Top Mud Sites Forum Return to TopMudSites.com
Go Back   Top Mud Sites Forum > MUD Players and General Discussion > Roleplaying and Storytelling
Click here to Register

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-07-2004, 09:55 PM   #21
Riga
New Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 16
Riga is on a distinguished road
I remember this exact argument being hashed out on usenet years ago. Then, though, it was about what constitutes a MURPE. I remember it because I was at the time a Threshold player and arguing to maintain the purity of the term MURPE.

The problem, I believe, lies in the fact that people choose words for the acronym that, in themselves, carry meaning.

For instance: Role Playing Intensive. If you're saying that we aren't an RPI, are you trying to say that we don't have intense roleplay?

Multi-User Roleplaying Environment: If you say that we're not a MURPE, are you saying that we don't have multiple users and roleplaying?

If we're going to make an objective classification of MUDs, I think it would be beneficial to choose arbitrary names for the classifications like, Type A, Type B, Type C, etc.

Of course, this goes against every marketing ploy out there, as you want a descriptor for your mud that is that: descriptive. And that's what these classifications, and the arguments surrounding them, are really about in my opinion (marketing). A type of mud becomes buzzworthy (RPI now, MURPE in the past) and others want to jump on the bandwagon. They get mad when they're told that their mud doesn't fit the category and they can't be a part of the buzz.

I will say that, traditionally, the "RPI" class of muds (by that I mean FEM, HL, Armageddon, 4Lands, Southlands) all had certain objective game features in place. These included, but aren't limited to the following:
Permanent death, character creation, No global channels, and limited OOC communication ingame. There are probably a few more, but those are the ones that come to mind.

Anyway, it's a cyclical thing. For a while now, RPIs have been growing and burrowing out a niche in the mudding world. In the future, I wouldn't doubt it something else becomes the flavor of the month and we're debating what features make up a MUTE or RUT or who knows what.

Cheers,
Riga
Riga is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2004, 04:47 AM   #22
KaVir
Legend
 
KaVir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Name: Richard
Home MUD: God Wars II
Posts: 2,052
KaVir will become famous soon enoughKaVir will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Threshold wrote:
KaVir, by making that list are you saying that an RPI mud would have many of those features or are you saying that an RPI must have ALL of them or else it is not an RPI.
I am saying that those are the features defined by the term "RPI". The label RPI stands for "Role-Playing Intensive", because RPIs are all Role-Playing Intensive muds. However the label represents more than just having intensive roleplaying - it represents a specific style of mud.

The same applies to other things as well, for example a "PK mud" stands for "Player Killing mud", yet it would not apply to a mud in which players were only killed by mobs, because it means more than the literal definition of its words. It represents a specific type of mud.

Equally, every mudder is playing the role of someone other than themselves - their characters have skills and knowledge different to that of the player, and often belong to entirely different races. So in theory every mud requires roleplaying - indeed, unless the mud allows you to play yourself, you could even say that it was "roleplaying enforced". However we don't list every mud as an RP mud, because RP is used to represents a specific type of mud.

Quote:
Originally Posted by
If you are saying the latter, then I have to disagree with you. Having OOC channels has absolutely nothing to do with whether a game is an RPI or not.
It has nothing to do with whether or not the game is a roleplaying intensive mud - but it is one of the criteria for labelling a mud as an RPI.

Quote:
Originally Posted by
In my opinion, not having OOC channels on any game is a terrible mistake. OOC channels provide one the most important and successful means of building community around a game.
I agree. In fact I find many of the RPI features contrary to what I consider a good mud, and some of them contrary to encouraging roleplaying. However no OOC channels is one of the features defined by RPI muds.

Quote:
Originally Posted by
Riga wrote:
I remember this exact argument being hashed out on usenet years ago. Then, though, it was about what constitutes a MURPE. I remember it because I was at the time a Threshold player and arguing to maintain the purity of the term MURPE.
However the difference then was that Threshold wished to use the term MURPE as a replacement for being a MUD. RPI is not a replacement - it is a specific type of mud, no different from many of the other labels we use.

Quote:
Originally Posted by
Role Playing Intensive. If you're saying that we aren't an RPI, are you trying to say that we don't have intense roleplay?
MOO stands for "Mud Object-Oriented". Yet I don't see every object-oriented mud claiming to be a MOO, nor do I see anyone claiming that if you're not running a MOO your mud is not Object-Oriented. The label RPI is no different. An RPI gets its name from the fact that it's roleplaying-intensive, just like MOO gets its name from the fact that it's object-oriented, but in neither case is there any implication that that is the only type of roleplaying-intensive (or object-oriented) mud.

So what happens if people start redefining terms? The people running RP muds which don't fit the criteria for an RPI are generally the ones that seem to take a dislike to the definition of an RPI, yet they are often highly critical of pseudo-RP muds that list themselves as RP muds. If you were to use RPI purely by its acronym meaning, then why not the others?

