Haven't run the math on clerics but I'm pretty sure higher level clerics get a lot more healing than that. For instance my paladin (of freedom, He's a non-PHB Chaotic-Good pally but the abilities he uses for healing are almost all core) has more points he can heal through "Lay on Hands" than he does health points, along with a few other assorted heals. And he has one of the highest HP pools in the party.
A cleric should be able to do even more using only part of their daily spells.
However my paladin does have as previously stated, one of the highest HP totals in the party, by far the best combined saves, will be able to do well over 200 damage on a smite at level 15. Plus he has social skills including a +39 to intimidate at level 12. This is using mostly PHB material and all WoTC material aside from one house rule saying the skill-focus feats makes skills into class skills that I used to get intimidate that high.
Classify that character as a role. Go ahead and try to fit that into the trinity. I dare you.
We are talking about old D&D versions first and second editions. The third edition came out early 2000's. And back then lvl 15 was rare because once a character reached lvl 20 they were considered a demigod. So after a few years of playing the game you would have a lvl 15 character if you survived. Clerics became quite good healers once 3.0 launched.
As I tried to allude to when I brought up Final Fantasy 1, a better question would be if videogames created the trinity.
MMORPGs are video games. Their roots are closer to other videogames than they are to pen and paper RPGs. Therefore, if one is looking for whether or not the MMORPG originated something, it would be wiser to look towards video games first.
As I've pointed out, Final Fantasy 1 contained a variation of the trinity long ago. You put your tankiest characters in front and the soft spongy healers and damage dealers in the back. Yes, fighters could DPS. But they couldn't DPS anywhere near as much as that squishy black belt or squishy black mage (before he runs out of MP at least) could and you generally wanted a white mage for support as well (their in battle healing wasn't great, but it was still much better than the heal potions and they provided other forms of damage mitigation too like anti-fire against fire enemies)
But it's not just Final Fantasy. You can find a variation of the trinity within the precursor to one of the first major MMOs in existance, Ultima Online. Who's precursor is... well, Ultima, obviously. Many Ultima games had a variation of the trinity, where you'd want your tanky characters up front and your squishy healers, archers, and wizards in the back. There was no taunting but there didn't need to be because the AI just went for the closest guy (so like Final Fantasy, you just put your tanks up front)
And this is a major difference between video games and (some?) pen & paper RPGs in general. In video games, THE TANK TANKS in some way, whether it's via a taunt or via positioning.
Of course, in an MMORPG, they decided that "attack the closest party member" looked dumb so instead they came up with "attack the party member who generates the most hate, taunt included", but in the end, it's the same concept. FIND A WAY TO GET THE AI TO TARGET YOUR TANK.
And that's existed in videogames long before MMOs.
(although IMHO in some ways it even exists in pen & paper RPGs, the only difference being the DM isn't a stupid AI so the effectiveness was far lower. But in the end, sure, the enemies would go for your rear lines but you'd still want the tankier characters up front to at least make that a harder thing for the enemies to do. At least before Linear Warriors & Quadratic Wizards balancing... or rather lack of balancing, kicks in)
As I tried to allude to when I brought up Final Fantasy 1, a better question would be if videogames created the trinity.
MMORPGs are video games. Their roots are closer to other videogames than they are to pen and paper RPGs. Therefore, if one is looking for whether or not the MMORPG originated something, it would be wiser to look towards video games first.
As I've pointed out, Final Fantasy 1 contained a variation of the trinity long ago. You put your tankiest characters in front and the soft spongy healers and damage dealers in the back. Yes, fighters could DPS. But they couldn't DPS anywhere near as much as that squishy black belt or squishy black mage (before he runs out of MP at least) could and you generally wanted a white mage for support as well (their in battle healing wasn't great, but it was still much better than the heal potions and they provided other forms of damage mitigation too like anti-fire against fire enemies)
But it's not just Final Fantasy. You can find a variation of the trinity within the precursor to one of the first major MMOs in existance, Ultima Online. Who's precursor is... well, Ultima, obviously. Many Ultima games had a variation of the trinity, where you'd want your tanky characters up front and your squishy healers, archers, and wizards in the back. There was no taunting but there didn't need to be because the AI just went for the closest guy (so like Final Fantasy, you just put your tanks up front)
And this is a major difference between video games and (some?) pen & paper RPGs in general. In video games, THE TANK TANKS in some way, whether it's via a taunt or via positioning.
