Mostly played an LP-mud called tsunami that has its origin in 1990 and still think its running in a form. From the start you had classic classes but when I quit it in 2001 it had a monster guild, a dragon's guild and an undead guild.
Back then most spells could be modified positive and negative which was dependant on your level, for instance level 19 characters could do -14 up to +100 which made the spell cost less or more mp where plus-modifier meant the spell did 100 more damage before vulnerabilities. Templars heal was somewhat unique since you couldn't modify it but it was instant.
Mostly played it for the battlegrounds where the mud was closed down to either do team, group or individual wars on a specific battleground or in the mud world. When I started there were also a few university based PK wars but those died out after a while.
Ah yea I played under the DIKU branch of muds. Those LP muds did sound fun and had some customization things that we didn't see much in the DIKU tree's. Sounds cool but with muds it took so much time to learn them it wasn't easy to just play other branches because they were usually so different from each other.
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.
Where exactly did I say it means nothing at all? Or that it means something? I think it's extremely limiting and we can do better than this but for some reason, gaming companies seem stuck to the trinity. Instead we get childish gimmicks and nothing more. There is no reason why everyone shouldn't start at a base character and slowly decide as they play where their strengths and styles lay. Why should we be forced to play classes? Why can't we choose how to develop our character from the ground up? Why does everything have to be focused on killing stuff? There's more to life than killing things. But games stopped giving that opportunity after SWG ended.
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.
That has to be the best lines I have read in these forums in a while. Almost fell out of my chair laughing.
Moirae you accuse everyone of not being able to read but you apparently can't read yourself.
In actual trinity based games I know that if I run a dungeon with a dedicated DPSer who has min-maxed to get the most DPS possible, a dedicated healer who has min-maxed to get the most HPS possible, and a dedicated tank who has min-maxed aggro and defensive stats (mitigation, HP pool etc.) that I have to adjust for that with higher gearscore and higher levels than if I did have that perfect trinity.
That simply isn't the case in D&D.
How is a game in which you can make an effective party using only two character classes trinity based? It isn't, plain and simple. You don't have three distinct roles if only 2 builds can cover them and if you don't have three distinct roles it isn't a TRInity.
You are clinging on to the fact your generation invented the trinity as though the trinity is a good thing. I take about as much pride in the fact that we invented the trinity as the fact we invented Justin Bieber, selfies, and college safe spaces.
However we DID invent the trinity. RPG characters were never as one dimensional as they are now before MMOs. You can rage against the millennials for claiming the pile of crap that is their own as their own as much as you want.
But you can't claim the trinity without turning it into something that it's not. And claiming the trinity was invented in D&D gives that term a heritage it doesn't deserve.
Also, I am superior to you. I back my position with actual reason and logic. You have nothing but rage and insults. You have yet to elaborate or adequately explain any of your positions.
The trinity of dps/tank/healer was developed in early MMOs with a class based system. PnP role-playing games, even back in the early D&D days of simplicity, did not have so rigidly defined roles as those found in class based MMORPGs, simply due to the much more sophisticated interactions and scenarios and free form nature that the former can provide compared to the latter.
Nor was there any need for a PnP RPG party to include members of each of these roles for them to be able to adventure adequately, as clever play could greatly reduce the severity of harmful encounters, and often avoid them entirely. In some campaigns I've played if you even entered into combat that would benefit from a trinity setup you were doing it wrong.
Though old console RPGs that allowed for formations that could allow for trinity-like strategy may allow for the term to be descriptive of them, they did not originate the term or concept.
@Eldurian You know that, like many of your posts, is just a no true Scotsman fallacy right?
Trinity play has been around for a long time, much earlier than Everquesr in 1999. Get over it and move on.
How can you call someone a tank if they cannot protect more then 1 player? How can you call someone a healer when they are only capable of healing 2 other people per day? I mean really, you need to explain this to us millenials *of which I turned 40 years old recently*
Unfortunately most gaming terms are not codified in a dictionary where we can go pull up a true definition. Therefore it has to be inferred by how the world is commonly used.
