It isn't the vast majority. It's you. If the person, machine, single celled organism is being used to absorb/deflect/mitigate... damage so another can do something else it is a tank at least for that scenario.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
I have more than just an opinion related to the matter. Not even @craftseeker is willing to debate that GW2 is trinity based. And even if he was that would fly in the face of the general consensus among those who use the word. The context in which a word is used is what assigns it meaning. Otherwise you could easily make the argument "a sheep is a goat." It's the meaning of the words sheep and goat we've collectively embraced as speakers of the English language that creates the definition, and would be the basis for proving to you that a sheep is in fact not a goat.
The fact we have collectively embraced that WoW uses the trinity and GW2 does not stands not only as evidence but as proof of the fact that Guild Wars 2 does not fit the definition of the trinity embraced by the gaming community.
GW2 templars fit your "IMHO" definition of a tank.
GW2 templars fit your "IMHO" definition of a healer.
The same premise you and craftseeker use to define D&D healers and tanks can be applied to GW2 tanks and healers.
That might not disprove that D&D is "IMHO" a trinity based game, but it disproves that D&D is a trinity based game by any commonly accepted (and therefore valid) definition of the word.
I can't believe some people have the gall to claim that if you take damage then you are a tank and if you can cast heal then you are a healer and if you can do damage then you are dps. It completely destroys the whole idea of the trinity. So technically the healer is always tank/healer/dps. Why? Because he can do all 3. According to some of you there is no such thing as a healer,tank,dps because everyone fills the role.
The games isn't trinity based but people may sill be fulfilling the same roles.
So if we are to accept the "IMHO" definition of healers and tanks that is broad enough to cover GW2 templars, and nobody is disputing that GW2 has DPS.
Then what is your "IMHO" definition of the trinity that fits D&D but not GW2?
The games isn't trinity based but people may sill be fulfilling the same roles.
Well yes we get that. The games force trinity play and well thats kinda crappy but it happens. Trinity play is effective sometimes but not all games allow it. GW2 for example allows tanky builds but they do not hold aggro or taunt so they cannot be tanks for a group. Meanwhile they have sacrificed some DPS for survival but not to much advantage because the group doesn't get anything out of it. Since he cannot draw the bads away its kinda pointless.
I have more than just an opinion related to the matter. Not even @craftseeker is willing to debate that GW2 is trinity based. And even if he was that would fly in the face of the general consensus among those who use the word. The context in which a word is used is what assigns it meaning. Otherwise you could easily make the argument "a sheep is a goat." It's the meaning of the words sheep and goat we've collectively embraced as speakers of the English language that creates the definition, and would be the basis for proving to you that a sheep is in fact not a goat.
The fact we have collectively embraced that WoW uses the trinity and GW2 does not stands not only as evidence but as proof of the fact that Guild Wars 2 does not fit the definition of the trinity embraced by the gaming community.
GW2 templars fit your "IMHO" definition of a tank.
GW2 templars fit your "IMHO" definition of a healer.
The same premise you and craftseeker use to define D&D healers and tanks can be applied to GW2 tanks and healers.
That might not disprove that D&D is "IMHO" a trinity based game, but it disproves that D&D is a trinity based game by any commonly accepted (and therefore valid) definition of the word.
Or you could make the argument that swans are large white waterbirds. In that case I am sure that no matter how many pictures I showed you of Australian swans you would argue that they are not real swans because they're black
Going back pre launch I argued on these forums that, over time, the trinity would emerge in GW2 and the developers would then start to support it.
I've stated it. They are just roles that are being filled. If you are the main healer in that scenario you are a healer. If you are mitigating damage so others can do something you are the tank. ..
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
The games isn't trinity based but people may sill be fulfilling the same roles.
Well yes we get that. The games force trinity play and well thats kinda crappy but it happens. Trinity play is effective sometimes but not all games allow it. GW2 for example allows tanky builds but they do not hold aggro or taunt so they cannot be tanks for a group. Meanwhile they have sacrificed some DPS for survival but not to much advantage because the group doesn't get anything out of it. Since he cannot draw the bads away its kinda pointless.
Not at all pointless. As with the example of my PvP builds it allows you to apply your DPS for a longer period of time while sustaining heavy enemy fire.