Of course, in an MMORPG, they decided that "attack the closest party member" looked dumb so instead they came up with "attack the party member who generates the most hate, taunt included", but in the end, it's the same concept. FIND A WAY TO GET THE AI TO TARGET YOUR TANK.
And that's existed in videogames long before MMOs.
(although IMHO in some ways it even exists in pen & paper RPGs, the only difference being the DM isn't a stupid AI so the effectiveness was far lower. But in the end, sure, the enemies would go for your rear lines but you'd still want the tankier characters up front to at least make that a harder thing for the enemies to do. At least before Linear Warriors & Quadratic Wizards balancing... or rather lack of balancing, kicks in)
Actually you were all in the same place in FF1. There wasn't a front line until FF4. Did UO have a strong healing class for the tanks that were up front taking the damage? If so it sounds like they got the formula as well.
People seem to be trying to hard code the definition of a Trinity. To me the whole aspect of the tank and taunt mechanic, is being confined to having to work within the limitations of a primitive AI
Trinity is a more encompassing word and IMHO shouldn't be confined to *tank and taunt*
It is obviously about the aggro concept of which taunt is a thing. The OP is doing it again.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
My first encounter with "The Holy Trinity" was in EQ, namely Warrior, Cleric and Enchanter; it was class specific rather than role specific. Mainly because with those 3 classes a group could pretty much take on any content in the game not designed for a raid.
Later it evolved into "The Trinity" as we now call it but role based. I'd never seen it in any pen and paper games or single player/co-op RPG's before EQ.
I'm not sure if EQ can take the credit alone but it was an MMO where I first saw it, and I've been playing computer games as far back as the BBC Micro and C64 plus the usual round of geeky board and P&P games.
People seem to be trying to hard code the definition of a Trinity. To me the whole aspect of the tank and taunt mechanic, is being confined to having to work within the limitations of a primitive AI
Trinity is a more encompassing word and IMHO shouldn't be confined to *tank and taunt*
It is obviously about the aggro concept of which taunt is a thing. The OP is doing it again.
Its about finding a class that can prevent other players from getting hit by taking the damage themselves. Then finding another class that is capable of healing more then 1 person a day. You think tank and healer should be something else then please tell us.
People seem to be trying to hard code the definition of a Trinity. To me the whole aspect of the tank and taunt mechanic, is being confined to having to work within the limitations of a primitive AI
Trinity is a more encompassing word and IMHO shouldn't be confined to *tank and taunt*
It is obviously about the aggro concept of which taunt is a thing. The OP is doing it again.
Its about finding a class that can prevent other players from getting hit by taking the damage themselves. Then finding another class that is capable of healing more then 1 person a day. You think tank and healer should be something else then please tell us.
At that point you're talking about a set of roles - defense, offense, and support. Thus, making the term 'trinity' pointless as those roles have naturally existed since the beginning of time.
The trinity in MUDs and MMOs is taunt based. The easiest way to understand that is to move that system to PVP and you see it falls apart once the taunt system is ignored by the enemy. Yes, the three roles still exist in PVP. Again, because those three roles exist EVERYWHERE.
According to the people that created the games (you have those links in the thread you based this one on), according to actual history (taunt was used in several MUDs), and according to everyone's experiences and reality, the Trinity is defined by the taunt mechanic.
-- Whammy - a 64x64 miniRPG - RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right? - FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
Technically... Pen and paper games innovated the idea of a trinity, but it wasn't mandated, it was up to the players and the dungeon master.
I would say MMO's created the idea of mandating the trinity. But not going to say they were the first to implement it in video games.
I'm not sure anyone recalls but the Final Fantasy games even had the potential, by changing a party member's position between front and back. Characters in the front were more likely to be attacked. In the back would increase defense slightly and characters placed in the front had an opportunity (chance) to block back placed party members. There were also items that increased chances etc.
People seem to be trying to hard code the definition of a Trinity. To me the whole aspect of the tank and taunt mechanic, is being confined to having to work within the limitations of a primitive AI
Trinity is a more encompassing word and IMHO shouldn't be confined to *tank and taunt*
It is obviously about the aggro concept of which taunt is a thing. The OP is doing it again.