Most people are in agreement GW2 is a non-trinity based MMO. GW2 players as a point of pride, WoW-clone lovers as a point of disparagement.
Language is based on assigning meaning to words. So if the vast majority of people are using a word use it in a very specific context, you can glean from that context the true definition of the word.
In the fact that the vast majority of people consider GW2 non-trinity based it helps create a basis of an intelligent argument as to what "trinity" actually means.
Guild Wars 2:
Does GW2 have characters capable of healing? Yes. Does it have some characters tankier than others that can attempt to pull attention to themselves using positioning and the true threat (as opposed to the threat mechanic) they actually pose? Yes. Does it have three distinct roles played by at least 3 separate characters which are an absolute requirement to run content at anywhere near maximum efficiency? No
World of Warcraft and Other Games Commonly Accepted As Trinity Based:
Does WoW have characters capable of healing? Yes. Does it have some characters tankier than others that can attempt to pull attention to themselves using positioning and the true threat (as opposed to the threat mechanic) they actually pose? Yes. Does it have three distinct roles played by at least 3 separate characters which are an absolute requirement to run content at anywhere near maximum efficiency? Yes
Dungeons and Dragons:
Does D&D have characters capable of healing? Yes. Does it have some characters tankier than others that can attempt to pull attention to themselves using positioning and the true threat (as opposed to the threat mechanic) they actually pose? Yes. Does it have three distinct roles played by at least 3 separate characters which are an absolute requirement to run content at anywhere near maximum efficiency? No
So unlike the "No-true-Scotsman" fallacy I'm not just making up what a "true" Scotsman is. There is an established context the word trinity is used in when it pertains to gaming, and in the absence of written definition I'm using that context to draw my conclusion. Just like you would if you were actually putting a word into a dictionary that previously did not exist.
In order to properly refute my argument you have to refute one of my three major premises.
1. That the definition of a word is based on the context in which the majority of people use it. 2. That the majority of people do define GW2 as a trinity based game or that they don't define WoW as one. 3. That there is differences between Dungeons and Dragons and GW2 I'm not accounting for or similarities between Dungeons and Dragons and WoW I'm not accounting for that make my interpretation of the context incorrect and actually allows the term trinity to be used for D&D even though it can't be used for GW2.
So please. Show me a logical argument backing your position.
@Eldurian You know that, like many of your posts, is just a no true Scotsman fallacy right?
Trinity play has been around for a long time, much earlier than Everquesr in 1999. Get over it and move on.
How can you call someone a tank if they cannot protect more then 1 player? How can you call someone a healer when they are only capable of healing 2 other people per day? I mean really, you need to explain this to us millenials *of which I turned 40 years old recently*
So back in 1976 you were in nappies, but you can authoritatively tell me how we played D&D then?
The memorizing spell thing and the two times a day thing. We tried it that way at first then discarded it as not fun. Ever heard of a Druid healing spell called 'Healing Mist'? No? Not surprised, not sure if we made it up, borrowed it from a magazine or copied it from another group. But we used it and it wasn't in the Gary Gyggax spell lists.
I am not saying everyone did it this way, but I am saying we did it this way and so did other groups I encountered then and later. Not only that I bet if you could look at kids playing a fantasy game in the 1920's you would, on occasion, see trinity play going on.
The trinity is just a basic form of combat. In Computer world we just put names on these roles for interaction with AI.
Tank: Somebody taking the hit or being targeted
DPS: Somebody dealing damage
Healer: Somebody keeping the being who is being attacked, alive to continue fighting
These three basic terms are in every combative interaction anybody has, even when fighting Solo.
Trinity just divided these roles to different players to perform as a group. There will always be somebody being hit, somebody fighting back, and somebody trying to stay alive. aka the Trinity.
@Eldurian You know that, like many of your posts, is just a no true Scotsman fallacy right?