So lets say Bubba is running a typical stock mud, except he's renamed the classes to "smurf", "pokemon" and "ninja turtle". He knows that none of his players are smurfs, pokemon or ninja turtles, therefore he can safely say that every player is playing a role. Therefore, following the actual definition of RP (Role-Playing) he can quite legitimately refer to his mud as an RP mud. The main focus of his mud is PK - indeed, there is little purpose for mobs, as the main goal of the game is to beat other PCs to death with clubs or blow them up with C4. However Bubba can safely say that, while dozens of characters get killed every hour, no actual player gets killed. As the literal definition of "PK" is "Playing Killing", and no actual players are killed or do any killing, Bubba is also able to refer to his mud as a non-PK mud. As the word "intensive" is rather subjective, and Bubba feels that his players play quite intensively, he decides to call his mud a "non-PK RPI mud".

Do you think that would be useful for new players, who are searching for specific types of mud?
KaVir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2004, 05:13 AM   #23
Threshold
Legend
 
Threshold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Home MUD: Threshold RPG
Posts: 1,241
Threshold will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by (KaVir @ April 08 2004,03:47)
However no OOC channels is one of the features defined by RPI muds.
According to whom?

Is RPI some kind of ANSI codified acronym?

It sounds to me like a couple of personal preferences became popular among a handful of people and now they want to claim some sort of "intense RP" superiority over others. I cannot support that kind of arrogance and I also think some of those criterion have absolutely nothing to do with role playing.

It is tantamount to saying to be an RPI you must use an Intel chipset server running Red Hat linux. Those criterion would be absurd.

Unless something is managed by a standards body like ANSI or IEEE I do not think anyone can lay claim to what exactly defines RPI or any other game related acronym. Yes, people can share their opinions but nobody has the authority to outright declare what the precise and exact criterion are.

Ultimately, the owner of a game has the right to label his/her game however he/she chooses. They are the ones who suffer the consequences if their labelling is deemed misleading by customers/players. It is true that it is in the best interests of the game owner and the community as a whole if people make an effort to label and advertise their game accurately. But that does not mean any single individual or handful of individuals can declare themselves the arbiter of what exactly makes a game an RPI mud or a MURPE or whatever.

There are PK purists that think any game that puts any limits on PKing cannot be called a PK mud. That is outrageous in my opinion. There are multiple levels of PK muds. For exmaple, a clan/side based PK mud (one in which you can only kill people in a different clan/kingdom/side than yours) is no less a PK mud than a total free-for-all PK mud. Yet some purists would say a clan/side based PK game should not be allowed to call itself a PK mud.

This is even true in commercial games. The term RPG certainly has gone through quite an evolution (devolution?) considering the types of games that call themselves RPGs nowadays. You certainly don't see PC Gamer, Gamespot.com, Xplay, or any other gaming journalism sources challenging them on it. Fortunately, even players of commercial games rarely challenge such classifications.

They see them for what they are: guidelines. That is all they are and it is all they should be.
Threshold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2004, 07:02 AM   #24
KaVir
Legend
 
KaVir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Name: Richard
Home MUD: God Wars II
Posts: 2,052
KaVir will become famous soon enoughKaVir will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by (Threshold @ April 08 2004,10:13)
Quote:
Originally Posted by (KaVir @ April 08 2004,03:47)
However no OOC channels is one of the features defined by RPI muds.
According to whom?

Is RPI some kind of ANSI codified acronym?
Initially according to the people who created the first RPIs presumably, in order to clarify their style of mud, although it's now fairly commonly accepted (except by those running RP muds which don't satisfy the RPI criteria).

Quote:
Originally Posted by
It sounds to me like a couple of personal preferences became popular among a handful of people and now they want to claim some sort of "intense RP" superiority over others.
I fail to see any claim of "superiority", any more than muds which claim to be RP or PK. It is simply another classification of mud.

Quote:
Originally Posted by
I cannot support that kind of arrogance and I also think some of those criterion have absolutely nothing to do with role playing.
In your previous post you yourself specifically suggested features you felt should be mandatory for an RPI. Yet when I point out that someone else has already defined those features (and over 12 years ago as well, I might add), you claim that it's "that kind of arrogance" that you "cannot support"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by
Unless something is managed by a standards body like ANSI or IEEE I do not think anyone can lay claim to what exactly defines RPI or any other game related acronym.
The definitions arise through use. You're right though - there's no official body who can refute Bubba from listing his pure PK stock mud as a non-PK RPI mud. In fact there are many mud owners who go to the effort of misleading the public in order to try and attract new players. However most people will not take such muds seriously, and listings are likely to be audited, because sites such as this and TMC generally prefer to give the players accurate information based on their expectations. If I listed my mud as a MOO, it would no doubt be changed - not because my mud isn't a "Mud Object-Oriented", but because it doesn't fall into the definition of what a MOO is.
KaVir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2004, 08:25 AM   #25
Riga
New Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 16
Riga is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by (KaVir @ April 08 2004,03:47)
Quote:
Originally Posted by


MOO stands for "Mud Object-Oriented".  Yet I don't see every object-oriented mud  claiming to be a MOO, nor do I see anyone claiming that if you're not running a MOO your mud is not Object-Oriented.  The label RPI is no different.  An RPI gets its name from the fact that it's roleplaying-intensive, just like MOO gets its name from the fact that it's object-oriented, but in neither case is there any implication that that is the only type of roleplaying-intensive (or object-oriented) mud.
For the record, I agree with you on the dilution of accepted terms. I dislike it as well. My post was intended to address the motivating factors behind these little arguments. As for MOO vs. RPI, there's a big difference. Object Oriented isn't particularly marketable in the current game world. Intense roleplaying is.