Its about finding a class that can prevent other players from getting hit by taking the damage themselves. Then finding another class that is capable of healing more then 1 person a day. You think tank and healer should be something else then please tell us.
At that point you're talking about a set of roles - defense, offense, and support. Thus, making the term 'trinity' pointless as those roles have naturally existed since the beginning of time.
The trinity in MUDs and MMOs is taunt based. The easiest way to understand that is to move that system to PVP and you see it falls apart once the taunt system is ignored by the enemy. Yes, the three roles still exist in PVP. Again, because those three roles exist EVERYWHERE.
According to the people that created the games (you have those links in the thread you based this one on), according to actual history (taunt was used in several MUDs), and according to everyone's experiences and reality, the Trinity is defined by the taunt mechanic.
So let me get this straight, the three roles exist everywhere, but only become the 'trinity' if you have a taunt mechanic?
Well if that's the way you want to define things you have your answer, no more to be said.
But if you think the presence of three roles is enough to define the trinity, then it has always been there.
It was puzzling because at one point "trinity" really included more than 3 distinct roles and you'd oft have both DPS and support/cc classes mixed in. Gone are the days of real support and crowd control classes though...
Technically... Pen and paper games innovated the idea of a trinity, but it wasn't mandated, it was up to the players and the dungeon master.
I would say MMO's created the idea of mandating the trinity. But not going to say they were the first to implement it in video games.
I'm not sure anyone recalls but the Final Fantasy games even had the potential, by changing a party member's position between front and back. Characters in the front were more likely to be attacked. In the back would increase defense slightly and characters placed in the front had an opportunity (chance) to block back placed party members. There were also items that increased chances etc.
In FF4 you had characters in the front row who took full damage. The backrow characters took 1/2 damage. So the front row characters would be considered tanks. The mage in the back row would be DPS but not the sole dps because the front row did a lot of damage as well. The cleric in the back row could heal for days on end so they fulfilled that role perfectly. FF1-3 didn't have rows so everyone took the full damage from hits. But it did have the ability to guard other players sorta making tanks but not fully.
FF4 does appear to be the earliest version of clear trinity roles being played to a full extent. 1991
I think it is actually EQ that start using trinity systematically and WoW that popularized it.
Because if you look at other mmos during or prior that period there isn't really a clear cut trinity model - SWG you can make do with a variety of setups, and in Ultima or Anarchy Online yes there are clearer roles in terms of tanks but not so much as specialized healer or CC.
Some MMOs do still come out with distinct roles that aren't the standard trinity.
ArcheAge is really great in the way of Themeparks. Where most games are killing character customization more and more with each expansion it released with the ability to pick three skill trees from like 10 options leading to 120 different classes. Not all class combinations were good but there was also more than one viable build for several classes and you were allowed to switch out skill trees.
The Witchcraft skilltree gave you the option of a lot of great CC abilities and a pet. Songcraft came with group buffs. Occultism was a mainly damage tree that still had pretty decent CC options.
So these skills opened up some non-trinity options.
Unfortunately the game's endless gear grind and massive power disparity based on it are really what kill it. Those are really the main reason I don't play it.
Some MMOs do still come out with distinct roles that aren't the standard trinity.
ArcheAge is really great in the way of Themeparks. Where most games are killing character customization more and more with each expansion it released with the ability to pick three skill trees from like 10 options leading to 120 different classes. Not all class combinations were good but there was also more than one viable build for several classes and you were allowed to switch out skill trees.
The Witchcraft skilltree gave you the option of a lot of great CC abilities and a pet. Songcraft came with group buffs. Occultism was a mainly damage tree that still had pretty decent CC options.
So these skills opened up some non-trinity options.
Unfortunately the game's endless gear grind and massive power disparity based on it are really what kill it. Those are really the main reason I don't play it.
I never liked the 3 role thing myself. It just isn't fun for me. But yea its the fault of mmo's for making it necessary. I liked GW2 because you didn't really have the trinity in that game its just strong characters fighting things. Same for muds which I really enjoyed.
