I don't currently play DDO (just played in Beta), and currently have no feelings either way about the game. I just find some of this discussion interesting. One thing that tickles my funny-bone a little bit is people saying they played Pen and Paper solo a lot of times. Just them and their DM. Seems to me that is two people, not one. I myself have played a number of times with just me and a friend acting as DM. I never would have told someone that I was playing a game by myself given those circumstances. Just because the other person is the DM doesn't mean he's not also playing with you. You are both sharing in the role-playing and moving the story along. I hardly see that as being considered solo play.
I think way back in the day I recall some module that let me just roll some dice for myself. More like one of those "Choose Your Own Adventure!" type books. THAT would be solo play since there wasn't another person I was interacting with. Then again, that was 1 time out of countless play sessions. I seem to recall in my beta of DDO that there were a couple times where I decided to try and go into a lower level dungeon or outside instance by myself. That right there shows that I played DDO solo quite a bit more than I ever played Pen and Paper.
Just to re-iterate. SOLO = You alone. You + Friend (DM) != You alone. You + Friend (DM) != SOLO.
Anyone who disagreed with ME (as in the people I argued WITH on this subject so far) were made hostility on MY part, I ignored their post and I exaggrated points to favor MY argument. The only time I respond to a post is when someone makes ME look like a [insert insult name here] through sarcasm or call you a [insert insult name here] flatout. It seemed like nobody can get MY attention unless they wound MY prides, like I am king/queen of every thing and nobody prove ME wrong. That's why I did engage in pissing contest so I'm out.
But before I leave and again, none of the people arguing for solo have yet to make valid argument were solo actual prevent the game from failure or boosted the playerbase.
There, I corrected the first paragraph for ya. You were confusing yourself with other people.
Also, The only point I was making is that solo play WAS part of D&D and a fact I backed up with a way for you to prove it to yourself by talking to Gary Gygax. I've seen his posts regarding solo DMing many times. Infact you could probably "search" that website I linked to you previously and see him talking about DMing Rob through some parts of Castle Greyhawk SOLO.
I dunno how you can say that not having some sort of solo options wouldn't help the player base. Having the option to play some solo when you don't have time to group would only help things. People like myself and others would be paying a monthly fee. I never said it would prevent the game from failing because this game has even larger issues than just solo play. Like no content.
And yes YOU + DM = SOLO.
Because right now the DM is the game/computer running it ... i.e. the DM is the computer.
Originally posted by anarchyart Originally posted by Ian_Hawkmoon Yes you have... You are saying there should not be solo play... And that it would ruin DDO... That is making a suggestion on what should or should not be in the game... And you TRY, but do not succeed in intimidating others who favor solo play. They don't agree with your idea of no solo so you call them names and try to belittle them. Really rather childish.
Look, there is no solo play in the game, that's the way it is. Arguing about it is like complaining that you can't play Oblivion online. That's the way it was made, if it's not for you move on. And stop calling people childish, it's childish. LOL You are calling me childish for saying someone else is childish, and yet you do the same... we could go on and on...
Originally posted by CaptainRPG Originally posted by Ian_Hawkmoon
And if I recall corectly, someone else posted that solo play would ruin the game and you agreed with him. Here is a question for you... Can you name an MMO that has "no solo play" that is more than a year old? DDO is less than 2 months old.
Better question, what game has solo as the main highlight?
It does not matter if any game has solo play as the main highlight... I never said there was one... I am asking you to name an MMO that has no solo play and is more than a year old. If you cannot name one then OK... Can you name one or not?
Originally posted by Celestian Also, The only point I was making is that solo play WAS part of D&D and a fact I backed up with a way for you to prove it to yourself by talking to Gary Gygax.
Solo play did not come until TSR series when other writers started writing for DM. Whoops there goes that argument.
Originally posted by CaptainRPG Originally posted by Celestian Also, The only point I was making is that solo play WAS part of D&D and a fact I backed up with a way for you to prove it to yourself by talking to Gary Gygax.
Solo play did not come until TSR series when other writers started writing for DM. Whoops there goes that argument.
Bzt wrong, you're saying the DM is a player and he is not. In this case the DM is the computer. There are no DMs in DD0 so you can stop trying to say that now....
Gary DM'd solo players through modules well before they were released.
Let me make this clear since you seem to have a problem understanding. The DM runs the monsters, the quests and the world. The DM is not a player in this world, he controls it. In the case of DD0 that position is taken over by programmed responses, i.e. the computer.
So now that you admitted that there was solo D&D materials and now that you know DMs are not players but the computer running the adventures you can rest easy knowing Turbine left out that part of D&D.
Originally posted by Celestian Bzt wrong, you're saying the DM is a player and he is not.
No, one said anything about the players, I said other writers. When DnD made the open gaming license, the TSR series created and the DnD series has suffered from a vaccum created by other wannabe DnD games. In the past WotC hired many writers to write for their company to make new ideas. After the open gaming license, WotC found themselves in competition with other for the first time and they were force to fire writer as they were making less money. Many of the other writers came up with idea such soloing.
This is why DnD rarely get updated and the waves are not only felt in the PnP industry, but in the rp video-gaming industry as well.
As for the "DM" comment, it was typo for DnD so you need stop acting like idiot.
So now that you admitted...
I didn't admit #%#% I never claimed that DnD didn't have solo play so twist my words like some goddamn child. I said, DnD was originally created as a group-oriented game. TSR series is what introduce solo play, but this was never originally apart of DnD. The fact that DDO is group-oriented means that Turbine was bring the game back to it's original roots so there is no point in asking or b#%%hing in your case, for solo content to be added. Lastly, I mention in that same paragraph, which ignored like you guys always do is that Turbine who currently made the game, has made it a group-oriented game and they aren't intended to make it solo based game so you and Ian, can go over yourself. Meanwhile, I'm going to ignore this topic and go back to my social life.
Originally posted by CaptainRPG Originally posted by Ian_Hawkmoon
It does not matter if any game has solo play as the main highlight... I never said there was one...
Thus you've answered your own question. End argument and goodbye.
You are so wrong... How could may saying that I never said ther was an MMO that the main highlight was solo play answer my question of asking you to name a MMO that had only group play that was over a year old? Your logic escapes me on that one. My guess is that you cannot name one, so you try to change things... A typical tactic when one cannot find a good answer...
And if by your statement of "End arguement and goodbye" means you no longer will post here... OH well... Your choice...
Originally posted by CaptainRPG Originally posted by Celestian Bzt wrong, you're saying the DM is a player and he is not.
No, one said anything about the players, I said other writers. When DnD made the open gaming license, the TSR series created and the DnD series has suffered from a vaccum created by other wannabe DnD games. In the past WotC hired many writers to write for their company to make new ideas. After the open gaming license, WotC found themselves in competition with other for the first time and they were force to fire writer as they were making less money. Many of the other writers came up with idea such soloing.
This is why DnD rarely get updated and the waves are not only felt in the PnP industry, but in the rp video-gaming industry as well.
As for the "DM" comment, it was typo for DnD so you need stop acting like idiot.
So now that you admitted...
I didn't admit #%#% I never claimed that DnD didn't have solo play so twist my words like some goddamn child. I said, DnD was originally created as a group-oriented game. TSR series is what introduce solo play, but this was never originally apart of DnD. The fact that DDO is group-oriented means that Turbine was bring the game back to it's original roots so there is no point in asking or b#%%hing in your case, for solo content to be added. Lastly, I mention in that same paragraph, which ignored like you guys always do is that Turbine who currently made the game, has made it a group-oriented game and they aren't intended to make it solo based game so you and Ian, can go over yourself. Meanwhile, I'm going to ignore this topic and go back to my social life.
If nothing else CaptainRPG, you are a good laugh... Good luck with your social life... I can't say I will miss you tho...
Originally posted by Ian_Hawkmoon Originally posted by CaptainRPG Originally posted by Ian_Hawkmoon
And if I recall corectly, someone else posted that solo play would ruin the game and you agreed with him. Here is a question for you... Can you name an MMO that has "no solo play" that is more than a year old? DDO is less than 2 months old.
Better question, what game has solo as the main highlight?
It does not matter if any game has solo play as the main highlight... I never said there was one... I am asking you to name an MMO that has no solo play and is more than a year old. If you cannot name one then OK... Can you name one or not?
FFXI is a grouping enforced mmo that has been out for over a yr. The only real solo content in that game is the first few lvls and after that it's all in groups, unless you're a beastmaster.
Originally posted by Nafunieru FFXI is a grouping enforced mmo that has been out for over a yr. The only real solo content in that game is the first few lvls and after that it's all in groups, unless you're a beastmaster.
If we view it from that point then yeah, FFXI would be. GW is a year ago with no "true solo cotent." The starting area is the same way as FFXI and after the start area, you are force to group with either henchmen or PCs. But what was the point of mention that when he answered his own question earlier.
Originally posted by CaptainRPG No, one said anything about the players, I said other writers. When DnD made the open gaming license, the TSR series created and the DnD series has suffered from a vaccum created by other wannabe DnD games. In the past WotC hired many writers to write for their company to make new ideas. After the open gaming license, WotC found themselves in competition with other for the first time and they were force to fire writer as they were making less money. Many of the other writers came up with idea such soloing.This is why DnD rarely get updated and the waves are not only felt in the PnP industry, but in the rp video-gaming industry as well.
That entire paragraph is completely unintelligible. It makes absolutely no sense. How, exactly, are you separating the Dungeons and Dragons game system, written by Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson, from Tactical Studies Rules, the company formed by Gary Gygax and Don Kaye specifically for the purpose of publishing and marketing the game system?
What others have tried to explain to you (fruitlessly, apparently, because you will not listen) is that Gary Gygax, who was simultaneously one of the two co-creators of Dungeons and Dragons AND the co-owner of Tactical Studies Rules (TSR Hobbies, INC), the company he created to publish and market his game, DESIGNED, RAN and PLAYED Dungeons and Dragons modules based entirely on solo play, meaning one player.
"many of the other writers came up with idea such soloing." What? These people have repeatedly tried to tell you that the CREATOR of both DnD and TSR Hobbies came up with the concept of solo modules. Not some group of follow-on writers. What part of that do you NOT understand?
None of which had anything at all to do with Wizards of the Coast, who did not even purchase the Dungeons and Dragons intellectual properties until twenty-two years after Gary Gygax started TSR Hobbies.
I didn't admit #%#% I never claimed that DnD didn't have solo play so twist my words like some goddamn child. I said, DnD was originally created as a group-oriented game. TSR series is what introduce solo play, but this was never originally apart of DnD. The fact that DDO is group-oriented means that Turbine was bring the game back to it's original roots so there is no point in asking or b#%%hing in your case, for solo content to be added. Lastly, I mention in that same paragraph, which ignored like you guys always do is that Turbine who currently made the game, has made it a group-oriented game and they aren't intended to make it solo based game so you and Ian, can go over yourself. Meanwhile, I'm going to ignore this topic and go back to my social life.
As you have been told, so many, many times; if the creator of the game utilized and designed solo play for the game, then the concept is for one or more players, not just a group.
TSR was not a series; it was the company that was formed by the creators of Dungeons and Dragons to publish and market their creation.
The point of the conversation remains, that among all of its glaring flaws, DDO would be improved by having solo content. Whether Turbine would, could, has or will consider solo play is irrelevant to a discussion about whether DDO would be improved by its inclusion.
You wanted a valid, logical reason why this would be so. It is very simple.
If even ONE more person would subscribe to DDO if it had solo content, it would improve the game simply by increasing the possiblity that it remains a viable, revenue-generating enterprise.
As it stands now, the longevity of DDO is in serious doubt. They need to do whatever is necessary and feasible to generate interest and revenue now, before they are forced to make the decision to close the game. If solo content only adds one thousand new subscribers, that is still one thousand more subscribers than DDO had before.
The entire design of DDO illustrates very clearly that Turbine does not have a clue about Dungeons and Dragons or its roots. This is apparent from the sheer number of Dungeons and Dragons PnP game mechanics and content that they completely ignored or left out for expediency.
There is not a single MMO on the market today that does not have solo content. It is irrelevant whether the main focus of any MMO is solo content, because they all feature both group and solo content. The same reason that an MMO based entirely on solo content would fail is exactly why DDO is struggling with its group-only orientation.
Abbatoir / Abbatoir Cinq Adnihilo Beorn Judge's Edge Somnulus Perfect Black ---------------------- Asheron's Call / Asheron's Call 2 Everquest / Everquest 2 Anarchy Online Shadowbane Dark Age of Camelot Star Wars Galaxies Matrix Online World of Warcraft Guild Wars City of Heroes
Originally posted by CaptainRPGI said, DnD was originally created as a group-oriented game. TSR series is what introduce solo play, but this was never originally apart of DnD.
Just because you keep saying that it wasnt part of the original game doesn't make it true.
I've said several times Gary Gygax, you know the guy that wrote the majority of the D&D game, had solo games. I dunno how much more original you could be than Gary Gygax, hell I bet Dave (the other co-creator of D&D) did the same but he doesn't show up where I post in the D&D forums.
I dunno why this upsets you so much. Even if DD0 had solo play it wouldn't save the game as it has larger problems like, no content and no world.
Originally posted by CaptainRPG Originally posted by NafunieruFFXI is a grouping enforced mmo that has been out for over a yr. The only real solo content in that game is the first few lvls and after that it's all in groups, unless you're a beastmaster. If we view it from that point then yeah, FFXI would be. GW is a year ago with no "true solo cotent." The starting area is the same way as FFXI and after the start area, you are force to group with either henchmen or PCs. But what was the point of mention that when he answered his own question earlier.
Neither of those examples is relevant to a discussion of forced grouping as it is implemented in DDO, for one simple reason.
It is possible for a player to gain experience and level solo in both of those games by killing monsters.
In DDO, it is not possible as killing monsters does not give any experience to the player (unlike the actual Dungeons and Dragons PnP game). Only completing quests gives experience and completing those quests relies almost entirely on having a group.
Further, the use of henchmen in GW is still solo play because the player in question is never forced to wait on a group to form to complete objectives. They can, at will, form their own "group" and enter instances. Regardless of whether they complete the quest itself, they still gain experience for killing monsters and thus, they level.
Is the solo content sad and/or lonely or pitiful? Possibly. The fact still remains that neither game is forced grouping. The individual player can still gain levels and skills on their own.
"True solo content" is content that allows the player to advance in character development on their own, at their own pace, without the aid of other players. Both FFXI and GW allow the player to do this, although the rate at which characters advance compared to those who group may be extremely slow or in fact, not be any fun at all. Regardless, it is still available.
Abbatoir / Abbatoir Cinq Adnihilo Beorn Judge's Edge Somnulus Perfect Black ---------------------- Asheron's Call / Asheron's Call 2 Everquest / Everquest 2 Anarchy Online Shadowbane Dark Age of Camelot Star Wars Galaxies Matrix Online World of Warcraft Guild Wars City of Heroes
Originally posted by Somnulus That entire paragraph is completely unintelligible. It makes absolutely no sense. How, exactly, are you separating the Dungeons and Dragons game system, written by Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson, from Tactical Studies Rules, the company formed by Gary Gygax and Don Kaye specifically for the purpose of publishing and marketing the game system?