Were Object Oriented to become an attractive selling point in the mudding community, I imagine you'd see similar disputes cropping up around the term MOO.
Riga is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2004, 08:37 AM   #26
KaVir
Legend
 
KaVir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Name: Richard
Home MUD: God Wars II
Posts: 2,052
KaVir will become famous soon enoughKaVir will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by (Riga @ April 08 2004,13:25)
As for MOO vs. RPI, there's a big difference. Object Oriented isn't particularly marketable in the current game world. Intense roleplaying is.

Were Object Oriented to become an attractive selling point in the mudding community, I imagine you'd see similar disputes cropping up around the term MOO.
I think you've hit the nail on the head - IMO that's certainly the big reason for most of the complaints. However there's nothing stopping people from listing their muds as "roleplaying intensive" (in fact I believe Robbert does that, as he runs a high-quality roleplaying environment which doesn't fit the RPI criteria).
KaVir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2004, 02:20 PM   #27
Robbert
Member
 
Robbert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: #### Paso, Tx
Posts: 89
Robbert is on a distinguished road
Send a message via ICQ to Robbert Send a message via AIM to Robbert
Quote:
Originally Posted by
I think you've hit the nail on the head - IMO that's certainly the big reason for most of the complaints. However there's nothing stopping people from listing their muds as "roleplaying intensive" (in fact I believe Robbert does that, as he runs a high-quality roleplaying environment which doesn't fit the RPI criteria).
"Did", rather than "does". I and my wife shut down our game last year. And we chose to tout ourselves as "Intensive roleplaying" rather than "RPI (Roleplaying Intensive)" to avoid the connotation implied by RPI. Since our game had been developed after the de facto standards implicit in the term RPI were developed, and we did not - by choice - meet all of those criterion, it was decided that, while we were roleplaying intensive and that roleplaying was enforced, it was simpler to bill ourselves by a different moniker.

Having been involved directly in the interpretation and application of RPI as a criterion, I have an understanding of both sides. The same argument can be applied to MMORPG as a definition - at what point does one qualify to bill their product as such, and who has defined the standard? I submit that, were I to release the game I am currently developing, and bill it as an MMORPG, I would be derided by the operators of established games which meet that billing for falsely carrying my product as such. The definition exists - both for MMORPG and for RPI; making ones product meet that definition is up to the prospective implementor, rather than the public. The criterion does not change.

Note that there is a difference, which I do not believe has been stressed, between "RPI" as a moniker and "RolePlaying Intensive". The former means the game meets the criterion established by members of that (select) community. The latter simply stipulates that intense roleplaying exists on that game.
Robbert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2004, 05:13 PM   #28
Threshold
Legend
 
Threshold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Home MUD: Threshold RPG
Posts: 1,241
Threshold will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by (KaVir @ April 08 2004,06:02)
In your previous post you yourself specifically suggested features you felt should be mandatory for an RPI. Yet when I point out that someone else has already defined those features (and over 12 years ago as well, I might add), you claim that it's "that kind of arrogance" that you "cannot support"?
Those were just my opinions. I have absolutely no problem with someone saying "in my opinion an RPI has <feature 1>, <feature 2>, and <feature 3>."

What I have a problem with is someone picking an arbitrary feature that amounts to no more than personal preference and saying it is a requirement to be a Role Playing Intensive (RPI) game. Part of why I took issue with it so strongly is because some of those traits were no more related to role playing than the chipset or operating system used on the server.

Also, what I was suggesting in the last part of the post was that if someone wanted to attempt to create acronyms for classification (perhaps for use her at TMS) that it would be better to stay general as far as mandatory traits and then have further questions to differentiate within a classification.
Threshold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2004, 05:38 PM   #29
Threshold
Legend
 
Threshold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Home MUD: Threshold RPG
Posts: 1,241
Threshold will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by (KaVir @ April 13 2004,05:58)
Harshlands is 2 years older than Threshold, while Armageddon is 5 years older, so I don't think it can be simply dismissed as "the latest trendy phrase".
So the term RPI is 10-13 years old? Can you provide a citation for that? Since after all, what we are talking about is the TERM here. The statement of mine you quoted was one where I explained why I decided to just use the generic and non-controversial term "RPG" and eschew latching on to the latest trendy term every few months.

