In my opinion, it's not the developers job to instigate or propagate roleplay, it's the players'. One of the reasons you don't see alot of roleplaying in todays MMORPGs is because where once you had a community made up largely of intellegent nerd types whose only social outlet is their video games, we have an over abundance of kids who think its cool to be stupid.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
In any case, the kingdom Hyperion was completely player-constructed.
Social construct is not quite what I'm going for though, how much did they change the actual world itself? Not the players, but the world.
I'm not really sure what you are getting at, because roleplaying games are all about the social constructions. Darkfall has the physical essentials... you can't walk through players but you can push them (knockback attack, magic) or kill them. There are temporary physical constructions that aid people like mounts and strongboxes, and the player cities are destructible (though static in geography). The game world has to be resistant to inadvertant abuse or it would never survive a massively online architecture.
The one thing that hasn't been tried extensively, that I know of, yet (and I think it has some promise) is single-completion mystery quests. They don't announce that they've added something to the game and just let players figure it out all on their own. Like taking one particular high-level mob from the regular world and placing it in a hard-to-reach location with a "boss name" and storyline, while leaving single-use clues about its whereabouts spread throughout the gameworld. Players could then interact to determine its location and form an expedition party to deal with it (however that turns out). Even if everyone who doesn't participate gets left out in the cold, the story of what happened would spread and create a feeling of adventure among the entire playerbase.
Single-kill roaming NPCs would be a good idea to toy with too.
most people get paid fortnightly so how anyone doesn't know that word is beyond me...
Easy there. Not everyone here is a native englishspeaker. And in fact its the first time I heard of the idea of being payed every 2 weeks. In my country we are all paid once every month.
"The hammer of the gods will drive our ships to new lands, To fight the horde, singing and crying: Valhalla, I am coming! On we sweep with threshing oar, our only goal will be the western shore."
'm not really sure what you are getting at, because roleplaying games are all about the social constructions.
If it would work just as well in a chat room as in the game, it's not what I'm talking about. And Single-kill NPCs, and special bosses are fun, but rather limited, they aren't exactly meaningful on their own. That'd just be a gimmick, with no real options involved.
If it would work just as well in a chat room as in the game, it's not what I'm talking about.
Ah, I see. Yeah, I'm not interested in the roleperforming side of RP either, and the players who built Hyperion weren't that kind. They were the mechanically inclined type of roleplayer that wants to see their motives played out in competitive gameplay. In fact, I think the major reason many of those roleplayers left was due to corruption of game mechanics by other players (hacking, etc.)
Perhaps I wasn't clear about my "mystery quest" idea, but I was trying to simplify it so I wouldn't have to go to great length to describe it. The quests wouldn't necessarily involve a "boss" (that was an example) and the entire point would be to get players interacting with one another to solve the riddle. The clues, the mystery, and the storyline would be the real focus of the development of such activities.
Maybe it's just me, but I feel developers have lost sight of what a roleplay game is. Most developers now are under the impression that for a game to be a roleplaying game all it needs is.......
Loads of armour / items / weapons
Loads of character visual customisation like faces and hairstyles
Money to earn to buy the above stuff
To me, a roleplaying game is about playing a role in that gaming world. Making a difference or trying to make a difference in that world through your actions and interactions with the npcs. Siding with certain factions at the exclusion of other factions.
I guess I'm just looking for some sort of bridge between the "single player campaign" games and the mmo gameworlds.
Which is why I am definately in the mood for an mmo that has
A changing/evolving world that changes based on the actions and achievements of the majority of players (changes implemented in weekly or fortnightly patches)
Which I (hopefully) went into in more detail in my other "What I want from mmos of the future" post
Sorry if you feel this is a double post I just wanted to express my frustration at developers trying to trick us into thinking that a roleplaying game is all about character customisation with weapons and armours and items and less about adventure and playing a role in the game world.
You do play a role in MMORPG's. You play the role of a hero. For example, in World of Warcraft I play the role of a Paladin. Someone else may play the role of a Warlock. Most MMORPG's have you playing roles.
Agree with nate above. You're playing a role. Whether you're playing a significant role or not is up to the game developers and the mechanics of the game.
Not sure why OP is dependent on the MMO programming to RP.
My friends and I RP in almost any MMO. The fewer RP features and the less lore the better. We role play all that stuff. Only in games with many RP features like LotRO are we told that we are doing it wrong.
You do play a role in MMORPG's. You play the role of a hero. For example, in World of Warcraft I play the role of a Paladin. Someone else may play the role of a Warlock. Most MMORPG's have you playing roles.
You don't really play a role, you play an archetype. Your archetype is virtually identical to everyone else playing the same level of archetype. All the fighters are virtually the same, all of the mages are virtually the same, etc. You might have some different meaningless clothing but you all fulfill the same roles and can do the same things.
You do play a role in MMORPG's. You play the role of a hero. For example, in World of Warcraft I play the role of a Paladin. Someone else may play the role of a Warlock. Most MMORPG's have you playing roles.
You don't really play a role, you play an archetype. Your archetype is virtually identical to everyone else playing the same level of archetype. All the fighters are virtually the same, all of the mages are virtually the same, etc. You might have some different meaningless clothing but you all fulfill the same roles and can do the same things.
That's not a role if everyone is the same.
Sure it does. Just because many people play the same game as you, and inadvertantly choose similar classes as you, doesn't mean you aren't playing a role. In DnD video games, you're playing no more a role when you choose to play a Paladin as you do if you play a Paladin in WoW. Judging if someone is playing a role based on who else is playing the same role would rule MMORPG's out completely, considering that no matter what form of customization and advancement system you choose, you'll always have thousands of other people playing the same role as you.
Also, just because two people are playing a Paladin, doesn't mean both Paladins will be played the same. In WoW, one might play a tank, another dps, and another healing. In an instance, you'll have many Paladin's who don't use most of their abilities, in other words the skill level of the player playing the Paladin differs, making the Paladin a different role depending on who's playing it. One Paladin may be heroic, while another is just a lazy gear thief.
What I'm talking about and what I hope for is this (I also think that it should be game wide - you can't have different servers having different events - they should take into account all the servers populations together when determining outcomes):
Basically I'd like for the world to change in the sense of old quests being removed as in they are resolved and some consequence comes out of the way it was resolved which brings about new quests.
Someone said that they'd hate to be in the middle of a quest and then it gets patched out on "the patch day".... Surely there could be a warning when you pick up the quest that this is "dynamic quest that may or may not be removed on patch day" then you'd know how long you have to hopefully get it complete.
An example could be in WoW, that floating necropolis city attack on Stormwind a few years ago. The developers could decide something that players need to do in order to fight off the attack and how many players would need to do it. Then they'd monitor the amount of times the task is complete (and could even make it last over several patch days and thus give a warning "if lots more quest completions are needed to fight off the attack (as in if things are going bad for stormwind or not)
At the end of the time, if enough players met the criteria then stormwind is saved (and the team of writers continues their story on with that fact) however if not enough players met the criteria then stormwind would be taken over and occupied by the evil forces (and the writers would continue their story factoring in that result). Then there could be a series of quest and tasks set to allow stormwind to be retaken, which again the success of which could be decided by if enough players succeeded or even by if enough players just went to Stormwind and fought the bad guys.
Just something getting the community working together for a common goal that actually makes a difference.
Really just paying attention to the flow of players and seeing the things they are most interested in and then making changes in that direction.
I hate how when I played WoW 4 years ago and did all these quests and then I rejoin now and it's the EXACT same quests. The same people need rescued the same stuff needs done, the same bodies need found - nothing has changed!
I am NOT talking about the world being shaped by YOUR actions alone. It's like an election. Your actions are YOUR vote for how you want things to turn out (possibly you could even be given multiple votes by redoing something over and over)
"It's like a finger pointing away to the moon... Don't concentrate on the finger or you'll miss all the heavenly glory" (Bruce Lee)
(Insert your favourite mmo here): ......And behold, a pale horse.... And a million hellishly bad mmos followed with it.
What I'm talking about and what I hope for is this (I also think that it should be game wide - you can't have different servers having different events - they should take into account all the servers populations together when determining outcomes):
Basically I'd like for the world to change in the sense of old quests being removed as in they are resolved and some consequence comes out of the way it was resolved which brings about new quests.
Someone said that they'd hate to be in the middle of a quest and then it gets patched out on "the patch day".... Surely there could be a warning when you pick up the quest that this is "dynamic quest that may or may not be removed on patch day" then you'd know how long you have to hopefully get it complete.
An example could be in WoW, that floating necropolis city attack on Stormwind a few years ago. The developers could decide something that players need to do in order to fight off the attack and how many players would need to do it. Then they'd monitor the amount of times the task is complete (and could even make it last over several patch days and thus give a warning "if lots more quest completions are needed to fight off the attack (as in if things are going bad for stormwind or not)
At the end of the time, if enough players met the criteria then stormwind is saved (and the team of writers continues their story on with that fact) however if not enough players met the criteria then stormwind would be taken over and occupied by the evil forces (and the writers would continue their story factoring in that result). Then there could be a series of quest and tasks set to allow stormwind to be retaken, which again the success of which could be decided by if enough players succeeded or even by if enough players just went to Stormwind and fought the bad guys.
Just something getting the community working together for a common goal that actually makes a difference.
Really just paying attention to the flow of players and seeing the things they are most interested in and then making changes in that direction.
I hate how when I played WoW 4 years ago and did all these quests and then I rejoin now and it's the EXACT same quests. The same people need rescued the same stuff needs done, the same bodies need found - nothing has changed!
I am NOT talking about the world being shaped by YOUR actions alone. It's like an election. Your actions are YOUR vote for how you want things to turn out (possibly you could even be given multiple votes by redoing something over and over)
This is actually a good idea. Of course it'd need to be fine tuned and debated, but this is something that with todays technology can be done. WoW is the best MMORPG released in its era, but WoW is also several years old now. So static quests is in line with what we should expect from a game that old. But any AAA game developing company worth their salt should be considering an idea like yours for their upcoming release, because something like this is relatively inexpensive (relative to the hundreds of other ideas to make a game more immersive), and could probably be done well in 3 month cycles (likely not something that could be done well in 1 month, much less 1-2 weeks).
Bioware is providing a MMORPG that'll be tailored to the individual roleplaying experience, so there's still room for a company to do the same thing, except for everyone in the game.
You do play a role in MMORPG's. You play the role of a hero. For example, in World of Warcraft I play the role of a Paladin. Someone else may play the role of a Warlock. Most MMORPG's have you playing roles.
You don't really play a role, you play an archetype. Your archetype is virtually identical to everyone else playing the same level of archetype. All the fighters are virtually the same, all of the mages are virtually the same, etc. You might have some different meaningless clothing but you all fulfill the same roles and can do the same things.
That's not a role if everyone is the same.
Only if you define someone exclusively by their attributes. My character takes all dwarven missions first, never trades with non-dwarves when there is a dwarf thats near. He only trusts dwarves.
Now my character may have the same stats as you, but stats don't totally define the role. Two people often have the same stats but rarely have the same 'story', because their guild and schedules may differ.
If all you looking at is the stats, you are missing out on a portion of the game.
Only if you define someone exclusively by their attributes. My character takes all dwarven missions first, never trades with non-dwarves when there is a dwarf thats near. He only trusts dwarves.
Now my character may have the same stats as you, but stats don't totally define the role. Two people often have the same stats but rarely have the same 'story', because their guild and schedules may differ.
If all you looking at is the stats, you are missing out on a portion of the game.
I'm not paying attention to stats at all, I'm paying attention to the coding of the game. The only way to "advance" in the game is to follow the rules that the programmers have defined. You "win" by going around killing things. There really isn't any other way to advance your character because that's how the game works. Just putting in little oddities isn't changing anything significantly.
In a real roleplaying game, you can go off and do something entirely new and different that nobody has pre-defined. If you don't want to fight at all, you don't have to fight at all, you can find entirely peaceful resolutions to situations. In an MMO though, you get nothing for thinking outside of the box, the only way you get better in game terms is to play the game the way the devs wrote it. Coming up with a pacifist dwarf that refuses to have anything to do with violence is a sure way to keep you as a level 1 character forever.
Maybe it's just me, but I feel developers have lost sight of what a roleplay game is. Most developers now are under the impression that for a game to be a roleplaying game all it needs is.......
Loads of armour / items / weapons
Loads of character visual customisation like faces and hairstyles
Money to earn to buy the above stuff
To me, a roleplaying game is about playing a role in that gaming world. Making a difference or trying to make a difference in that world through your actions and interactions with the npcs. Siding with certain factions at the exclusion of other factions.
I guess I'm just looking for some sort of bridge between the "single player campaign" games and the mmo gameworlds.
Which is why I am definately in the mood for an mmo that has
A changing/evolving world that changes based on the actions and achievements of the majority of players (changes implemented in weekly or fortnightly patches)
Which I (hopefully) went into in more detail in my other "What I want from mmos of the future" post
Sorry if you feel this is a double post I just wanted to express my frustration at developers trying to trick us into thinking that a roleplaying game is all about character customisation with weapons and armours and items and less about adventure and playing a role in the game world.
Majority of mmo community dont even know this they just play what most devs put on market.
Only a small portion realy want a sandbox with real rpg and all you mentioned im affraid.
Its all about money thats why this dumb down process over years with mmorpg/rpg's.
Games played:AC1-Darktide'99-2000-AC2-Darktide/dawnsong2003-2005,Lineage2-2005-2006 and now Darkfall-2009..... In between WoW few months AoC few months and some f2p also all very short few weeks.
Only if you define someone exclusively by their attributes. My character takes all dwarven missions first, never trades with non-dwarves when there is a dwarf thats near. He only trusts dwarves.
Now my character may have the same stats as you, but stats don't totally define the role. Two people often have the same stats but rarely have the same 'story', because their guild and schedules may differ.
If all you looking at is the stats, you are missing out on a portion of the game.
I'm not paying attention to stats at all, I'm paying attention to the coding of the game. The only way to "advance" in the game is to follow the rules that the programmers have defined. You "win" by going around killing things. There really isn't any other way to advance your character because that's how the game works. Just putting in little oddities isn't changing anything significantly.
In a real roleplaying game, you can go off and do something entirely new and different that nobody has pre-defined. If you don't want to fight at all, you don't have to fight at all, you can find entirely peaceful resolutions to situations. In an MMO though, you get nothing for thinking outside of the box, the only way you get better in game terms is to play the game the way the devs wrote it. Coming up with a pacifist dwarf that refuses to have anything to do with violence is a sure way to keep you as a level 1 character forever.
In a real rpg, you can only do what the GM lets you do. It sometimes can be a wierd and wacky experience (depending on the gm). Some GMS let you talk your way out, some don't. I tried playing a talker once in AD&D, didn't work for me either. I even had 4 friends playing and helping me out, it only lasts so long.
I'm not trying to say that the computer gms are anywhere near a human gm, but don't go off saying you can't play a different role than someone else, you work with what you got. Eventually i believe a game will come out where you don't have to worry about fighting, it won't be a open PvP game of course.
Only if you define someone exclusively by their attributes. My character takes all dwarven missions first, never trades with non-dwarves when there is a dwarf thats near. He only trusts dwarves.
Now my character may have the same stats as you, but stats don't totally define the role. Two people often have the same stats but rarely have the same 'story', because their guild and schedules may differ.
If all you looking at is the stats, you are missing out on a portion of the game.
I'm not paying attention to stats at all, I'm paying attention to the coding of the game. The only way to "advance" in the game is to follow the rules that the programmers have defined. You "win" by going around killing things. There really isn't any other way to advance your character because that's how the game works. Just putting in little oddities isn't changing anything significantly.
In a real roleplaying game, you can go off and do something entirely new and different that nobody has pre-defined. If you don't want to fight at all, you don't have to fight at all, you can find entirely peaceful resolutions to situations. In an MMO though, you get nothing for thinking outside of the box, the only way you get better in game terms is to play the game the way the devs wrote it. Coming up with a pacifist dwarf that refuses to have anything to do with violence is a sure way to keep you as a level 1 character forever.
I think you've touched on something here. Many of todays gamers won't participate in anything that doesn't offer some sort of reward. Whether it's experience points or an item upgrade, a good percentage of gamers today are solely motivated by actual physical in-game rewards, in my opinion. I get more gratification from the little things, even if they are not recognized by the developers or other players. Its more personal than that for me.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
Originally posted by Death1942 most people get paid fortnightly so how anyone doesn't know that word is beyond me...
I get paid fortnightly and have never ever heard that word used to describe my pay schedule (yes, I'm American). Any reference to my pay schedule always says "every two weeks" or "biweekly" (which in the US means "every two weeks" not "twice a week"). Honestly, if they did refer to me being paid fortnightly, it'd make me feel like I was being employed in the nineteenth century. Remember, the speed of light is 1.803
In a real rpg, you can only do what the GM lets you do. It sometimes can be a wierd and wacky experience (depending on the gm). Some GMS let you talk your way out, some don't. I tried playing a talker once in AD&D, didn't work for me either. I even had 4 friends playing and helping me out, it only lasts so long.
I'm not trying to say that the computer gms are anywhere near a human gm, but don't go off saying you can't play a different role than someone else, you work with what you got. Eventually i believe a game will come out where you don't have to worry about fighting, it won't be a open PvP game of course.
Then you've got a really crappy GM. A decent GM doesn't drag you around by the nose through adventures they're determined are going to play out exactly as they are written whether you like it or not. I've played under those, they wrote a book and damn it, you're going to do things exactly as they wrote it or else. But you know something? I'd never play with someone like that again because I value my freedom. If I want to talk my way out of an encounter, or even forsee it and go around it entirely, I want to be able to do it. My attempt might fail, it might be more difficult than going straight through, but the whole point of an RPG is the freedom to do whatever you want to do, within the broad confines of the game world and game physics.
Only if you define someone exclusively by their attributes. My character takes all dwarven missions first, never trades with non-dwarves when there is a dwarf thats near. He only trusts dwarves.
Now my character may have the same stats as you, but stats don't totally define the role. Two people often have the same stats but rarely have the same 'story', because their guild and schedules may differ.