Trinity play has been around for a long time, much earlier than Everquesr in 1999. Get over it and move on.
How can you call someone a tank if they cannot protect more then 1 player? How can you call someone a healer when they are only capable of healing 2 other people per day? I mean really, you need to explain this to us millenials *of which I turned 40 years old recently*
So back in 1976 you were in nappies, but you can authoritatively tell me how we played D&D then?
The memorizing spell thing and the two times a day thing. We tried it that way at first then discarded it as not fun. Ever heard of a Druid healing spell called 'Healing Mist'? No? Not surprised, not sure if we made it up, borrowed it from a magazine or copied it from another group. But we used it and it wasn't in the Gary Gyggax spell lists.
I am not saying everyone did it this way, but I am saying we did it this way and so did other groups I encountered then and later. Not only that I bet if you could look at kids playing a fantasy game in the 1920's you would, on occasion, see trinity play going on.
So while you seem to be struggling to refute the premises of my last post. I'll go ahead and apply them to this argument:
"Does it have three distinct roles played by at least 3 separate characters which are an absolute requirement to run content at anywhere near maximum efficiency?"
In other words, when playing D&D back in those days was at least one character entirely focused on healing an absolute requirement, at least one character entirely focused on damage an absolute requirement, and at least one character entirely focused on tanking an absolute requirement of a maximum efficiency party as is the case in games commonly accepted as trinity based by the majority of people using that term.
Or rather were those three of the many elements that comprised multifaceted characters and three characters entirely focused on those specialities were not a requirement of a maximum efficiency party as is the case in games commonly declared "Non-trinity" by the vast majority of people who use the term such as Guild Wars 2?
@Eldurian You know that, like many of your posts, is just a no true Scotsman fallacy right?
Trinity play has been around for a long time, much earlier than Everquesr in 1999. Get over it and move on.
How can you call someone a tank if they cannot protect more then 1 player? How can you call someone a healer when they are only capable of healing 2 other people per day? I mean really, you need to explain this to us millenials *of which I turned 40 years old recently*
So back in 1976 you were in nappies, but you can authoritatively tell me how we played D&D then?
The memorizing spell thing and the two times a day thing. We tried it that way at first then discarded it as not fun. Ever heard of a Druid healing spell called 'Healing Mist'? No? Not surprised, not sure if we made it up, borrowed it from a magazine or copied it from another group. But we used it and it wasn't in the Gary Gyggax spell lists.
I am not saying everyone did it this way, but I am saying we did it this way and so did other groups I encountered then and later. Not only that I bet if you could look at kids playing a fantasy game in the 1920's you would, on occasion, see trinity play going on.
So while you seem to be struggling to refute the premises of my last post. I'll go ahead and apply them to this argument:
"Does it have three distinct roles played by at least 3 separate characters which are an absolute requirement to run content at anywhere near maximum efficiency?"
In other words, when playing D&D back in those days was at least one character entirely focused on healing an absolute requirement, at least one character entirely focused on damage an absolute requirement, and at least one character entirely focused on tanking an absolute requirement of a maximum efficiency party as is the case in games commonly accepted as trinity based by the majority of people using that term.
Or rather were those three of the many elements that comprised multifaceted characters and three characters entirely focused on those specialities were not a requirement of a maximum efficiency party as is the case in games commonly declared "Non-trinity" by the vast majority of people who use the term such as Guild Wars 2?
"Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!" Wolfgang Pauli
tank = heavy armor, capability to take a lot of hits.
Now you guys can twist that into something more than it is, and debate that too if you like.
Sure. On EVE my favorite ship is the hurricane. While "heavy armor" obviously isn't a thing for a space ship based MMO what it does use is two large shield extenders and multiple damage resistance modifiers to make it very hard to kill.
That is however, not the point of that ship. The point of that ship is that it has fitted every single turret slot with the highest DPS gun of a ship of it's class, almost all the lowslots with damage and tracking modifiers and that the ship itself gives bonuses to projectile turret damage and refire rate.