RPI is indeed the latest trendy phrase- like it or not. To argue otherwise is to descend into silliness and absurdity.


Quote:
Originally Posted by (KaVir @ April 13 2004,05:58)
So does "Mud Object-Oriented", yet I don't see people complaining about MOOs.
Why would they? Being Object-Oriented isn't something players care about. They do, however, care about game play, and intensive role play is a highly desireable type of game play. That is why any acronym developed around the concept of "role playing" will be controversial if a little group of people act like they own it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by (KaVir @ April 13 2004,05:58)
Nor, in fact, does RP (Role-Playing) - a term which I've seen you defend on more than one occasion when HnS muds have claimed to be RP muds.
You have a really bad habit, KaVir, where instead of staying on topic you try to drag in discussions that may have taken place YEARS in the past. Furthermore, you cite them completely out of context and twist them to take on a new meaning that suits your needs in the present.

You have been roundly and widely criticised for this habit and have been politely asked to stop by numerous people. Please stop doing it. Please make an effort to argue the topic at hand- not some discussion that took place in the distant past.

My opinion on this matter is clear: any game developer can freely call their game whatever they wish. They just better be able to back it up with a logical justification or they are going to subject themselves not only to public ridicule but also to angry players who will be mad that they were misled.

I don't think any little clique of people can lay exclusive claim to an acronym like RPI. Furthermore, I think some of the "requirements" are so arbitrary and unrelated to role playing that they are no better than saying a game can only be an RPI if they run their game using Knoppix.


Quote:
Originally Posted by (KaVir @ April 13 2004,05:58)
And if every mud is an RP mud, and the "Intensive" part is agreed to be subjective, does that mean you believe that every mud should be classified as an RPI mud?
Wow KaVir. You just slaughtered that Straw Man. I have certainly never claimed every mud is an RP mud so I have no idea where you are getting that.

I don't even know who you are arguing against now with such statements.

Quote:
Originally Posted by (KaVir @ April 13 2004,05:58)
Delayed response as I was away over Easter.
Bad timing for that poor Straw Man. He missed his shot at a resurrection.

I guess he was on an RPI with permadeath.
Threshold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2004, 06:58 AM   #30
KaVir
Legend
 
KaVir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Name: Richard
Home MUD: God Wars II
Posts: 2,052
KaVir will become famous soon enoughKaVir will become famous soon enough
Delayed response as I was away over Easter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by
Of course it is easier for us since Threshold has been well established for 8 years now. Latching on to the latest trendy phrase might be more important to a new or a small game trying to get noticed.
The two most well-known RPIs are probably Armageddon and Harshlands.  Harshlands is 2 years older than Threshold, while Armageddon is 5 years older, so I don't think it can be simply dismissed as "the latest trendy phrase".

Quote:
Originally Posted by
The phrase "Role Playing Intensive" has a very obvious, prima facie meaning.
So does "Mud Object-Oriented", yet I don't see people complaining about MOOs.  Not even "MUD" (Multi-User Dungeon) fulfills its prima facie meaning.  Nor, in fact, does RP (Role-Playing) - a term which I've seen you defend on more than one occasion when HnS muds have claimed to be RP muds.  So if you're arguing against people using the term "RPI" for a specific type of mud, does that mean you believe that every mud should be classified as an RP mud?  After all, every mud consists of a player playing the role of a character, which is the very definition of "role-playing".  And if every mud is an RP mud, and the "Intensive" part is agreed to be subjective, does that mean you believe that every mud should be classified as an RPI mud?

Quote:
Originally Posted by
Further, there are other reasons why RPI is a poor choice of acronym. The acronym already has at least two extremely well known definitions.
So does RPG, the term you use to describe your mud.  RPG is the cross-cultural abbreviation for "Rocket Propelled Grenade" and "Raketniy Protivotankoviy Granatomet".  It also has an official dictionary entry (in Merriam-Webster) as "report program generator".  Finally, it's also a registered trademark of RPG Diffusor Systems Inc.
KaVir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2004, 09:54 AM   #31
Threshold
Legend
 
Threshold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Home MUD: Threshold RPG
Posts: 1,241
Threshold will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by (KaVir @ April 13 2004,05:58)
Harshlands is 2 years older than Threshold, while Armageddon is 5 years older, so I don't think it can be simply dismissed as "the latest trendy phrase".
What does the age of Harshlands or Armaggedon have to do with the fact that RPI is indeed the "latest trendy phrase." You aren't going to try to tell me that RPI is a 10-13 year old term now are you? If so, please provide citations.

The statement of mine you quoted was one where I explained why I decided to just use the generic and non-controversial term "RPG" and eschew latching on to the latest trendy term every few months.

RPI is indeed the latest trendy phrase- like it or not. To argue otherwise is to descend into silliness and absurdity.