People seem to be trying to hard code the definition of a Trinity. To me the whole aspect of the tank and taunt mechanic, is being confined to having to work within the limitations of a primitive AI
Trinity is a more encompassing word and IMHO shouldn't be confined to *tank and taunt*
It is obviously about the aggro concept of which taunt is a thing. The OP is doing it again.
Its about finding a class that can prevent other players from getting hit by taking the damage themselves. Then finding another class that is capable of healing more then 1 person a day. You think tank and healer should be something else then please tell us.
At that point you're talking about a set of roles - defense, offense, and support. Thus, making the term 'trinity' pointless as those roles have naturally existed since the beginning of time.
The trinity in MUDs and MMOs is taunt based. The easiest way to understand that is to move that system to PVP and you see it falls apart once the taunt system is ignored by the enemy. Yes, the three roles still exist in PVP. Again, because those three roles exist EVERYWHERE.
According to the people that created the games (you have those links in the thread you based this one on), according to actual history (taunt was used in several MUDs), and according to everyone's experiences and reality, the Trinity is defined by the taunt mechanic.
So let me get this straight, the three roles exist everywhere, but only become the 'trinity' if you have a taunt mechanic?
Well if that's the way you want to define things you have your answer, no more to be said.
But if you think the presence of three roles is enough to define the trinity, then it has always been there.
You have been participating in enough of these threads and reading enough of my posts on the matter to know that I have never said the presence of three roles is enough to define the trinity. Even in the post you are quoting, I clearly stated that, so why troll? I don't see the point.
-- Whammy - a 64x64 miniRPG - RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right? - FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
It was puzzling because at one point "trinity" really included more than 3 distinct roles and you'd oft have both DPS and support/cc classes mixed in. Gone are the days of real support and crowd control classes though...
Intel and recon are also often notably absent.
-- Whammy - a 64x64 miniRPG - RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right? - FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
People seem to be trying to hard code the definition of a Trinity. To me the whole aspect of the tank and taunt mechanic, is being confined to having to work within the limitations of a primitive AI
Trinity is a more encompassing word and IMHO shouldn't be confined to *tank and taunt*
It is obviously about the aggro concept of which taunt is a thing. The OP is doing it again.
Its about finding a class that can prevent other players from getting hit by taking the damage themselves. Then finding another class that is capable of healing more then 1 person a day. You think tank and healer should be something else then please tell us.
At that point you're talking about a set of roles - defense, offense, and support. Thus, making the term 'trinity' pointless as those roles have naturally existed since the beginning of time.
The trinity in MUDs and MMOs is taunt based. The easiest way to understand that is to move that system to PVP and you see it falls apart once the taunt system is ignored by the enemy. Yes, the three roles still exist in PVP. Again, because those three roles exist EVERYWHERE.
According to the people that created the games (you have those links in the thread you based this one on), according to actual history (taunt was used in several MUDs), and according to everyone's experiences and reality, the Trinity is defined by the taunt mechanic.
So let me get this straight, the three roles exist everywhere, but only become the 'trinity' if you have a taunt mechanic?
Well if that's the way you want to define things you have your answer, no more to be said.
But if you think the presence of three roles is enough to define the trinity, then it has always been there.
ThYou have been participating in enough of these threads and reading enough of my posts on the matter to know that I have never said the presence of three roles is enough to define the trinity. Even in the post you are quoting, I clearly stated that, so why troll? I don't see the point.
I think youn need to read what I said again. The bit about:
"Well if that's the way you want to define things you have your answer, no more to be said."
clearly applies to you. For many others the discussion continues .
In FF4 you had characters in the front row who took full damage. The backrow characters took 1/2 damage. So the front row characters would be considered tanks. The mage in the back row would be DPS but not the sole dps because the front row did a lot of damage as well. The cleric in the back row could heal for days on end so they fulfilled that role perfectly. FF1-3 didn't have rows so everyone took the full damage from hits. But it did have the ability to guard other players sorta making tanks but not fully.
FF4 does appear to be the earliest version of clear trinity roles being played to a full extent. 1991
By that definition on the PC platform you could go back to games like Wizardry and most of the CRPGs of the 80s. If still staying digital but not necessarily PC, Oubillette and Sorcery on PLATO required formations and different classes. If we want to go to physical games (tabletop, p-n-p) Stratego is one of several examples from the 60s.