It's used for the purpose of warping to an ally who is close to the target, locking, and applying some of the best damage you'll see from a battlecruiser class ship.
However it also does have heavy shielding and the capability to take a lot of hits.
Is that a tank?
Now on ArcheAge there is a class called a Blighter. I've been messing around with it because I really love brawlers like my hurricane. The blighter uses 3 melee trees. The melee DPS tree, the shield tree, and the stealthy melee/ranged DPS tree.
My build focuses on melee damage output and CC but does splash enough points into the defense tree to make it a very survivable build. And it uses heavy armor and a shield, mostly because of CCs and anti-CCs that require me to use a shield. I apply most of my bonuses to melee damage over survivability, for instance opting for strength bonuses (Melee damage) over stamina bonuses (HP) and using lunastones to maximize DPS potential over tanking potential. I also have only a single skill that pulls aggro in PvE and it's only in the build because it has a pull effect, which is insanely useful in PvP.
Is that a tank?
In SMITE I would often play warriors in the Solo lane. In contrast to guardians which focus primarily on survivability and the cooldowns of the CC abilities, Warriors played in the solo split their focus between DPS and survivability in order to be able to be self-sufficient in their lane. The guardian and the "bruiser" or "brawler" as they are called are generally the first two combatants to hit the enemy team in group fights. The guardian to use it's CC to set up kills and protect it's allies, and the bruiser to apply a lot of damage to clustered enemies.
No, MMORPGs did not create the trinity character combination. But recently they have all but destroyed it.
"I used to think the worst thing in life was to be all alone. It's not. The worst thing in life is to end up with people who make you feel all alone." Robin Williams
@Eldurian You know that, like many of your posts, is just a no true Scotsman fallacy right?
Trinity play has been around for a long time, much earlier than Everquesr in 1999. Get over it and move on.
How can you call someone a tank if they cannot protect more then 1 player? How can you call someone a healer when they are only capable of healing 2 other people per day? I mean really, you need to explain this to us millenials *of which I turned 40 years old recently*
So back in 1976 you were in nappies, but you can authoritatively tell me how we played D&D then?
The memorizing spell thing and the two times a day thing. We tried it that way at first then discarded it as not fun. Ever heard of a Druid healing spell called 'Healing Mist'? No? Not surprised, not sure if we made it up, borrowed it from a magazine or copied it from another group. But we used it and it wasn't in the Gary Gyggax spell lists.
I am not saying everyone did it this way, but I am saying we did it this way and so did other groups I encountered then and later. Not only that I bet if you could look at kids playing a fantasy game in the 1920's you would, on occasion, see trinity play going on.
So while you seem to be struggling to refute the premises of my last post. I'll go ahead and apply them to this argument:
"Does it have three distinct roles played by at least 3 separate characters which are an absolute requirement to run content at anywhere near maximum efficiency?"
In other words, when playing D&D back in those days was at least one character entirely focused on healing an absolute requirement, at least one character entirely focused on damage an absolute requirement, and at least one character entirely focused on tanking an absolute requirement of a maximum efficiency party as is the case in games commonly accepted as trinity based by the majority of people using that term.
Or rather were those three of the many elements that comprised multifaceted characters and three characters entirely focused on those specialities were not a requirement of a maximum efficiency party as is the case in games commonly declared "Non-trinity" by the vast majority of people who use the term such as Guild Wars 2?
You're debating something as rudimentary as Rock, Paper, Scissors.
The Trinity is a totally basic strategy. D&D has always been a much deeper game than computer RPG's or MMO's. The nice thing about D&D is you can use your mind to dream up all kinds of strategies including the Trinity. The Trinity based MMORPG's you talk about limit you, they're much shallower than D&D, they're limited to their AI. The RPG's I played in the 80's had just as sophisticated combat AI as MMORPG's seem to have today
IMHO the term was coined with MMORPG's but it's existed in many different games and in many different genre's. It's nothing new, just different play pieces.
