|
Well you could divide players up into as many different categories as you wanted - you could even divide them into "players who eat live penguins" and "players who don't", if you wanted to.
But as I mentioned before, I find the bartle categorisation to be the most well thought out. It's still quite general, but does divide players into four distinct categories - killers, explorers, socialisers and achievers. A "griefer" could fall into any of those categories, depending on what sort of griefer they were (eg someone who searched for bugs to exploit would be a type of explorer, while someone who went around sexually harrassing other players would be a type of socialiser).
That is part of it, sure, but as I said before an RPI mud doesn't really have that much to do with opinion - it's a very specific type of mud.
Yes, for an RPI mud, although they are not at all necessary for a roleplaying-intensive mud.
RPI and HnS are styles of mud ("mu*" is a redundant term). Neither are inherently more or less involved or invested, that fact depends entirely on the players and the mud in question.
|