It seems that every hack and slash out there now goes by the title of roleplay encouraged. Yes they provide histories, and perhaps general guidelines, but does this really count as encouraging a player to roleplay?

If you give a woman a toolbox and let her loose, expecting a Cistine Chapel out of it, is that encouraging her to build it, or just giving the opprotunity to do so? To encourage her to build it would be to offer some incentive for it. But I find in many RPE muds that there is no incentive, merely a toolbox, then administrators slap the label of RPE on the mud to attract the widest possible playerbase.

Note that I admire the skill and tenacity of IRE, but Im going to use their games for this example.

Their system does not reward roleplay, but is designed to encourage hack and slash styled powergaming, by making the only tangibles in the game purely dependant on mechanics oriented gameplay. A scholarly mage who spends their life studying the intricasies of their magicks wont learn anything, due to the hardcoded nature of the game. However a hack and slash character who does nothing but pwn mobs for leet lewt and expie will bloom into a far more adept magick user than the scholar. In this specific case, roleplay is not encouraged, but rather discouraged. There are no tangible incentives to roleplayers, but there are tangible incentives for powergamers who play for everquestlike gameplay. I can understand the appeal of the style, and how well that style sells, but I really find objections to its advertisement as a roleplay encouraged MUD.

IRE is not alone in this phenomenon, merely perhaps the best known example. What has this phenomenon done to the state of roleplay in MUD's and specifically, how can it be fixed? (assuming that the proprietors of claimed RPE's want to fix it)

Not-so-simply put, this phenomenon creates crass, bitter RP'ers who oftentimes end up having difficulty when they eventually move on to a true roleplaying game; like the man stuck in solitary confinement for thirty years, they tend to become their own island.

That said, though, RPE's are oftentimes the budding grounds for future rp'ers, as those HnSers who start searching for something more. This is one of the two reasons I'm not out starting a jihad against RPE's. The other, of course, is that there are some people who actually enjoy the lack of pressure that RPE's have, as since there are no palpable gains or losses from how 'good' or 'serious' of a roleplayer you are, whatever you do is welcome. It tends to morph into light and whimsical behavior that verges on AOL chatroom emotes that some people enjoy *immensely*.

How can it be fixed, though? I don't think there is a way. There will always be a palpable benefit for games to attract the roleplaying crowd (as some rp'ers will stay for the HnS), and a lot of work involved in making it truly an RPI. Unless the administrators truly want to revamp their game into a new creature, there is no way (that I've seen) to shift the roleplaying environment into something more than a toolbox.

In my opinion, there's no such thing as an RPE MUD. Either it's a roleplaying MUD or it's not. The thing that makes a roleplaying environment an acceptable place to really RP and not just horse around and call yourself an orc is the consistancy of the experience. In an RPE, anyone's free to disrupt that whenever they want and hide behind the shield of it being RPE. Not only that, but like the topic creator says, most RPEs tend to be H&S games with storylines. But, again, simply using a character as an avatar isn't roleplaying.

Since roleplaying hinges on that consistant environment that lets the character be a character and not just another NPC programmed to walk around and be able to 'kill monster,' it's very easy to shatter the illusion with even a slight mention of OOC material. That's why the term RPE is just wishful thinking at best and simple delusion at worst.

As with most things mud-related, everyone has their own preferences. Some prefer the stick (get punished if you don't roleplay, or roleplay badly - aka "Roleplaying Enforced") while others prefer the carrot (get rewarded for good roleplaying - aka "Roleplaying Encouraged"). Both types of mud appeal to a different audience, and each audience tends to deride the other as being inferior, but at the end of the day they're both 'roleplaying muds'.

In my foolish quest to try out every MUD in existance (nothing too long term, but this way I can at least recommend or not recommend a MUD if a friend asks), I have run across several MUDs that claim to be RP but really come across as RPE or H&S pretending to be RP*. Once, I tried out a MUD that I was just about to compliment on being the fourth best H&S I'd ever tried when I was informed by one of their staff that since I'd reached a certain level, I was now required to create a description and RP while xping. In addition, I was told that when I did, I'd receive an xp bonus. Now, what the #### was I supposed to RP having just spent an hour or so killing everything in sight? That I was a serial killer, like every other player marching around? Completely unenjoyable for RP, this MUD put restrictions on its H&S nature. The result was a MUD I can not possibly recommend to RPers or H&Sers. Hence, I agree that you're either role-playing or you're not. Combining aspects of both just leaves you with the worst elements of each format.

Take care,

Jason

Judas PRIEST! And people wonder why HnS'ers consider the RPI crowd "elitist snobs."

*snorts*

Ok, although I *want* to flame the lot of you as hard as you so richly deserve...I'm going to leave it at that, and attempt to offer some concrete suggestions, instead.

1) RPE's could offer retro-coded additions to rooms. If there are things that would interest a certain class, say, scrolls on a desk that a mage might be interested in reading, code could be added to give xp to a mage who attempts to read them. Warriors who try to read them might find them written in a language they don't understand, whereas a mage might find a historical document or whatever.. something semi-useless in nature, but either way, xp would be awarded for doing something with an item. The warrior might get LESS xp for trying to read it, perhaps warriors could get more xp for lighting the whole desk on fire. Figure out what you *want* that class to do with things in a room, what they MIGHT try and do with them, and then, add a small xp thing if they happen to try that certain thing. Record syntaxes attempted in that room, and by whom, and build your retro-fit accordingly, with common syntax tries built in.

2) Add an exploration system. Make it fancy. Perhaps add a time element. Give xp to people who actually take time to read the game, and play it out, trying syntaxes.

3) Give non-combat related character rewards/autoloaders to people who make the effort to 'round out' their class, and who in the long run 'pick up' on the type of person they can be in their class. Warriors who excel at combat might get a battlescar of power. Thieves who consistently steal might get a black armband. Clerics who actually party and heal might get a glowing aura of goodness. None of these things is a 'perk' or affects fighting, but looks classy on the char.

4) Tell true RPI fanatics to stay the #### off your mud, and go where they aren't sneering down their noses at your regulars. Oh, wait... that was flame territory. I've run out of constructive ideas, so better quit while I'm behind. I'll slink back to my RPE Mud and kill some more stuff, while I play out my beautiful Priest, who's more a cleric than a lot of RPI'ers I've ever met. She can spell better, too.