What others have tried to explain to you (fruitlessly, apparently, because you will not listen) is that Gary Gygax, who was simultaneously one of the two co-creators of Dungeons and Dragons AND the co-owner of Tactical Studies Rules (TSR Hobbies, INC), the company he created to publish and market his game, DESIGNED, RAN and PLAYED Dungeons and Dragons modules based entirely on solo play, meaning one player.
"many of the other writers came up with idea such soloing." What? These people have repeatedly tried to tell you that the CREATOR of both DnD and TSR Hobbies came up with the concept of solo modules. Not some group of follow-on writers. What part of that do you NOT understand?
None of which had anything at all to do with Wizards of the Coast, who did not even purchase the Dungeons and Dragons intellectual properties until twenty-two years after Gary Gygax started TSR Hobbies.
After the death of Kaye in 1976, his widow sold her shares to Gygax. Gygax then controlling the whole partnership Tactical Studies Rules created TSR Hobbies, Inc. He sold it soon after to Brian Blume and his father Kevin because of money problems. The Blume family owned roughly two-thirds of TSR Hobbies by late 1976.
After leaving TSR Gary Gygax created Dangerous Journeys, an advanced RPG spanning multiple genres containing almost every rule that Gary could think of"
Dave Arneson created a Chainmail scenario involving individual heroes, instead of groups in formation, moving through an underground "dungeon".
DnD was created from Chainmail. This paragraph is a key point right here when it comes to solo as it shows that Gary had nothing to do with the way DnD came out. Dave did. Gary wrote it, but Dave improve on it. Gary actual intent was to make the game another wargame, where you had to manage platoons. Dave pretty much help Gary by narrowing it down to one individual character for each person to play. And they were other people playing beside Gary and Don Kaye. (Other friends they invited), This proves your argument was wrong and shows how "un-intelligent" you are for you not reading your own stuff.
As you have been told, so many, many times; if the creator of the game utilized and designed solo play for the game, then the concept is for one or more players, not just a group. TSR was not a series; it was the company that was formed by the creators of Dungeons and Dragons to publish and market their creation. No #%#% sherlock, I referring to books created after DnD was made and Gary leaving, which is what I explaining earlier about the vaccum. And no DDO wouldn't improve with solo. Thank and good night.
Originally posted by Somnulus Neither of those examples is relevant to a discussion of forced grouping as it is implemented in DDO, for one simple reason. Then you need to talk to Ian, not us. We didn't ask that stupid question.
Originally posted by CaptainRPGAfter the death of Kaye in 1976, his widow sold her shares to Gygax. Gygax then controlling the whole partnership Tactical Studies Rules created TSR Hobbies, Inc. He sold it soon after to Brian Blume and his father Kevin because of money problems. The Blume family owned roughly two-thirds of TSR Hobbies by late 1976.After leaving TSR Gary Gygax created Dangerous Journeys, an advanced RPG spanning multiple genres containing almost every rule that Gary could think of"
All of which has nothing to do with the fact, again, that Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson created Dungeons and Dragons together and Wizards of the Coast never had the anything to do with any solo player content designed for or from the rule system until twenty-two years after the game system was created.
Who owned how much of TSR's physical assets, again, is largely irrelevant, as Gary Gygax held managing positions in TSR in various incarnations until 1985.
Originally posted by CaptainRPG
I hated it when people suggestion you read a link and they don't read it themselves. Oh and by the way,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chainmail_(game)Dave Arneson created a Chainmail scenario involving individual heroes, instead of groups in formation, moving through an underground "dungeon".DnD was created from Chainmail. This paragraph is a key point right here when it comes to solo as it shows that Gary had nothing to do with the way DnD came out. Dave did. Gary wrote it, but Dave improve on it. Gary actual intent was to make the game another wargame, where you had to manage platoons. Dave pretty much help Gary by narrowing it down to one individual character for each person to play. And they were other people playing beside Gary and Don Kaye. (Other friends they invited), This proves your argument was wrong and shows how "un-intelligent" you are for you not reading your own stuff.
I hate that as well, especially as your point is here is irrelevant. The topic under discussion is not who pared the system down to one player representing one character. The topic is solo player content.
Dave Arneson moved Chainmail beyond its strategic war concept by designing a scenario where an individual player represented a single, specific character moving through a "dungeon" rather than a player representing a unit of three to twelve miniatures in formation on a field of battle. That is not the same concept as a solo player or solo-player content.
Together, Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson developed Dungeons and Dragons from that basic concept. I quote:
"This led Gary and Dave to develop what was to become Dungeons & Dragons and is credited with the creation of role-playing games."
The article you are referring to is not crediting Dave Arneson with the development of game play in Chainmail as a solo player, with no other players, which is the point being discussed (solo player content); it is crediting him with the development of each player being represented by an individual character rather than a strategic unit.
What many have tried to tell you is that Gary Gygax designed specific Dungeons and Dragons modules that involved only one actual player.
Regardless of who else, at any other time, also designed solo player content, one of the co-creators of Dungeons and Dragons did so and as such, any argument that solo play is not and/or has never been a viable concept in Dungeons and Dragons PnP is invalid. The point you are arguing about the genesis of Dungeons and Dragons has nothing to do with the use or viability of solo player content in Dungeons and Dragons.
Originally posted by CaptainRPG
No #%#% sherlock, I referring to books created after DnD was made and Gary leaving, which is what I explaining earlier about the vaccum. And no DDO wouldn't improve with solo. Thank and good night.
All of which, again, has absolutely nothing to do with the creation and use of solo (single) player modules for Dungeons and Dragons.
The fact remains that they existed; that the co-creator of Dungeons and Dragons designed more than one; and that the game system was designed for one or more players, not solely for a group.
Your final comment is simply your opinion. If you cannot concede that the addition of solo content in DDO would attract new subscribers which;
1. Provides further development capital through subscriptions. 2. Increases the overall player population of the game.
and that those are both desirable attributes for the long-term success of DDO (or any MMO), then you are ignoring the reality of subscription-based game design.
Abbatoir / Abbatoir Cinq Adnihilo Beorn Judge's Edge Somnulus Perfect Black ---------------------- Asheron's Call / Asheron's Call 2 Everquest / Everquest 2 Anarchy Online Shadowbane Dark Age of Camelot Star Wars Galaxies Matrix Online World of Warcraft Guild Wars City of Heroes
And if I recall corectly, someone else posted that solo play would ruin the game and you agreed with him. Here is a question for you... Can you name an MMO that has "no solo play" that is more than a year old? DDO is less than 2 months old.
Originally posted by CaptainRPG
Better question, what game has solo as the main highlight?
Originally posted by CaptainRPG
Then you need to talk to Ian, not us. We didn't ask that stupid question.
My reply to yourself and Nafunieru was to point out the neither game used as an example has no "true solo content." Both games include solo content at every level of character development. It may be sparse and it may be slower and less dynamic than group play, but it exists.
Ian's post to you was asking you to identify an MMO that is more than one year old that has no solo play, which you declined to answer. Your reply asked him to identify a game that has solo play as the main highlight.
The answer is that there is not one single MMO currently on the market for over a year that does not have both solo AND group play available at every level of player development except for one; DDO.
The question Ian asked was not stupid in the least. It pointed out the root of the fallacy that the inclusion of solo play will make DDO worse by illustrating the fact that every other MMO has what DDO does not; both solo and group play.
The fact that solo player modules were designed for Dungeons and Dragons PnP by at least one of the original creators of the game illustrates the fact that solo player content and game play has always been a potential dynamic of Dungeons and Dragons.
Taken together, logic would normally dictate that if the original game included solo player content and every other MMO includes solo player content, a MMO based on Dungeons and Dragons would include solo player content.
Including more options for play would never make a game worse. Those options may not appeal to every player, but would still allow them to choose.
At a minimum, the inclusion of solo player content would potentially increase the player population and provide new revenue, extending the life of DDO.
