|
KaVir's point is valid here - if I, as a game owner, were to bill my game as "PK Intensive", and it were not, it would be a misrepresentation of the game, and could be detrimental to an auditors impression (I believe TMC still does audits, although I no longer frequent that site). Ditto the term "RPI" - although I have never asked for quantification of the term, when this situation arose several years ago regarding my game, I quickly determined I didn't (by choice) meet the arbitrary criteria the term RPI represented. Rather than debate the issue, I simply billled the game as IRP - intensive roleplay.
Having been intimately involved in that discussion (early '01 if I recall correctly), and after doing some cursory research into the term back then, I chose not to debate the issue, because the term RPI had become the de facto standard for a specific set of criterion. Now, several years further down the road, it should be even more firmly ensconced, regardless of how well it has been published.
Perhaps, rather than debating the timeline and history of the applique', this thread would be better realized by codifying the specifications, to allow citing in the future. It need not be KaVir's definition; we can appeal to those who run games quantified as RPIs for their interpretation.
|