The d20 system

[Samwise]

This might be well-trodden ground already, but does anyone know of any attempts to make a MMOG using the d20 system (like NWN but massive)?  Or any reasons why that would be a colossally stupid idea?  It seems like it'd make a lot of game balance problems easier, since d20 is already fairly tried and true, and the basic D&D classes provide a lot more than tank-healer-mage archetypes.

[SurfD]

It might depend on what type of game you were going for.

If there is any one thing i have learned (especially if you go to the official min-max boards on the DnD website) is Ph3ar the number cruncher and DnD.  Sure, D20 DnD is quite well balanced, but the way feats and such work, you can do some pretty sick things without ever breaking the rules in that game.  

Though, it would be rather amusing to see a properly min-maxed 15th level Monk with the right equipment in action (I believe it was once determined that with the right set of fairly basic equipment, a Monk could approach speeds of nearly 300 MPH on foot at a dead run :P)

In all seriousness tho, D20 would probably make a really good MMOG framework if it was properly controlled as to what combinations of things were allowed (many completely legal DnD characters have something like 5 different classes and a racial modifier thrown in just to min-max bonuses/feats and rediculous things like that).

[Jayce]

It's my understanding that there are a fairly large number of independently-run NWN persistent worlds.

I guess they're the new MUDs.

[Alkiera]

Well, I believe Turbine is developing D&D Online, which I'd guess would be d20 based...

I personally don't think I'd play a d20-based mmog, in part for the reasons SurfD pointed out above, in part because d20 is a level-based system with a really drab combat system.  If PvP, stuff like Improved Knockdown would be required for melees, and probably the resist feats as well, once mages start getting their hands on the 'resist or you're just dead' type spells.

As far as monks...  don't get me started.  Immune to poison and disease, massive spell resistance starting at lvl 12, Improved Knockdown for free, d20's for damage at high levels, with their bare hands..  and with decent items, a nuts AC.  Monks are crazy powerful.

--
Alkiera

[Bunk]

NWN2 is supposedly going to include design tools that are more "Persistent World Friendly" than NWN1 was.

Won't be out till 2006 though.

[Zetleft]

NWN2 is supposedly going to include design tools that are more "Persistent World Friendly" than NWN1 was.

Won't be out till 2006 though.

Are you sure about that, I remember hearing at some dev interview them saying the exact opposite, something about its not designed for it so anything done will be the users responsibility.  It stood out for me as it was a very anti mod statement to make at the time, hopefully I'm wrong or they changed their mind though.

[ahoythematey]

As far as I understand it, D&D:O is going to be fairly "twitch" oriented, actually, with each class generally playing how we would imagine them within a sophisticated action-game framework.  Because I'm weak and regularly buy game magazines I loathe, here's some excerpts from the recent D&D issue of PCGamer:

"If you walk away from the keyboard, you're going to return to a dead character," explains Lakshman, who lists Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time and Ninja Gaiden as influences for D&D Online's combat system.  You'll be able to block swords with your buckler and roll out of the way of incoming attacks, all in real time.  Walls will provide cover from ranged fire, and you'll be able to hide behind pillars to avoid enemies.  At one point in my demo, and arrow was shot at an empty space in the far reaches of the dungeon, creating a noise that diverted the attention of an axe-wielding minotaur away from the player character.

Of course it all sounds like some kind of unrealistic dream-game, but I do have somewhat reduced cynicism concerning it since Turbine's AC was part-twitch itself.  And, to be quite frank, I'd think a MMO faithfully using the d20 wouldn't feel all that different from EQ, DAoC, or many others since it is nothing more than a game of numbers without a GM controlling all aspects of the game, and itself isn't really promotive of "roleplaying".

[Bunk]

NWN2 is supposedly going to include design tools that are more "Persistent World Friendly" than NWN1 was.

Won't be out till 2006 though.

Are you sure about that, I remember hearing at some dev interview them saying the exact opposite, something about its not designed for it so anything done will be the users responsibility.  It stood out for me as it was a very anti mod statement to make at the time, hopefully I'm wrong or they changed their mind though.

Ok, I couldn't find as much as I thought there was to support this.  I did find this blurb  in an FAQ on Obsidian's site:

q13. Are they going to increase the persistent world support in NWN2?

a. Urquhart: However, we have talked about getting more players onto a single server and supporting the persistent server community with more tools and features, so that they can do even more with the game. Plus, we have been looking at a lot of the latest MMPs to see what ideas would work within the context of playing Neverwinter multiplayer. We think we've found a good list of things that will help refine the game.

[Samwise]

And, to be quite frank, I'd think a MMO faithfully using the d20 wouldn't feel all that different from EQ, DAoC, or many others since it is nothing more than a game of numbers without a GM controlling all aspects of the game, and itself isn't really promotive of "roleplaying".

As long as they carried across a fair number of the skills, it would go a long way towards making characters unique, which does encourage roleplaying.  No two characters in D&D nowadays need to be alike, between all the possible combinations of skills, feats, and classes.  I have a ton of fun in NWN (and PnP D&D) just playing with class combinations, like combining fighter/ranger/rogue to make a kickass swashbuckler, or rogue/wizard/loremaster to make an arcane archaeologist.  Try doing that with a Diku-based single-class system.

[AOFanboi]

A d20-based MMO would suck like the rest for exactly the same reason: It's level-oriented.

Proper post-D&D pen and paper RPGs were either point-based (GURPS, Hero/Champions, World of Darkness) or skill-based (Chaosium Basic System, WHFRP - if you consider the careers "skill packages"). Why can't these alternate approaches find their way into the MMORPG scene? Is really leveling the only progress path they can think of?

Let us quote the Father:

The level system, for instance, which I introduced into MUD1 only after considering several alternatives, does not get the same degree of consideration in new virtual worlds. They think 'How many levels shall we have?' rather than 'Shall we have levels?' yet a level system for a virtual world only really makes sense if there's an end to it - a point where you can say you've won and can stop playing it like a game.

(If MMORPGs were MUDs, when you reached the highest level you should join the "wizards", or the company world designers. But that would mean you stopped paying a monthly fee and instead got paid by the company, and they don't want that. Players also have some wild ideas that are better left untouched.)

[Samwise]

Levels aren't really fundamentally different from skills.  Potato, potahto.  You can implement a skill-based system such that it closely resembles the average level-based system, and vice versa - see SWG, which on first glance seemed to do away with levels, but really just called them by a different name.

d20's level system has the relatively rare feature of being mix-n-matchable, which makes it resemble a "skill" system much closer - you can start play as a rogue but gain levels as a wizard later, which is no different from a level-less system in which you start play with rogue skills and learn wizardly skills later.

I agree that levels eventually have to end somewhere, but then, so do skills (once you've gotten every skill in the game, it's equivalent to having reached the last level).  That's where a well-designed endgame comes in.  There are d20 supplements by the ton that deal with "epic levels", becoming a deity, running a kingdom... any or all of those could make interesting endgames once the player finishes reaching level 20 or whatever.

[AOFanboi]

Levels aren't really fundamentally different from skills.

Yes they are, because

[*]they pack skill/feat/whatever advancement into "slots", instead of having a continous process of improvement. This means you have X abilities at the same efficiency for a long time, before suddenly becoming much better at them. This also adds a metagame, where you focus on the experience required for the next level.
[*]this "compressed training" is unconnected to what you have actually done, because of the general "pool" of experience all activities feed. "I've killed 100 orcs, so now I am better at lockpicking!". Most point-based systems also has this particuler problem - only Chaosium's system (which they apparently have abandoned for d20) used use-based advancement that I am aware of.
[/list:u](This is made even worse in computer games where gaining a level somehow also heals you (Diablo II, KOTOR - I can't remember if any MMORPG does this too). There, the quest for the next level becomes part of a healing meta-game. And even if you don't have that healing, the sudden new hitpoints and mana sure come in handy.)

SWG and Ryzom improve greatly on this, in that the experience and levels are separated into skill groups, so that e.g. figting a mob does not let you improve in cooking or whatever later on. But they have different issues related to "untraining" and skill group grinding and the like.

For me, an ideal MMOG system would probably be something like an improved AC1, sans the levels. Their only purpose is to provide a guideline to relative power, and for training up new skills. The latter can be left to NPC or PC trainers instead, and the former to some vauge feeling tied to your relevant "attunement" skill.

[Samwise]

Levels aren't really fundamentally different from skills.

Yes they are, because

[*]they pack skill/feat/whatever advancement into "slots", instead of having a continous process of improvement. This means you have X abilities at the same efficiency for a long time, before suddenly becoming much better at them. This also adds a metagame, where you focus on the experience required for the next level.
[*]this "compressed training" is unconnected to what you have actually done, because of the general "pool" of experience all activities feed. "I've killed 100 orcs, so now I am better at lockpicking!". Most point-based systems also has this particuler problem - only Chaosium's system (which they apparently have abandoned for d20) used use-based advancement that I am aware of.
[/list:u]

On point 1 I disagree - your skill is still represented by a discrete digital number.  At best, it's a fairly fine-grained number, but still, each increment of the number is a "jump" forward that corresponds to gaining a level.

Point 2 - fair 'nuff, though if your character classes are fairly specialized, they approach a skill-based system, especially if you grant experience for class-appropriate activities (like D&D 2nd ed. did - warriors got bonus experience for combat, rogues got bonus experience for finding treasure, wizards got bonus experience for casting spells in useful ways, et cetera).

I'm just leery of "skill-based" systems after playing SWG for a year.