The reason you see PvP examples is because aggro is not present in PvP. Therefore you see PvPers revert to pre-aggro / pre-trinity roles like brawler.
So let's do another example.
In D&D your primary melee combatant is usually a barbarian or fighter. Barbarians use rage to give themselves constitution AND strength boosting both their survivability and damage output. In group fights they stand at the front lines cleaving through opponents and generally being one of the major sources of DPS in the party.
Fighters work much the same with most fighters taking both medium/heavy armor and skills such as greater weapon focus that are fighter exclusive to enhance their ability to hit and deal damage.
Like all the roles I just described, they in almost all cases split their focus between survivability and damage.
Is that a tank?
Certainly not in the way tanks exist in most games people describe as trinity based.
Also. Still having trouble refuting any of those three premises?
I figured you would just move on rather than address the fact you can't effectively dispute them.
The roles that define trinity play have long existed, if anything MMO gamers applied the label trinity to those roles and it stuck, as I have rarely heard any other type of gamer use the term.
It's a natural application for the skills a tank, healer, as well as dps bring to a group. Those roles didn't begin with MMORPGs, not by a long shot.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
The reason you see PvP examples is because aggro is not present in PvP. Therefore you see PvPers revert to pre-aggro / pre-trinity roles like brawler.
So let's do another example.
In D&D your primary melee combatant is usually a barbarian or fighter. Barbarians use rage to give themselves constitution AND strength boosting both their survivability and damage output. In group fights they stand at the front lines cleaving through opponents and generally being one of the major sources of DPS in the party.
Fighters work much the same with most fighters taking both medium/heavy armor and skills such as greater weapon focus that are fighter exclusive to enhance their ability to hit and deal damage.
Like all the roles I just described, they in almost all cases split their focus between survivability and damage.
Is that a tank?
Certainly not in the way tanks exist in most games people describe as trinity based.
Also. Still having trouble refuting any of those three premises?
I figured you would just move on rather than address the fact you can't effectively dispute them.
Yep, if it is used as a meat shield its a tank.
Your premises rely on your narrow definitions, and therefore collapse on their own.
tank = heavy armor, capability to take a lot of hits.
Now you guys can twist that into something more than it is, and debate that too if you like.
Sure. On EVE my favorite ship is the hurricane. While "heavy armor" obviously isn't a thing for a space ship based MMO what it does use is two large shield extenders and multiple damage resistance modifiers to make it very hard to kill.
That is however, not the point of that ship. The point of that ship is that it has fitted every single turret slot with the highest DPS gun of a ship of it's class, almost all the lowslots with damage and tracking modifiers and that the ship itself gives bonuses to projectile turret damage and refire rate.
It's used for the purpose of warping to an ally who is close to the target, locking, and applying some of the best damage you'll see from a battlecruiser class ship.
However it also does have heavy shielding and the capability to take a lot of hits.
Is that a tank?
Now on ArcheAge there is a class called a Blighter. I've been messing around with it because I really love brawlers like my hurricane. The blighter uses 3 melee trees. The melee DPS tree, the shield tree, and the stealthy melee/ranged DPS tree.
My build focuses on melee damage output and CC but does splash enough points into the defense tree to make it a very survivable build. And it uses heavy armor and a shield, mostly because of CCs and anti-CCs that require me to use a shield. I apply most of my bonuses to melee damage over survivability, for instance opting for strength bonuses (Melee damage) over stamina bonuses (HP) and using lunastones to maximize DPS potential over tanking potential. I also have only a single skill that pulls aggro in PvE and it's only in the build because it has a pull effect, which is insanely useful in PvP.
Is that a tank?
In SMITE I would often play warriors in the Solo lane. In contrast to guardians which focus primarily on survivability and the cooldowns of the CC abilities, Warriors played in the solo split their focus between DPS and survivability in order to be able to be self-sufficient in their lane. The guardian and the "bruiser" or "brawler" as they are called are generally the first two combatants to hit the enemy team in group fights. The guardian to use it's CC to set up kills and protect it's allies, and the bruiser to apply a lot of damage to clustered enemies.
Is this a tank?
Let me simplify it for you
It doesn't matter if a Sherman has a machine gun turret on it or an Atom bomb. If it's got heavy mitigation, it's a tank.
Your premises rely on your narrow definitions, and therefore collapse on their own.
I have demonstrated how my premises are based on the context in which the word is used by the vast majority of people who use it, which lacking a written definition from any credible source is the only intelligent basis for a discussion on it.
Your premises are based 100% on your own opinions and therefore are worthless.
And that's the point. My argument is based on the rational basis that we have near complete consensus that Guild Wars 2 is not trinity-based and WoW is. Therefore I can make an argument relying on something other than "IMHO". I can make an argument based on analysis of the facts relating to usage of the term.
And that's the point. My argument is based on the rational basis that we have near complete consensus that Guild Wars 2 is not trinity-based and WoW is. Therefore I can make an argument relying on something other than "IMHO". I can make an argument based on analysis of the facts relating to usage of the term.
And you can make an argument based on... "IMHO"
Oh I get it...
Your opinion is the only one that matters, because all you have is your opinion and nothing else.
@Eldurian You know that, like many of your posts, is just a no true Scotsman fallacy right?
Trinity play has been around for a long time, much earlier than Everquesr in 1999. Get over it and move on.
How can you call someone a tank if they cannot protect more then 1 player? How can you call someone a healer when they are only capable of healing 2 other people per day? I mean really, you need to explain this to us millenials *of which I turned 40 years old recently*
So back in 1976 you were in nappies, but you can authoritatively tell me how we played D&D then?
The memorizing spell thing and the two times a day thing. We tried it that way at first then discarded it as not fun. Ever heard of a Druid healing spell called 'Healing Mist'? No? Not surprised, not sure if we made it up, borrowed it from a magazine or copied it from another group. But we used it and it wasn't in the Gary Gyggax spell lists.
I am not saying everyone did it this way, but I am saying we did it this way and so did other groups I encountered then and later. Not only that I bet if you could look at kids playing a fantasy game in the 1920's you would, on occasion, see trinity play going on.
So you modified the game because you couldn't heal properly otherwise. Yea man how does that qualify at all here? You completely ignored the rules and made up your own spell. That really doesn't count ya know.
Comments
In actual trinity based games I know that if I run a dungeon with a dedicated DPSer who has min-maxed to get the most DPS possible, a dedicated healer who has min-maxed to get the most HPS possible, and a dedicated tank who has min-maxed aggro and defensive stats (mitigation, HP pool etc.) that I have to adjust for that with higher gearscore and higher levels than if I did have that perfect trinity.
That simply isn't the case in D&D.
How is a game in which you can make an effective party using only two character classes trinity based? It isn't, plain and simple. You don't have three distinct roles if only 2 builds can cover them and if you don't have three distinct roles it isn't a TRInity.
You are clinging on to the fact your generation invented the trinity as though the trinity is a good thing. I take about as much pride in the fact that we invented the trinity as the fact we invented Justin Bieber, selfies, and college safe spaces.
However we DID invent the trinity. RPG characters were never as one dimensional as they are now before MMOs. You can rage against the millennials for claiming the pile of crap that is their own as their own as much as you want.
But you can't claim the trinity without turning it into something that it's not. And claiming the trinity was invented in D&D gives that term a heritage it doesn't deserve.
Also, I am superior to you. I back my position with actual reason and logic. You have nothing but rage and insults. You have yet to elaborate or adequately explain any of your positions.
Trinity play has been around for a long time, much earlier than Everquesr in 1999. Get over it and move on.
Nor was there any need for a PnP RPG party to include members of each of these roles for them to be able to adventure adequately, as clever play could greatly reduce the severity of harmful encounters, and often avoid them entirely. In some campaigns I've played if you even entered into combat that would benefit from a trinity setup you were doing it wrong.
Though old console RPGs that allowed for formations that could allow for trinity-like strategy may allow for the term to be descriptive of them, they did not originate the term or concept.
Unfortunately most gaming terms are not codified in a dictionary where we can go pull up a true definition. Therefore it has to be inferred by how the world is commonly used.
Most people are in agreement GW2 is a non-trinity based MMO. GW2 players as a point of pride, WoW-clone lovers as a point of disparagement.
Language is based on assigning meaning to words. So if the vast majority of people are using a word use it in a very specific context, you can glean from that context the true definition of the word.
In the fact that the vast majority of people consider GW2 non-trinity based it helps create a basis of an intelligent argument as to what "trinity" actually means.
Guild Wars 2:
Does GW2 have characters capable of healing? Yes.
Does it have some characters tankier than others that can attempt to pull attention to themselves using positioning and the true threat (as opposed to the threat mechanic) they actually pose? Yes.
Does it have three distinct roles played by at least 3 separate characters which are an absolute requirement to run content at anywhere near maximum efficiency? No
World of Warcraft and Other Games Commonly Accepted As Trinity Based:
Does WoW have characters capable of healing? Yes.
Does it have some characters tankier than others that can attempt to pull attention to themselves using positioning and the true threat (as opposed to the threat mechanic) they actually pose? Yes.
Does it have three distinct roles played by at least 3 separate characters which are an absolute requirement to run content at anywhere near maximum efficiency? Yes
Dungeons and Dragons:
Does D&D have characters capable of healing? Yes.
Does it have some characters tankier than others that can attempt to pull attention to themselves using positioning and the true threat (as opposed to the threat mechanic) they actually pose? Yes.
Does it have three distinct roles played by at least 3 separate characters which are an absolute requirement to run content at anywhere near maximum efficiency? No
So unlike the "No-true-Scotsman" fallacy I'm not just making up what a "true" Scotsman is. There is an established context the word trinity is used in when it pertains to gaming, and in the absence of written definition I'm using that context to draw my conclusion. Just like you would if you were actually putting a word into a dictionary that previously did not exist.
In order to properly refute my argument you have to refute one of my three major premises.
1. That the definition of a word is based on the context in which the majority of people use it.
2. That the majority of people do define GW2 as a trinity based game or that they don't define WoW as one.
3. That there is differences between Dungeons and Dragons and GW2 I'm not accounting for or similarities between Dungeons and Dragons and WoW I'm not accounting for that make my interpretation of the context incorrect and actually allows the term trinity to be used for D&D even though it can't be used for GW2.
So please. Show me a logical argument backing your position.
The memorizing spell thing and the two times a day thing. We tried it that way at first then discarded it as not fun. Ever heard of a Druid healing spell called 'Healing Mist'? No? Not surprised, not sure if we made it up, borrowed it from a magazine or copied it from another group. But we used it and it wasn't in the Gary Gyggax spell lists.
I am not saying everyone did it this way, but I am saying we did it this way and so did other groups I encountered then and later. Not only that I bet if you could look at kids playing a fantasy game in the 1920's you would, on occasion, see trinity play going on.
Tank: Somebody taking the hit or being targeted
DPS: Somebody dealing damage
Healer: Somebody keeping the being who is being attacked, alive to continue fighting
These three basic terms are in every combative interaction anybody has, even when fighting Solo.
Trinity just divided these roles to different players to perform as a group. There will always be somebody being hit, somebody fighting back, and somebody trying to stay alive. aka the Trinity.
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
Now you guys can twist that into something more than it is, and debate that too if you like.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
"Does it have three distinct roles played by at least 3 separate characters which are an absolute requirement to run content at anywhere near maximum efficiency?"
In other words, when playing D&D back in those days was at least one character entirely focused on healing an absolute requirement, at least one character entirely focused on damage an absolute requirement, and at least one character entirely focused on tanking an absolute requirement of a maximum efficiency party as is the case in games commonly accepted as trinity based by the majority of people using that term.
Or rather were those three of the many elements that comprised multifaceted characters and three characters entirely focused on those specialities were not a requirement of a maximum efficiency party as is the case in games commonly declared "Non-trinity" by the vast majority of people who use the term such as Guild Wars 2?
"Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!" Wolfgang Pauli
That is however, not the point of that ship. The point of that ship is that it has fitted every single turret slot with the highest DPS gun of a ship of it's class, almost all the lowslots with damage and tracking modifiers and that the ship itself gives bonuses to projectile turret damage and refire rate.
It's used for the purpose of warping to an ally who is close to the target, locking, and applying some of the best damage you'll see from a battlecruiser class ship.
However it also does have heavy shielding and the capability to take a lot of hits.
Is that a tank?
Now on ArcheAge there is a class called a Blighter. I've been messing around with it because I really love brawlers like my hurricane. The blighter uses 3 melee trees. The melee DPS tree, the shield tree, and the stealthy melee/ranged DPS tree.
My build focuses on melee damage output and CC but does splash enough points into the defense tree to make it a very survivable build. And it uses heavy armor and a shield, mostly because of CCs and anti-CCs that require me to use a shield. I apply most of my bonuses to melee damage over survivability, for instance opting for strength bonuses (Melee damage) over stamina bonuses (HP) and using lunastones to maximize DPS potential over tanking potential. I also have only a single skill that pulls aggro in PvE and it's only in the build because it has a pull effect, which is insanely useful in PvP.
Is that a tank?
In SMITE I would often play warriors in the Solo lane. In contrast to guardians which focus primarily on survivability and the cooldowns of the CC abilities, Warriors played in the solo split their focus between DPS and survivability in order to be able to be self-sufficient in their lane. The guardian and the "bruiser" or "brawler" as they are called are generally the first two combatants to hit the enemy team in group fights. The guardian to use it's CC to set up kills and protect it's allies, and the bruiser to apply a lot of damage to clustered enemies.
Is this a tank?
The Trinity is a totally basic strategy. D&D has always been a much deeper game than computer RPG's or MMO's. The nice thing about D&D is you can use your mind to dream up all kinds of strategies including the Trinity. The Trinity based MMORPG's you talk about limit you, they're much shallower than D&D, they're limited to their AI. The RPG's I played in the 80's had just as sophisticated combat AI as MMORPG's seem to have today
IMHO the term was coined with MMORPG's but it's existed in many different games and in many different genre's. It's nothing new, just different play pieces.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
The reason you see PvP examples is because aggro is not present in PvP. Therefore you see PvPers revert to pre-aggro / pre-trinity roles like brawler.
So let's do another example.
In D&D your primary melee combatant is usually a barbarian or fighter. Barbarians use rage to give themselves constitution AND strength boosting both their survivability and damage output. In group fights they stand at the front lines cleaving through opponents and generally being one of the major sources of DPS in the party.
Fighters work much the same with most fighters taking both medium/heavy armor and skills such as greater weapon focus that are fighter exclusive to enhance their ability to hit and deal damage.
Like all the roles I just described, they in almost all cases split their focus between survivability and damage.
Is that a tank?
Certainly not in the way tanks exist in most games people describe as trinity based.
Also. Still having trouble refuting any of those three premises?
I figured you would just move on rather than address the fact you can't effectively dispute them.
It's a natural application for the skills a tank, healer, as well as dps bring to a group. Those roles didn't begin with MMORPGs, not by a long shot.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Your premises rely on your narrow definitions, and therefore collapse on their own.
It doesn't matter if a Sherman has a machine gun turret on it or an Atom bomb. If it's got heavy mitigation, it's a tank.
Why do you find the need to complicate it?
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Your premises are based 100% on your own opinions and therefore are worthless.
And you can make an argument based on... "IMHO"
Your opinion is the only one that matters, because all you have is your opinion and nothing else.
You're a wise one
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee