I really don't get why anyone would want strict defined classes to either play better or feel like they're roleplaying more correctly.
Games that give you the ability to define yourself as you wish are no less roleplaying games unless you lack the ability to define your own role without someone forcing you into a pigeonhole and telling you what that role is with clear boundaries.
So yeah, the more open and flexible the better as far as I'm concerned.
Perhaps the most famous table top role-playing game, Dungeons and Dragons, is class based as is perhaps the most famous MMORPG, WoW.
That could at least partly explain the expectation and preference for such.
To be fair "Dwarf" "Elf" and "Halfling" were both classes and races in Dungeons and Dragons.
They were, in Basic D&D.
However, it is Advanced D&D that became more established such that it eventually gained mass public awareness, and in that class and race were separate with their presentation in Basic accounted for through multi-classing.
The descriptor of 'Advanced' was maintained through second edition, and then dropped in third edition onward because consistency sucks apparently.
True, but AD&D also added in Multiclassing, so an Elf could in fact be a Fighter, Magic-User, Thief, all at the same time.
In fact, in D&D and AD&D, there was never a sense of "Know your Role" as making due, was always a huge part of the campaign, and the keystone of role playing, to test your imagination.
The idea of myopic roles, really only started in EQ, with the idea of classes needing each other, and thus, the dumbing down of the player base to fall in line with the idea "I am a cleric, it is what I am, it is what I do"
The old school D&D cleric, was just at home praying to Gods of War and jumping into battle, as they would have been holding the back line healing. That role as it were, was up to the player, not the class.
Only modern MMO's set it up so that the Warrior could not do anything outside hit things with a big weapon, and be a meat shield, and all the other classes got dumbed down as well, to the point that the cleric really could not do anything outside cast healing spells.
But this was more to do with MMO's Dev's who, for whatever reason, opted to build the idea of what they called Interdependency, and really nothing to do with what D&D set up.
Legit, you could play a D&D game of 5 clerics, and none of them the same, and each would have something they excel at, the rise of cookie cutters in MMO's where all clerics would be identical of they suck, is nothing like the versatility that A/D&D offered, and as far as I have seen, the only game to really translate that versatility well as been DDO.
Also, Added: Minor Note, they dropped the "Advanced" because TSR was bought by WOTC, and WOTC opted to stop making Basic and Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, as for a long time, Basic and Advanced coexisted side by side, both with their own revisions and rule sets.
When WOTC bought the rights, they just made One System, called 3rd Edition, and moved forward from there.
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 really don't get why anyone would want strict defined classes to either play better or feel like they're roleplaying more correctly.
Games that give you the ability to define yourself as you wish are no less roleplaying games unless you lack the ability to define your own role without someone forcing you into a pigeonhole and telling you what that role is with clear boundaries.
So yeah, the more open and flexible the better as far as I'm concerned.
As a game designer, there are so many different approaches on how design philosophy can affect the game rules/structure/design/implementation into place. I believe the best design comes from creating a strong structure of defined roles/elements but allow the player to have agency within that structure. I would say this falls under a more of a 'sadpark' approach. You still have a definite structure and boundaries, IE class design, thematic roles, but allow the player to play within that as they wish.
Having distinct roles are not a bad thing in essence. They can be a detriment if it pigeon holds players group compositions and they can't complete content because certain roles are not present.
Often times you see in classless, less defined roles, players will mostly figure out a meta skill set and go with that. Players will stiff often gravitate towards a role even when there are no defined roles.
I think the majority of gamers in this genre want a class system that is flexible rather than a full classless system with no defined roles. The most popular titles in the genre do have defined roles and classes.
I really don't get why anyone would want strict defined classes to either play better or feel like they're roleplaying more correctly.
Games that give you the ability to define yourself as you wish are no less roleplaying games unless you lack the ability to define your own role without someone forcing you into a pigeonhole and telling you what that role is with clear boundaries.
So yeah, the more open and flexible the better as far as I'm concerned.
As a game designer, there are so many different approaches on how design philosophy can affect the game rules/structure/design/implementation into place. I believe the best design comes from creating a strong structure of defined roles/elements but allow the player to have agency within that structure. I would say this falls under a more of a 'sadpark' approach. You still have a definite structure and boundaries, IE class design, thematic roles, but allow the player to play within that as they wish.
Having distinct roles are not a bad thing in essence. They can be a detriment if it pigeon holds players group compositions and they can't complete content because certain roles are not present.
Often times you see in classless, less defined roles, players will mostly figure out a meta skill set and go with that. Players will stiff often gravitate towards a role even when there are no defined roles.
I think the majority of gamers in this genre want a class system that is flexible rather than a full classless system with no defined roles. The most popular titles in the genre do have defined roles and classes.
Maybe I overstated it a bit because there were some in the thread intimating that you couldn't have "roleplay" without classes which is total nonsense,
I don't dislike classes but strict classes in games bore me to tears.
When a game has clases, good design in those games for me means a lot of flexibility in how you can choose your own builds within those classes. Good examples of that were the Rift class system and the various souls within a class and the hybrid class/classless system in ESO where classes have unique identities if you want them but you can actually build ignoring all class skills if you wish because there are enough weapon and guild skill lines that enable that.
As to classless systems leading to cookie cutter metas, yes they can, but so do class systems as anyone who has played a class that can't get into raids will tell you.
Good systems also allow for the same class to build for different roles. And roles in this sense are just functional game constructs that actually have zero to do with role playing which is something many seem to confuse.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Maybe I overstated it a bit because there were some in the thread intimating that you couldn't have "roleplay" without classes which is total nonsense,
I don't dislike classes but strict classes in games bore me to tears.
When a game has clases, good design in those games for me means a lot of flexibility in how you can choose your own builds within those classes. Good examples of that were the Rift class system and the various souls within a class and the hybrid class/classless system in ESO where classes have unique identities if you want them but you can actually build ignoring all class skills if you wish because there are enough weapon and guild skill lines that enable that.
As to classless systems leading to cookie cutter metas, yes they can, but so do class systems as anyone who has played a class that can't get into raids will tell you.
Good systems also allow for the same class to build for different roles. And roles in this sense are just functional game constructs that actually have zero to do with role playing which is something many seem to confuse.
I would propose that classes that allow you to spec to give off the illusion of agency and building something unique. For some reason, when designers go this route it bottlenecks the player to specifically play a linear way under a supposed "spec" that was meant to give player choice. Often in these designs you're locked into this 'spec' and can't freely be dynamic to match a varying encounter.
My philosophy has always been, "give the players that well defined structure, give them full access to their class with some limitations, like a limited combat bar slot, allow them to 'spec' via combat bar ability composition and various other ways so you don't bottleneck the player to one specific play style. Essentially, allow the player to adapt within your class to varying encounters." In lieu of this, I don't like when a player can spec into multiple primary roles. In essence, I comprehend why Blizzard did the spec system, to help mitigate the EQ issue, but in reality players wanted to be DPS over Tank/healing. Unfortunately, there is no one way saves all approach. Every potential avenue of design will have it's advantages and disadvantages. The creativity comes from how you mitigate those disadvantages as much as possible.
I think the 'roleplaying" attribute, at least for me has meaning on two degrees. One, being the role your character plays as in 'acting'. Two, the role your class is plays in a combat setting.
I like A/C, I like to know the role I I am supposed to be, and be good at that role. I also like a little more versatility in the class. I generally play a healer, but some CC/buffs/debuffs on my character is great addition. So Trinity with each class having a different form of CC/buffs/debuffs to flesh out the classes.
One of the best class systems I ever played was a game called Rubies of Eventide....It went something like this...
Lets say you are playing a Bard....As you gained each level you got a certain amount of points to spend....THe skills in the Bard tree cost the least amount of points in each tier...but...you could also buy other class skills but they were more expensive....So lets say a Tier 1 Bard skill cost 10 points, the Tier 1 Cleric skill might be 30....The Tier 1 Warrior skill might be 50, depending on hwo far away from your class the other class skill is..........You had to make choices and some were difficult....Choices are always good but they need to come at a cost.....
What I dont like is players being able to max every single skill easily..To me, that is not the way it should be....Just like in life...We dont all have max skills in everything....Some are athletes, some musicians, some carpenters, some doctors....Yes we may have other lesser skills but we usually only have a few major skills.
I personally would like a MMO with a cross between EQ1 and ESO. Give me a strict role and skills that fist my class but let me spend points in that skill set to customize them. So if I play a Wizard, I could morph my DD to have a also a small splash damage, or extra 10% to the DD, or the DD ends with a DoT, or even lower my damage to add a stun/cc to my DDs.
I agree. This is what? An half-century old design?
I mean it has its uses, but maybe it is time for a change...
Alternative are abundant in table top RPGs, and also present in MMORPGs. Regardless, class based systems still remain prevalent despite their lengthy history. For a lot of people class based systems ain't broke and thus need neither fixing or abandoning.
Yes. Like I mentioned, "it has its uses". However, one of the goals of game-design discussions is to try to improve over the current status quo. So, yes we can praise an old system... But, the grass could be greener elsewhere. Especially, if here we try to provide something new to the genre.
Classes, of course, have little to do with roleplaying, even less than races do. To the degree that completely non-rpgs can have classes just fine.
Computer games have a very hard time to offer any real roleplaying. At best they will allow a number of predefined ways to do so.
Yes.
The games that foster roleplaying the most usually offer some level of sandboxing and moral choices.
The initial and implied promise of the first MMORPGs, or the hope associated with them if you want, was to offer a world in which the massive amount of players would provide some level of immersion that no tabletop could provide by the cheer amount of organic interactions.
Few games actually really tried this.
Most of the games we have are intertwined and addictive progression systems, that bind us into dailies, raids, or equivalent. The initial hope is lost. In fact most of people do not associate MMORPGs with anything close to tabletop anymore.
It became its own thing.
I think it is overall a missed opportunity. That we could have ended with more interesting game designs.
However like many others, I got caught by some of MMORPGs' aspects whether it is good PvP, theory-build crafting, fun action combat, progressions systems, or flashyness.
I agree. This is what? An half-century old design?
I mean it has its uses, but maybe it is time for a change...
The combustion engine is what, 100+ years old? Time for a change! lol
- 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
I agree. This is what? An half-century old design?
I mean it has its uses, but maybe it is time for a change...
The combustion engine is what, 100+ years old? Time for a change! lol
Well, with a regular combustion engine you can drive a car. With a nuclear powered engine you keep a submarine underwater for an incredible duration.............................
Nuclear powered engine doesn't invalidate the usefulness of the car, but it allows better submarines.
Roles are both good bad. They can "nudge players" in directions and also hinder them in what kind of character they want to play. They can "advertise" to other players exactly the skill set they have. Who wants a "Cleric" that can't heal?
"Roleplaying" SUCKS in video games. You are usually given the better of 2 evils for all responses, neither allowing much for actual roleplaying. (Just added "roleplaying" to the dictionary lol) The reeson for this are pretty straightforward: Each "possible response" adds HOURS of WORK and MONEY to the game. How many MMORPGs allow quest-givers to die?
I favor most some kind of skill based advancement: Use a skill, it improves. In a class based system, this can be a form of "wiggle room" as players find they can advance the skills they use and play with advancing faster than those skills they neglect.
Take a typical fighter class. They may have access to all weapon types (like D&D), but the may favor sword and board over 2-handed hammers. There you go: 2 different types of fighters within a class based system. I'm not sure how far this can go with other basic classes, though. Maybe a Mage/Wizard could choose between fire or ice or electricity? Maybe they could choose between pets or manipulation (mesmerize or roots)? A combo of any? Maybe a rogue type character class could be more focused in scouting (sneaking and perception) or range criticals or melee back stabs. Maybe throw in lock picking and/or traps? Again, multiple choices within a class system dependent on what skills the players finds more fun.
I realize that many players strive to create a "unique" experience, but how possible in an online game with so many other players? How many "Armor of Awesome" is there? How does it look for each character? I certainly do desire that "uniqueness", but don't "expect" that
What I find with "classless" system is that players tend to gravitate to "classes" anyway. I guess players "believe" that they have some kind of choice?
All in all, I'd rather MMOs DECIDE what THEY want and let the players either play "as is" or find something that is more suited to what the desire. This "trend" lately to make one MMO for everyone has sucked the life out the whole genre. When it started, there were games with so many different ways to play. This, to me, is what WoW did to the genre.
Anyway, MMO's don't interest me anymore. The "worlds" are gone. I hope others find one that suits their needs
Post edited by AlBQuirky on
- 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
"Roleplaying" SUCKS in video games. You are usually given the better of 2 evils for all responses, neither allowing much for actual roleplaying. (Just added "roleplaying" to the dictionary lol) The reeson for this are pretty straightforward: Each "possible response" adds HOURS of WORK and MONEY to the game. How many MMORPGs allow quest-givers to die?
If we compare it to tabletop, short answer is yes. However,
personally I enjoy it. In Skyrim, for instance, I like to play a
character within some constraints. That is not really roleplaying, but
it is an imperfect way in this "roleplaying" direction.
"
I realize that many players strive to create a "unique" experience, but
how possible in an online game with so many other players? How many
"Armor of Awesome" is there? How does it look for each character? I
certainly do desire that "uniqueness", but don't "expect" that
Exactly! This is why the M for "Massive" in a MMORPGs can be damageable. A way
would be indeed to reduce the number of players, to create unique items,
abilities, and I dare to advance to create unique classes, unique
goals. It would not be a MMORPG, but it would be a MORPG that could be
interesting.
"
All in all, I'd rather MMOs DECIDE what THEY want and let the players
either play "as is" or find something that is more suited to what the
desire. This "trend" lately to make one MMO for everyone has sucked the life out the whole genre. When it started, there were games with so many different ways to play. This, to me, is what WoW did to the genre.
</blockquote>
Anyway, MMO's don't interest me anymore. The "worlds" are gone. I hope others kind one that suits their needs
I agree. I also think that the games that are the closest to "worlds" are Eve Online and Albion Online for MMORPGs. It seems they really managed to use the "Massive" side of "MMOs" to create an organic/dynamic worlds... Unfortunately, I do not play them for other reasons. UO is probably belonging to this category too (SWG?). I don't know, I never played it. And there are also some survival games such as Conan Exile. But I think a company could push a little more in this direction and not give us a game that fits all, but a game that fits digital world seekers, a niche.
Computer games have a very hard time to offer any real roleplaying. At best they will allow a number of predefined ways to do so.
*Current* computer games have a very hard time offering any real role playing. That doesn't mean that they couldn't. The element missing from existing games is the GM function, a human running the session and reacting to the players actions. The non-playing GM provides this functionality for tabletop sessions.
Massively multiplayer games have an additional problem -- the GM activity doesn't really scale up well, not without an overwhelming personnel cost. Game developers haven't really invested in AI techniques to suitably emulate a large scale curated experience. Even something as simple as a social media 'trick' could be used to 'judge' the quality of another players' actions and vote to reward them for playing their character well.
So, we don't have decent role playing in our computer games. And I'm cold.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Computer games have a very hard time to offer any real roleplaying. At best they will allow a number of predefined ways to do so.
*Current* computer games have a very hard time offering any real role playing. That doesn't mean that they couldn't. The element missing from existing games is the GM function, a human running the session and reacting to the players actions. The non-playing GM provides this functionality for tabletop sessions.
Massively multiplayer games have an additional problem -- the GM activity doesn't really scale up well, not without an overwhelming personnel cost. Game developers haven't really invested in AI techniques to suitably emulate a large scale curated experience. Even something as simple as a social media 'trick' could be used to 'judge' the quality of another players' actions and vote to reward them for playing their character well.
So, we don't have decent role playing in our computer games. And I'm cold.
I don't know... To me roleplaying is something that the Players provide. Not all Players want to roleplay, and that's fine. But it's a fun thing to do. But it's greatly enhanced by game designs that gives players "tools" to use for roleplay. For example, a simple campfire, being ably to place things, build things to create a setting, things like that. And said game design needs to offer a wide range of options and customization to the Players.
The famous Shadowclan Guild of UO, who roleplayed Orcs, wore what orcs wore, including a horned mask-helmet, even though the Orcs were not a playable race. They created an extensive Orc language that sounded like the NPC Orc's limited speech. They were an entertaining lot, they were. But it was only possible, effectively, because the game design allowed them to look like Orcs.
There was a Guild in UO that worshipped a Spider goddess, and dressed their Guild Headquarters up with lots of spider webs, tombstones, blooding body parts, etc.
Even being able to set up long tables, and chairs, cook food and place it on the table, add glasses filled with wine and wine bottles, silverware, etc., gives Players the ability to roleplay more effectively. Feasts were sometimes used as part of Guild meetings when Players enjoyed roleplay.
Kazola (a Player) created an entirely Player run tavern, with dart boards, chess tables, and a tavern atmosphere, which was so successful that GMs decided to use her tavern as a launching point for GM Events. Lord British himself went there in Character to present a custom plaque and place it on a wall.
In short, "tools" to use in imaginative ways goes a long ways in helping Players roleplay, and even getting Players into that sort of thing.
Computer games have a very hard time to offer any real roleplaying. At best they will allow a number of predefined ways to do so.
*Current* computer games have a very hard time offering any real role playing. That doesn't mean that they couldn't. The element missing from existing games is the GM function, a human running the session and reacting to the players actions. The non-playing GM provides this functionality for tabletop sessions.
Massively multiplayer games have an additional problem -- the GM activity doesn't really scale up well, not without an overwhelming personnel cost. Game developers haven't really invested in AI techniques to suitably emulate a large scale curated experience. Even something as simple as a social media 'trick' could be used to 'judge' the quality of another players' actions and vote to reward them for playing their character well.
So, we don't have decent role playing in our computer games. And I'm cold.
I don't know... To me roleplaying is something that the Players provide. Not all Players want to roleplay, and that's fine. But it's a fun thing to do. But it's greatly enhanced by game designs that gives players "tools" to use for roleplay. For example, a simple campfire, being ably to place things, build things to create a setting, things like that. And said game design needs to offer a wide range of options and customization to the Players.
The famous Shadowclan Guild of UO, who roleplayed Orcs, wore what orcs wore, including a horned mask-helmet, even though the Orcs were not a playable race. They created an extensive Orc language that sounded like the NPC Orc's limited speech. They were an entertaining lot, they were. But it was only possible, effectively, because the game design allowed them to look like Orcs.
There was a Guild in UO that worshipped a Spider goddess, and dressed their Guild Headquarters up with lots of spider webs, tombstones, blooding body parts, etc.
Even being able to set up long tables, and chairs, cook food and place it on the table, add glasses filled with wine and wine bottles, silverware, etc., gives Players the ability to roleplay more effectively. Feasts were sometimes used as part of Guild meetings when Players enjoyed roleplay.
Kazola (a Player) created an entirely Player run tavern, with dart boards, chess tables, and a tavern atmosphere, which was so successful that GMs decided to use her tavern as a launching point for GM Events. Lord British himself went there in Character to present a custom plaque and place it on a wall.
In short, "tools" to use in imaginative ways goes a long ways in helping Players roleplay, and even getting Players into that sort of thing.
Totally agree about the lack of 'tools' that can/could facilitate role playing. That's along the same lines as my argument, but subtly different; your idea is the 'how', mine is the 'reaction'. Both share the same cause -- lack of development vision/effort/ideas into role playing. Developers have treated role playing almost like a second class citizen in a genre with RP in its name.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Again, actual roleplaying isnt possible if there isnt also a human dungeon master and you can do basically anything you want, within the rules of the system, but especially also can make up your very own dialogue.
Again, actual roleplaying isnt possible if there isnt also a human dungeon master and you can do basically anything you want, within the rules of the system, but especially also can make up your very own dialogue.
You mean roleplaying with NPCs? That's the only thing I can imagine to be your point.
That's impossible. However, you can get closer to that. UO had NPCs that said something in reaction to a Player saying their name, and then a keyword. And they used it on some GM Events in a basic way. Some examples: (NPC named Joe) "Joe, have you seen Stavros?" Joe: "Aye, he was traveling north on the old Smith's Road." (All you really needed to say was "Joe, Stavros?") This works the same for other NPCs that know where "Stavros" went, and using their name first, they'd reply the same.
This can be expanded greatly. It can include things about the Lore and lost artifacts, too, outside of GM Events. So you can have info gathering from NPCs, in a sort of "mock-roleplay."
I very much disagree with these points about roleplaying.
For me, roleplaying has always been about making choices about your role and then seeing how those choices affect the way the game plays.
Technically, players are capable of roleplaying in any game - we have powerful imaginations after all - but you can only call your game a roleplaying game if the mechanics of that game support roleplaying.
Much of the confusion I see regarding roleplaying seems to be because many people think of roleplaying in a very narrow sense: personality roleplaying.
But, roles come in all shapes and sizes. There are combat roles, crafting roles, economic roles, political roles, personality roles and whatever else the devs decide they want. Just because an RPG doesn't have the style of roleplaying that you prefer, doesn't mean it isn't a roleplaying game.
I will agree that most modern RPGs have very little roleplaying in them (of any sort), but I don't think that is a new situation. When I look at something like Final Fantasy 7, one of my favourite games of all time and often voted one of the best RPGs ever.....well, there's basically no roleplaying in the game at all.
I also think discussions like this bring up the question of categorisation: how much roleplaying should there be in a game before you can call it an RPG? For example, the Witcher 3 has no combat roles, crafting roles, economic roles, political roles. All it has is the occasional dialogue choice where you can choose Geralt's personality. So, if the overwhelming majority of the game is a standard action/adventure game, but it has a few roleplaying choices, is it really an RPG?
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
I very much disagree with these points about roleplaying.
For me, roleplaying has always been about making choices about your role and then seeing how those choices affect the way the game plays.
Technically, players are capable of roleplaying in any game - we have powerful imaginations after all - but you can only call your game a roleplaying game if the mechanics of that game support roleplaying.
Much of the confusion I see regarding roleplaying seems to be because many people think of roleplaying in a very narrow sense: personality roleplaying.
But, roles come in all shapes and sizes. There are combat roles, crafting roles, economic roles, political roles, personality roles and whatever else the devs decide they want. Just because an RPG doesn't have the style of roleplaying that you prefer, doesn't mean it isn't a roleplaying game.
I will agree that most modern RPGs have very little roleplaying in them (of any sort), but I don't think that is a new situation. When I look at something like Final Fantasy 7, one of my favourite games of all time and often voted one of the best RPGs ever.....well, there's basically no roleplaying in the game at all.
I also think discussions like this bring up the question of categorisation: how much roleplaying should there be in a game before you can call it an RPG? For example, the Witcher 3 has no combat roles, crafting roles, economic roles, political roles. All it has is the occasional dialogue choice where you can choose Geralt's personality. So, if the overwhelming majority of the game is a standard action/adventure game, but it has a few roleplaying choices, is it really an RPG?
I feel like you are taking over the role of Geralt, hence it is 100% a role playing game. Probably more so then many games touted as RPG.
The initial and implied promise of the first MMORPGs, or the hope associated with them if you want, was to offer a world in which the massive amount of players would provide some level of immersion that no tabletop could provide by the cheer amount of organic interactions.
Few games actually really tried this.
I know I sound like a broken record, but it's really the truth: full anonymity meant that no MMORPG would ever deliver on this promise. There simply was no realistic way to police behavior in a way that being at a tabletop with friends/acquaintances does.
You could be a dick online in ways that would have started a physical altercation and/or got you disinvited permanently in a tabletop setting. Because players could, at worst, just buy a new box and start over to hide the fact they abused game mechanics until their last account got banned, a substantial portion of gamers were undeterred by social mores or developer retribution. Add into this, after a decade or so, a setting where so-called "whales" are emerging as a significant market force and paying to bypass power gates is starting to become commonplace..... And we're farther than ever from being able to realize this promise.
You can even see the difference as the internet and its ubiquity evolved. Gamers became more and more untethered from consequences, and player behavior continued to deteriorate. I do remember a time playing DAoC when blacklists were actually an effective tool to the community to police social behavior, despite there being no way to track accounts across avatars built into the game's UI. No more.
I very much disagree with these points about roleplaying.
For me, roleplaying has always been about making choices about your role and then seeing how those choices affect the way the game plays.
Technically, players are capable of roleplaying in any game - we have powerful imaginations after all - but you can only call your game a roleplaying game if the mechanics of that game support roleplaying.
Much of the confusion I see regarding roleplaying seems to be because many people think of roleplaying in a very narrow sense: personality roleplaying.
But, roles come in all shapes and sizes. There are combat roles, crafting roles, economic roles, political roles, personality roles and whatever else the devs decide they want. Just because an RPG doesn't have the style of roleplaying that you prefer, doesn't mean it isn't a roleplaying game.
I will agree that most modern RPGs have very little roleplaying in them (of any sort), but I don't think that is a new situation. When I look at something like Final Fantasy 7, one of my favourite games of all time and often voted one of the best RPGs ever.....well, there's basically no roleplaying in the game at all.
I also think discussions like this bring up the question of categorisation: how much roleplaying should there be in a game before you can call it an RPG? For example, the Witcher 3 has no combat roles, crafting roles, economic roles, political roles. All it has is the occasional dialogue choice where you can choose Geralt's personality. So, if the overwhelming majority of the game is a standard action/adventure game, but it has a few roleplaying choices, is it really an RPG?
I feel like you are taking over the role of Geralt, hence it is 100% a role playing game. Probably more so then many games touted as RPG.
Geralt is a character, not a role!
If you start thinking of characters as roles, then every single game where you play an avatar is then an RPG. And that clearly isn't the case.
The roleplaying in The Witcher comes only from the dialogue choices, where you (the player) get to make decisions about your role (good guy / bad guy). You interact i.e. play the role, then see what your choices lead to.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
I very much disagree with these points about roleplaying.
For me, roleplaying has always been about making choices about your role and then seeing how those choices affect the way the game plays.
Technically, players are capable of roleplaying in any game - we have powerful imaginations after all - but you can only call your game a roleplaying game if the mechanics of that game support roleplaying.
Much of the confusion I see regarding roleplaying seems to be because many people think of roleplaying in a very narrow sense: personality roleplaying.
But, roles come in all shapes and sizes. There are combat roles, crafting roles, economic roles, political roles, personality roles and whatever else the devs decide they want. Just because an RPG doesn't have the style of roleplaying that you prefer, doesn't mean it isn't a roleplaying game.
I will agree that most modern RPGs have very little roleplaying in them (of any sort), but I don't think that is a new situation. When I look at something like Final Fantasy 7, one of my favourite games of all time and often voted one of the best RPGs ever.....well, there's basically no roleplaying in the game at all.
I also think discussions like this bring up the question of categorisation: how much roleplaying should there be in a game before you can call it an RPG? For example, the Witcher 3 has no combat roles, crafting roles, economic roles, political roles. All it has is the occasional dialogue choice where you can choose Geralt's personality. So, if the overwhelming majority of the game is a standard action/adventure game, but it has a few roleplaying choices, is it really an RPG?
I feel like you are taking over the role of Geralt, hence it is 100% a role playing game. Probably more so then many games touted as RPG.
Geralt is a character, not a role!
If you start thinking of characters as roles, then every single game where you play an avatar is then an RPG. And that clearly isn't the case.
The roleplaying in The Witcher comes only from the dialogue choices, where you (the player) get to make decisions about your role (good guy / bad guy). You interact i.e. play the role, then see what your choices lead to.
Assuming the role of a predefined character is also role playing. It's actually the traditional stage actor way of doing it.
W3 also had plenty of combat "roles" in as much as a single player game can have them. There were multiple very viable ways to build Geralt and the gear to support those different builds.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Comments
In fact, in D&D and AD&D, there was never a sense of "Know your Role" as making due, was always a huge part of the campaign, and the keystone of role playing, to test your imagination.
The idea of myopic roles, really only started in EQ, with the idea of classes needing each other, and thus, the dumbing down of the player base to fall in line with the idea "I am a cleric, it is what I am, it is what I do"
The old school D&D cleric, was just at home praying to Gods of War and jumping into battle, as they would have been holding the back line healing. That role as it were, was up to the player, not the class.
Only modern MMO's set it up so that the Warrior could not do anything outside hit things with a big weapon, and be a meat shield, and all the other classes got dumbed down as well, to the point that the cleric really could not do anything outside cast healing spells.
But this was more to do with MMO's Dev's who, for whatever reason, opted to build the idea of what they called Interdependency, and really nothing to do with what D&D set up.
Legit, you could play a D&D game of 5 clerics, and none of them the same, and each would have something they excel at, the rise of cookie cutters in MMO's where all clerics would be identical of they suck, is nothing like the versatility that A/D&D offered, and as far as I have seen, the only game to really translate that versatility well as been DDO.
Also, Added: Minor Note, they dropped the "Advanced" because TSR was bought by WOTC, and WOTC opted to stop making Basic and Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, as for a long time, Basic and Advanced coexisted side by side, both with their own revisions and rule sets.
When WOTC bought the rights, they just made One System, called 3rd Edition, and moved forward from there.
Having distinct roles are not a bad thing in essence. They can be a detriment if it pigeon holds players group compositions and they can't complete content because certain roles are not present.
Often times you see in classless, less defined roles, players will mostly figure out a meta skill set and go with that. Players will stiff often gravitate towards a role even when there are no defined roles.
I think the majority of gamers in this genre want a class system that is flexible rather than a full classless system with no defined roles. The most popular titles in the genre do have defined roles and classes.
I don't dislike classes but strict classes in games bore me to tears.
When a game has clases, good design in those games for me means a lot of flexibility in how you can choose your own builds within those classes. Good examples of that were the Rift class system and the various souls within a class and the hybrid class/classless system in ESO where classes have unique identities if you want them but you can actually build ignoring all class skills if you wish because there are enough weapon and guild skill lines that enable that.
As to classless systems leading to cookie cutter metas, yes they can, but so do class systems as anyone who has played a class that can't get into raids will tell you.
Good systems also allow for the same class to build for different roles. And roles in this sense are just functional game constructs that actually have zero to do with role playing which is something many seem to confuse.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
My philosophy has always been, "give the players that well defined structure, give them full access to their class with some limitations, like a limited combat bar slot, allow them to 'spec' via combat bar ability composition and various other ways so you don't bottleneck the player to one specific play style. Essentially, allow the player to adapt within your class to varying encounters." In lieu of this, I don't like when a player can spec into multiple primary roles. In essence, I comprehend why Blizzard did the spec system, to help mitigate the EQ issue, but in reality players wanted to be DPS over Tank/healing. Unfortunately, there is no one way saves all approach. Every potential avenue of design will have it's advantages and disadvantages. The creativity comes from how you mitigate those disadvantages as much as possible.
I think the 'roleplaying" attribute, at least for me has meaning on two degrees. One, being the role your character plays as in 'acting'. Two, the role your class is plays in a combat setting.
The combustion engine is what, 100+ years old? Time for a change! lol
- 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
- 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
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
To me roleplaying is something that the Players provide. Not all Players want to roleplay, and that's fine. But it's a fun thing to do.
But it's greatly enhanced by game designs that gives players "tools" to use for roleplay.
For example, a simple campfire, being ably to place things, build things to create a setting, things like that.
And said game design needs to offer a wide range of options and customization to the Players.
The famous Shadowclan Guild of UO, who roleplayed Orcs, wore what orcs wore, including a horned mask-helmet, even though the Orcs were not a playable race.
They created an extensive Orc language that sounded like the NPC Orc's limited speech.
They were an entertaining lot, they were. But it was only possible, effectively, because the game design allowed them to look like Orcs.
There was a Guild in UO that worshipped a Spider goddess, and dressed their Guild Headquarters up with lots of spider webs, tombstones, blooding body parts, etc.
Even being able to set up long tables, and chairs, cook food and place it on the table, add glasses filled with wine and wine bottles, silverware, etc., gives Players the ability to roleplay more effectively. Feasts were sometimes used as part of Guild meetings when Players enjoyed roleplay.
Kazola (a Player) created an entirely Player run tavern, with dart boards, chess tables, and a tavern atmosphere, which was so successful that GMs decided to use her tavern as a launching point for GM Events. Lord British himself went there in Character to present a custom plaque and place it on a wall.
In short, "tools" to use in imaginative ways goes a long ways in helping Players roleplay, and even getting Players into that sort of thing.
Once upon a time....
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
That's impossible.
However, you can get closer to that.
UO had NPCs that said something in reaction to a Player saying their name, and then a keyword.
And they used it on some GM Events in a basic way.
Some examples:
(NPC named Joe)
"Joe, have you seen Stavros?"
Joe: "Aye, he was traveling north on the old Smith's Road."
(All you really needed to say was "Joe, Stavros?")
This works the same for other NPCs that know where "Stavros" went, and using their name first, they'd reply the same.
This can be expanded greatly. It can include things about the Lore and lost artifacts, too, outside of GM Events.
So you can have info gathering from NPCs, in a sort of "mock-roleplay."
Once upon a time....
You could be a dick online in ways that would have started a physical altercation and/or got you disinvited permanently in a tabletop setting. Because players could, at worst, just buy a new box and start over to hide the fact they abused game mechanics until their last account got banned, a substantial portion of gamers were undeterred by social mores or developer retribution. Add into this, after a decade or so, a setting where so-called "whales" are emerging as a significant market force and paying to bypass power gates is starting to become commonplace..... And we're farther than ever from being able to realize this promise.
You can even see the difference as the internet and its ubiquity evolved. Gamers became more and more untethered from consequences, and player behavior continued to deteriorate. I do remember a time playing DAoC when blacklists were actually an effective tool to the community to police social behavior, despite there being no way to track accounts across avatars built into the game's UI. No more.
W3 also had plenty of combat "roles" in as much as a single player game can have them. There were multiple very viable ways to build Geralt and the gear to support those different builds.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED