Sep 22, 2015, 11:59 AM

@crayon

#1: You may be right that the bridging is basically @Jeshin's thing/remark, and I might only be interpreting the text on the site about having "more in common than what separates us" in light of his comments on that and that all text-based RPGs are involved.

#2: Yes, quite possibly what's been written reads differently to people who are involved with RPI-like games and people who aren't.

So, to explain how it reads to me, here's that blurb:

"Optional Realities is a community and design blog for text-based, online Roleplaying Games with a focus on character and story-driven games that include permanent character death as a feature. While many call this genre of game an RPI (Roleplaying-Intensive Game), Optional Realities is dedicated to all games of this nature, whether they be MUDs, or MOOS, or MUXs, or MUSHes, or RPIs, or any of the other sub-genres that we've divided ourselves into over the years."

Okay. The way it's written, "this nature" refers to two separate though potentially overlapping types of games: "text-based, online Roleplaying Games with a focus on character" and "story-driven games that include permanent character death as a feature". Neither of these descriptions covers the idea of automation in any way.

ALL the games in question -- RPI-style, low-automation non-consent, consent -- are "text-based, online Roleplaying Games with a focus on character" and most are "story-driven games that include permanent character death as a feature". The ones that are not are still story-driven, just lacking "permanent character death as a feature".

The text then says that many call that sort of game -- text-based, online, character-focused, story-driven, includes possibility of permanent death -- an RPI. That's fine. But as it then goes on to say, RPIs are only one example of that type, so that doesn't suggest that a reader ought to assume you only mean games which closely resemble actual RPIs.

"This nature", as described in the apparent mission statement, is not RPI codebase and specifically says it isn't, but it doesn't mention the qualifications that narrow down "this nature" to where it doesn't cover low-automation MU*s. Because of that, when you say they don't qualify, you may mean that they don't fit what you consider the requirements for the RPI-like genre, but what you're actually saying is that they don't fit the requirements that have been stated: that they are not character- and story-driven text-based online rpgs (with permanent character deaths).

So, ways to make it more clear. First, I'm not certain if you really mean to have two types there -- if you only mean the sentence to be one joint type, "text-based, story-driven online role-playing games which focus on character and include the potential for permanent character death" might be closer. I would add 'highly-automated' in there, personally, if I wanted to narrow things down to RPI-like games, since otherwise it still includes the type most popular here (...which apparently need a name). There might be a better term, and it still leaves the question of "well, what's 'highly'?" but you already have that problem anyway, and so far I can't think of a better term for what the true divider seems to be. You also might define this type as "RPI-like" or "RPI-style" or something similar to that, because it's much shorter to write, seems likely (to me) to give the right sort of impression of your meaning to people involved with games of that type, and seems less likely to leave people involved with other types feeling alienated.

Obviously this doesn't cover any remarks made or impressions given in posts early in this thread, but for the outside view of the mission statement itself, there's my thoughts.