With greatest bitterness,
EM

IRE muds aren't as bad as say a mud where there is only IC channel(and it is global and never used) and everything else is strictly OOC/pure hack&slash and yet it calls itself RP Encouraged. (Yes, there are muds like that. You can't realy look at what a mud calls itself all the time, you have to play it and see for yourself often enough)

Oh, also wanted to point out that out of the H&Sers and the RPMers(roleplay mandatory which is a more broad catagory than RPI), it seems like the H&Sers are usually the ones insulting the other group and talking about how they are so much better, and yet still call the RPMers elitist. Anyway, just food for thought.

For me, there is a *significant* difference in the type of "Role Play" that is 'intended' when you talk about a levelless, RPI environment as opposed to a game that calls itself RPE.

It is more than a semantic difference, it is a tonal difference in the Game itself. RPI/M MU*s afford a great deal more interaction between Gods and Mortals, and those interactions forge the world. A player walking onto an RPI, after being approved, knows that they will have the opportunity to immediately and in the long term impact the Game, the landscape, the economy, the history, and many other aspects of the Game without ever becoming a God/Builder/Coder/Imm.

When walking onto an RPE MU*, these assumptions don't hold.

On an RPE, the type of 'pose' RP that is 'mandatory' in a levelless system is moot. Players do *NOT*, nor will they ever have the opportunity to impact the direction of the Game's world through their poses. RPE means that there is a world, and players are encouraged to pick a role within the game, and live UP to it. The roles are pre-defined: classes, races, guilds, whatever... this structure is THERE. A player must learn to 'fill out' the Game's 'intent'.

On an RPE, player interaction with the GAME ITSELF becomes the role-play. The Game's success and continuation does not rely on players being online together to make sure it exists. Players breathe daily life into these worlds, but are NOT the world itself. The CODE is the World... players come to be a PART of it, not the entire thing. Players who want to Role-Play in this environment learn to work within the Game's structure, they learn that they are NOT the center of the action. Their Role-Play is a *different type of RP* than what is INTENDED in a world where poses create the action.

"Encouraging" RP simply means that players can take one of the pre-defined roles, and breathe life into it. It does NOT mean, "you will be able to Role Play immersively here." Players who RP in an RPE give a sense of depth to the code. But the GAME ITSELF exists outside of the players.

Immersive or Mandatory RP games are a *completely* different type of situation. People who are used to fully immersive RP will *never* find this type of experience on an RPE MU*. Gods are hard-coding, not interacting or reading logs of player interaction to see what direction the world is taking at that point in time. This does NOT mean that Role Play is NOT being 'encouraged.'

It is, but the RP is a _different type_ of RP.

Yes, the players are only given a 'toolkit.' But it is a disservice to act like the RP found on RPE's is "not really RP." Players who USE the toolkit CAN end up painting the Sistine Chapel. The difference is, on an RPI, that Chapel tends to be the entire world, whereas in an RPE, that Chapel is ONLY the PC itself.

That does NOT mean that Role Play is NOT 'encouraged.' There may not be a carrot on a stick for doing so, this is true. But I *GUARANTEE YOU* that there is Role Play involved in ANY HnS game. That is *specifically* why there ARE races and classes... so that people can BE SOMETHING THEY ARE NOT IN REAL LIFE.

The definition people who are used to RPI use for 'role play' is so very limited. There is only one type of 'real' role play for them, the fully immersive pose type. This is because that type of RP affords a LOT of leeway and control over the direction of the PC as well as the Game itself. Players in RPE worlds know that their RP is NOT going have control over the direction of the world. They accept that fact, and play the role they are handed at character creation. They are content with that.

Any RPE that wants to 'encourage' more RP has to give players the opportunity to grow and fill out the framework they're given at character creation. There have to be options and various directions. They can even reward those players who actually 'role play' to a higher standard within the confines of the enviornment.

For people who are used to the freedom RP immersive worlds afford, this is a vexing and limiting situation. I understand the frustrations with it. It would be wise, however, for immersive players to UNDERSTAND that the *type* of RP they are looking for is not what RPE games afford.

But dog GONE it, that does not make the RP found on RPE games of a lesser quality. It is merely a much more rare phenomenon, and is a darn sight tougher to accomplish, because the Game LIMITS, by definition, how much impact any given PC will have. An RPE RP'er will have to live up to the hard code's intent. An Immersive player gets to forge, an Encouraged player gets to fulfill.

I fear that the heart of some of the disagreement here revolves around the definition of what roleplay is, as Earthmother states in her insightful post.

Akraasiel would likely define roleplay as acting out a role in-character and playing a game expressly to act out that role. Earthmother would likely define roleplay in her game as staying within the theme of her character while doing other things, such as exploration and the like.

I don't believe that things are as cut and dry as people want to make them out to be, and I don't think that you can classify all RPI's together and all RPE's together, as one will discover many differences from game to game even within each category.

As KaVir wrote, everyone has their own preferences. Each MUD may tackle an issue such as roleplay differently. There isn't anything wrong with anyone's viewpoint or approach, just many different options for players to try out. As soon as you start branding every game with labels such as RPI or RPE or hack'n'slash, some people start going for each others' throats. I've played variations on all three of those types and found them all to be enjoyable in their own way, as they all provided different forms of entertainment.

Why worry so much about these labels and about hating "RPI fanatics" or looking down upon RPE players? Not everyone is so set in their ways. Many people can appreciate all different types of games and can judge the enjoyment that they might derive from them by looking deeper than a three letter designation.

I had a nice long post typed up, but really, Earthmother said it better than me.

Nutai, you're quite right in your assessments. I only snipped for brevity.

Three-letter designations *are* limiting. Games vary widely, and appeal to different audiences. There's something out there for everyone.

I'm sorry for the tone of my first post being so snarky -- I honestly have *nothing* against RPI/M games, and I really respect those people who put such great effort and time into bringing those worlds to life. I think that type of experience really appeals to writers (and aspiring writers). I think these types of worlds are outstanding for what they are: worlds that people have an enormous amount of freedom on, a creative outlet, and a rich, personal, immersive experience.

I have just watched these boards, and this particular forum for several years. I have become very bitter with what I consider to be a very limited definition of what "Role Play" is. When I see 4, 5 posts saying that 'there is no such thing as Role Play in RPE games,' it just gets my dander up. I take that sort of statement very personally.

That type of statement undermines all the time I've spent immersing myself in the world I enjoy. It negates all the hours I've spent living up to the role I chose at character creation. That type of statement even gets me mad WITHIN my game, but it comes under a different guise there. There, it comes when I get angry with some situation, frustrated, and I vent. Then, the blowoff statement is: "It's ONLY a GAME."

The underlying sentiment is the same: that when the focus of a game is killing and leveling, all interactive experience is a 'sideline,' rather than a valid, deep, enriching part of the world itself.