Quote:
Originally Posted by (KaVir @ April 13 2004,05:58)
So does "Mud Object-Oriented", yet I don't see people complaining about MOOs.
Why would they? Being Object-Oriented isn't something players care about. They do, however, care about game play, and intensive role play is a highly desirable type of game play. That is why any acronym developed around the concept of "role playing" will be controversial if a little group of people act like they own it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by (KaVir @ April 13 2004,05:58)
Nor, in fact, does RP (Role-Playing) - a term which I've seen you defend on more than one occasion when HnS muds have claimed to be RP muds.
You have a really bad habit, KaVir, where instead of staying on topic you try to drag in discussions that may have taken place YEARS in the past (if they ever took place at all). Furthermore, you cite them completely out of context and twist them to take on a new meaning that suits your needs in the present.

You have been roundly and widely criticized for this habit and have been politely asked to stop by numerous people. Please stop doing it. Please make an effort to argue the topic at hand- not some discussion that took place in the distant past.

My opinion on this matter is clear: any game developer can freely call their game whatever they wish. They just better be able to back it up with a logical justification or they are going to subject themselves not only to public ridicule but also to angry players who will be mad that they were misled.

Never forget what the purpose of any such label is: it is to help the PLAYER find a game they will enjoy. Players care about the end result. You can be sure that players won't be having the same kind of hissy fit about the term RPI that a tiny clique of mud admins will have. If a game truly does have intensive role play then the majority of players aren't going to care if the game (*gasp!*) has OOC channels or non permanent death. They probably won't even care if they can instantly create a character without approval (despite this being something almost all serious RP muds require) - assuming the game itself DOES manage to have intensive role playing.

That is ultimately what matters. Will the player feel like they were misled by the use of the acronym? That is a determination the owner of each game has to make for his or her own game and for his or her own credibility. It is not a decision that can be made by the admins of a handful of muds with a grand idea of thumbing their noses at those they deem inferior.

I don't think any little clique of people can lay exclusive claim to an acronym like RPI. Furthermore, I think some of the "requirements" are so arbitrary and unrelated to role playing that they are no better than saying a game can only be an RPI if the game is run using Knoppix.


Quote:
Originally Posted by (KaVir @ April 13 2004,05:58)
And if every mud is an RP mud, and the "Intensive" part is agreed to be subjective, does that mean you believe that every mud should be classified as an RPI mud?
Wow KaVir. You just slaughtered that Straw Man. I have certainly never claimed every mud is an RP mud so I have no idea what you are talking about.

Your logic train has derailed... big time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by (KaVir @ April 13 2004,05:58)
Delayed response as I was away over Easter.
Bad timing for that poor Straw Man. He missed his shot at a resurrection.

I guess he was on an RPI with permadeath.
Threshold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2004, 10:35 AM   #32
KaVir
Legend
 
KaVir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Name: Richard
Home MUD: God Wars II
Posts: 2,052
KaVir will become famous soon enoughKaVir will become famous soon enough
You keep ignoring my points, Aristotle, but you won't distract me with insults. Let us go over this one more time. I have bolded the points which I believe you are claiming. The other points follow on logically. Please tell me at which point you disagree:

1) You believe that "RPI" should be used to represent its literal meaning, rather than being a label to refer to a specific style of mud. In other words, you feel that the label "RPI" should be usable by any mud that is "role-playing intensive".

2) RP stands for "role-playing". And the literal meaning of "role-playing" is simply "to play a role".

3) When playing a mud, a player never plays themselves - they play a character. That character may have certain similarites with the player, but invariably the character lives within a different world to (and possesses different powers from) the player. Ergo, going by literal definitions, every mud is an RP mud.

4) You feel that the term RPI shouldn't have to adhere to strict requirements - that any mud which involves intensive roleplaying should be able to use call themselves an RPI.

5) The literal meaning of "intensive" is subjective. Therefore if we're using literal meanings, any RP mud could claim to be an RPI on the basis that they feel the role-playing in their mud is "intensive".

6) As specified by point 3, going by literal meanings all muds are RP muds. And as specified by point 5, going by literal meanings any RP muds can quite legitimately claim to be an RPI mud. Therefore, going by literal meanings, all muds can be classified as RPI muds.

Which point do you disagree with, and why?
KaVir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2004, 08:34 PM   #33
Threshold
Legend
 
Threshold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Home MUD: Threshold RPG
Posts: 1,241
Threshold will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by (KaVir @ April 13 2004,09:35)
You keep ignoring my points, Aristotle, but you won't distract me with insults.
I did not ignore any of your points and I didn't insult you. You *DO* have a very bad habit of going way off topic, dredging up conversations from years past, and twisting them to your purposes. This is a well known behavior of yours. You did it to me in this thread. If you consider it an insult when someone asks you to stop doing it, then I would recommend that you not do it in the first place.

You also totally conjured up a straw man when you said "And if every mud is an RP mud, and the "Intensive" part is agreed to be subjective, does that mean you believe that every mud should be classified as an RPI mud?"