Let's say you stay up 50% longer than a glass cannon and apply 80% of the DPS it would.
Obviously a quite worthwhile trade-off if you are expecting to be in a position where the enemies will select you as a target.
Not a worthwhile trade-off if there is a character focused wholly on a large HP pool, damage mitigation and possibly self-healing or boosting incoming healing that you can expect to draw the vast majority of enemy fire.
And that is the basis of the trinity. Others fulfill the role of tank and healer so that you don't have to. You can focus entirely on your given role.
@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.
A. We didn't ignore the rules, because everything in the Dungeon Master's Guide was for guidance. It wasn't a rulebook.
B. Lots of people made up lots of spells, and classes and monsters and lots of other stuff. There were multiple monthly magazines dedicated to that.
C. The changes we made were made because it was fun to do. If a change wasn't fun we dropped it.
Oh and by the way if a new player came into the group with their own DM guide, and an attitude that it was all set in stone and they would roll their own dice, they were told not to come back.
I have more than just an opinion related to the matter. Not even @craftseeker is willing to debate that GW2 is trinity based. And even if he was that would fly in the face of the general consensus among those who use the word. The context in which a word is used is what assigns it meaning. Otherwise you could easily make the argument "a sheep is a goat." It's the meaning of the words sheep and goat we've collectively embraced as speakers of the English language that creates the definition, and would be the basis for proving to you that a sheep is in fact not a goat.
The fact we have collectively embraced that WoW uses the trinity and GW2 does not stands not only as evidence but as proof of the fact that Guild Wars 2 does not fit the definition of the trinity embraced by the gaming community.
GW2 templars fit your "IMHO" definition of a tank.
GW2 templars fit your "IMHO" definition of a healer.
The same premise you and craftseeker use to define D&D healers and tanks can be applied to GW2 tanks and healers.
That might not disprove that D&D is "IMHO" a trinity based game, but it disproves that D&D is a trinity based game by any commonly accepted (and therefore valid) definition of the word.
Agreed.
Guildwars 2 doesn't actually have static roles, people don't spend an entire combat just healing or CCing. Static roles is what classically define a trinity MMO, if you are expected to fill out several roles the same combat it isn't a trinity game.
It is pure bullocks that D&D (possibly besides the crap 4th edition) had dedicated tanks or healers, some characters do have heavy armor and more hp but that is just a small parts of what makes a tank and some people can cast heals (generally BTW people in that heavy armor) but they do far more then just heal and many of my groups did never have any healer and still completed hard stuff that I know been run by other groups with less success.
It is a trinity game when people start to spam "group looking for healer" and "group looking for tank" in the chat. I think that is as clear definition as you can get. That actually doesn't happen in D&D (check the LFG in any PnP forum), if a group is looking for a player it is a thief or maybe rarely a wizard. Generally it is any fun player regardless of what he or she enjoy to play though.
But the roles did not mean the same thing and were not called the trinity.
Walking upright, large brains, relatively hairless bodies and even tool usage were not exclusive to humans.
Arguing that Neanderthals are humans because they had these elements to lesser extents doesn't make it so. Neither does it apply simply because many humans have a small portion of Neanderthal DNA. The term "human" only applies to us.
In the same way the trinity may be evolved from elements seen in earlier RPGs. The influence of these RPGs are obvious in trinity based MMOs. However those elements did not come together in a way that the commonly accepted definition of the term "trinity" fits until MMOs.
The single unifying factor of trinity based games is three distinct and separate roles for DPS, healers, and tanks. Not simply based on "IMHO" but based on how the word is used by the majority of gamers.
Lack of a 100% clear definition gives us the right to debate the definition based on the usage of the word. Not to simply make up the definition based on what we feel it should mean.
But the roles did not mean the same thing and were not called the trinity.
Walking upright, large brains, relatively hairless bodies and even tool usage were not exclusive to humans.
Arguing that Neanderthals are humans because they had these elements to lesser extents doesn't make it so. Neither does it apply simply because many humans have a small portion of Neanderthal DNA. The term "human" only applies to us.
In the same way the trinity may be evolved from elements seen in earlier RPGs. The influence of these RPGs are obvious in trinity based MMOs. However those elements did not come together in a way that the commonly accepted definition of the term "trinity" fits until MMOs.
The single unifying factor of trinity based games is three distinct and separate roles for DPS, healers, and tanks. Not simply based on "IMHO" but based on how the word is used by the majority of gamers.
Lack of a 100% clear definition gives us the right to debate the definition based on the usage of the word. Not to simply make up the definition based on what we feel it should mean.
... and there I thought I was being a little hyperbolic with my swan example. But off you go Neanderthals are not humans because they do no fit your narrow definition. But even Homo Habilis was human.
I guess I am wrong on that one but in that context it's because the usage of the word "human" is broader than I realized. The usage of the word "trinity" is not.
Look at any game talking about breaking from the "trinity" model and they are talking about removing the distinct roles of tank and healer as they apply in WoW clones. Guild Wars 2 didn't remove healing or heavy armor they just removed the concept of a character focused almost entirely on the role of healing or a character focused almost entirely on the role of pulling threat and damage mitigation. Same with Crowfall.
D&D did not remove those roles but they didn't even exist back then. If D&D were built like a trinity based MMO, the stats for a min-maxed fighter or barbarian wouldn't look like this:
16-20 strength 12-14 dex 14-18 con 8-10 int 8-10 wis 8-10 cha
And instead would look more like this:
10-12 strength 12-16 dex 18-22 con 8-10 int 8-10 wis 8-10 cha
Ideal fighter races wouldn't be strength based races like half-orcs but small-sized races that get an AC and constitution bonus like gnomes.
Those are the stats of a trinity tank. Dump anything and everything that doesn't make you live longer or help hold aggro. In sharp contrast D&D frontliners almost always prioritize strength(damage) over con(health).
The roles did the same thing. Who cares what they were called.
But they didn't do the same thing at all. A front line D&D fighter has a DPS output most tanks would consider massive but would be considered very squishy in terms of survivability.
I have NEVER seen in instance in D&D where a single character goes and is wailed on by the majority of the enemy force for more than five rounds and lived to talk about it. But I've also never seen an instance where an at CR enemy that wasn't the boss stood up to a well built fighter or barbarian for more than 2-3 rounds.
The roles did the same thing. Who cares what they were called.
But they didn't do the same thing at all. A front line D&D fighter has a DPS output most tanks would consider massive but would be considered very squishy in terms of survivability.
I have NEVER seen in instance in D&D where a single character goes and is wailed on by the majority of the enemy force for more than five rounds and lived to talk about it. But I've also never seen an instance where an at CR enemy that wasn't the boss stood up to a well built fighter or barbarian for more than 2-3 rounds.
Why confine this to D&D P&P though? I remember playing video games during the 90's (RPGs Jrpgs) where companion NPCs had taunt like mechanics and damage mitigation... Healers healed and DPS did DPS... Those roles were not birthed by MMORPGs. It's just how it's translated in video game RPG format over the years because it was a natural translation of those abilities when put into a multi character party be it players or NPCs. It's essentially the rock paper scissor principle.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I'm admittedly not very versed in JRPGs but I have played some. From my perspective they were the next step in the evolution of the trinity. More extreme than D&D but less extreme than WoW. You did have things like white mages emerging that were nearly on par with what we now consider a healer but there were still a lot of hybrid characters like red mages and tanks, if they could even be called that, were not at the same level as they are now. They definitely were still more balanced between DPS and survivability.
I would disagree that they are true trinity, but I would be more inclined to entertain that notion than that D&D is trinity based.
Like I keep saying though. I wouldn't be so quick to claim "we were the first to do the trinity." That's a claim on par with "I was the ORIGINAL fan of Justin Bieber" IMO. The trinity is not a good thing, and it has a narrow definition for a good reason. You shouldn't want to be a trinity based game.
The trinity took a wide range of extremely diverse character builds and over time clumped nearly all of them into one of three narrow categories. You can see this in how with some games such as LotRO that while the trinity is present and necessary for most content there are characters such as the Loremaster or Burglar that can be distinctly non-trinity roles and still be a great asset to their party. By the time you reach SWTOR every single tree of every single class is easily classifiable as tank, healer or DPS.
But the roles did not mean the same thing and were not called the trinity.
Walking upright, large brains, relatively hairless bodies and even tool usage were not exclusive to humans.
Arguing that Neanderthals are humans because they had these elements to lesser extents doesn't make it so. Neither does it apply simply because many humans have a small portion of Neanderthal DNA. The term "human" only applies to us.
In the same way the trinity may be evolved from elements seen in earlier RPGs. The influence of these RPGs are obvious in trinity based MMOs. However those elements did not come together in a way that the commonly accepted definition of the term "trinity" fits until MMOs.
The single unifying factor of trinity based games is three distinct and separate roles for DPS, healers, and tanks. Not simply based on "IMHO" but based on how the word is used by the majority of gamers.
Lack of a 100% clear definition gives us the right to debate the definition based on the usage of the word. Not to simply make up the definition based on what we feel it should mean.
I am pretty sure any of the homo species could be called human. If you saw a neanderthaal walking the streets today you would think he looked a bit brutish but you wouldn't say he wasn't a human. The term we use for Homo sapiens is "modern human" and that kinda implies that there were ancient humans at an earlier time. Scientists are sure they had some kind of language, we know that they buried their dead, used jewelry and are pretty certain but not 100% sure that certain early cave paintings were made by them as well. We share 99.5% of our genes with them (source: Svant pääbo who decoded their genom).
It is a very bad comparison, more like saying games like Everquest wasn't trinity because they changed it slightly since.
The trinity could include far more then just tank, healer and DPS. Support and CC were really common a while back and while games like EQ2 is aging it is a trinity game with more then 3 roles. The difference is that any other roles were more optional (even though support classes like Dirge were more or less always included in raids).
But all trinity games have tank, healer and DPS and those 3 roles are always static even if you can have a secondary tank or healer who also do some dps and some other roles mixed in.
I agree that we need a simple basic term and as I see it is any game with those 3 roles with dedicated players trinity. Anything where players switch between them in combat isn't. Neither is any game lacking 1 of them (GW have healers and DPS but no tanks so no trinity).
Why confine this to D&D P&P though? I remember playing video games during the 90's (RPGs Jrpgs) where companion NPCs had taunt like mechanics and damage mitigation... Healers healed and DPS did DPS... Those roles were not birthed by MMORPGs. It's just how it's translated in video game RPG format over the years because it was a natural translation of those abilities when put into a multi character party be it players or NPCs. It's essentially the rock paper scissor principle.
Unlike Meridian 59 (1996, first game I played I would call a MMORPG) early JRPGs had a rather different combat mechanics from MMOs, they felt nothing the same. And tanks did not really do the same thing as in a MMO even if they possibly have a taunt or 2. Healers rarely just healed either, the mechanics were a tank tanks, the healer heals her while the DPS guys spamms attacks is something I never seen outside a MMO.
Some MUD players have pointed out that certain muds were far closer to MMOs and they might be right (never played a MUD) but if you tried M59 today you would certainly see it as a primitive trinity MMORPG, if you are looking for the origin of the trinity that is the game to look at.
And I don't think the trinity is the logical translation of a pen and paper RPG to computer, PnP combat is rather different from that with a totally different strategy. The logical translation were the SSI games like Death knights of Krynn, Pool of radiance and the original Neverwinter nights (some Yanks call it the AoL version). Those games used AD&D combat and it was very far away from any MMO.
The trinity was just someones idea to easily give a good dungeon experience to a 6 player group (yeah, most games cut 1 player since). Later games like EQ thought it worked and improved it. But I think many give it too much credit, it was just a very simple way to handle group dynamics and it worked pretty well even if more and more players have tired of it the last few years.
Why confine this to D&D P&P though? I remember playing video games during the 90's (RPGs Jrpgs) where companion NPCs had taunt like mechanics and damage mitigation... Healers healed and DPS did DPS... Those roles were not birthed by MMORPGs. It's just how it's translated in video game RPG format over the years because it was a natural translation of those abilities when put into a multi character party be it players or NPCs. It's essentially the rock paper scissor principle.
Unlike Meridian 59 (1996, first game I played I would call a MMORPG) early JRPGs had a rather different combat mechanics from MMOs, they felt nothing the same. And tanks did not really do the same thing as in a MMO even if they possibly have a taunt or 2. Healers rarely just healed either, the mechanics were a tank tanks, the healer heals her while the DPS guys spamms attacks is something I never seen outside a MMO.
Some MUD players have pointed out that certain muds were far closer to MMOs and they might be right (never played a MUD) but if you tried M59 today you would certainly see it as a primitive trinity MMORPG, if you are looking for the origin of the trinity that is the game to look at.
And I don't think the trinity is the logical translation of a pen and paper RPG to computer, PnP combat is rather different from that with a totally different strategy. The logical translation were the SSI games like Death knights of Krynn, Pool of radiance and the original Neverwinter nights (some Yanks call it the AoL version). Those games used AD&D combat and it was very far away from any MMO.
The trinity was just someones idea to easily give a good dungeon experience to a 6 player group (yeah, most games cut 1 player since). Later games like EQ thought it worked and improved it. But I think many give it too much credit, it was just a very simple way to handle group dynamics and it worked pretty well even if more and more players have tired of it the last few years.
"it was just a very simple way to handle group dynamics" hence why i said it was a logical progression when placed into a party setting :P... In that case logical being easiest representation.
Of course combat was different in old Jrpgs, yet i was referring to the roles classes played in a party which in many Jrpgs was purely automated to be that way. IE healers, tanks and Damage dealers.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I'm admittedly not very versed in JRPGs but I have played some. From my perspective they were the next step in the evolution of the trinity. More extreme than D&D but less extreme than WoW. You did have things like white mages emerging that were nearly on par with what we now consider a healer but there were still a lot of hybrid characters like red mages and tanks, if they could even be called that, were not at the same level as they are now. They definitely were still more balanced between DPS and survivability.
I would disagree that they are true trinity, but I would be more inclined to entertain that notion than that D&D is trinity based.
Like I keep saying though. I wouldn't be so quick to claim "we were the first to do the trinity." That's a claim on par with "I was the ORIGINAL fan of Justin Bieber" IMO. The trinity is not a good thing, and it has a narrow definition for a good reason. You shouldn't want to be a trinity based game.
The trinity took a wide range of extremely diverse character builds and over time clumped nearly all of them into one of three narrow categories. You can see this in how with some games such as LotRO that while the trinity is present and necessary for most content there are characters such as the Loremaster or Burglar that can be distinctly non-trinity roles and still be a great asset to their party. By the time you reach SWTOR every single tree of every single class is easily classifiable as tank, healer or DPS.
That's not a good thing.
I don't disagree, the trinity system (seen in MMOs) is limiting I don't view it as a good thing. In most of the games I'm a fan of those roles exist, yet there are more roles to undertake (skill based games, like SWG TES etc.. .I've never been a big fan of the pigeon holed approach EQ, WOW and EQ2 solidified.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Right. The reason I argue so hard for clarity on the definition of the trinity is because I think understanding what isn't a trinity based game is very important in understanding the arguments against the trinity.
When the industry is moving past the trinity you get people upset that games are violating sacred institutions that have been in place since D&D and define the RPG genre. But they haven't, and they don't. What you are instead seeing is a turn back toward the incredibly rich character diversity that characterized early RPGs.
While games like WoW double down on the trinity model by completely removing the possibility of any kind of hybrids through skill tree removal, games like Crowfall are branching out from the trinity by reintroducing non-trinity roles.
People from @Moirae 's generation didn't pioneer the idea of the trinity. The pioneered the idea of rich worlds filled with diverse character concepts which only included elements of the trinity in their raw forms. It's not trinity based games millennial's are claiming credit for when they didn't invent them. It's trinityless games we're claiming credit for when we didn't invent them.
But some people are just too angry to see when they're claiming credit for something they really shouldn't want to own.
The roles did the same thing. Who cares what they were called.
But they didn't do the same thing at all. A front line D&D fighter has a DPS output most tanks would consider massive but would be considered very squishy in terms of survivability.
I have NEVER seen in instance in D&D where a single character goes and is wailed on by the majority of the enemy force for more than five rounds and lived to talk about it. But I've also never seen an instance where an at CR enemy that wasn't the boss stood up to a well built fighter or barbarian for more than 2-3 rounds.
Why confine this to D&D P&P though? I remember playing video games during the 90's (RPGs Jrpgs) where companion NPCs had taunt like mechanics and damage mitigation... Healers healed and DPS did DPS... Those roles were not birthed by MMORPGs. It's just how it's translated in video game RPG format over the years because it was a natural translation of those abilities when put into a multi character party be it players or NPCs. It's essentially the rock paper scissor principle.
Thats the point of the thread. To find out where we saw it first. Someone claimed that Final Fantasy 1 had it. I couldn't support that but I did find it was in FF4 very clear.
Comments
The fact we have collectively embraced that WoW uses the trinity and GW2 does not stands not only as evidence but as proof of the fact that Guild Wars 2 does not fit the definition of the trinity embraced by the gaming community.
GW2 templars fit your "IMHO" definition of a tank.
GW2 templars fit your "IMHO" definition of a healer.
The same premise you and craftseeker use to define D&D healers and tanks can be applied to GW2 tanks and healers.
That might not disprove that D&D is "IMHO" a trinity based game, but it disproves that D&D is a trinity based game by any commonly accepted (and therefore valid) definition of the word.
Then what is your "IMHO" definition of the trinity that fits D&D but not GW2?
Going back pre launch I argued on these forums that, over time, the trinity would emerge in GW2 and the developers would then start to support it.
I was wrong then, you are wrong now.
Let's say you stay up 50% longer than a glass cannon and apply 80% of the DPS it would.
Obviously a quite worthwhile trade-off if you are expecting to be in a position where the enemies will select you as a target.
Not a worthwhile trade-off if there is a character focused wholly on a large HP pool, damage mitigation and possibly self-healing or boosting incoming healing that you can expect to draw the vast majority of enemy fire.
And that is the basis of the trinity. Others fulfill the role of tank and healer so that you don't have to. You can focus entirely on your given role.
B. Lots of people made up lots of spells, and classes and monsters and lots of other stuff. There were multiple monthly magazines dedicated to that.
C. The changes we made were made because it was fun to do. If a change wasn't fun we dropped it.
Oh and by the way if a new player came into the group with their own DM guide, and an attitude that it was all set in stone and they would roll their own dice, they were told not to come back.
Guildwars 2 doesn't actually have static roles, people don't spend an entire combat just healing or CCing. Static roles is what classically define a trinity MMO, if you are expected to fill out several roles the same combat it isn't a trinity game.
It is pure bullocks that D&D (possibly besides the crap 4th edition) had dedicated tanks or healers, some characters do have heavy armor and more hp but that is just a small parts of what makes a tank and some people can cast heals (generally BTW people in that heavy armor) but they do far more then just heal and many of my groups did never have any healer and still completed hard stuff that I know been run by other groups with less success.
It is a trinity game when people start to spam "group looking for healer" and "group looking for tank" in the chat. I think that is as clear definition as you can get. That actually doesn't happen in D&D (check the LFG in any PnP forum), if a group is looking for a player it is a thief or maybe rarely a wizard. Generally it is any fun player regardless of what he or she enjoy to play though.
Walking upright, large brains, relatively hairless bodies and even tool usage were not exclusive to humans.
Arguing that Neanderthals are humans because they had these elements to lesser extents doesn't make it so. Neither does it apply simply because many humans have a small portion of Neanderthal DNA. The term "human" only applies to us.
In the same way the trinity may be evolved from elements seen in earlier RPGs. The influence of these RPGs are obvious in trinity based MMOs. However those elements did not come together in a way that the commonly accepted definition of the term "trinity" fits until MMOs.
The single unifying factor of trinity based games is three distinct and separate roles for DPS, healers, and tanks. Not simply based on "IMHO" but based on how the word is used by the majority of gamers.
Lack of a 100% clear definition gives us the right to debate the definition based on the usage of the word. Not to simply make up the definition based on what we feel it should mean.
Look at any game talking about breaking from the "trinity" model and they are talking about removing the distinct roles of tank and healer as they apply in WoW clones. Guild Wars 2 didn't remove healing or heavy armor they just removed the concept of a character focused almost entirely on the role of healing or a character focused almost entirely on the role of pulling threat and damage mitigation. Same with Crowfall.
D&D did not remove those roles but they didn't even exist back then. If D&D were built like a trinity based MMO, the stats for a min-maxed fighter or barbarian wouldn't look like this:
16-20 strength
12-14 dex
14-18 con
8-10 int
8-10 wis
8-10 cha
And instead would look more like this:
10-12 strength
12-16 dex
18-22 con
8-10 int
8-10 wis
8-10 cha
Ideal fighter races wouldn't be strength based races like half-orcs but small-sized races that get an AC and constitution bonus like gnomes.
Those are the stats of a trinity tank. Dump anything and everything that doesn't make you live longer or help hold aggro. In sharp contrast D&D frontliners almost always prioritize strength(damage) over con(health).
I have NEVER seen in instance in D&D where a single character goes and is wailed on by the majority of the enemy force for more than five rounds and lived to talk about it. But I've also never seen an instance where an at CR enemy that wasn't the boss stood up to a well built fighter or barbarian for more than 2-3 rounds.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I would disagree that they are true trinity, but I would be more inclined to entertain that notion than that D&D is trinity based.
Like I keep saying though. I wouldn't be so quick to claim "we were the first to do the trinity." That's a claim on par with "I was the ORIGINAL fan of Justin Bieber" IMO. The trinity is not a good thing, and it has a narrow definition for a good reason. You shouldn't want to be a trinity based game.
The trinity took a wide range of extremely diverse character builds and over time clumped nearly all of them into one of three narrow categories. You can see this in how with some games such as LotRO that while the trinity is present and necessary for most content there are characters such as the Loremaster or Burglar that can be distinctly non-trinity roles and still be a great asset to their party. By the time you reach SWTOR every single tree of every single class is easily classifiable as tank, healer or DPS.
That's not a good thing.
A link
It is a very bad comparison, more like saying games like Everquest wasn't trinity because they changed it slightly since.
The trinity could include far more then just tank, healer and DPS. Support and CC were really common a while back and while games like EQ2 is aging it is a trinity game with more then 3 roles. The difference is that any other roles were more optional (even though support classes like Dirge were more or less always included in raids).
But all trinity games have tank, healer and DPS and those 3 roles are always static even if you can have a secondary tank or healer who also do some dps and some other roles mixed in.
I agree that we need a simple basic term and as I see it is any game with those 3 roles with dedicated players trinity. Anything where players switch between them in combat isn't. Neither is any game lacking 1 of them (GW have healers and DPS but no tanks so no trinity).
Some MUD players have pointed out that certain muds were far closer to MMOs and they might be right (never played a MUD) but if you tried M59 today you would certainly see it as a primitive trinity MMORPG, if you are looking for the origin of the trinity that is the game to look at.
And I don't think the trinity is the logical translation of a pen and paper RPG to computer, PnP combat is rather different from that with a totally different strategy. The logical translation were the SSI games like Death knights of Krynn, Pool of radiance and the original Neverwinter nights (some Yanks call it the AoL version). Those games used AD&D combat and it was very far away from any MMO.
The trinity was just someones idea to easily give a good dungeon experience to a 6 player group (yeah, most games cut 1 player since). Later games like EQ thought it worked and improved it. But I think many give it too much credit, it was just a very simple way to handle group dynamics and it worked pretty well even if more and more players have tired of it the last few years.
Of course combat was different in old Jrpgs, yet i was referring to the roles classes played in a party which in many Jrpgs was purely automated to be that way. IE healers, tanks and Damage dealers.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
When the industry is moving past the trinity you get people upset that games are violating sacred institutions that have been in place since D&D and define the RPG genre. But they haven't, and they don't. What you are instead seeing is a turn back toward the incredibly rich character diversity that characterized early RPGs.
While games like WoW double down on the trinity model by completely removing the possibility of any kind of hybrids through skill tree removal, games like Crowfall are branching out from the trinity by reintroducing non-trinity roles.
People from @Moirae 's generation didn't pioneer the idea of the trinity. The pioneered the idea of rich worlds filled with diverse character concepts which only included elements of the trinity in their raw forms. It's not trinity based games millennial's are claiming credit for when they didn't invent them. It's trinityless games we're claiming credit for when we didn't invent them.
But some people are just too angry to see when they're claiming credit for something they really shouldn't want to own.