That is why I offered up the suggestions I did in my first post. Those types of tweaks CAN enrich the 'role play' aspect of any hack-n-slash game. They are NOT going to make the game an immersive Role-Playing experience, in the sense that MUSHes or MUCKs 'immerse,' that is true. But if the definition of "Role Play" is expanded beyond what many people in this particular forum keep insisting that it is, there ARE very real ways to let players escape from reality and play a role in a text based world.  

Again, I do apologize for being so rude. I truly can appreciate what other worlds offer, and I am not opposed to them, OR the people who play them. What I am opposed to is the attitude that what *I* do, what I have devoted a significant part of my life TO doing, and what I consider TO BE Role Play... is not Role Play. Seeing all those posts saying that 'role play can never exist in RPE games' just set me off. I should have been cooler when posting initially, and I apologize for sneering down my *own* nose at RPI folks. I just want to make it clear I really have nothing against them, and I *do* agree that many people will find enjoyment in many different types of enviornments, so long as they understand what to expect.

Hey, there's nothing wrong whatsoever with being passionate about something that you enjoy and that you have spent a lot of time to improve. It seems that everyone just gets overly defensive because a very small minority set out to villify or debase one group or another.

Why does anyone worry about what everyone else is doing? We're all just people who enjoy playing MUDs. I don't think that anyone would want to deny anyone else the enjoyment of playing a game that they themselves might not enjoy.

If someone sees a listing for a game that calls itself RPE, and the game doesn't turn out to be what that person is looking for, that person just doesn't play that game. No harm done.

I have to agree with Earthmother's second post, as well as Nutai. One of the things that seems to be an issue all across the roleplaying board (tabletop games included) is the gross overuseage of the word 'roleplay'. The word seems to range in meaning from directing the actions of an avatar, to as EM said taking control of a character and interacting with a coded world in code and word, to controlling character plus world with only descriptive words. Of course, there are a whole bunch of stops in-between, and variations and mix-and-matches on all those ways of doing things.

What I'd love to see (won't happen soon, but eh) is some sort of clear terminology to describe these differences. In general, on a MUD you roleplay by 'doing' things in interaction with code-- you're pretending to be a person drinking when you type 'drink wine' or 'smile' whatever, and the code then deals with telling other people what you're doing -- but the telling other people isn't the point of the game. In general, on a MUSH you roleplay by describing what your character does to other people, who are both audience and interactive world at the same time, and the point is to describe to each other what your characters do and thus mutually create the world.

I can kind of skirt around words for this: human-interactive roleplay vs code-interactive roleplay, descriptive roleplay vs active roleplay, whatever. Most of us have a good idea of what we're expecting with just the 'MUSH' and 'MUD' terminology, although sometimes that slips up.

In general, too, 'MUSH'es' encouragement to roleplay lies in the admiration of roleplaying peers. Standard encouragement on 'MUD's as described above involves an increase in ability or title.

If you want to encourage descriptive roleplay, it's good to have some way of publically recognising it. Doing something tends to be describing a thing so others can see it, so let others see it. Post logs of the roleplay on your website. Let people alter the world a little bit. Give them time to write some description of their actions, rather than making speed of command-input absolutely vital for the game. Give 'excuses' for more than one person to be in the same room so they can descriptively roleplay with each other, whether they be long-term excuses (a tavern) or short-term excuses (a party, kidnapped and held hostage in the same house).

If you want to encourage code-interactive roleplay, do much the same sort of thing: put in venues for it. On a code-interactive game, doing something means the code recognises what you're doing and helps narrate the story to you. Let people do a wide range of things in-character for the role they've chosen. Like EM said above, have books that can be 'read'. Make it easy for people to 'smile' and 'frown'. Give them pets to interact with, give them forests where wind actually blows, give some sort of feedback for walking down a street. If XP is a measurement of how many 'useful life experiences' someone's had, make sure they get XP for the things you want people to do.

I think it's trickier to do the MUD route because people expect different kinds of things from the world, and the code has to do it all.

In the MUSH-type roleplay described above (I know I'm grossly generalising here, and there are many many deviations from these generalisations on TMS) if someone wants a barstool, they just put it into their pose, no one had to think of it beforehand. If someone wants a handkerchief to do a fake magic trick, they put that in their pose.

On a MUD-style game, though, you need to anticipate the kinds of things people will want to do and support them, while thinking about the things people don't want to do, and not cluttering their time up with those things (Your nose itches. 'scratch nose' Your nose no longer itches.) Some people like a lot of nitty-gritty details, some like more sweeping details-free panning shots. While a MUSH environment automatically *is* whatever the players want it to be when they want it to be that way, a MUD environment stays however it was in the first place, never jumping details if they're put in, never only doing something when it's 'interesting'...

Bah, but I'm rambling on. Long and short, decide what the types of people you want to attract think of as a reward, make sure they have the ability to do the things you want them to do, and reward them when they do the things with that reward.

Most importantly, though, and the point of this post: make it clear, on your website or whatever, of the /type/ of encouragement you're giving roleplay, and the type of roleplay you have. Put snippets from your game up, describe what you do in clear terms and how you encourage it, and you'll get the type of people who like to do that thing and who like that type of encouragement. Once you have a group like that, they attract like-minded people, and it's all good.

Having the suspicion (erm, ok, maybe paranoia) that the original poster may be talking about Lusternia, I’ll readily admit that I am not sure what the “official” definition of RPE is and further admit that, at least insofar as Lusternia is concerned, we may not meet such “official” definition. That said, I will tell you what I think RPE means to me and how I go about game design to encourage roleplay. First, it is my opinion that roleplay is its own reward. Thus, I am not an advocate of “roleplay points” or other gold stars to give players who meet some nebulous roleplay standards as subjectively determined by some roleplay council (whether other players or administrators/gods). This is not the type of ‘encouragement’ I’ve ever really witnessed that truly encouraged a good roleplaying atmosphere.

Of course, roleplay is often directly encouraged by gods (volunteer administrators) when they see good roleplaying, the reward of which is often divine interaction or involvement in an event or whatnot. I’d make a guess that almost all MUDs do this in some manner (and isn’t it encouraging roleplay?). However, going deeper than that, when designing a game system, I often ask myself how can the game design itself encourage roleplay. Sure, there are many skills for slaying mobs and thus rewards for doing same. But rather than just building areas full of mobs to kill, we pioneered the influence system (non-lethal combat) for those who wish to roleplay someone who can compete with ‘bashers’ without killing. Further, we designed areas that were loyal organizations so, for example, killing an orc in orc town will enemy you to all of orc town. This means you cannot do any quests in orc town without paying a high price to lift the enemy status. On top of this, player organizations could control some of these areas, so players would end up coming into conflict with player organizations by ‘bashing’ these areas. For many areas that weren’t able to be controlled by player organizations, they were part of quests which could either help or hurt a group of players.

