Please tell me you design or help to design any MMORPG, everything would make sense then.
Whereas Tabletop RPGs are a genre onto it's own, they are also the backbone of MMORPGs. You can not create an MMORPG by randomly throwing together concepts (even if that is what today's MMORPG developers do). An MMORPG must first be conceptually laid out in the same exact manner as any Tabletop RPG, with the understanding of the differences (ie. combat in terms of "rounds" when compared with "real time"). This says that this thread goes far beyond "imagining" anything. It actually comes down to understanding the subject. Perhaps you should learn to think about the subject.
Are you stating that the "dice" aspect of Tabletop RPGs are not compatible with MMORPGs? If you are not, then I have nothing further to add to that particular statement involving specifically "dice." If however you are stating the "dice" aspect of Tabletop RPGs are not compatible with MMORPGs, you could not be more wrong. The "dice" aspects of Tabletop RPGs, when translated into MMORPGs, are actually better suited in an MMORPG than they are even in any Tabletop RPG. Knowing where the "dice" aspects should be, would be better for MMORPGs, when compared to companies throwing RNG (same as "dice" mind you) anywhere they can use to nickel and dime their playerbase to death.
There are some aspects that are not translatable from one to the other, but these actually number far and few. Also the foundation of both Tabletop RPGs and MMORPGs are exactly the same foundations. That foundation comes down to "options a player has to interact with and within a world and-or storyline, through a character." Companies appear to be clueless to this one fact, and many among the playerbase do not understand the workings of the systems in either genre, to know this to be the case either.
So let me now properly rephrase the question you asked, so it at least sounds like you know what you are speaking about, "What design elements from car engines should apply to cars?" You are welcomed.
Yes I've done professional design work on RPGs in the past.
Tabletop RPGs are not the backbone of MMORPGs. They're the evolutionary descendent. A handful of the traits inherited from the old species are relevant. But environment and food sources of the new species are completely different, so many of the older traits aren't relevant, and some are outright detrimental. A non-digital tabletop game and a digital MMO are completely different beasts.
Saying that things must be "conceptually laid out" is useless. Yes, products must be designed. Designers do that. Some design elements can be shared, and certain broad concepts (like efficiency) even apply universally. But when you're tasked with designing a peg for the square hole, it's a design failure to say "Well...round pegs worked for that other problem. Let's do those again!"
Dice aren't automatically incompatible with MMORPGs, but you have to understand the purpose of dice in tabletop gaming is produce more dynamic results so that the decisions are more interesting and varied, as well as bringing a gambling element (while gamers enjoy pretending that BF Skinner's "skinner box" only applies to games they hate, the reality is it applies to every game they ever landed a critical strike in, in addition to easier to demonize games like slot machines. So usually those bludgeoning game A with "skinner box" insults go right back to playing their game B which does the exact same thing in a slightly different way.) A digital game isn't forced to just use dice and cards to achieve that randomness; the player isn't directly the one performing the underlying mechanics, so the game rules don't have to be simplified to a couple die-rolls and can actually be such complicated rules that no random elements at all are required (when enough dynamic factors impact each other, the game effectively feels random to players...even if we ignored the fact that arguably even when it's a "random die roll" in a computer game it's not actually random.)
A car's bucket seat is translatable to a subway car. But we're not discussing whether things can be translated. We're discussing whether they should be. The core of what I'm saying is that nostalgia alone is not a good reason to bring these elements over. Unless they serve specific purpose(s) relevant to the platform, it's not going to be a good idea. And of course there's a niche for a game that just goes ridiculously hard at the nostalgia appeal, having dice fly all over the screen, covered in blood, with wild dramatic effect, but in that case the purpose being served is pure nostalgia and not actually that dice are a particularly good way to handle combat in a videogame.
Tabletop RPGs are in no way the "engine" of any videogame RPGs. They're a specific type of RPG optimized around the specific way they're played. Just as videogame RPGs are optimized around their platform.
I'd agree with your sentiment, Axehilt, but at the same time, disagree with some of the details. The biggest difference is that I see PnP RP games using mechanisms that are simple in order to facilitate game play. Die rolls to approximate randomness or simple systems to abstract very complex real world concepts. (Hit Points as a measure of Life force). PnP is optimized to be simple to understand and easy/quick to use. Only simple math is involved.
The computerized RP game, from its earliest, single player versions to the latest MMORPG have universally adapted the same simplistic mechanisms as their PnP ancestors. We still use the Hit Points and Armor Class abstractions pretty much unchanged from their 1974 D&D origins. How is that optimized around their platform? I don't see that. Most systems don't even use real numbers as opposed to integer math. The combat resolution process relies on simplistic systems designed around analog methods to resolve a conflict, and doesn't take advantage of the computer's inherent mathematical prowess.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Theoretically most RPGs still use random number rolls (dice rolls). Even most FPS now use random number rolls to determine the range of damage along with incorporating other RPG elements into those games. MMORPGs still use mostly random number rolls to determine things. They just trick you into thinking you are actually able to dodge an attack manually in most cases. In reality all you are doing is pushing a certain button at a certain time. Something that has been done since MMORPGs were created. MMORPGs have always been held back by band with in terms of combat, but I still enjoy turn based combat sometimes. It's far more strategic. Games like Divinity Original Sin and Shadowrun have done pretty well even in this market where most people want action, action, action.
Nobody is saying random elements are automatically bad. What I'm saying is every design element must justify itself. Tradition or nostalgia are bad justifications. Automatically translating game mechanics from completely different genres (tabletop RPGs) without thinking about how well they fit is just bad game design. And that's why the better games strip out to-hit rolls but keep the random elements that are still relevant (random procs, damage variance, loot unpredictability, etc.)
For FPSes they usually vary cone of fire not damage with randomness (and sometimes crits.) This is done mostly to feel a bit more aesthetically correct since the momentum of a bullet is unlikely to actually vary all that much, so it's damage potential is pretty constant (though its angle of incidence and the amount of material(s) it has to travel through to inflict damage could be modeled better in most games.)
Not sure what you mean by someone getting tricked that dodging was possible when it wasn't. I've never had difficulty figuring that out on first try (although usually it's a little nuanced; obviously at some point you pull far enough away from that mob in WOW that you are no longer hit by melee attacks and if you duck behind the right line of sight cover you can dodge spells too.)
Nothing's wrong with turn-based combat. It's only wrong to automatically try to truck over a bunch of old game mechanics that may or may not fit with the game being designed. It's not wrong to bring over the ideas that do fit, but it sort of begs the question "Do we really feel these genres are so overwhelmingly innovative that we should start re-hashing ideas that've been done before?"
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The biggest difference with PnP, was they were "co-op", not "massively". (Although I do recall reading about big sessions at conventions) The other was that it was a hell of a lot easier to publish a 40 page booklet with maps and dungeons than a multi-gig update patch for a video game. They also could take weeks or longer to complete. The "instance" was 100% custom tailored to the group. Each encounter meant something. I don't recall terms like "Trash Mobs" playing PNP.
Theoretically most RPGs still use random number rolls (dice rolls). Even most FPS now use random number rolls to determine the range of damage along with incorporating other RPG elements into those games. MMORPGs still use mostly random number rolls to determine things. They just trick you into thinking you are actually able to dodge an attack manually in most cases. In reality all you are doing is pushing a certain button at a certain time. Something that has been done since MMORPGs were created. MMORPGs have always been held back by band with in terms of combat, but I still enjoy turn based combat sometimes. It's far more strategic. Games like Divinity Original Sin and Shadowrun have done pretty well even in this market where most people want action, action, action.
Nobody is saying random elements are automatically bad. What I'm saying is every design element must justify itself. Tradition or nostalgia are bad justifications. Automatically translating game mechanics from completely different genres (tabletop RPGs) without thinking about how well they fit is just bad game design. And that's why the better games strip out to-hit rolls but keep the random elements that are still relevant (random procs, damage variance, loot unpredictability, etc.)
For FPSes they usually vary cone of fire not damage with randomness (and sometimes crits.) This is done mostly to feel a bit more aesthetically correct since the momentum of a bullet is unlikely to actually vary all that much, so it's damage potential is pretty constant (though its angle of incidence and the amount of material(s) it has to travel through to inflict damage could be modeled better in most games.)
Not sure what you mean by someone getting tricked that dodging was possible when it wasn't. I've never had difficulty figuring that out on first try (although usually it's a little nuanced; obviously at some point you pull far enough away from that mob in WOW that you are no longer hit by melee attacks and if you duck behind the right line of sight cover you can dodge spells too.)
Nothing's wrong with turn-based combat. It's only wrong to automatically try to truck over a bunch of old game mechanics that may or may not fit with the game being designed. It's not wrong to bring over the ideas that do fit, but it sort of begs the question "Do we really feel these genres are so overwhelmingly innovative that we should start re-hashing ideas that've been done before?"
