![]() |
#61 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 83
![]() |
Re: Determining the Origin and Meaning of RPI
Despite the fact that I've been informed by the OP that I have nothing of value to contribute to the thread, and should immediately exit it:
Languages: REALISM: JRR Tolkien devised for his novels entire languages for elvish and dwarvish, with smatterings of others. If such a translator could be hard-coded, that would be spiffy. Every time an elf says "Pal, buddy, friend, amigo, compadre, chum", etc...this code invariably translates the word to "Mellon." This jars no one. SIMULATIONISM: Language barriers are emulated, often by letter-combo substitutions with some racial 'flavoring', so same said elf saying the word "Friend" in elvish ten times will produce "Fiend, Find Frouand, Freud, Fraud, Fragglerock". (Or worse, by substituting letters with unpronounceable or highly unlikely combos.) This is jarring to the suspension of disbelief to those who are able to realize that the word should come out the same each time, even if you don't understand it. It can also be jarring to those who realize languages/words aren't learned by percents, so that someone with some time spent learning them understands 84% of each word, but rather learns words a few at a time, and then assimilates context. Some games do a relatively decent job of avoiding this annoying syndrome, either by making it such that a character with X skill knows 84% of all words spoken, instead of 84% of -each- word spoken, but then we run afoul of those people who are suddenly knowing exact meanings of words they've never heard or read that cannot be assimilated by context. Ah well, we say, it's a shortcoming of the coding, and we move on, because we like it. OTHER: Roleplayer A emotes, and within it, in common, he imbeds, "Hi, Friend!" Player B is suddenly (mushroom cloud) -forced- to know the language, even if it's common, and this is jarring to his suspension of disbelief. To me, this little hiccup -isn't- a big deal. As an actor, I know that my character doesn't know Common, so, I get to do a little --->RP<---. "Hay found?" "Ho, Fraud?" "Pi, Pythagoras?" I agree with every poster that says it's a matter of preference, but this wouldn't suddenly catapult me back to dreary reality any faster or more resoundingly than, "Hgxl, Fpyrabjd!" Nor would I think that an imbedded emote, so long as Player A actually spoke Common, was in any way twinkish. Now, I confess a bias. I've RPed in some of the games mentioned as "RPI"s. At no point will I say they are not good games. They are, in most cases. At no point would I say their RP-enhancing environment is inferior. It is not, in most cases. Personally, for some of them, I've felt like my edge for RP was dulled, because so much of the work is done FOR me, or in some cases, IN SPITE of me, that some of them left me with a taste I didn't care for. But mainly, what I did catch (but not exclusively at RPIs) was the elitism attitude that somehow a game feature set makes for better roleplaying, roleplayers etc. It is an attitude that rankles me. The less experienced players who encounter it are almost inevitably alienated or marginalized. I'm not saying every poster who advocates AFS games is anything like that, but it's undeniable that some of the most outspoken proponents -are-. I don't see these inexperienced people as 'twinks', 'n00bs' etc. They're people, and respond much better to good attitudes, openmindedness, and a willingness to patiently teach. Mostly, people learn by good examples set, although a small and petty case can be made that some people will improve if you just criticize them enough. The RPI distinction is meaningless, and made even MORE so by denying that the focus is on the 'intensive' part of the acronym, but continually asserting that very thing in example after example. This is why I posted the Simulationist/Narrativist/Gamist link. While not definitive, it's certainly a more intuitive distinction if labels are going to be slapped around, and the author of the article makes a compelling and rational case for it. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#62 |
Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 31
![]() |
Re: Determining the Origin and Meaning of RPI
Jumping into this discussion pretty late since I only check these forums every few months, but I thought I'd give my input on the term "RPI".
