Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

KaVir · 04-14-2004, 03:34 AM

No, I didn't, I asked a question - the same one I asked again in my most recent post. I had already made the premise that every mud could be considered an RP mud, and that "intensive" is subjective, and wanted to know if either (1) you disagreed with those premises (and if so why), or (2) if you agreed with those premises, whether that meant you also believed that all RPIs could be classified as an RPI.

It would have been a straw man if I had claimed you had made those statements and argued against you based on that interpretation. But I didn't. What you claimed was that "RPI" should be used as its literal meaning rather a specific style of mud. What I'm trying to show you is what happens when you apply that logic to other abbreviations - because applying the logic to some and not others would be hypocritical.

Point 2: RP stands for "role-playing". And the literal meaning of "role-playing" is simply "to play a role".

Now there are two points here. Is it that you believe the statement "RP stands for role-playing" is "so ridiculous that [it is] laughable", or are you referring to the literal meaning?

Main Entry: role-play
Pronunciation: 'rOl-"plA, -'plA
Function: verb
transitive senses : ACT OUT <students were asked to role-play the thoughts and feelings of each character -- R. G. Lambert>
intransitive senses : to play a role

point 3) When playing a mud, a player never plays themselves - they play a character. That character may have certain similarites with the player, but invariably the character lives within a different world to (and possesses different powers from) the player. Ergo, going by literal definitions, every mud is an RP mud.

What is "so ridiculous that [it is] laughable"? The suggestion that a player plays a character? Or the suggestion that they live in a different world to (and possesses different powers from) the player? Because both of those statements are true in every mud I've ever played. The conclusion of the above statement is a logical step based on the previous statements and point 2.

Precisely, and that is the very point I am trying to demonstrate. You argue that RPI should be used to represent its literal meaning - a role-playing intensive mud. Yet you find it laughable when I suggest applying the same logic to other acroynms, such as RP. Why?

In an earlier post you claimed "Unless something is managed by a standards body like ANSI or IEEE I do not think anyone can lay claim to what exactly defines RPI or any other game related acronym. Yes, people can share their opinions but nobody has the authority to outright declare what the precise and exact criterion are".

Is "RPG" not a game-related acronym?

You are arguing inconsistently. Either acronyms should follow their literal meaning, or they shouldn't. Most people (including me) use the meaning that that acronym has come to take on - an RP mud or RPG has a certain style of IC player interaction similar to pen&paper roleplaying games. A PK mud allows player characters to fight each other. A MOO is a specific mud codebase which happens to be object-oriented. And an RPI is a type of RP mud which includes a specific range of features.

You obviously believe your mud to be a good-quality RP mud, and seem offended that someone could invent a classification of RP mud which your own mud doesn't qualify for. You just need to rub the bruises from your ego and realise that an RPI is no better or worse than any other mud - it is simply a classification, and one which is useful to players. It doesn't mean that anyone thinks any less of your mud, any more than they would think less of mine for not being a MOO ("But my mud is Object-Oriented" I cry!).

04-14-2004, 03:34 AM	#34
KaVir Legend Join Date: Apr 2002 Name: Richard Home MUD: God Wars II Posts: 2,052	No, I didn't, I asked a question - the same one I asked again in my most recent post. I had already made the premise that every mud could be considered an RP mud, and that "intensive" is subjective, and wanted to know if either (1) you disagreed with those premises (and if so why), or (2) if you agreed with those premises, whether that meant you also believed that all RPIs could be classified as an RPI. It would have been a straw man if I had claimed you had made those statements and argued against you based on that interpretation. But I didn't. What you claimed was that "RPI" should be used as its literal meaning rather a specific style of mud. What I'm trying to show you is what happens when you apply that logic to other abbreviations - because applying the logic to some and not others would be hypocritical. Point 2: RP stands for "role-playing". And the literal meaning of "role-playing" is simply "to play a role". Now there are two points here. Is it that you believe the statement "RP stands for role-playing" is "so ridiculous that [it is] laughable", or are you referring to the literal meaning? Main Entry: role-play Pronunciation: 'rOl-"plA, -'plA Function: verb transitive senses : ACT OUT <students were asked to role-play the thoughts and feelings of each character -- R. G. Lambert> intransitive senses : to play a role point 3) When playing a mud, a player never plays themselves - they play a character. That character may have certain similarites with the player, but invariably the character lives within a different world to (and possesses different powers from) the player. Ergo, going by literal definitions, every mud is an RP mud. What is "so ridiculous that [it is] laughable"? The suggestion that a player plays a character? Or the suggestion that they live in a different world to (and possesses different powers from) the player? Because both of those statements are true in every mud I've ever played. The conclusion of the above statement is a logical step based on the previous statements and point 2. Precisely, and that is the very point I am trying to demonstrate. You argue that RPI should be used to represent its literal meaning - a role-playing intensive mud. Yet you find it laughable when I suggest applying the same logic to other acroynms, such as RP. Why? In an earlier post you claimed "Unless something is managed by a standards body like ANSI or IEEE I do not think anyone can lay claim to what exactly defines RPI or any other game related acronym. Yes, people can share their opinions but nobody has the authority to outright declare what the precise and exact criterion are". Is "RPG" not a game-related acronym? You are arguing inconsistently. Either acronyms should follow their literal meaning, or they shouldn't. Most people (including me) use the meaning that that acronym has come to take on - an RP mud or RPG has a certain style of IC player interaction similar to pen&paper roleplaying games. A PK mud allows player characters to fight each other. A MOO is a specific mud codebase which happens to be object-oriented. And an RPI is a type of RP mud which includes a specific range of features. You obviously believe your mud to be a good-quality RP mud, and seem offended that someone could invent a classification of RP mud which your own mud doesn't qualify for. You just need to rub the bruises from your ego and realise that an RPI is no better or worse than any other mud - it is simply a classification, and one which is useful to players. It doesn't mean that anyone thinks any less of your mud, any more than they would think less of mine for not being a MOO ("But my mud is Object-Oriented" I cry!).