Gotta backup what Axe is saying ^ He is correct.
Design decisions shouldn't be arbitrary. It's incredibly common to have ideas that sound great on paper. Every good game designer discards more good ideas than you realize, because they have to understand that just because an idea sounds good, doesn't mean it's right for the game they are currently making.
There are some aspects of Tabletop that can carry over, but I believe that most (if not all) of them have already been tried. I just want certain studios to try going a bit further w/ some of those concepts.
The computerized RP game, from its earliest, single player versions to the latest MMORPG have universally adapted the same simplistic mechanisms as their PnP ancestors. We still use the Hit Points and Armor Class abstractions pretty much unchanged from their 1974 D&D origins. How is that optimized around their platform? I don't see that. Most systems don't even use real numbers as opposed to integer math. The combat resolution process relies on simplistic systems designed around analog methods to resolve a conflict, and doesn't take advantage of the computer's inherent mathematical prowess.
That is only partly true. For example, games like D3 have timing systems, and physics-based effects (like a slow-time bubble) that is simply not possible to do (in all the details) with pnp. The calculation burden on the players will be too much.
Hence, i think this whole topic is just .. not very useful given the huge gap between these two kinds of hobbies.
I'd agree with your sentiment, Axehilt, but at the same time, disagree with some of the details. The biggest difference is that I see PnP RP games using mechanisms that are simple in order to facilitate game play. Die rolls to approximate randomness or simple systems to abstract very complex real world concepts. (Hit Points as a measure of Life force). PnP is optimized to be simple to understand and easy/quick to use. Only simple math is involved.
The computerized RP game, from its earliest, single player versions to the latest MMORPG have universally adapted the same simplistic mechanisms as their PnP ancestors. We still use the Hit Points and Armor Class abstractions pretty much unchanged from their 1974 D&D origins. How is that optimized around their platform? I don't see that. Most systems don't even use real numbers as opposed to integer math. The combat resolution process relies on simplistic systems designed around analog methods to resolve a conflict, and doesn't take advantage of the computer's inherent mathematical prowess.
Both genres care about keeping things easy to understand, so that kind of simplification (hitpoints) is perfectly fine. It's relevant to both genres.
It's the tabletop-specific traits like dice and their deliberately fast-and-simple combat systems that don't need to be copy-pasted over. Like how Bioware's combat became actually enjoyable once they finally got away from D&D based games (especially once they got to Mass Effect and it's time-slows and gravity wells.) Or how the gold box games were alright, but Eye of the Beholder just ditched official D&D rules entirely and was a complete blast to play as a result.
Armor class exists in both types of RPGs, but the implementation details vary. It's not like armor is unchanged since 1974 D&D, as at least in AD&D 2nd it was a -10 to 10 system where lower values were better and armor was an avoidance stat which determined the chance you'd completely avoid damage. Naturally that's a lot different from WOW armor which is a mitigation stat and doesn't interact with to-hit chance at all. So it's a different system appropriate to each genre, both of which happen to be called "armor".
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Both genres care about keeping things easy to understand, so that kind of simplification (hitpoints) is perfectly fine. It's relevant to both genres.
Not really.
Combat mechanics in video games can be complicated, if you want to theorycraft & optimize. For example, the breakpoint of attack speeds of hydra spell in D3 has been discovered by extensive research, and some even posted data, and their analysis. And if you want to use the information in combination of your gear to optimize your dps, you need at least to use a spreadsheet to do the calculations.
While it is still simplified from the real world (as opposed to true physics based simulation), it is a lot more complicated than what a pnp RPG can do.
The computerized RP game, from its earliest, single player versions to the latest MMORPG have universally adapted the same simplistic mechanisms as their PnP ancestors. We still use the Hit Points and Armor Class abstractions pretty much unchanged from their 1974 D&D origins. How is that optimized around their platform? I don't see that. Most systems don't even use real numbers as opposed to integer math. The combat resolution process relies on simplistic systems designed around analog methods to resolve a conflict, and doesn't take advantage of the computer's inherent mathematical prowess.
That is only partly true. For example, games like D3 have timing systems, and physics-based effects (like a slow-time bubble) that is simply not possible to do (in all the details) with pnp. The calculation burden on the players will be too much.
Hence, i think this whole topic is just .. not very useful given the huge gap between these two kinds of hobbies.