I never said anything remotely like the statements you were arguing against. I never said every mud is an RP mud, nor did I say anything even approaching that. Thus, yours was a classic straw man argument.

I simply refuse to indulge your flights of fancy.


Quote:
Originally Posted by (KaVir @ April 13 2004,09:35)
Which point do you disagree with, and why?
Why do you insist on asking me to repeat myself over and over again? I already explained my view on the matter in great detail. If you actually want to know my opinion, re-read my posts (particularly my last one before this).

If you want me to refine one of my points, then try talking about my points rather than completely different ones that you invent and then attribute to me.

Nothing in your last post actually addressed anything I wrote. All you did was restate your "proof" that relies completely on steps that do not follow from each other. Points #2 and #3 are so ridiculous that they are laughable.

According to your points #2 and #3, Doom would be an RPG. If that is really what you want to argue, then have fun by yourself.

It sounds like all you want to do here is throw out your totally unconnected opinions and expect people to do nothing but discuss YOUR opinions. You aren't reading what I write and worse than that, you are attributing your own phantom counter-points to me. If you don't like the points I am making, you simply invent more convenient ones and act like I made them.

I honestly do not see what is productive about this discussion at this point.

It is ironic that the only reason I read this thread in the first place was when I saw you had posted here. Now it is because of your posts that I'm done. Your posts used to be very interesting and worthwhile. Both here and on usenet, I would read a thread simply because it showed "KaVir" as one of the posters. You used to stay on topic and respond to points people actually made rather than just invent new, more convenient ones that you erroneously attribute to them.

Those days are slowly becoming a distant memory. Of late, all I read from you is bitterness, rancor, and hostility. That's a shame.

Have fun with your straw men.
Threshold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2004, 04:34 AM   #34
KaVir
Legend
 
KaVir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Name: Richard
Home MUD: God Wars II
Posts: 2,052
KaVir will become famous soon enoughKaVir will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by
You also totally conjured up a straw man when you said "And if every mud is an RP mud, and the "Intensive" part is agreed to be subjective, does that mean you believe that every mud should be classified as an RPI mud?"
No, I didn't, I asked a question - the same one I asked again in my most recent post.  I had already made the premise that every mud could be considered an RP mud, and that "intensive" is subjective, and wanted to know if either (1) you disagreed with those premises (and if so why), or (2) if you agreed with those premises, whether that meant you also believed that all RPIs could be classified as an RPI.

Quote:
Originally Posted by
I never said anything remotely like the statements you were arguing against. I never said every mud is an RP mud, nor did I say anything even approaching that. Thus, yours was a classic straw man argument.
It would have been a straw man if I had claimed you had made those statements and argued against you based on that interpretation.  But I didn't.  What you claimed was that "RPI" should be used as its literal meaning rather a specific style of mud.  What I'm trying to show you is what happens when you apply that logic to other abbreviations - because applying the logic to some and not others would be hypocritical.

Quote:
Originally Posted by
Points #2 and #3 are so ridiculous that they are laughable.
Point 2: RP stands for "role-playing".  And the literal meaning of "role-playing" is simply "to play a role".

Now there are two points here.  Is it that you believe the statement "RP stands for role-playing" is "so ridiculous that [it is] laughable", or are you referring to the literal meaning?

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin....playing

Main Entry: role-play
Pronunciation: 'rOl-"plA, -'plA
Function: verb
transitive senses : ACT OUT <students were asked to role-play the thoughts and feelings of each character -- R. G. Lambert>
intransitive senses : to play a role

point 3) When playing a mud, a player never plays themselves - they play a character.  That character may have certain similarites with the player, but invariably the character lives within a different world to (and possesses different powers from) the player.  Ergo, going by literal definitions, every mud is an RP mud.

What is "so ridiculous that [it is] laughable"?  The suggestion that a player plays a character?  Or the suggestion that they live in a different world to (and possesses different powers from) the player?  Because both of those statements are true in every mud I've ever played.  The conclusion of the above statement is a logical step based on the previous statements and point 2.

Quote:
Originally Posted by
According to your points #2 and #3, Doom would be an RPG.
Precisely, and that is the very point I am trying to demonstrate.  You argue that RPI should be used to represent its literal meaning - a role-playing intensive mud.  Yet you find it laughable when I suggest applying the same logic to other acroynms, such as RP.  Why?

In an earlier post you claimed "Unless something is managed by a standards body like ANSI or IEEE I do not think anyone can lay claim to what exactly defines RPI or any other game related acronym. Yes, people can share their opinions but nobody has the authority to outright declare what the precise and exact criterion are".

Is "RPG" not a game-related acronym?

You are arguing inconsistently.  Either acronyms should follow their literal meaning, or they shouldn't.  Most people (including me) use the meaning that that acronym has come to take on - an RP mud or RPG has a certain style of IC player interaction similar to pen&paper roleplaying games.  A PK mud allows player characters to fight each other.  A MOO is a specific mud codebase which happens to be object-oriented.  And an RPI is a type of RP mud which includes a specific range of features.

