Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

prof1515 · 09-20-2009, 11:24 AM

Role-Play Intensive (or Role-Playing Intensive if you prefer) is not the same thing as "intense role-play". It's an adjective much in the same vein as "labor-intensive". Just as a "rose-red flower" and a "red rose flower" are not the same thing (the latter refers to the flower of the rose plant, the former could refer to a red carnation or a red tulip), so too is the difference with Role-Playing Intensive and intense role-playing.

The problem with creating any scale is agreeing on what constitutes it. Every game intent on using the term RPI would try to adjust the scale to make the cut-off point just below their own applied total. One game will only score 78 and will recommend the cut-off point be 75. Another game will only score 73 and argue that it should be 70.

Technically speaking, there already is a list of features to which the term first applied and to which you can tick off to determine if a game is Role-Playing Intensive or not. An attempt was made to discern the original meaning of the term by comparing the first two games to which the term was applied and to which there is consensus as to their status as RPI. As a result,

To date, at least 31 games, some which have never opened and some which have been open since the early-to-mid '90s, have met these characteristics including those to which the term was first applied. These games represent at least 4 different lines of code development and several different means of implementing these 19 characteristics. Nevertheless, they are all similar as a result of these same 19 characteristics and quite often their players and staff have moved between game to game.

The problem is that games which don't meet those characteristics continue to abuse the term. One might be missing 4 of these characteristics while another is missing 4 completely different ones. Yet another may only possess those 8 missing from the other two. All still want to call themselves RPI.

Hence even with another list like the one you made, a game that only registered a 22 might still try and call themselves RPI either because they disagree with your scale or because they just "think" that they're RPI anyway. The problem isn't a lack of definition, it's an unwillingness by some games in the MU* community to cease using a term which doesn't apply to them and a general unwillingness by the community to enforce any type of standard usage for that term or really anything else.

Take care,

Jason

P.S. -0- As a side note, your scale would allow for a maximum of 116, not 100.

09-20-2009, 11:24 AM	#54
prof1515 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Illinois Posts: 791	Re: RPI, RPE, and Roleplay Role-Play Intensive (or Role-Playing Intensive if you prefer) is not the same thing as "intense role-play". It's an adjective much in the same vein as "labor-intensive". Just as a "rose-red flower" and a "red rose flower" are not the same thing (the latter refers to the flower of the rose plant, the former could refer to a red carnation or a red tulip), so too is the difference with Role-Playing Intensive and intense role-playing. The problem with creating any scale is agreeing on what constitutes it. Every game intent on using the term RPI would try to adjust the scale to make the cut-off point just below their own applied total. One game will only score 78 and will recommend the cut-off point be 75. Another game will only score 73 and argue that it should be 70. Technically speaking, there already is a list of features to which the term first applied and to which you can tick off to determine if a game is Role-Playing Intensive or not. An attempt was made to discern the original meaning of the term by comparing the first two games to which the term was applied and to which there is consensus as to their status as RPI. As a result, To date, at least 31 games, some which have never opened and some which have been open since the early-to-mid '90s, have met these characteristics including those to which the term was first applied. These games represent at least 4 different lines of code development and several different means of implementing these 19 characteristics. Nevertheless, they are all similar as a result of these same 19 characteristics and quite often their players and staff have moved between game to game. The problem is that games which don't meet those characteristics continue to abuse the term. One might be missing 4 of these characteristics while another is missing 4 completely different ones. Yet another may only possess those 8 missing from the other two. All still want to call themselves RPI. Hence even with another list like the one you made, a game that only registered a 22 might still try and call themselves RPI either because they disagree with your scale or because they just "think" that they're RPI anyway. The problem isn't a lack of definition, it's an unwillingness by some games in the MU* community to cease using a term which doesn't apply to them and a general unwillingness by the community to enforce any type of standard usage for that term or really anything else. Take care, Jason P.S. -0- As a side note, your scale would allow for a maximum of 116, not 100.