That's true if you accept D3 as a full MMORPG. The analogy I would use for that is D3 is an instance in a lobby-based game. Even if you count D3, the physics effects only affect a localized area, not a universal or an open-world phenomena. As for not being able to simulate a slow-time in PnP, I had a prototype combat system that would take 5 seasoned gamers over an hour to resolve a 1-second action round in a 4-on-4 fight. (That system was dumped the next week)
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
I would kill for a DM client like Neverwinter Night's combined with player created content.
Of course it's wishful thinking since it's pretty next to impossible to implement something that with all the rampant exploiters that are home to the average MMO.
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
Combat mechanics in video games can be complicated, if you want to theorycraft & optimize. For example, the breakpoint of attack speeds of hydra spell in D3 has been discovered by extensive research, and some even posted data, and their analysis. And if you want to use the information in combination of your gear to optimize your dps, you need at least to use a spreadsheet to do the calculations.
While it is still simplified from the real world (as opposed to true physics based simulation), it is a lot more complicated than what a pnp RPG can do.
It feels like you're trying to disagree without actually saying anything that disagreed with what I said. On top of that you're using an example game which flat-out has simple hitpoint design ("hitpoints reach 0 and you die"). Those spreadsheets are not needed to play Diablo 3. They are an optional optimization at the high end of play.
The best designs are "simple to learn, difficult to master" and simplicity is a required element of that.
So no, both genres (tabletop RPGs and videogame RPGs) definitely do care about keeping things easy to understand.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I'd agree with your sentiment, Axehilt, but at the same time, disagree with some of the details. The biggest difference is that I see PnP RP games using mechanisms that are simple in order to facilitate game play. Die rolls to approximate randomness or simple systems to abstract very complex real world concepts. (Hit Points as a measure of Life force). PnP is optimized to be simple to understand and easy/quick to use. Only simple math is involved.
The computerized RP game, from its earliest, single player versions to the latest MMORPG have universally adapted the same simplistic mechanisms as their PnP ancestors. We still use the Hit Points and Armor Class abstractions pretty much unchanged from their 1974 D&D origins. How is that optimized around their platform? I don't see that. Most systems don't even use real numbers as opposed to integer math. The combat resolution process relies on simplistic systems designed around analog methods to resolve a conflict, and doesn't take advantage of the computer's inherent mathematical prowess.
Both genres care about keeping things easy to understand, so that kind of simplification (hitpoints) is perfectly fine. It's relevant to both genres.
It's the tabletop-specific traits like dice and their deliberately fast-and-simple combat systems that don't need to be copy-pasted over. Like how Bioware's combat became actually enjoyable once they finally got away from D&D based games (especially once they got to Mass Effect and it's time-slows and gravity wells.) Or how the gold box games were alright, but Eye of the Beholder just ditched official D&D rules entirely and was a complete blast to play as a result.
Armor class exists in both types of RPGs, but the implementation details vary. It's not like armor is unchanged since 1974 D&D, as at least in AD&D 2nd it was a -10 to 10 system where lower values were better and armor was an avoidance stat which determined the chance you'd completely avoid damage. Naturally that's a lot different from WOW armor which is a mitigation stat and doesn't interact with to-hit chance at all. So it's a different system appropriate to each genre, both of which happen to be called "armor".
Easy to understand is overrated. An easy-to-understand system is essential in PnP games, as the players/GMs are the ones that do the calculations of the combat(conflict) resolution. With a computer used to do the computations, the method of abstraction and method of presentation do not need to be the same. Hit Points is both abstraction and presentation. A complex abstraction is possible, with a simple traffic light presentation to relay this information to the player. Hit points do not easily account for esoteric damage -- hydrostatic shock, asphyxiation, caustic substances, environmental factors, etc. Maybe there is a better way to abstract the effects of violence on the human body.
The Hit Point system as both abstraction and presentation allows the player to know exactly how fit they are. A traffic light presentation provides more degree of uncertainty. Nature (the human body) isn't predictable. No one knows if a person is 3 minutes from death or hours. The accuracy of hit points removes the uncertainty of the fight-flight response, making that decision more predictable.
My point is that conventions and mechanisms that facilitate PnP play aren't necessarily the best way to abstract the human body and pain / injury in a computerized RPG. Maybe there are better ways to do this abstraction, ways that require a computer to do the math. No game, to my knowledge, has attempted to explore an alternative to abstracting the human body with Hit Points. At a fundamental level, I think this is a failure, blindly adapting a PnP construct into a computerized model.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Easy to understand is overrated. An easy-to-understand system is essential in PnP games, as the players/GMs are the ones that do the calculations of the combat(conflict) resolution. With a computer used to do the computations, the method of abstraction and method of presentation do not need to be the same. Hit Points is both abstraction and presentation. A complex abstraction is possible, with a simple traffic light presentation to relay this information to the player. Hit points do not easily account for esoteric damage -- hydrostatic shock, asphyxiation, caustic substances, environmental factors, etc. Maybe there is a better way to abstract the effects of violence on the human body.
The Hit Point system as both abstraction and presentation allows the player to know exactly how fit they are. A traffic light presentation provides more degree of uncertainty. Nature (the human body) isn't predictable. No one knows if a person is 3 minutes from death or hours. The accuracy of hit points removes the uncertainty of the fight-flight response, making that decision more predictable.
My point is that conventions and mechanisms that facilitate PnP play aren't necessarily the best way to abstract the human body and pain / injury in a computerized RPG. Maybe there are better ways to do this abstraction, ways that require a computer to do the math. No game, to my knowledge, has attempted to explore an alternative to abstracting the human body with Hit Points. At a fundamental level, I think this is a failure, blindly adapting a PnP construct into a computerized model.
Well you understand that what I'm saying is true: keeping things simple to understand is important to both genres. After all you ran through your more elaborate system (under the hood) and then deliberately kept things simple to understand (with a "simple traffic light".)
It also illustrates how keeping things simple to understand doesn't prevent game depth. But you do need some way for players to figure out what's going on, if there are things worth optimizing against.
Although overall the idea of taking something crisp and functional and clear like the hitpoint bar and turning it into some vague unclear indicator seems wrought with all sorts of problems. It just flat-out wouldn't work in isolation. It'd be like the Gary Gygax of hitpoint bars* "SURPRISE, YOU'RE DEAD HAHAHA!" which of course is maybe fun for certain sadistic designers, but not fun at all for the people actually playing the game.
(*To be clear this isn't a reference to Gygax being dead so much as a reference to him being known as a very sadistic designer fond of ridiculously brutal mechanics that may have been fun for him to inflict on others but certainly weren't that fun to experience since they provided no indication something might be going wrong until the moment everyone just up and died.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Might seem weird but I will say more complex combat. We were big fans of star fleet battles, champions and rolemaster and all of those had much more complex combat than these current MMORPG.
We are definitely moving towards online versions of gauntlet and not online versions of D&D these past few years.
Better character creation is a huge deal as well though. Stop worrying so much about having 10,000 different ways to shape your nose and make a system that actually has interesting and impactful character creation.
The best part of listening to the people stating that Tabletop RPG (PnP) and MMORPG mechanics do not mix...
My initial strategy categories system, the one that now holds over 5.4 million strategy categories (not to mention the character options in each category), was specifically intended for a Tabletop RPG. That system was to be the foundation of the entire Tabletop RPG game.
As time has progressed, the main focus has been toward that same exact Tabletop RPG system being translated into an MMORPG system.
So everyone can attempt to BS their "knowledge" about what is compatible with what, but I have already done exactly such translation from one system into another system.
From what both narrative and social perspectives, there seems to be a wide gap between the two.
To better understand where you are coming from and why you feel other responses are "BS", could you tell us which MMO it was that you did this with and which RPG system you used?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
The closest you can get is an CORPG (which mean instances). Not n MMORPG. If you start adding in MMO features, you are pushing further away from tabletop RPGs.
Its just a bad idea in general to look for a tabletop experience from a MMOPRG. It is not possible.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
The computerized RP game, from its earliest, single player versions to the latest MMORPG have universally adapted the same simplistic mechanisms as their PnP ancestors. We still use the Hit Points and Armor Class abstractions pretty much unchanged from their 1974 D&D origins. How is that optimized around their platform? I don't see that. Most systems don't even use real numbers as opposed to integer math. The combat resolution process relies on simplistic systems designed around analog methods to resolve a conflict, and doesn't take advantage of the computer's inherent mathematical prowess.
That is only partly true. For example, games like D3 have timing systems, and physics-based effects (like a slow-time bubble) that is simply not possible to do (in all the details) with pnp. The calculation burden on the players will be too much.
Hence, i think this whole topic is just .. not very useful given the huge gap between these two kinds of hobbies.
That's true if you accept D3 as a full MMORPG. The analogy I would use for that is D3 is an instance in a lobby-based game. Even if you count D3, the physics effects only affect a localized area, not a universal or an open-world phenomena. As for not being able to simulate a slow-time in PnP, I had a prototype combat system that would take 5 seasoned gamers over an hour to resolve a 1-second action round in a 4-on-4 fight. (That system was dumped the next week)
Whether D3 is a "full" MMORPG is irrelevant to the discussion of combat mechanics since they can easily be done in another type of video games. In fact, games like Marvel Heroes does exactly that (not exactly the slow-time thing, but certainly a lot of spatial & physical stuff).
And i did not say it is impossible to do it in PnP, i say the calculation burden is too much. In fact, your example make exactly that point. Any simulation with equations can be done by hand & calculators, but few would go to that length to play a game.
So the point is that the computation abilities of a video game system opens up stuff that just not practical (if you don't want to use the word impossible) to do in PnP game. And clearly video game system cannot be as "free-form" as pnp.
The best part of listening to the people stating that Tabletop RPG (PnP) and MMORPG mechanics do not mix...
My initial strategy categories system, the one that now holds over 5.4 million strategy categories (not to mention the character options in each category), was specifically intended for a Tabletop RPG. That system was to be the foundation of the entire Tabletop RPG game.
As time has progressed, the main focus has been toward that same exact Tabletop RPG system being translated into an MMORPG system.
So everyone can attempt to BS their "knowledge" about what is compatible with what, but I have already done exactly such translation from one system into another system.
From what both narrative and social perspectives, there seems to be a wide gap between the two.
To better understand where you are coming from and why you feel other responses are "BS", could you tell us which MMO it was that you did this with and which RPG system you used?
Yeah.
"If you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day, you're the asshole." -Raylan Givens, Justified
Along the same lines: If you think everyone else's take on the subject is BS...
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
See the "Strategy Categories' System" part? That is the foundation of an intended Tabletop RPG and it also just so happens to be the foundation of an intended MMORPG now as well. Was it made yet? No. Does it matter that it was made yet? No.
It's a "can we?" vs. "should we?" thing.
Stating that you have designed a game that way in no way gets at whether it was a good idea. I might have designed a MMORPG with the foundation of Snakes and Ladders. Doesn't mean it'd be a good idea.
Because games need to be aware of their context (how they're played and by who), and asking which tabletop features people want to see just automatically invites a lot of bad ill-considered ideas.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Originally posted by Distopia If there is one area I can think of MMORPG's could implement from PnP, it's true class interdependency.
Which tabletop RPGs were good at that? I always felt like WOW and EQ did a dramatically better job of classes relying on each other's strengths than what I saw in early AD&D (of course 4th edition released and took a lot of inspiration from MMORPGs by implementing some of the same mechanics.)
I suppose to some degree the DM could have fostered a greater atmosphere of that, with frequent puzzles tailored to each character's skills.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Comments
I'd agree with your sentiment, Axehilt, but at the same time, disagree with some of the details. The biggest difference is that I see PnP RP games using mechanisms that are simple in order to facilitate game play. Die rolls to approximate randomness or simple systems to abstract very complex real world concepts. (Hit Points as a measure of Life force). PnP is optimized to be simple to understand and easy/quick to use. Only simple math is involved.
The computerized RP game, from its earliest, single player versions to the latest MMORPG have universally adapted the same simplistic mechanisms as their PnP ancestors. We still use the Hit Points and Armor Class abstractions pretty much unchanged from their 1974 D&D origins. How is that optimized around their platform? I don't see that. Most systems don't even use real numbers as opposed to integer math. The combat resolution process relies on simplistic systems designed around analog methods to resolve a conflict, and doesn't take advantage of the computer's inherent mathematical prowess.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Nobody is saying random elements are automatically bad. What I'm saying is every design element must justify itself. Tradition or nostalgia are bad justifications. Automatically translating game mechanics from completely different genres (tabletop RPGs) without thinking about how well they fit is just bad game design. And that's why the better games strip out to-hit rolls but keep the random elements that are still relevant (random procs, damage variance, loot unpredictability, etc.)
For FPSes they usually vary cone of fire not damage with randomness (and sometimes crits.) This is done mostly to feel a bit more aesthetically correct since the momentum of a bullet is unlikely to actually vary all that much, so it's damage potential is pretty constant (though its angle of incidence and the amount of material(s) it has to travel through to inflict damage could be modeled better in most games.)
Not sure what you mean by someone getting tricked that dodging was possible when it wasn't. I've never had difficulty figuring that out on first try (although usually it's a little nuanced; obviously at some point you pull far enough away from that mob in WOW that you are no longer hit by melee attacks and if you duck behind the right line of sight cover you can dodge spells too.)
Nothing's wrong with turn-based combat. It's only wrong to automatically try to truck over a bunch of old game mechanics that may or may not fit with the game being designed. It's not wrong to bring over the ideas that do fit, but it sort of begs the question "Do we really feel these genres are so overwhelmingly innovative that we should start re-hashing ideas that've been done before?"
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The biggest difference with PnP, was they were "co-op", not "massively". (Although I do recall reading about big sessions at conventions) The other was that it was a hell of a lot easier to publish a 40 page booklet with maps and dungeons than a multi-gig update patch for a video game. They also could take weeks or longer to complete. The "instance" was 100% custom tailored to the group. Each encounter meant something. I don't recall terms like "Trash Mobs" playing PNP.
Gotta backup what Axe is saying ^ He is correct.
Design decisions shouldn't be arbitrary. It's incredibly common to have ideas that sound great on paper. Every good game designer discards more good ideas than you realize, because they have to understand that just because an idea sounds good, doesn't mean it's right for the game they are currently making.
There are some aspects of Tabletop that can carry over, but I believe that most (if not all) of them have already been tried. I just want certain studios to try going a bit further w/ some of those concepts.
That is only partly true. For example, games like D3 have timing systems, and physics-based effects (like a slow-time bubble) that is simply not possible to do (in all the details) with pnp. The calculation burden on the players will be too much.
Hence, i think this whole topic is just .. not very useful given the huge gap between these two kinds of hobbies.
Both genres care about keeping things easy to understand, so that kind of simplification (hitpoints) is perfectly fine. It's relevant to both genres.
It's the tabletop-specific traits like dice and their deliberately fast-and-simple combat systems that don't need to be copy-pasted over. Like how Bioware's combat became actually enjoyable once they finally got away from D&D based games (especially once they got to Mass Effect and it's time-slows and gravity wells.) Or how the gold box games were alright, but Eye of the Beholder just ditched official D&D rules entirely and was a complete blast to play as a result.
Armor class exists in both types of RPGs, but the implementation details vary. It's not like armor is unchanged since 1974 D&D, as at least in AD&D 2nd it was a -10 to 10 system where lower values were better and armor was an avoidance stat which determined the chance you'd completely avoid damage. Naturally that's a lot different from WOW armor which is a mitigation stat and doesn't interact with to-hit chance at all. So it's a different system appropriate to each genre, both of which happen to be called "armor".
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Not really.
Combat mechanics in video games can be complicated, if you want to theorycraft & optimize. For example, the breakpoint of attack speeds of hydra spell in D3 has been discovered by extensive research, and some even posted data, and their analysis. And if you want to use the information in combination of your gear to optimize your dps, you need at least to use a spreadsheet to do the calculations.
While it is still simplified from the real world (as opposed to true physics based simulation), it is a lot more complicated than what a pnp RPG can do.
That's true if you accept D3 as a full MMORPG. The analogy I would use for that is D3 is an instance in a lobby-based game. Even if you count D3, the physics effects only affect a localized area, not a universal or an open-world phenomena. As for not being able to simulate a slow-time in PnP, I had a prototype combat system that would take 5 seasoned gamers over an hour to resolve a 1-second action round in a 4-on-4 fight. (That system was dumped the next week)
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
I would kill for a DM client like Neverwinter Night's combined with player created content.
Of course it's wishful thinking since it's pretty next to impossible to implement something that with all the rampant exploiters that are home to the average MMO.
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
https://www.ashesofcreation.com/ref/Callaron/
It feels like you're trying to disagree without actually saying anything that disagreed with what I said. On top of that you're using an example game which flat-out has simple hitpoint design ("hitpoints reach 0 and you die"). Those spreadsheets are not needed to play Diablo 3. They are an optional optimization at the high end of play.
The best designs are "simple to learn, difficult to master" and simplicity is a required element of that.