You obviously believe your mud to be a good-quality RP mud, and seem offended that someone could invent a classification of RP mud which your own mud doesn't qualify for.  You just need to rub the bruises from your ego and realise that an RPI is no better or worse than any other mud - it is simply a classification, and one which is useful to players.  It doesn't mean that anyone thinks any less of your mud, any more than they would think less of mine for not being a MOO ("But my mud is Object-Oriented" I cry!).
KaVir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2004, 08:22 PM   #35
Threshold
Legend
 
Threshold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Home MUD: Threshold RPG
Posts: 1,241
Threshold will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by (KaVir @ April 14 2004,03:34)
You obviously believe your mud to be a good-quality RP mud, and seem offended that someone could invent a classification of RP mud which your own mud doesn't qualify for.
KaVir, is this really what you've been reduced to? You were once one of the most interesting and well reasoned posters on any mud community or usenet forum, and now you resort to cheap insults and personal attacks. That is a real shame.

I have said repeatedly that long ago I decided to just use "RPG" because that acronym carried no baggage, no trendy elitist meanings, nor anything else that could be controversial.

Aside from all the other points I have made, I think "RPI" just sounds silly and I'd never want to attach it to any game I made. Please stop acting like my opinion on this matter has anything to do with wanting to use this acronym myself.

And when the next trendy acronym rolls around a few months from now, I won't be interested in using that one either. If that acronym is created by an elitist group of people who want to claim they own it, I'll disagree with that one too.

This issue is not about me or my game, it is about a small clique of selfish people trying to act superior to others. They have invented an extremely arbitrary set of concepts that are no more about role playing than choice of chip set or operating system.

Quote:
Originally Posted by (KaVir @ April 14 2004,03:34)
You are arguing inconsistently. Either acronyms should follow their literal meaning, or they shouldn't. Most people (including me) use the meaning that that acronym has come to take on - an RP mud or RPG has a certain style of IC player interaction similar to pen&paper roleplaying games. A PK mud allows player characters to fight each other. A MOO is a specific mud codebase which happens to be object-oriented. And an RPI is a type of RP mud which includes a specific range of features.
I am not arguing inconsistently. You are just not reading what I am posting. I am not arguing about what an acronym should mean. I consider arguments over the precise meaning of such acronyms to be pointless and unnecessarily divisive. I am arguing about WHO decides what an acronym means. I am saying that the meanings of acronyms like RPG, RP, PK, and even RPI get decided through use and not by declaration.

Consider it a corollary of Dundee's Law: "Fighting the battle for nomenclature with your players is a futile act. Whatever they want to call things is what they will be called."

The difference between RPI and other acronyms is that RPG, RP, PK, etc. are not acronyms where a small group of people claim they are the sole arbiters of what makes something an RPG, an RP game, or a PK game.

The two things I object to most are:

1) A small group of people who act like they have the right and the power to CONTROL an acronym. They don't.

2) The attributes they have chosen are so arbitrary and irrelevant to actual role playing that it is the height of absurdity to claim such attributes are vital to any type of role playing. If someone said you have to run Red Hat Linux to be a PK mud, I'd be critical of such a comment as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by (KaVir @ April 14 2004,03:34)
You just need to rub the bruises from your ego and realise that an RPI is no better or worse than any other mud - it is simply a classification, and one which is useful to players.
Aha... more personal attacks. Oh, how far you have fallen. I read your posts now and they remind me of myself in my angry, flame war seeking, law school days. I am sure I am not alone in wishing we could hear more of the "old KaVir" and less of the new one who traffics in vitriol and venom.

I am a professional game developer and I am running a business. I would never be interested in using a vague, arbitrary term like RPI that is NOT widely known and would do nothing but confuse 90% of the people I would hope to recruit to my game. We recruit most of our new customers from OUTSIDE the mudding community because we want to expand the hobby.

Furthermore, I am not threatened by a couple of hobbyists trying to lord something over other hobbyists. Such cannibalism and in-fighting disturbs and saddens me but does not threaten me.

I do, however, think such behavior is bad for the mudding community which happens to be something I care about.
Threshold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2004, 08:47 PM   #36
Traithe
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Name: Kite
Posts: 131
Traithe is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by (Threshold @ April 14 2004,19:22)
This issue is not about me or my game, it is about a small clique of selfish people trying to act superior to others. They have invented an extremely arbitrary set of concepts that are no more about role playing than choice of chip set and operating system.
Y'know, I was going to bite my tongue and stay out of this, but this is really just too much.

I seriously hope you aren't referring to the admins of MUDs using the acronym in question as a "small clique of selfish people trying to act superior to others." If you aren't, then please disregard the rest of this post, as it won't apply.

You know what the really funny thing is? I don't see Sanvean, Revus, Alaire - or, come to think of it, any other admin from one of these games - posting here to argue over whether or not people should or should not be allowed to call their own game whatever the heck they like.

Really, the only person I see arguing is you, and to be frank, I don't understand at all why you're getting so worked up over this.

RPI, like any other acronym, is in place for the convenience of the community. Over the years it has taken on certain specific connotations - no better or worse than an Intel chipset versus an AMD chipset - and is merely used within that specific context to draw the attention of individuals who enjoy the elements said connotations entail as far as MUDing environments go.

Notice the complete lack of arrogance and elitism.

So do me a favor and quit slinging mud on the names and the hard work of numerous people who have done absolutely nothing to deserve it other than try to create free, immersive environments for folks to enjoy in their spare time. Actions speak louder than words, and at this point the only particularly selfish and arrogant individual I see in this thread is the one who made these disparaging remarks.

Thanks.
Traithe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2004, 09:09 PM   #37
Threshold
Legend
 
Threshold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Home MUD: Threshold RPG
Posts: 1,241
Threshold will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by (Traithe @ April 14 2004,19:47)
I seriously hope you aren't referring to the admins of MUDs using the acronym in question as a "small clique of selfish people trying to act superior to others." If you aren't, then please disregard the rest of this post, as it won't apply.
Good news: I'm not.

Any comments I have made apply only to people who feel like they PERSONALLY control the meaning and use of any acronym: whether it is RPI, RP, PK, or some other acronym. There have been people in this thread who have actually argued that the term RPI has strict definitions that are decreed by specific individuals. That is the point I am arguing against.

I am not criticising people who use the acronym simply because they feel it accurately describes their game and helps players locate a game with traits they enjoy.

The most important point I have tried to make is that the meanings of acronyms like RPG, RP, PK, and even RPI get decided through use and not by declaration.

As I said in a prior post, it is very, very similar to Dundee's Law: "Fighting the battle for nomenclature with your players is a futile act. Whatever they want to call things is what they will be called."

Quote:
Originally Posted by
So do me a favor and quit slinging mud on the names and the hard work of numerous people who have done absolutely nothing to deserve it other than try to create free, immersive environments for folks to enjoy in their spare time. Actions speak louder than words, and at this point the only particularly selfish and arrogant individual I see in this thread is the one who made these disparaging remarks.
PHEW! I'm glad your post doesn't apply to me or else I'd be feeling pretty bad right now.
Threshold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2004, 09:14 PM   #38
Traithe
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Name: Kite
Posts: 131
Traithe is on a distinguished road
Heh.

This is the second time in the past few months I thought I had to defend myself from someone who wasn't even attacking me.

I blame it on law school. Too much ambiguity for any sane person to handle.

I'll hang my head in shame and resume lurking now...
Traithe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2004, 09:20 PM   #39
Threshold
Legend
 
Threshold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Home MUD: Threshold RPG
Posts: 1,241
Threshold will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by
This is the second time in the past few months I thought I had to defend myself from someone who wasn't even attacking me.
Well I am just glad we cleared it up promptly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by
I blame it on law school. Too much ambiguity for any sane person to handle.
No doubt. When I was in law school I was constantly looking for an argument. Those evil professors poison your mind.

Graduating from law school, getting married, and having a kid were moderating influences that made arguments and flame wars far less enjoyable. Perhaps it is mainly the wife. Even if you win an argument with your wife, you lose, so the joy of arguing wanes quickly. (I hope she doesn't read this)

Quote:
Originally Posted by
I'll hang my head in shame and resume lurking now...
No need to hang your head in shame. Part of the blame was mine for not being clear about exactly the types of people I was referring to.
Threshold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2004, 04:25 AM   #40
KaVir
Legend
 
KaVir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Name: Richard
Home MUD: God Wars II
Posts: 2,052
KaVir will become famous soon enoughKaVir will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by
I am not arguing inconsistently. You are just not reading what I am posting. I am not arguing about what an acronym should mean.
You are though - as you pointed out already, going by my previous points (which use the same logic as you've used for your view of what RPI should mean) Doom would be an RPG - yet you claim that those points "are so ridiculous that they are laughable".

Quote:
Originally Posted by
I consider arguments over the precise meaning of such acronyms to be pointless and unnecessarily divisive. I am arguing about WHO decides what an acronym means. I am saying that the meanings of acronyms like RPG, RP, PK, and even RPI get decided through use and not by declaration.
Precisely what I've been saying.  Labels such as RPG, RP, PK, RPI, etc are not defined by the literal meaning of the acronym - instead, they take on their own meaning based on the way they are used. And RPI has taken on its own such meaning, over many years, just like RPG, RP, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by
Aside from all the other points I have made, I think "RPI" just sounds silly and I'd never want to attach it to any game I made. Please stop acting like my opinion on this matter has anything to do with wanting to use this acronym myself. And when the next trendy acronym rolls around a few months from now, I won't be interested in using that one either.
Except that this isn't "the next trendy acroynm", it's an acroynm that has been established over many years.  Maybe you remember that debate back in 1997?
KaVir is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Style based on a design by Essilor
Copyright Top Mud Sites.com 2014