If all you looking at is the stats, you are missing out on a portion of the game.
I'm not paying attention to stats at all, I'm paying attention to the coding of the game. The only way to "advance" in the game is to follow the rules that the programmers have defined. You "win" by going around killing things. There really isn't any other way to advance your character because that's how the game works. Just putting in little oddities isn't changing anything significantly.
In a real roleplaying game, you can go off and do something entirely new and different that nobody has pre-defined. If you don't want to fight at all, you don't have to fight at all, you can find entirely peaceful resolutions to situations. In an MMO though, you get nothing for thinking outside of the box, the only way you get better in game terms is to play the game the way the devs wrote it. Coming up with a pacifist dwarf that refuses to have anything to do with violence is a sure way to keep you as a level 1 character forever.
I think you've touched on something here. Many of todays gamers won't participate in anything that doesn't offer some sort of reward. Whether it's experience points or an item upgrade, a good percentage of gamers today are solely motivated by actual physical in-game rewards, in my opinion. I get more gratification from the little things, even if they are not recognized by the developers or other players. Its more personal than that for me.
I agree with you. I don't play to get stuff or to wave my e-peen around, I play to have a good time. The experience itself is the only reward I care about. I couldn't care less if I have one more piece of worthless glittering swag to wave around at people, I shop-dump all of that nonsense because it's not the point or purpose of playing the game fro me.
That's why I'm adamant that an MMO is not set up as an RPG, no matter what letters they use in their name, because MMOs are designed for one specific type of gameplay, unlike an RPG where there's a wide world of possibilities.
Then you've got a really crappy GM. A decent GM doesn't drag you around by the nose through adventures they're determined are going to play out exactly as they are written whether you like it or not. I've played under those, they wrote a book and damn it, you're going to do things exactly as they wrote it or else. But you know something? I'd never play with someone like that again because I value my freedom. If I want to talk my way out of an encounter, or even forsee it and go around it entirely, I want to be able to do it. My attempt might fail, it might be more difficult than going straight through, but the whole point of an RPG is the freedom to do whatever you want to do, within the broad confines of the game world and game physics
While I concur a decent GM doesn't drag you around by the nose to complete an adventure, a decent GM will sometimes rein in the players when they go off course, because otherwise the game can tend to get unfun. This may be caused by any number of things, including some outside the game world (players sometimes don't get along and start causing trouble for example), and while the sledgehammer approach isn't necessarily appropriate for all of them, for some it works.
Then again, is it really a sledgehammer if the GM says "Hey Bob, I know you like being the diplomat and all, but Joe, Gus, Glen and Larry they like the fighting, not 15 minutes of discussion?"
so !op by definition !this day you could be a blacksmith crafting armor ,bargaining price of other player repair or such !the next day you could decide visist your daughter in stormwind only to find out horde dissrespected her !etc!i made these up but
for an idea like your to works!all party included have to be restricted to rp way
last i checked rp isnt easy to enforce since ,there are always (!#%@#$^who want to screw the rp!)are you perrmitted to wage war on the disbeliever)how does it work ?can we see stream exemple of such happening in any game .
im sure there are becasue i met some rp player in guildwars 2 week or so ago they were in pre-searing it was nice to watch them doing this but when a @#%#&;* decided to do his act(being an a0-@#$%)the rper couldnt just pvp him since they where in the small camp (air mage)if they could have done something !would it have been better !im trying to understand !
how do you include rp in a massive mutliplayer online game.we all role play in these but not to the extent these rper do?
just take the massive part in any mmo
i can tell you,the list of massive multiplayer is very short if you add the condition it has to be f2p
the list is even shorter
so i bet rp is even more scarce!i sure havent seen a lot
eq2 is one that has ton of rper,wow,gw probably other but all these rper all face one issue
other player being pissed off because they cant piss off rper
yes some player love to annoy other .they could go to pvp server or pve server but they go to rp server
(often more player<but all those in rp server are for the most part avid rper)the guild is made of rper
they compose their story ,i bet blizzard gets ton of idea from those guys if you check youtube youll see ton of rper video
saw 2 very funny one yesterday(wow)
so how would the rp community like to see rp included we all know the way it is right now dont work!
In a real rpg, you can only do what the GM lets you do. It sometimes can be a wierd and wacky experience (depending on the gm). Some GMS let you talk your way out, some don't. I tried playing a talker once in AD&D, didn't work for me either. I even had 4 friends playing and helping me out, it only lasts so long.
I'm not trying to say that the computer gms are anywhere near a human gm, but don't go off saying you can't play a different role than someone else, you work with what you got. Eventually i believe a game will come out where you don't have to worry about fighting, it won't be a open PvP game of course.
Then you've got a really crappy GM. A decent GM doesn't drag you around by the nose through adventures they're determined are going to play out exactly as they are written whether you like it or not. I've played under those, they wrote a book and damn it, you're going to do things exactly as they wrote it or else. But you know something? I'd never play with someone like that again because I value my freedom. If I want to talk my way out of an encounter, or even forsee it and go around it entirely, I want to be able to do it. My attempt might fail, it might be more difficult than going straight through, but the whole point of an RPG is the freedom to do whatever you want to do, within the broad confines of the game world and game physics.
Where did i say they dragged me around? I said you are limited by your gm. You can't do whatever the heck you want. The gm may wing it or ask for the session to be delayed while they prepare something of better quality.
In any event, i mostly agree with you. I'd like to see a game where you could survive without fighting. But i don't think the majority see it that way. Devs know combat, and therefore they give you what they know.
Comments
In my opinion, it's not the developers job to instigate or propagate roleplay, it's the players'. One of the reasons you don't see alot of roleplaying in todays MMORPGs is because where once you had a community made up largely of intellegent nerd types whose only social outlet is their video games, we have an over abundance of kids who think its cool to be stupid.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
I'm not really sure what you are getting at, because roleplaying games are all about the social constructions. Darkfall has the physical essentials... you can't walk through players but you can push them (knockback attack, magic) or kill them. There are temporary physical constructions that aid people like mounts and strongboxes, and the player cities are destructible (though static in geography). The game world has to be resistant to inadvertant abuse or it would never survive a massively online architecture.
The one thing that hasn't been tried extensively, that I know of, yet (and I think it has some promise) is single-completion mystery quests. They don't announce that they've added something to the game and just let players figure it out all on their own. Like taking one particular high-level mob from the regular world and placing it in a hard-to-reach location with a "boss name" and storyline, while leaving single-use clues about its whereabouts spread throughout the gameworld. Players could then interact to determine its location and form an expedition party to deal with it (however that turns out). Even if everyone who doesn't participate gets left out in the cold, the story of what happened would spread and create a feeling of adventure among the entire playerbase.
Single-kill roaming NPCs would be a good idea to toy with too.
Easy there. Not everyone here is a native englishspeaker. And in fact its the first time I heard of the idea of being payed every 2 weeks. In my country we are all paid once every month.
*cough* SW:TOR *cough*
To fight the horde, singing and crying: Valhalla, I am coming!
On we sweep with threshing oar, our only goal will be the western shore."
If it would work just as well in a chat room as in the game, it's not what I'm talking about. And Single-kill NPCs, and special bosses are fun, but rather limited, they aren't exactly meaningful on their own. That'd just be a gimmick, with no real options involved.
Ah, I see. Yeah, I'm not interested in the roleperforming side of RP either, and the players who built Hyperion weren't that kind. They were the mechanically inclined type of roleplayer that wants to see their motives played out in competitive gameplay. In fact, I think the major reason many of those roleplayers left was due to corruption of game mechanics by other players (hacking, etc.)
Perhaps I wasn't clear about my "mystery quest" idea, but I was trying to simplify it so I wouldn't have to go to great length to describe it. The quests wouldn't necessarily involve a "boss" (that was an example) and the entire point would be to get players interacting with one another to solve the riddle. The clues, the mystery, and the storyline would be the real focus of the development of such activities.
You do play a role in MMORPG's. You play the role of a hero. For example, in World of Warcraft I play the role of a Paladin. Someone else may play the role of a Warlock. Most MMORPG's have you playing roles.
Agree with nate above. You're playing a role. Whether you're playing a significant role or not is up to the game developers and the mechanics of the game.
Here's a role you should try: Capsuleer.
Not sure why OP is dependent on the MMO programming to RP.
My friends and I RP in almost any MMO. The fewer RP features and the less lore the better. We role play all that stuff. Only in games with many RP features like LotRO are we told that we are doing it wrong.
Well shave my back and call me an elf! -- Oghren
You don't really play a role, you play an archetype. Your archetype is virtually identical to everyone else playing the same level of archetype. All the fighters are virtually the same, all of the mages are virtually the same, etc. You might have some different meaningless clothing but you all fulfill the same roles and can do the same things.
That's not a role if everyone is the same.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
Sure it does. Just because many people play the same game as you, and inadvertantly choose similar classes as you, doesn't mean you aren't playing a role. In DnD video games, you're playing no more a role when you choose to play a Paladin as you do if you play a Paladin in WoW. Judging if someone is playing a role based on who else is playing the same role would rule MMORPG's out completely, considering that no matter what form of customization and advancement system you choose, you'll always have thousands of other people playing the same role as you.
Also, just because two people are playing a Paladin, doesn't mean both Paladins will be played the same. In WoW, one might play a tank, another dps, and another healing. In an instance, you'll have many Paladin's who don't use most of their abilities, in other words the skill level of the player playing the Paladin differs, making the Paladin a different role depending on who's playing it. One Paladin may be heroic, while another is just a lazy gear thief.
It's more a matter of being able to do things beyond emotes and talking than being dependent. At least that's what I want.
Otherwise I might as well hang out on IRC.
What I'm talking about and what I hope for is this (I also think that it should be game wide - you can't have different servers having different events - they should take into account all the servers populations together when determining outcomes):
Basically I'd like for the world to change in the sense of old quests being removed as in they are resolved and some consequence comes out of the way it was resolved which brings about new quests.
Someone said that they'd hate to be in the middle of a quest and then it gets patched out on "the patch day".... Surely there could be a warning when you pick up the quest that this is "dynamic quest that may or may not be removed on patch day" then you'd know how long you have to hopefully get it complete.
An example could be in WoW, that floating necropolis city attack on Stormwind a few years ago. The developers could decide something that players need to do in order to fight off the attack and how many players would need to do it. Then they'd monitor the amount of times the task is complete (and could even make it last over several patch days and thus give a warning "if lots more quest completions are needed to fight off the attack (as in if things are going bad for stormwind or not)
At the end of the time, if enough players met the criteria then stormwind is saved (and the team of writers continues their story on with that fact) however if not enough players met the criteria then stormwind would be taken over and occupied by the evil forces (and the writers would continue their story factoring in that result). Then there could be a series of quest and tasks set to allow stormwind to be retaken, which again the success of which could be decided by if enough players succeeded or even by if enough players just went to Stormwind and fought the bad guys.
Just something getting the community working together for a common goal that actually makes a difference.
Really just paying attention to the flow of players and seeing the things they are most interested in and then making changes in that direction.
I hate how when I played WoW 4 years ago and did all these quests and then I rejoin now and it's the EXACT same quests. The same people need rescued the same stuff needs done, the same bodies need found - nothing has changed!
I am NOT talking about the world being shaped by YOUR actions alone. It's like an election. Your actions are YOUR vote for how you want things to turn out (possibly you could even be given multiple votes by redoing something over and over)
"It's like a finger pointing away to the moon... Don't concentrate on the finger or you'll miss all the heavenly glory" (Bruce Lee)
(Insert your favourite mmo here): ......And behold, a pale horse.... And a million hellishly bad mmos followed with it.
This is actually a good idea. Of course it'd need to be fine tuned and debated, but this is something that with todays technology can be done. WoW is the best MMORPG released in its era, but WoW is also several years old now. So static quests is in line with what we should expect from a game that old. But any AAA game developing company worth their salt should be considering an idea like yours for their upcoming release, because something like this is relatively inexpensive (relative to the hundreds of other ideas to make a game more immersive), and could probably be done well in 3 month cycles (likely not something that could be done well in 1 month, much less 1-2 weeks).
Bioware is providing a MMORPG that'll be tailored to the individual roleplaying experience, so there's still room for a company to do the same thing, except for everyone in the game.
Only if you define someone exclusively by their attributes. My character takes all dwarven missions first, never trades with non-dwarves when there is a dwarf thats near. He only trusts dwarves.
Now my character may have the same stats as you, but stats don't totally define the role. Two people often have the same stats but rarely have the same 'story', because their guild and schedules may differ.
If all you looking at is the stats, you are missing out on a portion of the game.
I'm not paying attention to stats at all, I'm paying attention to the coding of the game. The only way to "advance" in the game is to follow the rules that the programmers have defined. You "win" by going around killing things. There really isn't any other way to advance your character because that's how the game works. Just putting in little oddities isn't changing anything significantly.
In a real roleplaying game, you can go off and do something entirely new and different that nobody has pre-defined. If you don't want to fight at all, you don't have to fight at all, you can find entirely peaceful resolutions to situations. In an MMO though, you get nothing for thinking outside of the box, the only way you get better in game terms is to play the game the way the devs wrote it. Coming up with a pacifist dwarf that refuses to have anything to do with violence is a sure way to keep you as a level 1 character forever.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
Majority of mmo community dont even know this they just play what most devs put on market.
Only a small portion realy want a sandbox with real rpg and all you mentioned im affraid.
Its all about money thats why this dumb down process over years with mmorpg/rpg's.
Games played:AC1-Darktide'99-2000-AC2-Darktide/dawnsong2003-2005,Lineage2-2005-2006 and now Darkfall-2009.....
In between WoW few months AoC few months and some f2p also all very short few weeks.
In a real rpg, you can only do what the GM lets you do. It sometimes can be a wierd and wacky experience (depending on the gm). Some GMS let you talk your way out, some don't. I tried playing a talker once in AD&D, didn't work for me either. I even had 4 friends playing and helping me out, it only lasts so long.
I'm not trying to say that the computer gms are anywhere near a human gm, but don't go off saying you can't play a different role than someone else, you work with what you got. Eventually i believe a game will come out where you don't have to worry about fighting, it won't be a open PvP game of course.
I think you've touched on something here. Many of todays gamers won't participate in anything that doesn't offer some sort of reward. Whether it's experience points or an item upgrade, a good percentage of gamers today are solely motivated by actual physical in-game rewards, in my opinion. I get more gratification from the little things, even if they are not recognized by the developers or other players. Its more personal than that for me.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
I get paid fortnightly and have never ever heard that word used to describe my pay schedule (yes, I'm American). Any reference to my pay schedule always says "every two weeks" or "biweekly" (which in the US means "every two weeks" not "twice a week"). Honestly, if they did refer to me being paid fortnightly, it'd make me feel like I was being employed in the nineteenth century. Remember, the speed of light is 1.803
Then you've got a really crappy GM. A decent GM doesn't drag you around by the nose through adventures they're determined are going to play out exactly as they are written whether you like it or not. I've played under those, they wrote a book and damn it, you're going to do things exactly as they wrote it or else. But you know something? I'd never play with someone like that again because I value my freedom. If I want to talk my way out of an encounter, or even forsee it and go around it entirely, I want to be able to do it. My attempt might fail, it might be more difficult than going straight through, but the whole point of an RPG is the freedom to do whatever you want to do, within the broad confines of the game world and game physics.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
I agree with you. I don't play to get stuff or to wave my e-peen around, I play to have a good time. The experience itself is the only reward I care about. I couldn't care less if I have one more piece of worthless glittering swag to wave around at people, I shop-dump all of that nonsense because it's not the point or purpose of playing the game fro me.
That's why I'm adamant that an MMO is not set up as an RPG, no matter what letters they use in their name, because MMOs are designed for one specific type of gameplay, unlike an RPG where there's a wide world of possibilities.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
While I concur a decent GM doesn't drag you around by the nose to complete an adventure, a decent GM will sometimes rein in the players when they go off course, because otherwise the game can tend to get unfun. This may be caused by any number of things, including some outside the game world (players sometimes don't get along and start causing trouble for example), and while the sledgehammer approach isn't necessarily appropriate for all of them, for some it works.
Then again, is it really a sledgehammer if the GM says "Hey Bob, I know you like being the diplomat and all, but Joe, Gus, Glen and Larry they like the fighting, not 15 minutes of discussion?"
so !op by definition !this day you could be a blacksmith crafting armor ,bargaining price of other player repair or such !the next day you could decide visist your daughter in stormwind only to find out horde dissrespected her !etc!i made these up but
for an idea like your to works!all party included have to be restricted to rp way
last i checked rp isnt easy to enforce since ,there are always (!#%@#$^who want to screw the rp!)are you perrmitted to wage war on the disbeliever)how does it work ?can we see stream exemple of such happening in any game .
im sure there are becasue i met some rp player in guildwars 2 week or so ago they were in pre-searing it was nice to watch them doing this but when a @#%#&;* decided to do his act(being an a0-@#$%)the rper couldnt just pvp him since they where in the small camp (air mage)if they could have done something !would it have been better !im trying to understand !
how do you include rp in a massive mutliplayer online game.we all role play in these but not to the extent these rper do?
just take the massive part in any mmo
i can tell you,the list of massive multiplayer is very short if you add the condition it has to be f2p
the list is even shorter
so i bet rp is even more scarce!i sure havent seen a lot
eq2 is one that has ton of rper,wow,gw probably other but all these rper all face one issue
other player being pissed off because they cant piss off rper
yes some player love to annoy other .they could go to pvp server or pve server but they go to rp server
(often more player<but all those in rp server are for the most part avid rper)the guild is made of rper
they compose their story ,i bet blizzard gets ton of idea from those guys if you check youtube youll see ton of rper video
saw 2 very funny one yesterday(wow)
so how would the rp community like to see rp included we all know the way it is right now dont work!
Where did i say they dragged me around? I said you are limited by your gm. You can't do whatever the heck you want. The gm may wing it or ask for the session to be delayed while they prepare something of better quality.
In any event, i mostly agree with you. I'd like to see a game where you could survive without fighting. But i don't think the majority see it that way. Devs know combat, and therefore they give you what they know.