[prof1515]

Some numbers, yes. Skill (combat, smithing, writing, etc) and attribute (strength, dexterity, etc.) aptitude would be an example of a hidden number. An argument that the same applies to health or movement would likely be incorrect as substitutes for numbers were not employed at the time the term RPI came into use and at least one RPI might still use numbers to denote total health and movement (haven't played it in over six months so I'm not sure).

There are some things that are done one way. That's what differentiated RPIs from other MUDs. Skill-use-based advancement as opposed to stat-based advancement is one such example. Given the vast diversity of features found in MUDs in many different combinations, even within RPIs themselves, it is necessary to determine what specific features were shared by games to which the term was applied. I counted about 16 or 17 originally, though that number is likely larger now given the advancement of several other features over the years. Hence the importance to compare the games then and not now as those shared features of the past were the original parameters of determination.

There are a number of code and policy features which a RPI may or may not have. But there are likewise a core set of features which define a MUD as RPI. A lack of these features would be terminal to such definition however.

Just as a mammal may or may not have a tail, so too may a RPI have or not have some features such as ranged weapons. But just as a mammal has hair and not scales, so too would the existance of some features or the absence of others determine if a MUD were or were not RPI.

The point of this discussion has been to try and determine what those specific features were that were shared by the games that were referred to not only as RP MUDs but as RPI MUDs.

Having code to allow a person to mail a letter in-game to someone would support and maintain role-play as well. However, it was not a feature of RPIs at the time the term was derived and was therefore not a feature that formed the characteristics together to which the term RPI referred.

No, it wouldn't disqualify you from being a role-play MUD but it would disqualify you from being a RPI if the features are not that of the like shared by RPI MUDs. The term was not applied to all RP MUDs, just to a small number. Those MUDs were all RP MUDs sharing similar features, one of which was the absence of levels.

The confusion seems to be over the misinterpretation of Role-Play (RP) MUD and Role-Play Intensive (RPI) MUD being interchangeable. While many today use them as such, that's akin to saying Kleenex in reference to a tissue. Kleenex is not the general term for the thin paper object, tissue is. Kleenex is a specific type of tissue. Likewise, RP MUD (general term) and RPI MUD (specific term denoting RP MUDs with a particular feature set) are not the same thing. RPIs are a specific type of RP MUD. All RPIs are Role-Play MUDs but not all Role-Play MUDs are RPI.

Yes, it would mean it's not an RPI. Global player channels are a staple of most MUDs, including many Role-Play MUDs (owing to its existance in numerous original H&S codebases). But RPI is not a general term like RP MUD. It's a specialized term for a type of RP MUD. The MUDs to which the term RPI was first applied all shared the same set of characteristics, one of which was the deliberate removal of global channels for player use.

The way to determine the elements of the feature set of RPIs is to look for common characteristics in the past, not the present. For example, if all RPIs today have ranged weapon code, that is not necessarily a feature of RPI as the majority of RPIs did not have such code until the public release of the SoI RPI Engine in December '03 or January '04 (I forget precisely which month it was off-hand). That feature would not have been something that denoted a RPI MUD because the term was in use to describe games without that feature long before ranged weapon code became common in RPIs.

Take care,

Jason