So no, both genres (tabletop RPGs and videogame RPGs) definitely do care about keeping things easy to understand.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Easy to understand is overrated. An easy-to-understand system is essential in PnP games, as the players/GMs are the ones that do the calculations of the combat(conflict) resolution. With a computer used to do the computations, the method of abstraction and method of presentation do not need to be the same. Hit Points is both abstraction and presentation. A complex abstraction is possible, with a simple traffic light presentation to relay this information to the player. Hit points do not easily account for esoteric damage -- hydrostatic shock, asphyxiation, caustic substances, environmental factors, etc. Maybe there is a better way to abstract the effects of violence on the human body.
The Hit Point system as both abstraction and presentation allows the player to know exactly how fit they are. A traffic light presentation provides more degree of uncertainty. Nature (the human body) isn't predictable. No one knows if a person is 3 minutes from death or hours. The accuracy of hit points removes the uncertainty of the fight-flight response, making that decision more predictable.
My point is that conventions and mechanisms that facilitate PnP play aren't necessarily the best way to abstract the human body and pain / injury in a computerized RPG. Maybe there are better ways to do this abstraction, ways that require a computer to do the math. No game, to my knowledge, has attempted to explore an alternative to abstracting the human body with Hit Points. At a fundamental level, I think this is a failure, blindly adapting a PnP construct into a computerized model.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Well you understand that what I'm saying is true: keeping things simple to understand is important to both genres. After all you ran through your more elaborate system (under the hood) and then deliberately kept things simple to understand (with a "simple traffic light".)
It also illustrates how keeping things simple to understand doesn't prevent game depth. But you do need some way for players to figure out what's going on, if there are things worth optimizing against.
Although overall the idea of taking something crisp and functional and clear like the hitpoint bar and turning it into some vague unclear indicator seems wrought with all sorts of problems. It just flat-out wouldn't work in isolation. It'd be like the Gary Gygax of hitpoint bars* "SURPRISE, YOU'RE DEAD HAHAHA!" which of course is maybe fun for certain sadistic designers, but not fun at all for the people actually playing the game.
(*To be clear this isn't a reference to Gygax being dead so much as a reference to him being known as a very sadistic designer fond of ridiculously brutal mechanics that may have been fun for him to inflict on others but certainly weren't that fun to experience since they provided no indication something might be going wrong until the moment everyone just up and died.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Might seem weird but I will say more complex combat. We were big fans of star fleet battles, champions and rolemaster and all of those had much more complex combat than these current MMORPG.
We are definitely moving towards online versions of gauntlet and not online versions of D&D these past few years.
Better character creation is a huge deal as well though. Stop worrying so much about having 10,000 different ways to shape your nose and make a system that actually has interesting and impactful character creation.
From what both narrative and social perspectives, there seems to be a wide gap between the two.
To better understand where you are coming from and why you feel other responses are "BS", could you tell us which MMO it was that you did this with and which RPG system you used?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
The closest you can get is an CORPG (which mean instances). Not n MMORPG. If you start adding in MMO features, you are pushing further away from tabletop RPGs.
Its just a bad idea in general to look for a tabletop experience from a MMOPRG. It is not possible.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Whether D3 is a "full" MMORPG is irrelevant to the discussion of combat mechanics since they can easily be done in another type of video games. In fact, games like Marvel Heroes does exactly that (not exactly the slow-time thing, but certainly a lot of spatial & physical stuff).
And i did not say it is impossible to do it in PnP, i say the calculation burden is too much. In fact, your example make exactly that point. Any simulation with equations can be done by hand & calculators, but few would go to that length to play a game.
So the point is that the computation abilities of a video game system opens up stuff that just not practical (if you don't want to use the word impossible) to do in PnP game. And clearly video game system cannot be as "free-form" as pnp.
Yeah.
"If you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day, you're the asshole." -Raylan Givens, Justified
Along the same lines: If you think everyone else's take on the subject is BS...
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
It's a "can we?" vs. "should we?" thing.
Stating that you have designed a game that way in no way gets at whether it was a good idea. I might have designed a MMORPG with the foundation of Snakes and Ladders. Doesn't mean it'd be a good idea.
Because games need to be aware of their context (how they're played and by who), and asking which tabletop features people want to see just automatically invites a lot of bad ill-considered ideas.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Which tabletop RPGs were good at that? I always felt like WOW and EQ did a dramatically better job of classes relying on each other's strengths than what I saw in early AD&D (of course 4th edition released and took a lot of inspiration from MMORPGs by implementing some of the same mechanics.)
I suppose to some degree the DM could have fostered a greater atmosphere of that, with frequent puzzles tailored to each character's skills.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver