Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
How to get the RP back into MMORPG
robert4818
Member UncommonPosts: 661
First, when I say RP (Role Playing) I DO NOT mean those people who think that they are a bunch of improv actors playing bit parts in some grand shakesperian play. They'll do what they do, and nobody can stop them.
What I mean when I say RP is getting people playing in a game as if it is something slightly more than a game. A game where people make decisions and judgements beyond stats and items. This is sort of like the way a person first plays through a game like Dragon Age or Mass Effect. Sure, its a game, but people make decisions based on how they want to behave in the game, not because of a stat.
My thoughts:
1. Stereotypes are a GOOD THING, encourage them amongst players.
I don't mean "blonds are dumb and easy" but more along the lines of "Don't trust those Merkavians, they are nothing but a bunch of thieves... If you, as a developer, want a town and its residents have a specific reputation, let that reputation actually leak over to the players as well. If you want Merkavians to be a bunch of shady characters, give them some bonuses or special abilities that actually ENCOURAGE that style of play amongst those characters.
2. Set Character traditions against each other. Cause a bit of strife.
Imagine a cute little creature called a Muku. Players in Lokland love these little creatures. They are awsome pets. A player from Lokland with a Muku Pet gets all sorts of nice little bonus perks. Players in Merkavia love them too. They are good eatin' plus the stuffed heads go great on walls. Players from Lokland get great bonuses when eating Muku Meat, and get nice bonuses when a trophy is in their house.
3. Competition is GOLDEN.
Let different places compete over things, whether this is resources, "sports", kills, etc. Figure out how to determine a periodic winner, and then let it fly. Whoever the winner is gets some sort of perk.
1-3 here have all been about getting players to have some sort of "National" Pride and loyalty. The goal is to get players thinking in terms of their home. When players do that, it adds in a bit more RP opportunity. While alot of it relies on stats, they are primarily a carrot meant to start guiding the thinking of players in the game.
Now lets think about Organizations.
4. Choices MATTER.
Now an MMO is a very different beast than a single player RPG. Your individual choices just can't have the same effect on the game world as they can in a game like Mass Effect. Instead, you have to make choices matter to the player instead of the world. This means having the player make non-trival, non-changable decisions. These choices may have an effect on later quests, alignment, factions options, etc.
5. Join SOMETHING.
Each class or archtype should have at least 2 different organizations that the player must choose between. These two organizations should be VERY different from each other. Take Fighters, one might be a mercenary company, the other might be a company of Knight Protectors. Just like with other stereotypes, players should be rewarded for playing according to the tenants of the organization.
6. Goals! Goals! Goals!
The game needs odd goals of some sort. This might mean something like a political process where players try to get an NPC with different agendas into power for their nation. Depending on who's in power, a specific group of players (crafters, fighters, magicians, etc.) will see some sort of benefit. This might be better weapons, more materials, better quests, etc.
7. Religion.
Just like with organizations and nations, the game should have a different group of religions, each with a stereotypical behavior, with rewards coming for players who hold to those tenants. Different religions should always have at least one other opposed religion that is in some form of competition.
So long, and thanks for all the fish!
Comments
Charge a few bucks more a month for RP servers and use that money to pay for GMs who host regular RP events (this should also keep the greifers off, though also runs the risk of bringing the lore-crazed RPolice out in full force).
Very intelligent ideas here.
Competition is golden:
I like this one a lot. Let's say that one faction completes tasks in an area and, as a result, the local town spawns merchants that favor that particular faction. Maybe they will purchase items for more $, or sell items at a discount, or only sell certain items. Hell, maybe they outright ignore players of a certain opposing faction.
Perhaps the guards in this area will come to the rescue of one faction, but not another.
Now throw in the fact that players from other factions can complete tasks that can change the merchants & guards point of view to favor them (or replace them with merchants & guards that do favor them).
You have players working against each other. An active game where players have effect on their environment. They can change their world.
PvP may or may not be involved (I'm for it, but it's not necessary).
Now getting all that into 1s and 0s is another thing, but I'm sure it could be done.
_____________________________
"Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit"
FF11 had this. It had 3 nations. Each nation competed for Monster kills in each region (collection of zones). If your nation was in control of a zone, then you had a local guard that could cast buffs on you, and local merchants who would sell you stuff. In the home city, you would gain merchants that would sell merchandise from that specific zone.
Plus, each week, the total number of regions controlled by each nation would be totaled up. The nation with the highest count had more merchandise available in ALL of its stores.
Now this idea can be expanded on even more, but that was how it was in FF11.
So long, and thanks for all the fish!
Agreed with your thoughts with the exception of 7.
Though I know saying this is flame bait, WoW actually did a number of those things well, though it does lack some permenance in choice, and the story is basic fantasy, so the arcs are typically shallower in depth. Race/Class combos have lore justification, strong 2-faction social player-pride (Go Horde or Go Home), and murlocs...
Another game I feel has a lot of potential for the things you mentioned is Fallen Earth. Some people "spin the wheel" for the factions, but there are lots of guilds that are single/dual-faction, and do their best to hold the conflict towns. (Tech/Trav ftw fyi) It also has a core questline involving the story justification behind why your character can respawn as you repair your clone-lines damaged DNA.
As ofr 7: While it can be done in high-fantasy and sci-fi well enough, the legal/social/political backlash that dealing with religions would exclude the possiblity of "contemporary" settings within roughly 150-200 years or so. And as amusing as the name Spanish Inquisition: Modern Warrior On-Line could be, it'd be just in bad taste.
World of Darkness online will probably be the closest thing for that, though thats more just the lore of the universe and who knows how much it might be intergrated to the game. The Secret World as well, though it looks like it's the old conspiricy tri-fecta of the Masons, the Templars and the Illuminati.
Lets Push Things Forward
I knew I would live to design games at age 7, issue 5 of Nintendo Power.
Support games with subs when you believe in their potential, even in spite of their flaws.
Check out Face of Mankind, free to play with option to pay for a sub. It's the only game I can think of that actualy has any RP left in it, reminds me of SWG in alot of ways. It's the only MMO that has RPG right now in my opinion.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience"
CS Lewis
I completely agree on the theme. I'd like to see building more of a world's atmosphere over just building the game's systems.
Although I might do some differently on your list. I'm not quite sure where you were going with 6, but I suppose it could tie into roleplaying? I disagree slightly on #4, as I'd rather see choices matter for my character, not me as a player. Everything in the game already matters for me as a player (where I go to progress, who I play with, when I play, what I wear, etc). I want things that just matter to my character, which is what makes playing the role more fun for me. When I have crappy decisions to make that ultimately effect how I play the game, I just end up checking the nearest cheat sheet for the best results. I don't want the experience diluted, so I want choices that will matter for my character more than for me.
On #3 though, I think I have to object. I believe you're trying to paint the open world, fight-for-spawns, that EQ1 had a lot of as a strong element of roleplay. While I think it helps in community building, I find it's pretty irrelevant for roleplay. In fact it usually just makes a lot of people end up yelling at each other on a forum for extended periods, which is probably the exact opposite of getting into character. For the sake of community, I'd like some competition, but not everywhere and certainly not for the sake of RP.
If I could add some of my own though, I'd put:
-Disadvantages. I think one of the most remarkable aspects of building a character in an old pen and paper roleplay game was choosing character disadvantages. I'm tired of characters that only consist of where I place a collection of skill points. I want some negative traits for my character that might be fun to roleplay as well, and I'd even enjoy it if they were forced on me even if I, as a player, forget about them. If my character is scarred in the face, perhaps he has difficulty getting an NPC to help him. If he's bloodlust, maybe he won't drop out of combat when I defeat an enemy and instead rush toward the next.
-NPC Factions. I'd add this to your "Join Something" statement. I'd like to see NPC's part of a wide range of factions. I want to see the two warring barbarian clans go at each other even if I'm not in the immediate area, because it makes me feel all the more connected if my character is a member of one.
-History. I see a lot of requests for story or lore, but I just enjoy straight-up history. I want a world to feel like it's had a thousand years of history pass before I arrived, and it will have a thousand more after I'm gone. It makes it feel so much more meaningful when I slip into a role.
The morning sun has vanquished the horrible night.
For #4: I'm not really an alt-aholic. When I say player, I generally meen character. Sorry for the confusion.
For #3: This is another form of setting things apart. Basically the concept (While perhaps not the best spelled out) is to create in-game things that cause one faction to have "traditions" that another faction would find absolutely horrid. (So to speak.) The point of the example is to set one faction up so that it becomes attached to a "pet" and the other faction is set up where it traditionally slaughters them. In a way, its set up to have cultural disagreements.
For #6. Six is a sort of Catch-all for miscellaneous goals. The concept is that there should be other things to pursue in a game. The concept of politics is that there is a way to "Steer" the game-world by using the politics. You might elect a pro-war candidate, one that favors trade, etc. The concept is that its another goal for players to dedicate themselves to.
Your suggestions:
Disadvantages: Great Concept, hard to implement in an MMO. Players have a tendency to avoid "Gimping" disadvantages.
NPC Factions: I agree, that fits in well with my concept of Join Something.
History/Lore: I am ALWAYS a fan of history and lore. Nothing bugs me worse than when it should be in, and it just isnt.
So long, and thanks for all the fish!
I love your ideas though competition seems to be unneeded if it is against players, but I think Religion is based on what an MMO is about. If it features divine powers that actually come from a specific source, then most of the people are always lawful good/neutral unless they use Retribution for odd purposes. It would add a little optionality, though I do not think it's fully needed.
Perhaps, to encourage RP, some servers could have two or three channels, one/two can focus on PvE on both or PvE and PvP, and the final one for RP, or some sort. Its all just my opinion for now, however.
Those are really good ideas except for number 7. Religion shouldn't be involved because it is a very sacred thing. If it's gonna be involved in games like it's a normal thing, then religion might be taken lightly or like a game.
Anything that can genuinely enhance RP would be 'bonus'.
This would prevent people from standing around for 4-5 hours and not having anything to really do... other than talk about it.
Give players the ability to use the game world, the IP, in a way that will really let the 'tell their story'.
I like some of the ideas that are listed here. I don't think Dev's really care much about RP'ers. Dev's seem to think that those folks have a strong enough/good enough imagination that they don't need to rely on game mechanics/items to fulfill their needs.
I personally think most RP is worthless if it doesn't impat the game world. I may as well just write my story down and send it to my friends to read. I don't need to stand around in an avatar that looks nothing like the page long description that I attached to him, and the things he's done can't be seen, read about, or witnessed in the game world... and the initiatives that he takes also won't be seen in the game world with any degree of impact.
Some games are more capable of assisting RP'ers in their fun. Too bad most of them have such low populations. What's funny is, those players are typically in a tigher community and will stay loyal to a game longer.
Anyway, I'm all for RP support.
And... just say no to ERP, imho.
Keeep in mind, I'm not talking about "RPers" style of RP. I'm not talking about adding things to enhance in-game marriages or long talks at the bar. I'm talking about the more common style of RP that people do when playing a game like Fallout, Mass Effect, Red Dead Redemption, etc.
This is about the type of roll-playing that comes natural to people. The type that comes out when the game is immersive. I.E. the ideas I posted are designed to instill an attatchment to a players starting city and a certain level of animosity/competetiveness with the other cities. Its NOT designed to encourage people to come up with a backstory for their characters, nor is it designed to facilitate people who want to be "Stage Actors."
So long, and thanks for all the fish!
I just wanted to respond to this because you brought up a great point: Players are almost always more interested in what hurts their success in the Game's systems rather than that of the World. For me, that's the underlying struggle with RP - how to get players thinking about what their character would actually do in a virtual world before stopping to think about what would be the best way to complete the game.
I wouldn't mind seeing an MMO experiment by de-emphasizing gameplay over roleplay just to see where it takes us. It'd be interesting to see combat that wasn't balanced, experience rewards that weren't logical and favored specific builds or setups, and essentially elements in the MMO that existed simply because they made the world feel more rich rather than provided something "to do" in a gaming scenario for a few hours. Disadvantages kind of fall into that category, because you're obviously correct, if they're optional then a gamer will never actively choose to handicap their character.
But for a simpler approach; I'd just like to see a system of Advantages and Disadvantages that kind of work like Xbox / Steam achievements. A character that battles a lot will end up with a Battle Hardened Advantage, but that may be coupled with a Scarred Disadvantage. The trick is hiding the requirements for the achievements so players don't just turn the system into yet another score card to track. It could provide players with a way to feel like their character is evolving and changing based on how they play it, but since combat still dominates 99% of an MMO's time it's still going to be difficult evolving the system beyond that.
The morning sun has vanquished the horrible night.
I can't speak for the OP, but I believe he meant fictional in-game religions. Real-world religions wouldn't have much place in most fictional games. Otherwise, how sacred people believe religions are in the real world is exactly why they are an excellent outlet for drama in a fictional world. It's already been done to some extent in games like EQ1 & 2.
The morning sun has vanquished the horrible night.
Exactly.
EQ 1 and 2 had religions, but they were pretty much ignored. Basically include religions into a game. About the only games not capable of doing religion are "modern" games. Its too easy to offend people. Shift the game into sci-fi or Fantasy and boom religion is a wide open game.
So long, and thanks for all the fish!
Sorry OP but who really wants RP as the main focus in a MMORPG other than a small minority?
Gameplay should always come before story.
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
2 Questions:
1. When did I say anywhere in the OP that RP should be the primary focus of an MMO?
2. Which of the ideas in the OP sacrifices gameplay for story?
If you can answer those two questions, perhaps you can prove you actually read the OP. I'm somehow thinking you did not.
So long, and thanks for all the fish!
1.) Assist RP by giving players the means to affect the game world. Without control over the world, players might as well just use a chat room to RP.
2.) Remove the meta-game. This includes things like global chat and gear score. Things like gear should be tools for the player to achieve his or her own goals - not the goals themselves.
3.) Create non-violent things to do in the game. Most sandbox MMOs don't feel sandboxy because they are solely focused on combat. There should also be goals for players that are non-violent. For example, throwing in crafting doesn't mean you've added something non-violent if players can only craft things used in combat. Non-violence adds diversity to the playerbase. The diverse groups of players actually enhance one another. For example, is it more fun/immersive to protect an NPC town or a town controlled by a peaceful group of players who would rather not like their town destroyed? I say the latter.
Never played a rpg then?
Good post, or just play UWO open beta when it starts
Oh come ON I ALWAYS played FF games for their extreme focus on gameplay.
So long, and thanks for all the fish!
I'm an avid RPer and LARPer. I always have at least one character that I dedicate to RP, even on non-rp servers. It's funny how in newer games, people look at you like you're crazy when you RP.
Great OP Robert! Interesting read. +1
Nice ideas but will they make the MMO get more money? Paying for a rp server might apart from that they only want to maximise the player base these days so RP is out. RP is that sad old uncle who used to be more important to your family. They still invite him over for Christmas but he is a bit of an embarrassment really.
For me getting roleplay back into an mmo would involve being able to play different roles (DUH!)
What I mean is one where there's more gameplay than just fighting mobs. (Or running back and forth getting flagged until you are ready to.... Go fight a mob). You could call this type of game Massively Multiplayer Role Playing Game instead of all the Massively Multiplayer Fighting Playing Games that there seem to be now.
Vanguard tried it but I don't mean having an mmo with little minigames to represent playing a different role, I mean a whole other game included within the mmo
I'm probably exaggerating or underestimating combat complaint but sometimes I feel as though.....(Music track kicks in) Everybody's melee fighting! Those hands as fast as.......
My warrior is melee sure......
But my spellcaster feels like (magical) ranged melee (I'll punch you in the face with my fireball!)
......and my ranger archery/hunter types feels like I'm punching them in the face with my arrows/bullets
........and my thief character.... He's not even a thief anymore...... he's a rogue...... (I'll backstab punch you in the back of the head melee)
My healer though I love him alot. I can heal people, and travel the land and heal people getting into trouble (not me.. Them!) and buff weary travellers and look around for lowbies to give excellent buffs to. Or even resurrect people (depending on the game, namely EQ1 and Vanguard (though a Vanguard rez on a respawned player doesn't restore exp it's just a teleport)
What I want is an mmo that includes the gameplay from The Thief Trilogy of games. Thief classes could do some sneaking and robbing (proper hide in the shadows sneaking not fake "invisibility - hide in the shadows" In fact everyone could do sneaking/thieving and they'd be even better if they spent some specialisation points on their Thiefy skills.
I'd also like some scholarly pursuit for the scholarly arcane casters (Such as some sort of Tale In The Desert MMO scholarliness)
And Faction oriented stuff that doesn't only involve melee fighting or running back and forth (getting character flags) to raise faction.
Just a means to actually play different roles....
Oh aye.... Will someone please slap the face of all those developers out there who think.... Tons of character customisation = a roleplaying game. A roleplaying game SHOULD have tons of character customisation but that IS NOT what makes it a roleplaying game FFS!
Also... Just because player characters aren't equal doesn't mean they aren't balanced. A loan warrior (pretty much a chump with club) should NOT be able to kill an arcane caster in a straight fight. He'd need to use some of the things that he is better at than the wizard the things that bring the balance. (Like a rock, paper, scissors mechanic where you'd have a window of opportunity with each style of attack then you'd have to employ another rock, paper, scissors mechanic with another window of opportunity if the wizard knew what he was doing and closed your first window of opportunity. Basically a great player, who is a wizard and is fully prepared and paying attention should always be able to beat a melee guy (unless of course said melee guy is getting help from other magic users) *When I say "window of opportunity I don't mean some gameplay gimmick the developers have called window of opportunity.... I mean an actual real window of opportunity between you the players' actions, and the enemy AI/players' actions/reactions. Such as an actual ambush from the shadows (if the wizard doesn't have infravision on) or an attack from being invis (if the wizard doesn't have see invis on) or tossing a chair at the guys head and disrupting a big spell that gives you a precious few milliseconds to get to him. And please remove the "homing missile" crap from projectiles. A nimble fighter SHOULD be able to dive out of the way of a fireball and the wizard SHOULD even be able to miss. I would also maybe give wizards an important AOE root hold person spell that works on a seperate timer from their projectile attacks (which basically means the warrior has that long to dodge his way towards the wizard, or he'll have to retreat out of range of the aoe root (which could have an acceptable cooldown to add another rock, paper, scissor mechanic for if the wizard messed up his aoe root) (The root by the way is just to counteract the "Full Body Tourettes Imbecile dance" that some people use in First Person Shooter games when you are trying to shot them with a shotgun!) (And the root will also come in hand to stop npcs fleeing to set of alarms or warn guards in the Thief Trilogy bits of the game - so every class should have some way of immobolising an npc, whether it be a Flying tackle, just grabbing the guy or some kind trip or whatever. (Maybe even full collision detection where you can actually push/shoulder charge an npc to make him stumble.
Magic should be very powerful and very feared and respected and also involve ALOT of effort for a player to get good at (through the Tales In The Desert scholary stuff) (Purely for the prestige and respect that players will have for another player whose done all that)
"It's like a finger pointing away to the moon... Don't concentrate on the finger or you'll miss all the heavenly glory" (Bruce Lee)
(Insert your favourite mmo here): ......And behold, a pale horse.... And a million hellishly bad mmos followed with it.
I disagree with some of your post. Yes magic should be powefull and feared but so should warrior lords. A warrior lord should not be beaten by an unskilled mage, nor should a fully trained mage be beaten by a chump with a club. It is about their skill with their ability. A fully trained mage should not be able to beat a warrior lord every time.
There are lots of examples where mages were beaten by simple rogues (Sauruman and wormtongue?).
And how could they make casting not seem like melee to you. The effects are different, the actions are different, the sound is different and the result is different. To me they seem pretty different. Maybe they could make them more different in how you get/learn them than now. I'm thinking of all those horrible collecting pages in EQ.
Venge Sunsoar