I've seen games try to add more than three roles. There have been games where, at least at one time, you needed a healer, DPS, tank, and a fourth role (CC or Buff class, mostly). I don't remember the original Lineage having any trinity.
Yet non-trinity/classless games seem to have characters that are pretty much "the same" with very little variety. At least in my experience
As opposed to the cookie-cutter Trinity classes?
Nope. Yet all I hear about this kind of system is how varied and wonderful it is. I don't hear that from role supporters
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Trinity would be defined as a GROUPING game that relies on each other,each player has a ROLE>>hence ROLE PLAYING game.
If you do not adhere to this formula you are NOT a ROLE playing game.
False.
A ROLE PLAYING game is a game in which you are playing a ROLE, meaning another character, not you! It has nothing to do with a FUNCTION in a given GROUP.
The Witcher games are ROLE PLAYING GAMES because you play the ROLE of Geralt. And they are a solo games! No group involved here!
ROLE PLAYING is first and foremost a table top activity, that has seen many kind of more or less successful transpositions in digital worlds. MMORPGs are originally tentatives to emulate such an experience on the screens and augmenting it by integrating a very large number of players.
The goal has never been at first to implement the "trinity". The trinity is a consequence of copying the archaic class design of Dungeons & Dragons. If MMORPGS would have been based on classless RPGs instead of D&D, the concept of trinity might not have existed at all!
The trinity doesn't define anything but itself.
Now some people like it, and some don't. And that's ok to not like it. There is no need to stigmatize players that refuse to play this system.
And yet, most modern MMOs use action combat, where I am playing me, not a character in a game.
Combat roles were an attempt to organize an otherwise very chaotic activity involving more people than usually sat around a tabletop (talking raids here). It also "encouraged" playing together, which isn't really needed in face to face tabletop games.
I can't think of one "classless" tabletop RPG out when MMOs started (late 80's to mid 90's?). It
doesn't mean they didn't exist, I just wasn't aware of them. Wait!
Champions was one such RPG. That was a Super Hero setting, though, not a
fantasy party setting, which most MMORPGs set themselves in. Iron Crown
Enterprises (I.C.E), Middle Earth Role Playing system, Traveller, Soap Opera, a
Star Wars RPG, Shadowrun all had classes for the characters.
Your summation is awesome and I wish more people took it to heart
PS: It's also OK to like certain things
PPS: If you think about it, classes and jobs/roles is a natural human thing. Our military is full of jobs with specific duties in war. Armored, infantry, air support, medical. It's all there, since man started fighting wars
Organizing chaotic activity is a good call I think. And unfortunately, given the development of online access, it was easier if it was simple.
Though there were classes in D&D, there weren't tanks. Fighters could dish out damage. The second best fighter was your cleric. Not til 4th Ed. (I think) did the MMO version feed back into the PnP. Class systems certainly got ossified into a lot of the second and third wave of RPGs, but there were alternatives. GURPS comes to mind.
In modern real world armies there are no tauntbots. The tank is one of the singularly most powerful units on the field. Troops are regularly cross-trained.
In D&D fights, there were no "tanks" or "healers" or "DPS'ers." Yet fighters tried to keep aggro from the mages while Rogues tried to get in sneak attacks and wizards used spells to deal damage and buff allies. Clerics were primarily watching thier frends' hit points and landing buffs here and there.
No, fighters were not called "tanks", but that was their role. Clerics were not called "healers", but that's what they did. Wizards and rogues were not called "DPS'ers", but that's the role they filled.
Just because someone is not called a "tank" doesn't mean they are not filling that role
Now, in D&D there were various ways to tank like positioning which most MMORPGs have not implemented. I can understand why because what makes that work can (and does) get abused out of combat.
You do make good points about my military examples, though
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Yeah, in D&D and other RPGs fo the era, positioning - control of space - was the way you kept the squishies from getting plastered. But it wasn't a player class per se, it was game manuevering.
In gaming, everything's an abstraction. The most signal virtue is 'It's fun!'.
Despite my kvetching, I do play Trinity games, if they can deliver that virtue. They just need to make up for it somewhere else in their design.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
I've seen games try to add more than three roles. There have been games where, at least at one time, you needed a healer, DPS, tank, and a fourth role (CC or Buff class, mostly). I don't remember the original Lineage having any trinity.
EQ had more than three roles. You had healer,tank,dps, crowd control and buffing/ debuffing classes. Of course you didn't need every role for a group unless it was a raid i guess. You could do most content in early EQ with most any type of group make up.
in DDO there is a group called R.O.G.U.E, which is really just a bunch of Thief enthusiast that go about proving that Thieves can do anything in DDO, including an All Rogue Shroud, which I took part in one such event during my rogue life on my main.
i participated in 3 of them. unfortunately i only have screenshots of 2.
I've seen games try to add more than three roles. There have been games where, at least at one time, you needed a healer, DPS, tank, and a fourth role (CC or Buff class, mostly). I don't remember the original Lineage having any trinity.
EQ had more than three roles. You had healer,tank,dps, crowd control and buffing/ debuffing classes. Of course you didn't need every role for a group unless it was a raid i guess. You could do most content in early EQ with most any type of group make up.
Just a note, the Term "Holy Trinity" was very common in EQ, and it related to Warrior, Cleric, Enchanter, not just Roles, but those direct classes.
Warriors had the best Taunt in the game, as well as the best survival stats, making them hands down the best Tanks in the game, bar none.
Cleric were healers, pure and simple, they had one job of keeping people alive, and they did better than anyone else.
Enchanters were Buffs and CC, which in EQ, CC was a King Move for survival in many zones.
If you had that core, any dungeon was doable at level, you could even stop trains in MM if your team had their game on.
Not to mention, you could add anyone else to the mix as raw DPS or other tactics, like pulling, and all it would do is make the group better.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
I've seen games try to add more than three roles. There have been games where, at least at one time, you needed a healer, DPS, tank, and a fourth role (CC or Buff class, mostly). I don't remember the original Lineage having any trinity.
EQ had more than three roles. You had healer,tank,dps, crowd control and buffing/ debuffing classes. Of course you didn't need every role for a group unless it was a raid i guess. You could do most content in early EQ with most any type of group make up.
Just a note, the Term "Holy Trinity" was very common in EQ, and it related to Warrior, Cleric, Enchanter, not just Roles, but those direct classes.
Warriors had the best Taunt in the game, as well as the best survival stats, making them hands down the best Tanks in the game, bar none.
Cleric were healers, pure and simple, they had one job of keeping people alive, and they did better than anyone else.
Enchanters were Buffs and CC, which in EQ, CC was a King Move for survival in many zones.
If you had that core, any dungeon was doable at level, you could even stop trains in MM if your team had their game on.
Not to mention, you could add anyone else to the mix as raw DPS or other tactics, like pulling, and all it would do is make the group better.
You only really needed maybe two out of the three or just a cleric and a monk or paladin to tank and whatever random classes came along.
Actually for a few weeks early on, Bards were the kings of CC, of course that quickly got nerfed. Was fun for a while.
I've seen games try to add more than three roles. There have been games where, at least at one time, you needed a healer, DPS, tank, and a fourth role (CC or Buff class, mostly). I don't remember the original Lineage having any trinity.
EQ had more than three roles. You had healer,tank,dps, crowd control and buffing/ debuffing classes. Of course you didn't need every role for a group unless it was a raid i guess. You could do most content in early EQ with most any type of group make up.
Just a note, the Term "Holy Trinity" was very common in EQ, and it related to Warrior, Cleric, Enchanter, not just Roles, but those direct classes.
Warriors had the best Taunt in the game, as well as the best survival stats, making them hands down the best Tanks in the game, bar none.
Cleric were healers, pure and simple, they had one job of keeping people alive, and they did better than anyone else.
Enchanters were Buffs and CC, which in EQ, CC was a King Move for survival in many zones.
If you had that core, any dungeon was doable at level, you could even stop trains in MM if your team had their game on.
Not to mention, you could add anyone else to the mix as raw DPS or other tactics, like pulling, and all it would do is make the group better.
You only really needed maybe two out of the three or just a cleric and a monk or paladin to tank and whatever random classes came along.
Actually for a few weeks early on, Bards were the kings of CC, of course that quickly got nerfed. Was fun for a while.
Neither Monk nor Paladins could tank anywhere near as well as a Warrior. Monks made good DPS and Pullers tho, they could really lay a beat down.
As far as Enchanters, they were king in EQ. You have a group with a Cleric/Enchanter/Warrior, you could drop entire rooms without breaking a sweat, even stop entire trains in Mist More, or just take a casual stroll through New Paw, as opposed to camping Bedroom 1 and 2.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Comments
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
No, fighters were not called "tanks", but that was their role. Clerics were not called "healers", but that's what they did. Wizards and rogues were not called "DPS'ers", but that's the role they filled.
Just because someone is not called a "tank" doesn't mean they are not filling that role
Now, in D&D there were various ways to tank like positioning which most MMORPGs have not implemented. I can understand why because what makes that work can (and does) get abused out of combat.
You do make good points about my military examples, though
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
In gaming, everything's an abstraction. The most signal virtue is 'It's fun!'.
Despite my kvetching, I do play Trinity games, if they can deliver that virtue. They just need to make up for it somewhere else in their design.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
EQ had more than three roles. You had healer,tank,dps, crowd control and buffing/ debuffing classes. Of course you didn't need every role for a group unless it was a raid i guess. You could do most content in early EQ with most any type of group make up.
i participated in 3 of them. unfortunately i only have screenshots of 2.
(yes. the 2nd one was done shortman)
Warriors had the best Taunt in the game, as well as the best survival stats, making them hands down the best Tanks in the game, bar none.
Cleric were healers, pure and simple, they had one job of keeping people alive, and they did better than anyone else.
Enchanters were Buffs and CC, which in EQ, CC was a King Move for survival in many zones.
If you had that core, any dungeon was doable at level, you could even stop trains in MM if your team had their game on.
Not to mention, you could add anyone else to the mix as raw DPS or other tactics, like pulling, and all it would do is make the group better.
As far as Enchanters, they were king in EQ. You have a group with a Cleric/Enchanter/Warrior, you could drop entire rooms without breaking a sweat, even stop entire trains in Mist More, or just take a casual stroll through New Paw, as opposed to camping Bedroom 1 and 2.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests