[prof1515]

The abbreviation you're looking for is RPI. Using inaccurate terms like "AFS" doesn't do anything but confuse people. RPI is the historical term for games utilizing the features and philosophies shared by games like Armageddon, Harshlands, and Shadows of Isildur. One might further break down the games into three or four sub-categories such as Armageddon-Type RPI or Harshlands-Type RPI since there are small variations in the other features of these games as well as the implementation of the 19 shared features (Armageddon for example does not show any generalized skill aptitude while Harshlands uses 4 terms to broadly represent them).

Having spoken with many coders including those working on developing RPI type code from scratch, I do believe they'd find this statement inaccurate. Stock codes like Diku and the like just aren't built around RPI specifications.

As for the believe that they "hurt a roleplaying environment", I'd like to hear just how they do. I've played over 950 different MUDs, over half of them role-playing MUDs of one sort or another (including every RPI that's ever opened its doors) and if I had to sit down and make out a list of the 100 best role-playing moments I've ever seen, every one on that list would probably be from RPIs (I say probably only because I have never made such a list and can't therefore say definitely though off the top of my head I can not remember any role-play on a non-RPI that can compare to the best I've encountered on RPIs).

It doesn't take "about 3 hours of work for a player to get into" a RPI unless you count developing the concept for a character before you actually log into the port to create it. The chargen (character generation) process can take maybe 5-15 minutes depending upon user familiarity with the process. Approval can take between an hour to a day (depending on staff availability).

The last time I created a character on a RPI, I spent several days designing the character before I even logged into chargen. Chargen itself took me about 5 minutes if that. Even if I weren't familiar with the process it wouldn't have required that long a time to input the data. Was accepted on the first attempt as all my characters have been, even the very first one I ever made on a RPI because if you read the information in chargen and have a reasonable degree of English proficiency you shouldn't have problems getting through the process without a hitch.

As for the statement that "anyone can be anal retentive and reject dozens of character creation attempts", this only serves to illustrate the difference between the RPI philosophy and that of some other games. RPIs concentrate on a process intended to maintain consistency with the setting in the game world in order to provide the immersion players often say they want. You'd be surprised by the number of green-haired, black-eyed characters are submitted. The usual problems that the players commit which results in a rejected application including not reading the information on the screen or just outright disregard for it leading to unacceptable descriptions and backgrounds, use of horrible spelling and grammar, and sometimes accidently forgetting to complete parts of the process before submitting.

As for keeping a player waiting, it's not about that. It's about reviewing their application to ensure that there aren't grievous errors or incompatible elements in their description and background which could cause problems if they were in the game world. These can be stuff like the aforementioned green hair or a character having a noble background without approval (since nobility would carry with it rights in a society, it's not something you can just choose to have).

It's not being "anal" though, it's ensuring a consistent fairness and standard across the board for all players and preventing glaring inconsistencies with the game world. If just anything goes, you end up with a mess of a world. A comprehensive oversight of chargen prevents or at least limits the possibility of that happening.

Attacking all games or even one because of a single person's opinion is a dubious means of backing up an argument. The "point" many of you have been trying to make is hardly that, it seems more like a defense of a lack of standards. The tired old claim of "elitism" is just a way of opposing something or someone by attacking alleged motives rather than facts.

The same could be said of many non-RPI players as well but it's irrelevant to the discussion. I wish people would stop with the personal attacks. It's a flawed tactic. It doesn't legitimize a position to attempt or even succeed in discrediting a person with the opposing position. Even if the leader of the KKK said "2+2=4" and Mother Theresa said "2+2=5", the Klansman would be correct and she would be wrong. That he also advocated violence and racism while she works tiredlessly for the poor and suffering wouldn't matter.

Role-Playing Intensive (RPI) is a term that was applied to a specific set of features shared by a small number of games which concentrated solely on role-playing and heavily modified existing codebases to suit their needs. Those modifications occurred originally in two, later three, different games each independently coded (not sharing the same coders) and were adopted by other game developers over the years as well, most utilizing the code of one of the first two as a starting point. Along the way, the term Role-Playing Intensive or RPI was coined to describe these games because the modifications they had enacted were concentrated on supporting a philosophy of role-playing, not mob-killing like the stock codebase from which they had begun. The term began to be viewed as an indicator of quality role-play, possibly because the quality of role-play on these first games was higher than the standard found in the MUD community at the time. Whether as a result of wanting to piggyback off this perception of quality or merely as a result of poor English skills, Role-Playing Intensive became somehow associated with the belief that it meant "intense role-playing" and other games began to use the term to describe themselves. Confusion and contrasting uses of the term began to occur, sometimes causing problems for RPIs and even sometimes for non-RPIs.

Some, like myself, have sought to clarify and correct this misuse because it a) hurts RPI MUDs by attracting players who have no desire to play such type games, b) hurts the MUDding community by maintaining the lack of standards for which the community is known, c) confuses players by the inconsistent definitions employed more and more without regard for any reasonable attempt at maintaining consistency. The only ones that gain from this are a) dishonest MUD administrators who rely on propaganda to promote their game as opposed to honest descriptions, b) disingenous MUD administrators who would rather bring the standards, and perception of such standards, of the community down rather than raise the standards of their own games. While everyone likes to bitch about low standards in the community, be it an overabundance of stock Dikus or other such grumbling, the debate over the misuse of the term RPI is no different other than, for some, the shoe is on the other foot now. The term RPI is no more accurate or inaccurate now than it ever has been. The problem is not the term, it's the way in which it has been inaccurately employed without thought as to meaning. Why this has happened isn't even the point. Whether the result of deliberate deceit or simply ignorant misunderstanding, its continued abuse serves only to reinforce the negative perception that text-based games are amateurish and somehow inferior to graphicals. And that's just not true. But maintaining a community that allows blatant disregard and even deliberate undermining of any sense of standard certainly provides nothing but a black mark upon us all.

Take care,

Jason