The 19 "conditions", as they were laid out by the original poster, seem pretty accurate. They make up what I consider a requirment in order for a mud to qualify as RPI. There can be some deviation and room for alternate features, but if your mud varies greatly from a number of these, chances are that it'll be considered an RPI only by yourself and those who are not established players on any of the "original RPIs", for lack of better term. So, these 19 ideals make up the base that fosters roleplay of a high enough quality that it should be considered RPI, and they each contribute to it in their own way, though ultimately they achieve the same goal. Permadeath, apart from the inherent realism, makes sure that players weigh their actions carefully and play their characters in a way that as closely as possible resembles the behaviour of real people in that game's world. When death becomes just a setback rather than the end, as is the case in games without permadeath, it's obvious to see that it changes how players will have their characters act. Likewise, the staff-approved character application system makes sure that every character that is let into the game meets the standards of the mud, both for the sake of the character's player and for those around them. If a new player who knows nothing about the mud and its game world can log in and create a character who meets the standards of that mud and its roleplay, I have my doubts about those standards. Once in a while you get a player who got it just right the first time around because they read the documentation extensively, because they're already experienced roleplayers or because they just happened to "get it" without having to try several times first. As a player of an RPI mud who is in a position to review first-time player applications, I'll say that the applications that are approved the first time without need for adjustments and revision make up a tiny percentage. Most need to be rejected between one and four times before it meets the standards of the game. If these players wouldn't have to go through this admittedly stringent and often discouraging process, the game would be full of characters who are extremely jarring and impossible to consider a part of the environment. Each of the 19 points on that list serve similar purposes, providing the building blocks for a game that can be considered the among best roleplaying experiences in the world of text-based gaming, and for each point that deviates from the "recipe", the quality is lessened somewhat. How the individual mud achieves the goal of each of these points is up to them; it doesn't have to be identical to Armageddon, but the further you stray from the idea that it should improve roleplay, the less likely that the average RPI-player will consider it to be such. It's an inherently selfish and elitist concept because it is indeed subjective whether or not a mud qualifies to be ranked among "the best" in regards to its quality of roleplay. I will venture to claim that, provided that the players play within the confines of its ideals, the structure of the mud itself has much more to do with the quality of roleplay than the playerbase. If the mud doesn't have the necessary "restrictions", as that is essentially what they are, then the players can't be expected to conduct the manner of roleplay that the established RPI muds consider necessary in order to qualify as an RPI. Add levels and experience points and the overall roleplay diminishes a little. Add global chat channels and it detracts a bit. Remove permadeath and the players' actions become a little less consistent and believable - not necessarily everybody, but enough that the end result is a roleplaying environment that is less complete. To make a real-world example, you cannot expect a professional soccer team to consider another team a "real soccer team" if that team plays with twelve players on the field and disregards the off-side rule. Such things may be acceptable elsewhere but it is inevitably a whole different level of the game. It's an elitist concept, but I find it to be true and valid. So why are these "real RPI" muds so opposed to other muds calling themselves RPI without meeting the proverbial requirments? Isn't that selfish? Why do they care what others do? Well, part of it is the innate human nature of wanting to protect what you have from being sullied by others who don't meet your ideals. That's the more selfish part, the part where you just don't want your own mud to be associated with others that you view as being of lesser quality. It is absolutely omnipresent, everywhere and particularly in online gaming when considering the context. WoW players get fiercely defensive about the class they play whenever someone else tries to impose their opinions and request changes for their own benefit. Counter-Strike clans will hold their particular style of play in high regard while debasing that of others, accusing opponents of cheating and so on. Players of RPI muds will scoff whenever another mud proclaims the status of RPI simply because they've tagged their mud as such and made a few adjustments to their game. I believe much of this has to do with the fact that RPI is a relatively small niche that has always been struggling for players, with each and every one of these muds unable to reach a size of playerbase that is required to fill all of the game's needs. When an interloper then comes along, claiming to be RPI while offering something that isn't (in the former's opinion), the "real RPI" runs a very real risk of not gaining the amount of players they feel they deserve. It's fairly logical. There's great contesting for players in this sub-genre because they're all suffering from a lack of players, and they don't want a perceived poser to cost them any. It's much easier to accept the loss of players to other muds of similar quality, and there's not nearly as much bad blood between "real RPIs" as there is between them and these self-proclaimed RPIs who do not attempt to meet the 19 commandments, as it were. I don't believe that the RPI muds should have to come up with a new term for their genre of muds just because others have started to use it without meeting those standards. It's not their job to keep themselves separated from other types of muds, it's the would-be RPIs' job to build their muds to meet the standards for which the original RPIs have coined their term. If they won't, calling themselves RPI is inaccurate, and it's as much a question of vanity as it is the very real issue of there not being nearly enough players to go around and the RPIs not wanting the virtual market to be stretched any more thin than it already is. Last edited by Throttle : 07-14-2008 at 09:53 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#63 |
Legend
Join Date: Aug 2007
Name: NewWorlds
Home MUD: New Worlds
Posts: 1,425
![]() ![]() |
R.I.P.
R.I.P would be a more proper term for this thread.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#64 |
Senior Member
|
Re: Determining the Origin and Meaning of RPI
Any particular reason you copied my post as well as Disillusionist's entire post without adding anything yourself? Did your comments get snipped off? If so, that's because there's a buffer on how long a post can be.
Last edited by prof1515 : 11-30-2008 at 08:36 AM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#65 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 361
![]() ![]() |
Re: Determining the Origin and Meaning of RPI
In case you missed the 954 other posts it replied to, that was the bottiest bot that ever botted.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#66 |
Senior Member
|
Re: Determining the Origin and Meaning of RPI
Heh, no, I didn't notice actually. Just saw the "response to a thread" email in my inbox, went to the link, and posted.
|
![]() |
![]() |