Post edited by LynxJSA on
-- Whammy - a 64x64 miniRPG - RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right? - FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
It wasn't AD&D because AD&D didn't have taunt. It wasn't codified until taunts were available to give hate beyond the damage done in MMOs.
Depends on how you played the game. Around here, thirty+ years ago, we used a 'shield wall' sort of approach with the warriors providing a physical barrier, while the healers healed and the wiggly fingers nuked the monsters.
That sounds like trinity play to me, but your mileage may vary.
No RPG rules that I know of codified a low damage, high heartiness warrior. In D&D the fighter was both the highest damage and the one who could take the most damage.
I thought that EQ1 was the origin of the Tank/DPS/Healer model but that is just because I believe those roles developed around that timeframe.
The Trinity is not necessary in turn-based games with a live person controlling the enemies. It is a construct of video games. A fighter who cant do melee damage makes no sense
Lots of people here seem to be making those distinctions. The 'rules' don't say that so it didn't happen.
Well that's just not true. If you were playing D&D in the 70's you were using those books as a guide not a proscriptive rule book. You were probably reading magazines like White Dwarf for ideas too. As I said around here Fighters (and Rangers) formed a blocking wall, 3 up and 3 behind. It was, in my view, trinity play.
You may not have played it that way, or more likely you are too young to know how it was played back then, but that was the way it was done here.
I specified a codified practice and custom from the rule books, so if you guys had something going (are you from Lake Geneva?) that was like MMO tank/DPS/Healer it's not like the books started it. But I'm 45 so I could be a youngster in your book What you guys did sounds like you were being somewhat realistic and using shield formations, but happened to have wizards in your group as well. In 30+ years of playing with people in different parts of the country I never encountered anyone outside of tabletop strategy who did anything more elaborate than putting a fighter or paladin first in the marching order unless they were in a battlefield setting.
Your example does not seem to illustrate the trinity nor even the stupid (my opinion) can't-do-damage tank model. Fighters and the original Rangers were awesome for damage and would take hits more because low level casters were basically barely alive due to crap hit points. I was once in a game where the 1st level mage tripped on a rock and died from the fall.
MMORPG players are often like Hobbits: They don't like Adventures
It wasn't AD&D because AD&D didn't have taunt. It wasn't codified until taunts were available to give hate beyond the damage done in MMOs.
Depends on how you played the game. Around here, thirty+ years ago, we used a 'shield wall' sort of approach with the warriors providing a physical barrier, while the healers healed and the wiggly fingers nuked the monsters.
That sounds like trinity play to me, but your mileage may vary.
No RPG rules that I know of codified a low damage, high heartiness warrior. In D&D the fighter was both the highest damage and the one who could take the most damage.
I thought that EQ1 was the origin of the Tank/DPS/Healer model but that is just because I believe those roles developed around that timeframe.
The Trinity is not necessary in turn-based games with a live person controlling the enemies. It is a construct of video games. A fighter who cant do melee damage makes no sense
Lots of people here seem to be making those distinctions. The 'rules' don't say that so it didn't happen.
Well that's just not true. If you were playing D&D in the 70's you were using those books as a guide not a proscriptive rule book. You were probably reading magazines like White Dwarf for ideas too. As I said around here Fighters (and Rangers) formed a blocking wall, 3 up and 3 behind. It was, in my view, trinity play.
You may not have played it that way, or more likely you are too young to know how it was played back then, but that was the way it was done here.
I specified a codified practice and custom from the rule books, so if you guys had something going (are you from Lake Geneva?) that was like MMO tank/DPS/Healer it's not like the books started it. But I'm 45 so I could be a youngster in your book What you guys did sounds like you were being somewhat realistic and using shield formations, but happened to have wizards in your group as well. In 30+ years of playing with people in different parts of the country I never encountered anyone outside of tabletop strategy who did anything more elaborate than putting a fighter or paladin first in the marching order unless they were in a battlefield setting.
Your example does not seem to illustrate the trinity nor even the stupid (my opinion) can't-do-damage tank model. Fighters and the original Rangers were awesome for damage and would take hits more because low level casters were basically barely alive due to crap hit points. I was once in a game where the 1st level mage tripped on a rock and died from the fall.
As I have said before your mileage may vary.
But I think it is worth remembering that the books consisted of a players manual (remarkably light on details) and a Dungeon Master's Guide, the guide was a guide and not a rulebook. You were encouraged not to read the guide as a player and as a DM you were given total discretion as to what bits to use and what bits to ignore.
It was pretty free form and imagination set the limits, not rules. Even spell lists were subject to change, some left out others added, values changed to suit the group. Magazines were read, new ideas, classes and monsters considered and used or discarded.
We had something I would consider trinity play, feel free to think I am wrong.
I guess the first question would be to decide exactly what the trinity is. If it is just the fact that 1 character is able to heal and 1 character is able to take damage then the trinity has always existed. DPS is the easiest so we just leave that one alone. Tank should have the ability to draw damage away from other players or prevent other players from taking damage by taking it himself. Then the healer should be able to heal the party of at least 4 and keep them alive. So when exactly did this all start? And what better definition do you have if mine is incorrect?
I realize that you are probably a millenial, but the world existed before you were born, you know. The original Dungeons and Dragons, tabletop version released in 1974 originated the modern trinity. And guess what... role playing games of some sort existed long before that though they would have been more with healing units, supply units, and different types of army units.
So no, MMO's did not create the trinity.
wth. I'm starting to understand why so many people are getting so upset with the millenials. It's like you think the world started the day you were born.
You obviously have not read any of the posts. Maybe you should do that first. The first game we have found that takes advantage of the roles is Final Fantasy 4. Meanwhile you are very subjective with the D&D assumption considering that it was very hard to find a situation where a single warrior could protect 3 other players by taking all the damage. Or the fact that lvl 11 Clerics could only fully heal 2 players per day. Which would make them unqualified for a healing role.
lol. You're funny because you assume I haven't read anything. There is only one thing that matters... D&D originated the trinity. Period. It doesn't matter if a single warrior could take the damage for all because they still can't anywhere. They aren't designed to do that or it wouldn't be fun for anyone else.
You didn't ask about the warriors. You didn't specify anything else. You asked who originated the trinity and when it started. It started in 1974 with D&D. Nothing more and nothing less. It may not have been perfect, it may not have been MMO's, but that is where it started. MMO's are simply an extension of the tabletop gaming that already existed. Thinking otherwise is rather arrogant. There have been many version of the trinity by different tabletop games, computer RPG's and MMO's over time, but they ALL originated with D&D which started as a geek and nerd game and slowly expanded over time to several other ideas, genre's and styles.
But it all started with D&D in 1974. So nice try but no fly.
I guess the first question would be to decide exactly what the trinity is. If it is just the fact that 1 character is able to heal and 1 character is able to take damage then the trinity has always existed. DPS is the easiest so we just leave that one alone. Tank should have the ability to draw damage away from other players or prevent other players from taking damage by taking it himself. Then the healer should be able to heal the party of at least 4 and keep them alive. So when exactly did this all start? And what better definition do you have if mine is incorrect?
I realize that you are probably a millenial, but the world existed before you were born, you know. The original Dungeons and Dragons, tabletop version released in 1974 originated the modern trinity. And guess what... role playing games of some sort existed long before that though they would have been more with healing units, supply units, and different types of army units.
So no, MMO's did not create the trinity.
wth. I'm starting to understand why so many people are getting so upset with the millenials. It's like you think the world started the day you were born.
You obviously have not read any of the posts. Maybe you should do that first. The first game we have found that takes advantage of the roles is Final Fantasy 4. Meanwhile you are very subjective with the D&D assumption considering that it was very hard to find a situation where a single warrior could protect 3 other players by taking all the damage. Or the fact that lvl 11 Clerics could only fully heal 2 players per day. Which would make them unqualified for a healing role.
lol. You're funny because you assume I haven't read anything. There is only one thing that matters... D&D originated the trinity. Period. It doesn't matter if a single warrior could take the damage for all because they still can't anywhere. They aren't designed to do that or it wouldn't be fun for anyone else.