In practice from what we’ve seen, players are very careful in which ‘sides’ they pick to ‘bash’. The players of the dark city go out of their way to never bash any of the mobs in areas that would hurt them. Thus, I feel for these ‘hack and slashers’ that RP is encouraged in that players do feel part of a somewhat real world in terms that their actions have consequences. The dark players protect dark villages and refrain from killing the demonic beings of the higher planes. In other words, a player used to bashing anything and everything they run across will soon find themselves ostracized or even hunted by other players for their indiscriminate actions.

Also, there are systems which I feel encourage roleplay, quests that affect a population of the world so that those who enjoy questing may quickly find that raising the ship of the dead will generate a lot of reaction from the player population.

Given the initial poster’s example of how to reward a scholarly mage for pouring over the books, I’m not really sure if that would be desirable (much less doable). For one, roleplay generally involves interaction with others and rewarding someone for sitting at a desk seems counterproductive. Interestingly enough, however, I was discussing an upcoming design for a library system with my volunteer administrators and they almost have me convinced of a design that would encourage players writing books. Though keep in mind that where game play is concerned, it is usually the actions of players that enhances roleplay, not so much any stories or treatises they may write.

Anyway, my point is (yes, I have one) is that, in my opinion, encouraging roleplay could be the systems and design of the MUD itself. Any MUD with a dynamic guild system encourages roleplay, any craft system encourages roleplay, quests could encourage roleplay, etc. To me, RPE is designing these tools for players that do indeed encourage roleplaying.

I see the problem here as being partly one of nomenclature.
The terms "RP encouraged" and "RP mandatory" suggest a difference in how the game (in code and staff) treats roleplaying. But of equal importance to somebody looking for a MUD is the community of players and how they treat roleplaying.
Conversely, RPI seems to imply intensive RP among the community, but actually involves how the game is coded for RP.
The game and the community are linked, but not always the same. Encouraging RP helps but it is often how the playerbase develops and what they come to consider good RP that determines just what style is being encouraged or mandated.
I propose using two parallel sets of terms for describing the RP on a MUD. For the code/staff treatment of RP: RP accepted, RP encouraged, RP mandatory. For the community style of RP: RP casual, RP immersive, RP intensive. Or something like that.

I'm not saying whether you should or should not list it as an RPE. You are the best judge if these features were designed to encourage roleplay. (Unless there's some RP Committee out there who makes these determinations that I'm unaware of.)

I think that there is a bit of confusion on terms. I think Ill stick with IRE as my example in these cases because they are perhaps the best known muds around. (as a whole)

When I think roleplay encouraged, I tend to think that such means that the act of roleplaying is both facilitated by the code itself as well as by the divine, and the players reap reward for roleplay. Not as some pretty gold star, but roleplay relevant rewards. However this system means that any lesson or practice point mud falls short of the definition unless the divines of the realm reward roleplay manually as such. IRE's learning system, as well as their hack and slashed based character growth system prevent this from applying.

When I think roleplay allowed muds, I tend to think of a mud that has the framework that allows roleplay to occur, guilds, economics, maybe a political system, as well as divines who get involved with roleplay on and off. I think that IRE as a whole falls into this category best.

When I think roleplay intensive muds, I think of a mud where roleplay isnt something that is a question, but a fact of life, where roleplay is THE ONLY way to grow. If you dont roleplay getting somewhere you wont get there. Continuing with the example of IRE, they fall far short of this. The inherant mechanics of the game are geared toward min/maxing and other hack and slash principals, making the title of roleplay intensive far beyond its grasp.


I do not think that any level of roleplay MUD, or even Hack and Slash muds are inferior to one another on this principal merely different, though I think that muds should be advertised as what they are. If roleplay is truely encouraged, then its an RPE, if it is merely allowed, with no tangible benefits within the game to it, then it is RPA, and if it is essential to gameplay, with no other route for advancement, then a game is RPI. If no roleplay whatsoever is coded for within the game, nor encouraged by the staff, then it is Hack and Slash. All of these games have their appeal, but the concept of advertising a RPA as an RPE or a RPA as a hack and slash, I find unsettling. That was the entire point of my original post, and to spark discussion on where the dividing lines lie.

One has to wonder why various of our games have bothered putting in systems like our God system, our House system, our political systems, our heraldy systems, our books and journals, our in-role quests or why we bother holding in-role events if we're not encouraging RP.

Manual rewards for RP is one method of encouragement. Just one. (And one I happen to find personally distasteful and damaging to RP, as it turns RP into an achiever mechanic.)

--matt

Youre giving players a framework, within which to roleplay, but this isnt actually encouraging your players to roleplay. It goes back to my previous analogy of giving someone the tools to do something, does that mean they will do it? Of course not. But if you give them some form of tangible encouragement for it, as well as the tools to do so, then you bet that they will go out of their way to do it. That's the difference between roleplay encouraged and roleplay allowed.

As for it making roleplay then relevant to the achiever types as well as the socializers, thats a good thing. If your mud is encouraging to roleplay then it makes sense that it would draw in groups that usually dont roleplay and give them desire to do so!

If there is a craft system, and players can design and sell their crafts for in-game currency, isn't this a reward for their RP and thus an RPE by your definition?

If there is a quest that impacts RP of the world, and players can gain experience/items for doing this quest, isn't this a reward for their RP and thus an RPE by your definition?

If there is a political system, and RP campaigning for positions results in being the head of a guild (or whatever) with special privileges inherent therewith, isn't this a reward for their RP and thus an RPE by your definition?

Maybe I'm really not sure I fully understand your definition of RPE. Perhaps you you could give us a list of MUDs that, by your definition, is an RPE?

If there is a combat system, and players can use it to kill and loot monsters for in-game currency, then would that be a reward for RP? If not, why is it different to crafting? If so, does that mean every mud with a combat system is RPE?

Personally, I do think bashing monsters can be an RP experience, whether or not there is any "loot", especially if there's some RP consequence to bashing monsters.

I guess the question is what is the "tangible benefit" that rewards RP. To me, "tangible benefit" would be experience, positions, gold, special emotes, whatever.

Well when most people talk about rewarding RP in a mud, they mean directly rewarding people for the act of roleplaying itself, much like many tabletop roleplaying games do.

On the other hand, things such as combat, crafting and the like are generally recognised as being game elements with their own rewards. This is because the quality of your roleplaying has no bearing on any rewards you might receive - and indeed, the player who spends time acting the part of a baker is likely to be rewarded less than the player who just sits there churning out pies, because they'll be taking time away from the reward-aspect of the system.

I believe that is also the point one of the previous posters was trying to get at when he said that such a system discouraged roleplaying; it rewards those who place the game mechanics before roleplaying.

Crafting for currency, fighting monsters to gain experience, going through a quest for a powerful item, all of these are achievements and don't automatically imply roleplaying. That's what makes the difference between environments where roleplaying is encouraged and where roleplaying is just a static factor. When all actions are expected to have elements of a character's personality, a unique flavor that's all theirs, when that sort of behavior's just expected, I'd call it RPI. When it can be said to just add to the experience, but not be required, I'd call it RPE.

The thing is, though, it all comes back to the issue of consistancy. If your character passionately hacks his way through a cluster of small fuzzy mammals one moment and then, under similar circumstances, just passively kills them to gain EXP, there's not that consistant environment. What would cause your character to act differently?

In RPI MUDs, there's also the element of entertaining others and adding to the gameworld with your roleplaying, rather than just using it as another way of achieving things you could do alone. That even if nobody gets a gidget out of the experience, it can still be worth it, rather than have everybody clammor for EXP at the end of an event.

But these are my personal feelings on the issue. I've played both types of games, and it should be obvious which sort I prefer, though I don't look down on MUDs where roleplaying isn't as emphasized. I just think they happen to resemble more often than not.

Actually I hold 'roleplaying enforced' in rather high esteem, the thing is to be sure about the general standards for what roleplaying is.

If staff themselves cannot agree, and enforces roleplaying differently depending on the admin online or the player involved - 'roleplaying enforced' is just a greek tragedy with the only difference it is the admins that are picking on you instaed of the gods.

I have heard stories about such things, and experienced it first-hand as well in at least two of the big free muds that are 'roleplaying enforced', can only say that the only one's I respect is the ones that can edmit it can be a problem.

Having one admin come in and critisise your butt off (or even worse trying to educate you although you been around the game longer then he/she has) for something another player was rewarded for last week by another admin is not 'enforcing roleplay' - it is enforcing madness.

Otherwise I must agree with Gabocha.

This thread illustrates why I don't think labels like "RPI" are very meaningful. Different people have different ideas of what is IC and what is OOC.

If forced to propose one, I suppose a good boundary is whether or not other players know you (inside the game) as a player and character, or only as a character. In a role-playing-enforced environment, there shouldn't be any way to tell who is playing who within the game.

I think the question of what tangible benefits are rewards for RP misses the point. Tangible rewards is just one type of encouragement. Whole reams of educational literature have been written on how to encourage children to learn, for instance, and rarely do those methods have anything to do with giving the children tangible rewards for learning. Instead, the encouragement is usually built into the structure of the system, much like in most RP-encouraged MUDs. Most successful examples of systemic encouragement designed to elicit particular sets of behaviors do not use the hand-the-dude-a-lollipop type of encouragement. For instance, a classic example of a way to discourage crime in a crappy neighborhood is not to give people lollipops (or whatever) for behaving lawfully. It's to change the culture of the area by, for instance, repairing broken windows, cleaning up graffiti, etc. In this way, people are encouraged to keep their neighborhoods freer of crime and cleaner generally (well-documented to work too) and that encouragement is part of the 'system' of the neighborhood.

--matt

It is quite simply folks. "Roleplaying" is playing a role, assuming an identity other than your own. Nothing will ever change that. "Roleplaying" is not defined by the degree of how you choose to act out this identity.

Simply put, all MUDs have "roleplaying"... it is circumstances presented that complicates interpretation. What are these complications? It is the world, it is the code, it is how you play, interaction and reaction. So do not claim that a certain class of MUD lacks roleplay. In fact, it is safe to say that the existance of roleplay does not make the MUD or even make it better but the essence of the games lies in how the players play the role.

"Roleplaying Encouraged"... what does that mean to you? If its purpose is to encourage player to interact with their world and other players on a level, a personal level apart from "hacking" and "slashing" ... then that is not the best term to use.

To me, "Roleplaying Encouraged" means simply to stay in character.

To me, it does not mean to react and interact with the environment is a specific, stereotypical way.

What if "hacking" and "slashing" is an important part of a certain MUD and certain character, whether it is circumstance, their choice or how the game is designed? We cannot criticize how a certain group plays when how one goes about playing depends on, again, the game itself. If the game is designed for "more specific roleplaying" (using the expression for lack of a better term), it is only natural that they will interact differently.

So, "roleplaying" is self explanatory. It is a principle of gameplay, an important part of all MUDs.

I think this post is more about the degrees of IC and OCC because there here is a difference between "hacking" and "slashing" because of your character's survival, path, training and personality, and "hacking" and "slashing" to improve your numbers and rankings in order to have some L337 STATS.

It is the OCCers that ruin the game.

A couple words of advice, always remember to stay IC ^_-.

Most of my mudding has revolved around an RPG where (from my personal experience), roleplaying seems...optional rather than encouraged for the most part.  New players who come there seeking roleplay-intensive interaction are encouraged by fellow players but it seems extremely difficult to self-sustain an RP environment yourself if you're the sole contributer.   Occasionally I've noticed a domino effect of "this person is rp-ing so I will" but that doesn't seem to last long.  

For my part, it's possible that despite years of RP-ing with this specific MUD my PC experience has been limited enough to give a biased slant on the game type, (so pardon me if I've misinterpreted it) but I don't believe my summation to be that far off.  But finally, for my question:

If the administration doesn't support a  reward base for RP or acts as rp-enforcers, how then can one spur roleplay?  Any suggestions?

Consider 'rewards' in a less narrow fashion. For instance, hold roleplaying events in which non-roleplayers are simply not going to have fun. Build up the value of roleplaying by "rewarding" good roleplayers with roleplaying interaction with, for instance, in-game Gods or important NPCs, etc. Provide histories and a coherent world to give roleplayers something to build off of. Etc.

--matt

If you are a player of a game where admin doesn't support RP, and you want RP to be more inclusive, enforced, and supported, then the only thing you really can do is find a different game.

