond that of an emote, actual processes. This can be as simple as cutting a piece of paper with scissors, creating two smaller pieces.

My own game will feature little to no fighting whatsoever but our craft list will be huge by comparison. Many of these crafts will be for simulation of actions producing changes beyond that of what an emote can do.

Policy-wise, the example you give, is a good one of role-play enforcement. However, Role-Play Intensive was used to describe more than policy alone. It was also about code design. In the example you gave, the code for this aspect of interaction is absent altogether. There is a procedure in place for role-playing the action but there is no coded system for that action beyond emotes.

The examples you give, there is limited responsive ability. One should not be able to respond back via the "global PA system" (unless it's voice activated perhaps) unless they're capable of activating the system. So if a person were to bash the PA system, they shouldn't be able to communicate. And yet, there's a global channel still in place for their use over which they could still be subjected to hearing communication. If capable of being toggled off, another player in the room could still hear it unless they too toggled it off. This is because it's independent of the setting. Now, if it were scratch-built to accomodate the kind of situations mentioned above, that would be acceptable as it's part of the setting. But otherwise, it's really nothing more than an excuse for a standard non-RPI feature, quite often nothing more than a hold-over from H&S code.

The second example is equally vexed if the ability is not limited to "divine beings" alone. Again, this is an issue with code design following world design rather than vice versa. It's little more than the excuse of "everyone's telepathic" to justify the existance of stock code global channels. World design should dictate the code, not the other way around.

Take care,

Jason