[Milawe]

Again, I think that this demonstrates why RPI needs to be define with a specific set of categories in mind. An RPI mud, one that everyone agrees is RPI, has a crafting system that is indeed extensive. I, however, find it totally an OOC context game. Most of the time spent crafting is spent trying to guess the words needed to craft things and which ones to combine. That, to me, is not an emphasis on roleplay. It's a game design choice that creates an OOC burden on the player. If I want to sew myself a smock, I would go and find a pattern to a smock or find a smock and try to copy it. I wouldn't sit around guessing how it might be done. I can't ask IC what the syntax is because syntax is a completely OOC concept. I can't use a help file to give me any clues due to the fact that they don't have help files on this. It's just actually an incredibly frustrating game design prospect that just made give up on their crafting system, and ultimately, on their mud. That's simply not the kind of challenge I want, and I did not find it to be immersive. I still have no object to the mud in question being considered an RPI, but you can start to see how subjective these criteria can be and why it starts to seem more like a "club" than an actual designation. The sad fact is that many people don't want to be excluded from a club that makes overtures at superiority. That's why clubs like that are created. Our members are special. Yours are not. It's not a bad marketing tool, but it IS very vague and has vastly contributed to the debate.

Here are things that are not really subjective:

perma-death
classless system
skill through use
non-stock emoting system
crafting system (even if I personally think some of them suck. rofl)
roleplay enforced
combat mechanics present
hobbits allowed

That's just a sample list. I'm not even saying that that is what RPIs SHOULD be defined as. I just think that it's clear that saying "we only have systems with RP in mind" is extremely subjective and is prone to abuse.