The most factual statement made so far on the subject is that Turbine chose not to include solo player content.
The server population average over fourteen servers tops out at a nightly high of approximately 10,187 players, give or take. If we add five percent of that for persons playing while anonymous, we get 10,696 players. If we even make the assumption of another fifty percent of that representing players who are subscribed but not playing, you have 16,044 subscribers. If we make the assumption that five times the given online players are subscribed, but not playing, you still only have 53,480 subscribers.
That number may not be nearly generous enough. But it does give an idea of where the subscription base is in DDO. The question is, what is the break-even point for Turbine, and how far down does the population have to go before DDO is not a viable, revenue-generating product?
If the addition of solo player content would mean the difference between DDO being closed or remaining open, how could that be considered worse for the game?
Abbatoir / Abbatoir Cinq Adnihilo Beorn Judge's Edge Somnulus Perfect Black ---------------------- Asheron's Call / Asheron's Call 2 Everquest / Everquest 2 Anarchy Online Shadowbane Dark Age of Camelot Star Wars Galaxies Matrix Online World of Warcraft Guild Wars City of Heroes
All of which has nothing to do with the fact, again, that Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson created Dungeons and Dragons together and Wizards of the Coast never had the anything to do with any solo player content designed for or from the rule system until twenty-two years after the game system was created.
A few years later a new version of D&D was created, Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (AD&D) (1977-9). [1] The Player's Handbook would be the first rule book of the new system. The new rules were not compatible with D&D. As a result, the D&D and AD&D had distinct product lines and expansions.
A few years later a new version of D&D was created, Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (AD&D) (1977-9). [1] The Player's Handbook would be the first rule book of the new system. The new rules were not compatible with D&D. As a result, the D&D and AD&D had distinct product lines and expansions.
To sum it all up…Gygax and Koye wrote Chainmail. Later he and Jeff made the game from the rules that he and Koye wrote while Koye helped publish the game. Anderson made a suggestion to narrow armies down to one individual main character with their friends. DnD was born from idea, but was not created Chainmail was still an attempted to be a wargame. Their first game session with Chainmail was anything but solo considering Jeff, Gygax and some others were there playing too. Gary Gygax created a campaign book, a player's handbook and more simple version of the DnD rules.
I hate that as well, especially as your point is here is irrelevant.
It’s only irrelevant because it proved you wrong. Oh dear God, that’s the last we want to do is prove you wrong.
The topic under discussion is not who pared the system down to one player representing one character. The topic is solo player content.
The discussion topic is about the game sure sign of failure and OP post about the price falling. Guys like Ian highjack the topic claiming solo would improve the content with no claim. Then you come highjack the thread making false claims about the game.
Dave Arneson moved Chainmail beyond its strategic war concept by designing a scenario where an individual player represented a single, specific character moving through a "dungeon" rather than a player representing a unit of three to twelve miniatures in formation on a field of battle. That is not the same concept as a solo player or solo-player content.
Chainmail (1971) was a medieval miniature wargame created by enthusiasts in the late 1960s at the University of Minnesota. These friends, led by Gary Gygax and Jeff Perren, codified a set of rules that they had been using for miniatures battles; their rules were similar to the ones that would later be used in Warhammer.
Chainmail (1971) was a medieval miniature wargame created by enthusiasts in the late 1960s at the University of Minnesota. These friends, led by Gary Gygax and Jeff Perren, codified a set of rules that they had been using for miniatures battles; their rules were similar to the ones that would later be used in Warhammer.
The game was played with other people, not just two people and the fact that Jeff was there playing to means there was more than one person playing.
Regardless of who else, at any other time, also designed solo player content, one of the co-creators of Dungeons and Dragons did so and as such, any argument that solo play is not and/or has never been a viable concept in Dungeons and Dragons PnP is invalid.
Nope, Gygax didn’t make the game solo, the first DnD game Greyhawk.
Greyhawk is a campaign setting for the Dungeons & Dragonsrole-playing game. Also known as the World of Greyhawk, it is one of the game's oldest settings. Within the setting, the name is also shared by the Free City of Greyhawk, Castle Greyhawk located outside of the city, and a race of dragons known in other settings as Steel Dragons. As one of the earliest of the D&D campaign settings, much of the rules design occurred in conjunction with game play by Gary Gygax and others in and around Castle Greyhawk and its dungeons. While constructing the milieu, Gygax also incorporated the campaign worlds of his fellow role-players, such as Blackmoor (Dave Arneson's campaign) and the Lendore Isles (a region created by long-time stalwart Len Lakofka).
Greyhawk is a campaign setting for the Dungeons & Dragonsrole-playing game. Also known as the World of Greyhawk, it is one of the game's oldest settings. Within the setting, the name is also shared by the Free City of Greyhawk, Castle Greyhawk located outside of the city, and a race of dragons known in other settings as Steel Dragons. As one of the earliest of the D&D campaign settings, much of the rules design occurred in conjunction with game play by Gary Gygax and others in and around Castle Greyhawk and its dungeons. While constructing the milieu, Gygax also incorporated the campaign worlds of his fellow role-players, such as Blackmoor (Dave Arneson's campaign) and the Lendore Isles (a region created by long-time stalwart Len Lakofka).
Greenwood made the game solo in 1985. As it was based off his personal adventures in his own campaign.
The Forgotten Realms is a fictional setting for the Dungeons & Dragons (D&D)fantasyrole-playing game, created by Canadian author and game designer Ed Greenwood. The Forgotten Realms were originally designed by Greenwood as his own personal adventure campaign, from which he began publishing a series of short articles detailing the setting in Dragon magazine.
Your final comment is simply your opinion. If you cannot concede that the addition of solo content in DDO would attract new subscribers which;
1. Provides further development capital through subscriptions. 2. Increases the overall player population of the game.
Unless provide example were solo play improved the gameplay or was the highlight of any MMORPG game, what you say is only a matter of opinion. No MMORPG, has announced owing their success to solo gameplay.
My reply to yourself and Nafunieru was to point out the neither game used as an example has no "true solo content."
Both games include solo content at every level of character development. It may be sparse and it may be slower and less dynamic than group play, but it exists.
GW doesn't have solo content since you are force to group with either NPC henchmen or PC players. The point of soloing is being to quest or fight without help. (Not including pets or familiars as they are class abilities.)
Like GW, FFXI is easy in the beginning in the tutorial area, but after that area, you can't solo. Not only is said true by the player in the FFXI forums, but it's non-solo playability is mention and SHOWN on X-Play as well.
Ian's post to you was asking you to identify an MMO that is more than one year old that has no solo play, which you declined to answer.
Actually, I reversed the question on him as there is no current game where players enjoy solo to care for as much. Solo was only a big issue in games where grouping is difficult. GW had people crying like yourself about solo being to hard. This was during the time when the game first launch, back when the community was chaotic and the henchmen had piss poor AI. Ironically, DDO has the same issues as GW has and whiners like yourself have come out of the woodwork.
This isn't a problem in GW since guilds are abundant and joining them is easy. AI has gotten an improvements so there less complaints and frustration about wipes.
At a minimum, the inclusion of solo player content would potentially increase the player population and provide new revenue, extending the life of DDO.
EQ2 has solo content and has always had it, but it suffered greatly it's player fanbase because the PvE sucked and the PvP was non-existent.
GW had good amount of people stop playing because it lacked content and solo made the game boring as the whole point of getting through game for most players was to get engage in the group endgame content. The player solo so they wouldn't have to deal with the immature noobs in the beginning areas and play with players more mature and experienced. Problem was that most noob skip PvE and went straight to PvP where the more experience players would find them flooding the endgame PvP. To made their efforts to skip the game along fruitless. Also the "elite players" would jade players out based on their class and a lot players were force to solo, which caused people to solo with AI only to die and get so frustrated to point that they quit the same because there was no point in solo since solo was just as hard as finding a group.