You might also consider that some games are built with code that doesn't support RP-intensive game play. An example is a game with a massive verb-list, and limited emote system. By providing "canned" emotes, you are essentially telling people "this is the ONLY way you can express your character, there are no other options. You MUST smile cheerfully, you MUST frown with disapprovement, you MUST sob like a baby, you MUST hop around like a cottontail. You cannot smile, frown, cry, or hop any other way, for any other reason. Furthermore, everyone else who smiles, frowns, cries, or hops, will do so the exact same way you do."

If you find this limiting, then you need to find a game that provides less limitation. There are many out there, but the primary three RPIs (where roleplay isn't an option, it isn't just encouraged, or just enforced, or just "intense" - it fits a very strict and specific criteria) are Armageddon, Shadows of Isuldur, and Harshlands.

There are also the MUSH-type games, where EVERYTHING is emoted/posed out - but it sounds like you're looking more for a game that supports coded commands for doing stuff AND serious roleplay. An RPI would be more fitting to that criteria than the average MUSH (though I'm sure there are exceptions).

Sorry for all the targetting IRE games, you guys. But im gonna talk a little about their rp problem. YOU HAVE TO HACK N SLASH FOR A YEAR BEFORE ANYTHING YOU DO MATTERS. Most, not all, but most players will ignore any ideas or comments made by the average character. The PCs who are strong, buffed up guys/girls who run guilds or cities (or advisors to such characters) are the only ones that really make a difference on anything in the world or society. In other words, any rp you do is worth about as much as a rag covered in snot.

Here are some basic guidelines you must meet in order to make a difference in most RPE games.

a) Played for a very long time, reached high up position in guild/city or godliness. (applies to builder, administrator and the people who monitor the game)

b) Know a very high up character/immortal or several of these. (they can back up your rp and MAKE what you say or do important)

c) SPECIAL IRE RULE: Buy a thousand dollars in credits, become buddy buddy with everyone with important positions in the game by buttering their palms. You can also become the richest most powerful PC in the game by simply using a few of your credits yourself, and selling a few on the credit market.

That's what I didn't like about IRE games.  I felt worthless, like in real life.  I felt like I was back in high school with class divisions.  All the cool people who were impossibly well established and had MILLIONS of friends are the polar opposite of me, the veritable "nerd" of the game who didn't know anybody and spent his time on lone raids.  I made it to level 11 and quit.  It just got unbearable, I wanted to make a difference and I couldn't.

I also fell immediately into the droll stage of online games within the first few days of playing. There's just not enough variety in things to do. I mean, there were lots of things to do, but they were mostly the same. Like I said earlier, I didn't get very far, but I made up a list of everything I saw. You could hunt rats, hunt pixies, hunt pygmies, hunt kobolds, hunt butterflies, hunt wildcats, and pretty much do variants of the same thing over and over. No offense to people who like IRE games, but it's just not my thing.

I don't think this would be true. I may know Matt here, but he probably wouldn't give jack squat about "Tithesus the Garbage-Digger" in Achaea.

Yes, to have a big impact on the world, you have to stand out from the other players in some way. You can't just log in and be taken seriously any more than you would be taken seriously by voters if you just randomly ran for office, for instance. You have to do something that other players are going to respect or admire for whatever reason first.

What that has to do with encouraging RP though, I don't know. Roleplaying exists in everything from great achievements to flirting with another character in a tavern. Roleplaying saving a kingdom or roleplaying a castle maid are equally valid as roleplaying. One may be less exciting than the other, but excitement is also not limited to roleplaying.

Perhaps instead of attacking popular games that you happen to not like, we could actually have a discussion on encouraging roleplaying?

--matt

Pardon this, but I'm going to address several parties here...

Jazuela,  I've actually played SoI as well as an IRE game and I can see what you mean (with the former) about roleplay being a strict requirement.  Without flaming anyone, you definately get a sense of what the limits are for asking IC and OOC information and it was a shock having never been in a RP-intensive environment like that before.  I do think that perhaps there are ways of incorporating more custom emotes as a player and relying less on the game's standards if you want to encourage roleplay, but, as other threads have previously discussed, you don't want to go overly flowery.  Perhaps that's a start in the right direction.

To Daedroth and Ilkidarious, aren't most MUDS just a reflection of real-life set in a fantasy world?  If you "feel worthless", Ilkidarios, remember one bright lady said "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent."  (Eleanor Roosevelt).  In my own roleplaying experiences everyone starts at that bottom rung and working your way up to prominence is part of the "fun" (as well as dying repeatedly and occasionally cursing the gods for stupid restrictions on player killing).

Finally, to the Logos...
Your reputation preceeds you and I admit I've got to give credence to your suggestion about a reward system.  I think what you're suggesting about "roleplaying interaction and activities where non-roleplayers won't have fun" (paraphrase) would work assuming the player in question was of some prominence.  

From what I've personally experienced, to really work over change, or activate NPC's, you're talking more along the lines of a divine or administrative role.  While I agree gods/admins play a HUGE  part in the direction of where a land heads, the majority still falls on the side of the common man, so...I *think* chances fall on our side of success for making a difference despite admins.  

Any continued ideas are most welcome...thank you all for the prompt and informative replies and excuse my ramblings!

So, IRE games are "popular" now, are they? Maybe you should follow your own advice, and talk about RPE muds instead of trying to sneak in gloating messages about your "success".

I dont see how my statement wasnt about RPE muds. Unless im mistaken, your games are RPE. My point was, that players arent going to rp if it means absolutely nothing to anyone. So im suggesting thought on a way to make it somewhat better to rp in such cases, a way to make your rp maybe worth a little more than useless text that no one cares about.

Sorry about the two posts in a row, but...

What I mean on that part, is that if tithesus a lowly garbage-digger was real life friends, or even over-the-internet friends, with an immortal or king of a city, tithesus would have a powerful voice backed up by a king, and would likely advance beyond garbage digger faster than say Urelthin, who knows no one who plays the mud. See what i mean now?

I have to agree on this. Its precisely why I have avoided RPI, etc. types. If you are not in some fashion in the 'in crowd', you won't advance, you won't be noticed and you won't become one of that crowd unless you play in a way that doesn't fit your style in the first place. At least with H&S, I know that if I played 4 hours a day for a week, I could get more powers, even if it means repeatedly killing the same things over and over. In an RPI, its may be all just words. Unless I posted logs of everything I ever did on a web site, most of everything I did do would mean jack. Anything 'real' that became part of the game, like eq would be even more useless than the stuff I can afford to buy or get off mobs in a H&S, etc. If I wanted to write everything I do for no reward, I could write a rather poor book and spend months trying to get someone to publish it. And unlike the game, I might get lucky, have it published and make enough to by a bloody XBOX. lol

Point is, reward in the strictest ones comes from meeting 'other' people's expectations, the middle ground ones let you advance in spite of other people, but seem, from what I have seen people describe, to be scitzophrenic about how much and in what way. H&S is at least consistent, if on some levels boring. Seems, for now you can't win, no matter what you would prefer.

I'm not sure how to say "you are incorrect" without sounding like a snob. So - consider it said.

I am not in the "in crowd" in Armageddon. Half the staff thinks I'm a royal pain in the butt, the other half either haven't had to deal with me yet, or tolerates me fairly well. And yet - I've had plenty of opportunity to become "important" in the scheme of things. Mostly because the emphasis in RPIs is the player-driven plotline. I wasn't recruited to a particular clan several months ago - I showed up with my brand new character, and ran right into one of the PC clan bigwigs in the local tavern. He hired my character, and I ended up becoming prominent (although not particularly important) in the city. I schemed and wheeled and dealed and amassed a rather hefty sum of coins for a commoner to have..made a few enemies, several "fond acquaintences," and had quite a few spies and other assorted underlings working for my character. All that I did myself. No one helped me, no one pushed me up to that point, no one gave me a handout. And lemme tell ya it was a blast getting to that point, most of the time.

The only reason that I'm aware of, that I wasn't promoted to a full "officer" of that clan (the same rank as the one who hired me), was because of MY choices regarding various tasks. I was given the opportunity, and the task needed to promote, and didn't grab it. That was my decision. Not any manipulation on the part of the staff, or the "important" players. They had no control over MY roleplay, afterall.

To say that you "must" be in the "in-crowd" to succeed in RPIs is doing them a huge disservice. I'm a damned good example of the truth of the matter, and I know of several other players who aren't "imm-pets" who have played outstanding, high-profile, memorable roles in the game world.

To be fair, your not one of the type that I am talking about. Unlike most people, I tend to play a bit like I am in RL, for the most part. I tend to be introverted and a loner. I am not someone likely to walk up to the local clan chief and ask for a job, I am not going to seek out parties, etc. I might run a shop, if such a role was available and it meant more than just pretending that I was selling something, etc. Then again, I might not. I am the guy that is quite competent at getting the job done, when I have one, but not gung ho about finding them. The one that sit in a corner and watches other people make a fool out them themselves, not the one that drinks too much and ends up picking a fight with the large orc in the other corner or dances on the tables.

Now, I 'might' eventually, if anyone bothered to find out, get a reputation for consistent work and skill, but I might never even get to a point where I could play that role, if 90% of my time was spent dealing with people and admin that insisted I didn't 'act' enough or 'play the part' properly, i.e. I don't seek out attention and feed the system like everyone else.

Now, on the other end of the spectrum, when I have been more extroverted, I feel that RP in which emoting, "Kagehi sneeks along the streets dropping sticks.", is a both a cheat and a unsatisfying if there is no mechanism to make those harmless objects erupt into illusions, to instill the proper chaos on the city when triggered. Everyone else has to agree to play be 'my' rules in such a case and the one time I tried I got two people willing to play along and wonder just what sort of mischief I was involved in and 2-3 that refused to play by the implied rules, but instead screwed up the entire thing. Now, this might have just been the inexperience (great laugh, given I have almost 0) of the people involved, but it left me backed into a corner, with the only people satisfied being the jerks that thought messing up the story line was fun. I haven't tried since and I have seen maybe 1-2 other instances of someone using the RP channel on the mud I play at to even try to revive the whole RP society concept.

Would a moderator of some sort have helped? Probably. Better rules? Maybe. Some sort of real mechanism to provide for RP, instead of just having to fake everything? Definitely. Instead the RP society for all practical purposes has died of starvation. I can't do it alone and half the people in it have even less a clue than I do how to limit their own ambitions for the good of the whole. So.. I went back to being the guy that spends time killing stuff, mostly doesn't interact with anyone and no one really knows. It doesn't hurt me to be that way on a mud and having to make everything up myself just irritates me too much to bother with systems where 90% of everything 'is' based on that.

But the point is, your style of play 'can' have an effect, not only on your own play, but other people's play and how you are seen. Some ways of doing it are disruptive, some perhaps too subtle to get credit for. I don't think I could sustain an outwardly extrovert type style, in fact, I am fairly sure I can't. And I doubt that a quite style would actually get me any place. Maybe I am wrong.

Of course, a bigger factor is if there is even any races I even want to play on a game. I haven't seen a lot I find all that interesting and the ones I do like on the surface, some twit mangles in the specifics. lol

I'm sorry to pick on Achaea again, but seeing as this is a discussion on role-playing, I figured I'd throw something out there that is so NOT roleplaying, it tore me out of the experience.  Recently, I decided to try out Iron Realm's system one more time, but I was not pleased with the role-playing by a certain few players who ripped me out of the experience.  Here is a transcript of the dialogue (I removed the frills, such as people entering and leaving and it changing to night so it will take up less space):

[begin]
Major Senoske Darkstar, Angel of Retribution says to Crunk, "Wanna go to UW?"
-
"Mad Dog", Crunk Drac'Kal s'Lessen, Sniper says to Senoske, "Not particularly."
-
Khaz sighs deeply, as if he has suffered a great loss.
-
"Mad Dog", Crunk Drac'Kal s'Lessen, Sniper says to Senoske, "Gonna bash a bit
with khaz, it's mark bashing."
-
Major Senoske Darkstar, Angel of Retribution says to Crunk, "Blah you surk
hella good exp there."
-
"Mad Dog", Crunk Drac'Kal s'Lessen, Sniper says, "People are better xp."
-
Major Senoske Darkstar, Angel of Retribution says, "Not really."
-
"Mad Dog", Crunk Drac'Kal s'Lessen, Sniper says, "With a 10% bonus too."
-
"Mad Dog", Crunk Drac'Kal s'Lessen, Sniper says, "Yes really, you just can't
kill anyone but nubs."
-
Major Senoske Darkstar, Angel of Retribution says, "Ooer."
-
Major Senoske Darkstar, Angel of Retribution says, "Dude stfu."
-
"Mad Dog", Crunk Drac'Kal s'Lessen, Sniper says, "You can't."
-
Major Senoske Darkstar, Angel of Retribution says, "Yea i can."
[end]

Now THIS is bad role-playing.  Yet, there was no way I could even tell someone that this guy was jolting me out of the experience because apparently this "Senoske" is pretty high up there in world politics, so far as having the right friends in the right places.  I mean, when I first played, I often did OOC things to test out the system. People would use ATTACKS on me, and KICK ME OUT OF THE ROOM for being OOC, yet this guy can do whatever the #### he wants to and nobody does jack squat. And this was the center of town!

I told him in an earlier encounter (through the OOC "tell" system) "Talking about raising your skills and going to the fridge to get a snack is probably not roleplaying."  He got aggresive, he said "stfu I've been around longer than you here so I know." (he had really bad grammar by the way, I can't even remember what he wrote, this was essentially it though)  to which I politely replied that I have been playing MUDs for a long time too, mentioned that I used to play GemStone way back when, and not to get aggressive about it.  No words back.  I'm just saying, I gave Achaea another chance, but it's things like this that I just don't like.

Now why did I post this?  Because it goes back to the earlier posts about there being no rewards system.  I myself think there is a rewards system, and it is for players who don't roleplay.  Notice this guy has probably been a douche bag for the entire time he has played Achaea, yet he's still like a grandmaster of a city or something like that.  Meanwhile, little ol' Tithesus tries his hardest to roleplay but gets nothing.  

What I envision would improve Iron Realms a lot (besides changing business politics, but I know that's not a possibility) but a punishment system.  For instance, this guy's character credibility (the meter for measuring in-game role-playing) seemed to be really good.  Just simply put it down, and show some sort of effect that might have on him.  Maybe tell him to at least make an EFFORT to role-play.  Of course, they'd probably lose lots of paying customers that way, but that's how I'd do it.

The problem I have with most Roleplay Encouraged and even most Roleplay Manditory games is that the only roles available are sociopaths. Oh, there are variations like
Cute Pixie Sociopath, Helpful Cleric Sociopath, Mysterious Necromancer Sociopath, Noble Warrior Sociopath, etc., but everyone is a sociopath. Even the "lawful good" type alignments tend to go kill harmless baby animals or slaughter everyone in the smurf village (or equivilent) from time to time. The average character kills more people (humans or other sapient beings) than any cop or soldier even durring a time of war, and yet suffers no unfortunate psycological effects at all. No nightmares, no pangs of regret. Most of the people you are killing are no threat to you, your family, your country or your world, and yet you go looking for them for the sole purpose of killing them. Why? Treating other people like disposible objects makes you a crazy bastard, even if those other people are NPCs or mobs, and so on a game level are disposable objects.

Most games also have easy or automatic resurection of PCs, even the roleplay required games. I tried, but I just couldn't wrap my head around the idea of death and miracleous resurection having no long term mental of physical effects. In real life people that have near death experiences or are technically dead for even a few minutes tend to mention it at every oportunity and occasionally speak on talkshows, and have it change their life. In most MUDs it is an everyday event, and people that make too big of a deal about it are annoying.

Your character and all of her friends are merciless sociopaths, and nobody thinks that there is anything wrong with that. I can't imagine living in a society like that, much less convincingly roleplay one of the residents of that society.


Angela Christine

That is one aspect of the game world I play in that on one hand I like, since I don't lose anything but some exp. **But** I also planned to feed into the journal I started writing bits about the consequences. I even have notes on it, like some players visiting the necromacer to change they race and skills so much they become addicted to it, or that you can tell those that have died a lot by how they look somehow thin and drained. Since the premise of the game is a sort of continous war with external forces, some areas are free for alls, where you can kill anyone at all, the whole game is filled with various lesser evils that have gotten past the barrier around the island and set up shop, etc., it seemed reasonable.

Sadly, this is another reason why RP has never taken off. While one brief attempt at a contest to fill in some of the history did happen, (it had only three entries and I can say with some confidence that mine was the only one that seemed to take it seriously and didn't suck. And that *isn't* tooting my own horn. They where that bad.) it ended when someone realized a wizard was already working on fleshing out the history. Or is supposed to be anyway.... There is no structure to the overall world, no means to give player input to the guy working on it, etc. So, no real 'base' for any sort of RP. Anything we do make up, may be completely erased by the single act of the Wizard doing the revamp posting the new history, which might happen tomarrow, next week, next year or next century, for all even most of the staff knows. Its a screwed up way to run a game, but its 'still' better than the prior admin, half of which burned out and retired, after firing the other half that where cheating and breaking rules (or pretty close anyway).

Point is, I tend to agree. Some 'real' difference needs to be made by reincarnation or resurrection. Means should exist to counteract this, maybe, but be hard to achieve (yet still achievable, even if you pick some horrible combo like Kitsune Cleric/Healer/Druid, which a) has only 'above average'' wis and int, b) horrible con and c) is better at being and assassin, which I felt was an insult to the species, than any of the three classes. Worse, the classes themselves are individually horrible and together only become survivable, unless you have alignment bonuses, really high wis bonuses, better con, etc. That's another big issue, at least in H&S. Roles often amount to, "Gee, your support staff right? I mean what *can* a healer actually kill? For that matter, how many undead are 'really' around for a cleric? And druids are good for what again?" lol Full RP type systems are better in that one respect, since their is no special quests for class X, special monsters for those with abilities like Y, etc., thus its more balanced. But as someone else pointed out, all too often it means you massacring the local village, because a **true** RP mud isn't likely to have a huge red dragon, with magic, more hitpoints than most of the wizard staff combined, and which takes 8-10 hours of straight fighting to kill (assuming you can find enough insane people to even try). You would think someone could find a decent balance between the two extremes...

It seems to me that the last couple of post come back to the same thing, essentially. Bad game design.

For instance, to handle the sociopath aspect of these 'RPI/RPE's' would be to design a game where your hometown, your nation is under attack. And this comes closer to a PVP. But Conflict breeds drama, and adventure.

History. It seems to me mandartory that a RPI/E mud would need a solid history before launching. Or it could even be based around discovering about the history of the world. But how can you roleplay if there is no background to use? Any truly Roleplay Intensive Tabletop game I've been in, had one of two aspects: A 5-10 page setting document, or had a Storyteller who allowed players to add parts to the canon of the world, out of the blue.

In response to Resurrection and Regeneration, it's again boils down to game design. If the game designer wants the game to be more Intensive, then they should either make the game less lethal, or make consequences, as hase been suggested for dying.

The last factor, which seems to be a big one, is that unless you've put in the time you don't really have an effect on the game. And this one of course is hard to overcome. But I imagine that with more advanced code, or a dedicated team of 'level developers' or staff member who lead RP Events, this could be overcome. Otherspace seems to do it well (from what I've heard). The Advanced code stuff of course is difficult code to write, and usually takes a PhD in computer science (Advanced AI and so forth)

Anyhow, that's my take on it.