You didn't ask about the warriors. You didn't specify anything else. You asked who originated the trinity and when it started. It started in 1974 with D&D. Nothing more and nothing less. It may not have been perfect, it may not have been MMO's, but that is where it started. MMO's are simply an extension of the tabletop gaming that already existed. Thinking otherwise is rather arrogant. There have been many version of the trinity by different tabletop games, computer RPG's and MMO's over time, but they ALL originated with D&D which started as a geek and nerd game and slowly expanded over time to several other ideas, genre's and styles.
But it all started with D&D in 1974. So nice try but no fly.
Then why call it anything if the trinity means nothing at all? The trinity is established roles that much is clear no matter how you slice it. According to your definition then a mage can play all parts of the trinity and well thats just plain wrong. Tank, Healer, DPS. Its roles that character builds are capable of playing. You don't just throw up anything and call it a healer. Try that in a mmo take your paladin and try to heal in the dungeon and see how many people get mad at you for being silly and ignoring basic rulesets. Trinity= tank, healer, dps. They have a job and if they cannot perform the job then they are not part of the trinity plain and simple. Throwing a rogue out in front to get pasted by orcs doesn't make him a tank it just made him a target.
People seem to be trying to hard code the definition of a Trinity. To me the whole aspect of the tank and taunt mechanic, is being confined to having to work within the limitations of a primitive AI
Trinity is a more encompassing word and IMHO shouldn't be confined to *tank and taunt*
It is obviously about the aggro concept of which taunt is a thing. The OP is doing it again.
Its about finding a class that can prevent other players from getting hit by taking the damage themselves. Then finding another class that is capable of healing more then 1 person a day. You think tank and healer should be something else then please tell us.
DND back in the 70s didn't have tanks or aggros etc. Aggro came from the fact that computer games weren't run by a human Dungeon Master. I know you have read the link to the trinity origins and you can't understand it enough to accept it.
Now, you know who says we had tanks in dnd in the 70s? BS Artists who are projecting backwards in time to claim such a thing. Anyone who thinks that dnd, adnd 1st or 2nd had aggro, show me where it is in the DMG or the PH. You won't find it.
Now dnd had character who had armor and shield and that doesn't make it a tank. THe DM would move opponents against the PCs.
You really need to take a look at what you are trying to pull here. I think you are just looking for attention. You can't rewrite history even when you don't believe it.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
Comments
MMORPGs are video games. Their roots are closer to other videogames than they are to pen and paper RPGs. Therefore, if one is looking for whether or not the MMORPG originated something, it would be wiser to look towards video games first.
As I've pointed out, Final Fantasy 1 contained a variation of the trinity long ago. You put your tankiest characters in front and the soft spongy healers and damage dealers in the back. Yes, fighters could DPS. But they couldn't DPS anywhere near as much as that squishy black belt or squishy black mage (before he runs out of MP at least) could and you generally wanted a white mage for support as well (their in battle healing wasn't great, but it was still much better than the heal potions and they provided other forms of damage mitigation too like anti-fire against fire enemies)
But it's not just Final Fantasy. You can find a variation of the trinity within the precursor to one of the first major MMOs in existance, Ultima Online. Who's precursor is... well, Ultima, obviously. Many Ultima games had a variation of the trinity, where you'd want your tanky characters up front and your squishy healers, archers, and wizards in the back. There was no taunting but there didn't need to be because the AI just went for the closest guy (so like Final Fantasy, you just put your tanks up front)
And this is a major difference between video games and (some?) pen & paper RPGs in general. In video games, THE TANK TANKS in some way, whether it's via a taunt or via positioning.
Of course, in an MMORPG, they decided that "attack the closest party member" looked dumb so instead they came up with "attack the party member who generates the most hate, taunt included", but in the end, it's the same concept. FIND A WAY TO GET THE AI TO TARGET YOUR TANK.
And that's existed in videogames long before MMOs.
(although IMHO in some ways it even exists in pen & paper RPGs, the only difference being the DM isn't a stupid AI so the effectiveness was far lower. But in the end, sure, the enemies would go for your rear lines but you'd still want the tankier characters up front to at least make that a harder thing for the enemies to do. At least before Linear Warriors & Quadratic Wizards balancing... or rather lack of balancing, kicks in)
It is obviously about the aggro concept of which taunt is a thing. The OP is doing it again.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
Later it evolved into "The Trinity" as we now call it but role based. I'd never seen it in any pen and paper games or single player/co-op RPG's before EQ.
I'm not sure if EQ can take the credit alone but it was an MMO where I first saw it, and I've been playing computer games as far back as the BBC Micro and C64 plus the usual round of geeky board and P&P games.
The trinity in MUDs and MMOs is taunt based. The easiest way to understand that is to move that system to PVP and you see it falls apart once the taunt system is ignored by the enemy. Yes, the three roles still exist in PVP. Again, because those three roles exist EVERYWHERE.
According to the people that created the games (you have those links in the thread you based this one on), according to actual history (taunt was used in several MUDs), and according to everyone's experiences and reality, the Trinity is defined by the taunt mechanic.
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
I would say MMO's created the idea of mandating the trinity. But not going to say they were the first to implement it in video games.
I'm not sure anyone recalls but the Final Fantasy games even had the potential, by changing a party member's position between front and back. Characters in the front were more likely to be attacked. In the back would increase defense slightly and characters placed in the front had an opportunity (chance) to block back placed party members. There were also items that increased chances etc.
Well if that's the way you want to define things you have your answer, no more to be said.
But if you think the presence of three roles is enough to define the trinity, then it has always been there.
FF4 does appear to be the earliest version of clear trinity roles being played to a full extent. 1991
Because if you look at other mmos during or prior that period there isn't really a clear cut trinity model - SWG you can make do with a variety of setups, and in Ultima or Anarchy Online yes there are clearer roles in terms of tanks but not so much as specialized healer or CC.
ArcheAge is really great in the way of Themeparks. Where most games are killing character customization more and more with each expansion it released with the ability to pick three skill trees from like 10 options leading to 120 different classes. Not all class combinations were good but there was also more than one viable build for several classes and you were allowed to switch out skill trees.
The Witchcraft skilltree gave you the option of a lot of great CC abilities and a pet.
Songcraft came with group buffs.
Occultism was a mainly damage tree that still had pretty decent CC options.
So these skills opened up some non-trinity options.
Unfortunately the game's endless gear grind and massive power disparity based on it are really what kill it. Those are really the main reason I don't play it.
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
"Well if that's the way you want to define things you have your answer, no more to be said."
clearly applies to you. For many others the discussion continues
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
Your example does not seem to illustrate the trinity nor even the stupid (my opinion) can't-do-damage tank model. Fighters and the original Rangers were awesome for damage and would take hits more because low level casters were basically barely alive due to crap hit points. I was once in a game where the 1st level mage tripped on a rock and died from the fall.
But I think it is worth remembering that the books consisted of a players manual (remarkably light on details) and a Dungeon Master's Guide, the guide was a guide and not a rulebook. You were encouraged not to read the guide as a player and as a DM you were given total discretion as to what bits to use and what bits to ignore.
It was pretty free form and imagination set the limits, not rules. Even spell lists were subject to change, some left out others added, values changed to suit the group. Magazines were read, new ideas, classes and monsters considered and used or discarded.
We had something I would consider trinity play, feel free to think I am wrong.
You didn't ask about the warriors. You didn't specify anything else. You asked who originated the trinity and when it started. It started in 1974 with D&D. Nothing more and nothing less. It may not have been perfect, it may not have been MMO's, but that is where it started. MMO's are simply an extension of the tabletop gaming that already existed. Thinking otherwise is rather arrogant. There have been many version of the trinity by different tabletop games, computer RPG's and MMO's over time, but they ALL originated with D&D which started as a geek and nerd game and slowly expanded over time to several other ideas, genre's and styles.
But it all started with D&D in 1974. So nice try but no fly.
DND back in the 70s didn't have tanks or aggros etc. Aggro came from the fact that computer games weren't run by a human Dungeon Master. I know you have read the link to the trinity origins and you can't understand it enough to accept it.
Now, you know who says we had tanks in dnd in the 70s? BS Artists who are projecting backwards in time to claim such a thing. Anyone who thinks that dnd, adnd 1st or 2nd had aggro, show me where it is in the DMG or the PH. You won't find it.
Now dnd had character who had armor and shield and that doesn't make it a tank. THe DM would move opponents against the PCs.
You really need to take a look at what you are trying to pull here. I think you are just looking for attention. You can't rewrite history even when you don't believe it.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"