WoW has soloing, but only certain quests and certain class can solo. The only class you could solo were deliever message/item, a kill/get evidence quests from an abundant amount of monster in a particular area or any questi you are 10 to 20 levels over. The quests you couldn't solo were the Elite quest, kill/get evidence quests from small amount of monsters in a particular area, boss quests and instances quest.
If you were a paladin, you could solo non-elite quest easier then most classes because you can heal yourself and have multiple stun for escaping and options as well as a shield to reduce damage. A paladin has easier time beating NPCs his own level then a Warrior does. Another thing that limits solo content is level requirements on instances, not being to join Battleground unless a certain number of people sign on the other faction, having NPC civilians attack PCs to provoke DH kills, and confining the best treasure drops to instances.
Soloing in MMORPG, has and always be a exploit that give certain priviledge classes an advantage. When you added soloing content like EQ2, the only thing it does is ruin the PvE and encourage farming/powergaming. Most farmers and powerlevels are soloers and proof of this can be found in Lineage II as nearly every player using bots solo.
Originally posted by Gameloading Turbine should have get rid of the monthly fee and do the same as Guild Wars did. don't get me wrong, I'm not a player who wants :"GIEV MMO's FREE PLX!!11!11" But if Guild Wars can do it with instance technology, I see no reason why D&DO can't.
Yes, a proper business model for DDO would have been to allow for free access to gaming servers. This would have brought them more sales in titles and an even larger revenue stream for greater development of expansions/modules/scenarios. Why they choose to go into a severly limiting instanced gaming environment that requires a subscription is beyond me.
For the sake of the arguement:
Solo game play _IS_ key to an MMO. The online gaming experiance entails character development. Players need to extablish a connection with a character as they progress to fullfill the desire of an mmo business model. Once a player is attached to their characters progression, wether it be through content or social experiances, a stronger commitment is created to returning to the game. DDO lacks this feature.
When logging into DDO I expected the opportunity to run the countryside and create allies with local denzines to establish a backdrop for my character and the environment. Being able to establish a guild who could then construct a fortress or a keep is a missed dream in DDO. Diversity and dynamics of game play rests solely on which player class is avialble at the time they are needed for a repeatable quest.
The game needs more vast areas that are -not- instanced. It needs the dynamics which would allow for players to poke around looking for "who has a good connection with the Orcs of Amberwood forests? We need a shortcut!!" The game has absolutely -NO- sense of a dynamic environment which has come to be expected from a subscription to an MMO.
It's -not- a great game although I would say it's just "ok". Unfortunately, I am unable to recomend this game outside of the free trial. And yes, I am currently still trying it...
For the sake of the arguement: Solo game play _IS_ key to an MMO. The online gaming experiance entails character development. Players need to extablish a connection with a character as they progress to fullfill the desire of an mmo business model. Once a player is attached to their characters progression, wether it be through content or social experiances, a stronger commitment is created to returning to the game. DDO lacks this feature.
No, proof of this is the farmers of Lineage II and World of Warcraft. Most people who played Lineage II have found that players often solo do so to powergame and farm easy kills that drop treasures which can be sold, traded or auction at insane prices in game or for cash in real life. That's why there has been so much banning in WoW (I'm not sure about Lineage) because farmers were trying to make REAL MONEY off of in-game items. Not only did this defeat the purpose of playing the game for players, but it allow people to make money off the MMORPG product.
If they weren't making real cash off the in-game items, they would sell to the vendor for a ludcrious amount of kickbacks; they would trade it to their other character or a friend so their character would become powerful or they would auction the items off at insane prices. (WoW's economy sucks thanks to the fact that players tend to overcharged items put in the auction house.)
As I mention, with powergaming, solo allowed player to get huge amounts of XP killing certain monsters, which is why so many rpgs come out today with very hard NPCs so players will think twice about soloing. Perfect example is Neverwinter Nights. Most DMs were force to lower the XP players gained and make XP quest based because certain class like the cleric or mages (wizards and sorcerers) could solo easy and get high levels very fast. Unfortunately, this was not forseen by Blizzard/WoW 2 years ago and some players chose to solo grind to higher levels. The backlash was that a lot of those players who engaged in the endgame grouping were either under-equipped or didn't posses the discipline to work with a team, which got them ignored or kicked of endgame groups.
Social-wise, soloing only encourages players to jaded other players as was the result of GW. New players need guidance or want to team up with someone, but elite players or solor players tend act cruelly to new players by calling them noobs for not being able to solo; thus new players leave the game out of frustrating/boredom of constantly being alone or hostility of the community.
Solo is more anti-productive then productive for players as a whole. Soloing only breaks down communication, causing deviant thinking patterns and makes it more difficult for players form parties or find the right people to quest with. For example, if a classes has a better ability to solo then it'll be hard to find such characters if they are required for a group.
Lastly, solo content cannot be created without a game becoming imbalance. EQ2 was solo-friendly, but players who exodus from the game and game magazines report that the quests were to easy and felt more like grinding. This means the NPCs were too easy to take on and it really hurt the PvE aspect for those looking for challenge and were created this way to make the game easier on those who solo. For the creators to add solo content, they would have dumb down the AI and status of a monster, which defeats the purpose of class roles if any players can take on NPCs. And to prevent solo players from advancing too quick, from powergaming and/or from farming, they would have to offer less drops and less XP and less rewards. Ironically, that would make the solo content less desirable as in the case of EQ2.
The game needs more vast areas that are -not- instanced. It needs the dynamics which would allow for players to poke around looking for "who has a good connection with the Orcs of Amberwood forests? We need a shortcut!!" The game has absolutely -NO- sense of a dynamic environment which has come to be expected from a subscription to an MMO. It's -not- a great game although I would say it's just "ok". Unfortunately, I am unable to recomend this game outside of the free trial. And yes, I am currently still trying it... The game cannot be "openly DM" by anyone and the demands for the DMs would be too great and too many. I think it should done what GW did and put a middle area in it that can be explored. Indeed, there needs to be games with more physics and the dynamics, but players like yourself have not made petitions suggesting such ideas to companies or you encourage companies to ignore you by not protesting how they handle communication between customer and employee.
Lastly, if you want games that are more interactive then you to make their own game as companies do not hire many writers anymore. Writers use to come in pair or more; and the writers, through brainstorming and sharing ideas, were able to come up with new ideas for games, but companies have tried to narrow their writers down to one to save money, which is why companies make trends out of trends. It easier to copy an idea already in progress then to higher several writers to brainstorm something new for you.
If, by the "game", you mean Chainmail, you would be correct. Which is not Dungeons and Dragons, never was and is only loosely related to it as the foundation for Dave Arneson's idea of having each player control only one unique character, rather than a unit.
Wizards of the Coast was founded by Peter Adkison in 1990 just outside Seattle, Washington, and their headquarters is still in nearby Renton.In 1997, they bought the cash-strapped makers of Dungeons & Dragons, TSR.
Exactly as I stated, Wizards of the Coast purchased TSR twenty-two years after TSR Hobbies was founded. I am assuming that you have a point here, somewhere.
A few years later a new version of D&D was created, Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (AD&D) (1977-9). [1] The Player's Handbook would be the first rule book of the new system. The new rules were not compatible with D&D. As a result, the D&D and AD&D had distinct product lines and expansions.
Okay. Again, I assume there is a point here somewhere. You do realize that the excerpt you pasted is in reference to the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons rule set and that the original Dungeons and Dragons was first published in 1974, right?
To sum it all up Gygax and Koye wrote Chainmail. Later he and Jeff made the game from the rules that he and Koye wrote while Koye helped publish the game. Anderson made a suggestion to narrow armies down to one individual main character with their friends. DnD was born from idea, but was not created Chainmail was still an attempted to be a wargame. Their first game session with Chainmail was anything but solo considering Jeff, Gygax and some others were there playing too. Gary Gygax created a campaign book, a player's handbook and more simple version of the DnD rules.
No, actually, to sum it all up;
Chainmail WAS a tactical medieval war game published first by Guidon Games in 1971 and then again by TSR in 1975, created by many but attributed to Gary Gygax and Jeff Perren.
Dave Arneson created a scenario for Chainmail that gave each player one specific character to play instead of units of three to twelve. This scenario was so popular that Dave and Gary proceeded to create a system that would allow these representative characters to continue to develop from game session to game session.
This system was the foundation for Dungeons and Dragons.
"Their first game session was anything but solo". Which means, what? First, we aren't talking about Chainmail, we are talking about Dungeons and Dragons. Second, we aren't talking about individual play sessions, we are talking about solo content for the game system as a whole.
Its only irrelevant because it proved you wrong. Oh dear God, thats the last we want to do is prove you wrong.
CaptainRPG, you cannot possibly prove me wrong by regurgitating what I have already told you.
Chainmail (1971) was a medieval miniature wargame created by enthusiasts in the late 1960s at the University of Minnesota. These friends, led by Gary Gygax and Jeff Perren, codified a set of rules that they had been using for miniatures battles; their rules were similar to the ones that would later be used in Warhammer.
Yes, it certainly was. Glad you could repeat that. Again.
The game was played with other people, not just two people and the fact that Jeff was there playing to means there was more than one person playing.
Except again, the subject isn't the tactical strategy wargame Chainmail, which is not Dungeons and Dragons. In Dungeons and Dragons, the Dungeon Master (DM) is not a player. They are coordinator, organizer and manager of the game, similar to a line judge in tennis (though obviously with many more rules and interaction). If you have a DM and one player, you still only have one player. I am assuming that you have actually played Dungeons and Dragons before, or you wouldn't be likening the DM to a player.
Nope, Gygax didnt make the game solo, the first DnD game Greyhawk.
The above sentence makes absolutely no sense and the following, referencing the World of Greyhawk, has no application. We aren't talking about creating a game solo, we are talking about creating solo player content for the game. You are very obviously confused between the two.
Greenwood made the game solo in 1985. As it was based off his personal adventures in his own campaign.
Another example of your confusion. Again, no one is talking about creating a game by yourself. We are talking about solo content for the game.
Unless provide example were solo play improved the gameplay or was the highlight of any MMORPG game, what you say is only a matter of opinion. No MMORPG, has announced owing their success to solo gameplay.
Fortunately for me, I do not have to provide an example of how solo play improved gameplay, as every other MMO has solo gameplay. Since I never claimed that solo gameplay was the highlight of any MMO, but specifically stated that successful MMOs need BOTH solo and group play, I have no requirement to prove that either.
I can provide you with an example of how the lack of solo gameplay is currently damaging a particular MMO, however.
Finally, since you did not directly refute the facts that solo gameplay would provide increased subscriptions and higher overall server populations, my conclusions are still accurate.
Abbatoir / Abbatoir Cinq Adnihilo Beorn Judge's Edge Somnulus Perfect Black ---------------------- Asheron's Call / Asheron's Call 2 Everquest / Everquest 2 Anarchy Online Shadowbane Dark Age of Camelot Star Wars Galaxies Matrix Online World of Warcraft Guild Wars City of Heroes
Comments
I don't currently play DDO (just played in Beta), and currently have no feelings either way about the game. I just find some of this discussion interesting. One thing that tickles my funny-bone a little bit is people saying they played Pen and Paper solo a lot of times. Just them and their DM. Seems to me that is two people, not one. I myself have played a number of times with just me and a friend acting as DM. I never would have told someone that I was playing a game by myself given those circumstances. Just because the other person is the DM doesn't mean he's not also playing with you. You are both sharing in the role-playing and moving the story along. I hardly see that as being considered solo play.
I think way back in the day I recall some module that let me just roll some dice for myself. More like one of those "Choose Your Own Adventure!" type books. THAT would be solo play since there wasn't another person I was interacting with. Then again, that was 1 time out of countless play sessions. I seem to recall in my beta of DDO that there were a couple times where I decided to try and go into a lower level dungeon or outside instance by myself. That right there shows that I played DDO solo quite a bit more than I ever played Pen and Paper.
Just to re-iterate. SOLO = You alone. You + Friend (DM) != You alone. You + Friend (DM) != SOLO.
But before I leave and again, none of the people arguing for solo have yet to make valid argument were solo actual prevent the game from failure or boosted the playerbase.
There, I corrected the first paragraph for ya. You were confusing yourself with other people.
Also, The only point I was making is that solo play WAS part of D&D and a fact I backed up with a way for you to prove it to yourself by talking to Gary Gygax. I've seen his posts regarding solo DMing many times. Infact you could probably "search" that website I linked to you previously and see him talking about DMing Rob through some parts of Castle Greyhawk SOLO.
I dunno how you can say that not having some sort of solo options wouldn't help the player base. Having the option to play some solo when you don't have time to group would only help things. People like myself and others would be paying a monthly fee. I never said it would prevent the game from failing because this game has even larger issues than just solo play. Like no content.
And yes YOU + DM = SOLO.
Because right now the DM is the game/computer running it ... i.e. the DM is the computer.
http://www.greycouncil.org/
LOL You are calling me childish for saying someone else is childish, and yet you do the same... we could go on and on...
It does not matter if any game has solo play as the main highlight... I never said there was one... I am asking you to name an MMO that has no solo play and is more than a year old. If you cannot name one then OK... Can you name one or not?
Bzt wrong, you're saying the DM is a player and he is not. In this case the DM is the computer. There are no DMs in DD0 so you can stop trying to say that now....
Gary DM'd solo players through modules well before they were released.
Let me make this clear since you seem to have a problem understanding. The DM runs the monsters, the quests and the world. The DM is not a player in this world, he controls it. In the case of DD0 that position is taken over by programmed responses, i.e. the computer.
So now that you admitted that there was solo D&D materials and now that you know DMs are not players but the computer running the adventures you can rest easy knowing Turbine left out that part of D&D.
Cheers.
http://www.greycouncil.org/
searching for the next DAoC....
Kay-exile
You are so wrong... How could may saying that I never said ther was an MMO that the main highlight was solo play answer my question of asking you to name a MMO that had only group play that was over a year old? Your logic escapes me on that one. My guess is that you cannot name one, so you try to change things... A typical tactic when one cannot find a good answer...
And if by your statement of "End arguement and goodbye" means you no longer will post here... OH well... Your choice...
If nothing else CaptainRPG, you are a good laugh... Good luck with your social life... I can't say I will miss you tho...
It does not matter if any game has solo play as the main highlight... I never said there was one... I am asking you to name an MMO that has no solo play and is more than a year old. If you cannot name one then OK... Can you name one or not?
FFXI is a grouping enforced mmo that has been out for over a yr. The only real solo content in that game is the first few lvls and after that it's all in groups, unless you're a beastmaster.
That entire paragraph is completely unintelligible. It makes absolutely no sense. How, exactly, are you separating the Dungeons and Dragons game system, written by Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson, from Tactical Studies Rules, the company formed by Gary Gygax and Don Kaye specifically for the purpose of publishing and marketing the game system?
What others have tried to explain to you (fruitlessly, apparently, because you will not listen) is that Gary Gygax, who was simultaneously one of the two co-creators of Dungeons and Dragons AND the co-owner of Tactical Studies Rules (TSR Hobbies, INC), the company he created to publish and market his game, DESIGNED, RAN and PLAYED Dungeons and Dragons modules based entirely on solo play, meaning one player.
"many of the other writers came up with idea such soloing." What? These people have repeatedly tried to tell you that the CREATOR of both DnD and TSR Hobbies came up with the concept of solo modules. Not some group of follow-on writers. What part of that do you NOT understand?
None of which had anything at all to do with Wizards of the Coast, who did not even purchase the Dungeons and Dragons intellectual properties until twenty-two years after Gary Gygax started TSR Hobbies.
Please take a moment and follow the link below.
TSR - Wikipedia
As you have been told, so many, many times; if the creator of the game utilized and designed solo play for the game, then the concept is for one or more players, not just a group.
TSR was not a series; it was the company that was formed by the creators of Dungeons and Dragons to publish and market their creation.
The point of the conversation remains, that among all of its glaring flaws, DDO would be improved by having solo content. Whether Turbine would, could, has or will consider solo play is irrelevant to a discussion about whether DDO would be improved by its inclusion.
You wanted a valid, logical reason why this would be so. It is very simple.
If even ONE more person would subscribe to DDO if it had solo content, it would improve the game simply by increasing the possiblity that it remains a viable, revenue-generating enterprise.
As it stands now, the longevity of DDO is in serious doubt. They need to do whatever is necessary and feasible to generate interest and revenue now, before they are forced to make the decision to close the game. If solo content only adds one thousand new subscribers, that is still one thousand more subscribers than DDO had before.
The entire design of DDO illustrates very clearly that Turbine does not have a clue about Dungeons and Dragons or its roots. This is apparent from the sheer number of Dungeons and Dragons PnP game mechanics and content that they completely ignored or left out for expediency.
There is not a single MMO on the market today that does not have solo content. It is irrelevant whether the main focus of any MMO is solo content, because they all feature both group and solo content. The same reason that an MMO based entirely on solo content would fail is exactly why DDO is struggling with its group-only orientation.
Abbatoir / Abbatoir Cinq
Adnihilo
Beorn Judge's Edge
Somnulus
Perfect Black
----------------------
Asheron's Call / Asheron's Call 2
Everquest / Everquest 2
Anarchy Online
Shadowbane
Dark Age of Camelot
Star Wars Galaxies
Matrix Online
World of Warcraft
Guild Wars
City of Heroes
Just because you keep saying that it wasnt part of the original game doesn't make it true.
I've said several times Gary Gygax, you know the guy that wrote the majority of the D&D game, had solo games. I dunno how much more original you could be than Gary Gygax, hell I bet Dave (the other co-creator of D&D) did the same but he doesn't show up where I post in the D&D forums.
I dunno why this upsets you so much. Even if DD0 had solo play it wouldn't save the game as it has larger problems like, no content and no world.
Cheers.
http://www.greycouncil.org/
Neither of those examples is relevant to a discussion of forced grouping as it is implemented in DDO, for one simple reason.
It is possible for a player to gain experience and level solo in both of those games by killing monsters.
In DDO, it is not possible as killing monsters does not give any experience to the player (unlike the actual Dungeons and Dragons PnP game). Only completing quests gives experience and completing those quests relies almost entirely on having a group.
Further, the use of henchmen in GW is still solo play because the player in question is never forced to wait on a group to form to complete objectives. They can, at will, form their own "group" and enter instances. Regardless of whether they complete the quest itself, they still gain experience for killing monsters and thus, they level.
Is the solo content sad and/or lonely or pitiful? Possibly. The fact still remains that neither game is forced grouping. The individual player can still gain levels and skills on their own.
"True solo content" is content that allows the player to advance in character development on their own, at their own pace, without the aid of other players. Both FFXI and GW allow the player to do this, although the rate at which characters advance compared to those who group may be extremely slow or in fact, not be any fun at all. Regardless, it is still available.
Abbatoir / Abbatoir Cinq
Adnihilo
Beorn Judge's Edge
Somnulus
Perfect Black
----------------------
Asheron's Call / Asheron's Call 2
Everquest / Everquest 2
Anarchy Online
Shadowbane
Dark Age of Camelot
Star Wars Galaxies
Matrix Online
World of Warcraft
Guild Wars
City of Heroes
What others have tried to explain to you (fruitlessly, apparently, because you will not listen) is that Gary Gygax, who was simultaneously one of the two co-creators of Dungeons and Dragons AND the co-owner of Tactical Studies Rules (TSR Hobbies, INC), the company he created to publish and market his game, DESIGNED, RAN and PLAYED Dungeons and Dragons modules based entirely on solo play, meaning one player.
"many of the other writers came up with idea such soloing." What? These people have repeatedly tried to tell you that the CREATOR of both DnD and TSR Hobbies came up with the concept of solo modules. Not some group of follow-on writers. What part of that do you NOT understand?
None of which had anything at all to do with Wizards of the Coast, who did not even purchase the Dungeons and Dragons intellectual properties until twenty-two years after Gary Gygax started TSR Hobbies.
After the death of Kaye in 1976, his widow sold her shares
to Gygax. Gygax then controlling the whole partnership Tactical Studies Rules
created TSR
Hobbies, Inc. He sold it soon after to Brian Blume and his father Kevin
because of money problems. The Blume family owned roughly two-thirds of TSR
Hobbies by late 1976.
After leaving TSR Gary Gygax created Dangerous Journeys, an advanced RPG spanning
multiple genres containing almost every rule that Gary could think of"
I hated it when people suggestion you read a link and they don't read it themselves. Oh and by the way,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chainmail_(game)
Dave Arneson created a Chainmail scenario involving individual heroes, instead of groups in formation, moving through an underground "dungeon".
DnD was created from Chainmail. This paragraph is a key point right here when it comes to solo as it shows that Gary had nothing to do with the way DnD came out. Dave did. Gary wrote it, but Dave improve on it. Gary actual intent was to make the game another wargame, where you had to manage platoons. Dave pretty much help Gary by narrowing it down to one individual character for each person to play. And they were other people playing beside Gary and Don Kaye. (Other friends they invited), This proves your argument was wrong and shows how "un-intelligent" you are for you not reading your own stuff.
As you have been told, so many, many times; if the creator of the game utilized and designed solo play for the game, then the concept is for one or more players, not just a group.
TSR was not a series; it was the company that was formed by the creators of Dungeons and Dragons to publish and market their creation.
No #%#% sherlock, I referring to books created after DnD was made and Gary leaving, which is what I explaining earlier about the vaccum. And no DDO wouldn't improve with solo. Thank and good night.
All of which has nothing to do with the fact, again, that Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson created Dungeons and Dragons together and Wizards of the Coast never had the anything to do with any solo player content designed for or from the rule system until twenty-two years after the game system was created.
Who owned how much of TSR's physical assets, again, is largely irrelevant, as Gary Gygax held managing positions in TSR in various incarnations until 1985.
I hate that as well, especially as your point is here is irrelevant. The topic under discussion is not who pared the system down to one player representing one character. The topic is solo player content.
Dave Arneson moved Chainmail beyond its strategic war concept by designing a scenario where an individual player represented a single, specific character moving through a "dungeon" rather than a player representing a unit of three to twelve miniatures in formation on a field of battle. That is not the same concept as a solo player or solo-player content.
Together, Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson developed Dungeons and Dragons from that basic concept. I quote:
"This led Gary and Dave to develop what was to become Dungeons & Dragons and is credited with the creation of role-playing games."
The article you are referring to is not crediting Dave Arneson with the development of game play in Chainmail as a solo player, with no other players, which is the point being discussed (solo player content); it is crediting him with the development of each player being represented by an individual character rather than a strategic unit.
What many have tried to tell you is that Gary Gygax designed specific Dungeons and Dragons modules that involved only one actual player.
Regardless of who else, at any other time, also designed solo player content, one of the co-creators of Dungeons and Dragons did so and as such, any argument that solo play is not and/or has never been a viable concept in Dungeons and Dragons PnP is invalid. The point you are arguing about the genesis of Dungeons and Dragons has nothing to do with the use or viability of solo player content in Dungeons and Dragons.
All of which, again, has absolutely nothing to do with the creation and use of solo (single) player modules for Dungeons and Dragons.
The fact remains that they existed; that the co-creator of Dungeons and Dragons designed more than one; and that the game system was designed for one or more players, not solely for a group.
Your final comment is simply your opinion. If you cannot concede that the addition of solo content in DDO would attract new subscribers which;
1. Provides further development capital through subscriptions.
2. Increases the overall player population of the game.
and that those are both desirable attributes for the long-term success of DDO (or any MMO), then you are ignoring the reality of subscription-based game design.
Abbatoir / Abbatoir Cinq
Adnihilo
Beorn Judge's Edge
Somnulus
Perfect Black
----------------------
Asheron's Call / Asheron's Call 2
Everquest / Everquest 2
Anarchy Online
Shadowbane
Dark Age of Camelot
Star Wars Galaxies
Matrix Online
World of Warcraft
Guild Wars
City of Heroes
My reply to yourself and Nafunieru was to point out the neither game used as an example has no "true solo content." Both games include solo content at every level of character development. It may be sparse and it may be slower and less dynamic than group play, but it exists.
Ian's post to you was asking you to identify an MMO that is more than one year old that has no solo play, which you declined to answer. Your reply asked him to identify a game that has solo play as the main highlight.
The answer is that there is not one single MMO currently on the market for over a year that does not have both solo AND group play available at every level of player development except for one; DDO.
The question Ian asked was not stupid in the least. It pointed out the root of the fallacy that the inclusion of solo play will make DDO worse by illustrating the fact that every other MMO has what DDO does not; both solo and group play.
The fact that solo player modules were designed for Dungeons and Dragons PnP by at least one of the original creators of the game illustrates the fact that solo player content and game play has always been a potential dynamic of Dungeons and Dragons.
Taken together, logic would normally dictate that if the original game included solo player content and every other MMO includes solo player content, a MMO based on Dungeons and Dragons would include solo player content.
Including more options for play would never make a game worse. Those options may not appeal to every player, but would still allow them to choose.
At a minimum, the inclusion of solo player content would potentially increase the player population and provide new revenue, extending the life of DDO.
The most factual statement made so far on the subject is that Turbine chose not to include solo player content.
The server population average over fourteen servers tops out at a nightly high of approximately 10,187 players, give or take. If we add five percent of that for persons playing while anonymous, we get 10,696 players. If we even make the assumption of another fifty percent of that representing players who are subscribed but not playing, you have 16,044 subscribers. If we make the assumption that five times the given online players are subscribed, but not playing, you still only have 53,480 subscribers.
Numbers based on the populations provided Here
That number may not be nearly generous enough. But it does give an idea of where the subscription base is in DDO. The question is, what is the break-even point for Turbine, and how far down does the population have to go before DDO is not a viable, revenue-generating product?
If the addition of solo player content would mean the difference between DDO being closed or remaining open, how could that be considered worse for the game?
Abbatoir / Abbatoir Cinq
Adnihilo
Beorn Judge's Edge
Somnulus
Perfect Black
----------------------
Asheron's Call / Asheron's Call 2
Everquest / Everquest 2
Anarchy Online
Shadowbane
Dark Age of Camelot
Star Wars Galaxies
Matrix Online
World of Warcraft
Guild Wars
City of Heroes
Yes, a proper business model for DDO would have been to allow for free access to gaming servers. This would have brought them more sales in titles and an even larger revenue stream for greater development of expansions/modules/scenarios. Why they choose to go into a severly limiting instanced gaming environment that requires a subscription is beyond me.
For the sake of the arguement:
Solo game play _IS_ key to an MMO. The online gaming experiance entails character development. Players need to extablish a connection with a character as they progress to fullfill the desire of an mmo business model. Once a player is attached to their characters progression, wether it be through content or social experiances, a stronger commitment is created to returning to the game. DDO lacks this feature.
When logging into DDO I expected the opportunity to run the countryside and create allies with local denzines to establish a backdrop for my character and the environment. Being able to establish a guild who could then construct a fortress or a keep is a missed dream in DDO. Diversity and dynamics of game play rests solely on which player class is avialble at the time they are needed for a repeatable quest.
The game needs more vast areas that are -not- instanced. It needs the dynamics which would allow for players to poke around looking for "who has a good connection with the Orcs of Amberwood forests? We need a shortcut!!" The game has absolutely -NO- sense of a dynamic environment which has come to be expected from a subscription to an MMO.
It's -not- a great game although I would say it's just "ok". Unfortunately, I am unable to recomend this game outside of the free trial. And yes, I am currently still trying it...
If, by the "game", you mean Chainmail, you would be correct. Which is not Dungeons and Dragons, never was and is only loosely related to it as the foundation for Dave Arneson's idea of having each player control only one unique character, rather than a unit.
Exactly as I stated, Wizards of the Coast purchased TSR twenty-two years after TSR Hobbies was founded. I am assuming that you have a point here, somewhere.
Okay. Again, I assume there is a point here somewhere. You do realize that the excerpt you pasted is in reference to the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons rule set and that the original Dungeons and Dragons was first published in 1974, right?
No, actually, to sum it all up;
Chainmail WAS a tactical medieval war game published first by Guidon Games in 1971 and then again by TSR in 1975, created by many but attributed to Gary Gygax and Jeff Perren.
Dave Arneson created a scenario for Chainmail that gave each player one specific character to play instead of units of three to twelve. This scenario was so popular that Dave and Gary proceeded to create a system that would allow these representative characters to continue to develop from game session to game session.
This system was the foundation for Dungeons and Dragons.
"Their first game session was anything but solo". Which means, what? First, we aren't talking about Chainmail, we are talking about Dungeons and Dragons. Second, we aren't talking about individual play sessions, we are talking about solo content for the game system as a whole.
CaptainRPG, you cannot possibly prove me wrong by regurgitating what I have already told you.
Yes, it certainly was. Glad you could repeat that. Again.
Except again, the subject isn't the tactical strategy wargame Chainmail, which is not Dungeons and Dragons. In Dungeons and Dragons, the Dungeon Master (DM) is not a player. They are coordinator, organizer and manager of the game, similar to a line judge in tennis (though obviously with many more rules and interaction). If you have a DM and one player, you still only have one player. I am assuming that you have actually played Dungeons and Dragons before, or you wouldn't be likening the DM to a player.
The above sentence makes absolutely no sense and the following, referencing the World of Greyhawk, has no application. We aren't talking about creating a game solo, we are talking about creating solo player content for the game. You are very obviously confused between the two.
Another example of your confusion. Again, no one is talking about creating a game by yourself. We are talking about solo content for the game.
Fortunately for me, I do not have to provide an example of how solo play improved gameplay, as every other MMO has solo gameplay. Since I never claimed that solo gameplay was the highlight of any MMO, but specifically stated that successful MMOs need BOTH solo and group play, I have no requirement to prove that either.
I can provide you with an example of how the lack of solo gameplay is currently damaging a particular MMO, however.
Finally, since you did not directly refute the facts that solo gameplay would provide increased subscriptions and higher overall server populations, my conclusions are still accurate.
Abbatoir / Abbatoir Cinq
Adnihilo
Beorn Judge's Edge
Somnulus
Perfect Black
----------------------
Asheron's Call / Asheron's Call 2
Everquest / Everquest 2
Anarchy Online
Shadowbane
Dark Age of Camelot
Star Wars Galaxies
Matrix Online
World of Warcraft
Guild Wars
City of Heroes