The MMOG landscape - unchanging and eternal (since 2004)

[Trippy]

They didn't call it a tank in the TSR books but it was used in the PnP world well before CRPGs used it. I still remember a non-TSR book back in the late 70s early 80s (I really wish I remember which book it was) that had a pictorial representation of what the different levels of AC meant and -10 AC was a guy sitting in a tank.

Wizardry.  Their manuals had all kinds of wonderfully silly pictures.

Was it? Hmm I could've sworn it was a PnP book but okay. I remember seeing it at a friend's house and he had a PET, not an Apple ][.

Edit: yup my memory is failing me, manual here:

http://www.geocities.com/wizardrygame/pages/w1.html

[Lantyssa]

Regarding the Holy Trinity, I shall quote myself from a year ago:

For what it's worth, I consider the origin to (mostly) be EQ1 because that is when it became manditory to have "the Holy Trinity".  Sure some of the individual concepts were out there in DnD and MUDs, however a solo player or party could get by with what everyone found fun to play.  The nickname exists because the Trinity was required to do anything.

Also, multi-classing was completely ignored to this point.  That alone removes the need for three very specific characters to fullfil set roles.

[Goumindong]

Another possible way to say that is that the roleplaying is just the mechanic by which you get to the next set of monsters to kill in DnD and in an MMO is "/lfg i have a big internet penis".

Bollocks.  You were doing it wrong.  Your loss.

This conversation has been had before.  Search the pen and paper forum for 'D&D holy trinity'.  People who call the fighter a 'tank' pre-4E are mistaken.

Then the conclusion you came to was wrong regarding both the existence of tanks pre 4e and as the nature of roleplaying. Also, I am not "doing it wrong". That is the best way to describe roleplaying as a function of the game.

I suppose its important here to note that "a game" is different than "fun". Fun is a state of mind that occurs for any various reasons. "A game" is a set of choices with payoffs that the player attempts to maximize.(or beat the other guy)

Roleplaying is not a set of choices with payoffs that the player attempts to maximize. Such, it is not a game. And if its not a game, then it can't very well be "the game", since the game has to at least be a game. If you don't like that, well, too bad, you're wrong. Doesn't make it not fun or not integral to the experience. But it does mean its not a game.[Note: it can have an effect on the meta-game, but the meta-game is not the game and is pretty well defined as such]

And if its not a game, then using it disprove the similarities between two games is futile, as its irrelevant to the question.

[ajax34i]

Sorry for the slight tangent here, but I know what I want from an MMO:  the polish and structure of WoW, but applied to a different setting.  The quests, the (current) lack of bugs, and how accessible and easy WoW plays have become somewhat of a standard for me, but their storyline, lore, and universe have gotten somewhat stale.  I'd like some sci-fi (and not neccessarily Star Wars), for example.

[sidereal]

I suppose its important here to note that "a game" is different than "fun". Fun is a state of mind that occurs for any various reasons. "A game" is a set of choices with payoffs that the player attempts to maximize.(or beat the other guy)

A dictionary could be helpful here, and they are in long supply.

It's weird.  I'm instinctively compelled to argue with you as if your made-up definitions had any objective merit and as if there were some sort of payoff involved in trying to debate Yet Another Internet Autodidact.  And yet somehow along the long road of stupid Internet flamery I have learned wisdom.  So, I abstain and bless you.  Go forth and be wrong.

[Goumindong]

I suppose its important here to note that "a game" is different than "fun". Fun is a state of mind that occurs for any various reasons. "A game" is a set of choices with payoffs that the player attempts to maximize.(or beat the other guy)

A dictionary could be helpful here, and they are in long supply.

It's weird.  I'm instinctively compelled to argue with you as if your made-up definitions had any objective merit and as if there were some sort of payoff involved in trying to debate Yet Another Internet Autodidact.  And yet somehow along the long road of stupid Internet flamery I have learned wisdom.  So, I abstain and bless you.  Go forth and be wrong.

I am not using the layman's definition of game. The layman's definition is useless in defining the systems that people are interacting with and within.

[Nija]

Absolutely not.

Eve is full looting. The only difference is that when you try and pick something up, you only get half of what was there. The difference between no loot and full loot is always based on what the killed player keeps.

And in Eve, the killed player keeps nothing.

Maybe if you related that to ship insurance you would have a point

Eve isn't full looting. Full looting means you lose 100% of your belongings to the person that killed you. Some of that shit gets blown up, so at least you didn't lose EVERYTHING to that asshole who killed you.

You may think that this is a semantics issue, but it really isn't. In UO I was killing you for a tricorn hat. If you were wearing it, it was a 100% drop. I got to see how you arranged you reagent bag. I got to see what clothing you were wearing under your armor and robe. I got to see how many trapped pouches you had. I got an item that would allow me to teleport to your house. It doesn't get any more personal. I think this personal and intimate relationship killed the idea of full looting for most people.

In Eve you're just table data. So am I. So is everyone else.

[Venkman]

I'm getting the sense (maybe wrongly) that you don't really believe it would be wise for Blizzard to make an improved UO or an improved AC1. 

I was saying that is why I think Blizzard didn't make an improved UO or AC1. They looked at the type of game they thought the most players would enjoy the most. And really, it's not the fact that it was EQ1 but rather the provable diku/class/DnD model altogether (UO is not DnD). It drives input and output, provides some decision-making, is perfect to stroke the greed and narcissism all gamers have to a degree and is relatively easy to expand upon.

If the model they picked for WoW was the right one (I'm by no means suggesting it wasn't), then if they pick the same model for their next mmorpg, they have two similar models in direction competition.

This is the problem. We've talked about this before too, right around the 5mil subscriber mark in fact, because even then it was going to be a problem for them I've since said that the only people who might be able to dethrone WoW are Blizzard themselves with SC MMO or Diablo MMO (or both eventually). They themselves may need to create that uncontested marketplace with blue ocean thinking because of their own success. Or they may do what SOE thought EQ2 was going to do to EQ1: Create such a compelling new experience you can have an orderly transition from the first to the second.

My personal hope is a MMOFPS with the three distrinct SC factions having actual different playstyles (not like the huge difference between playing a Tauren Druid and a Night Elf Druid). but I suspect it'll be something different yet again. Unless SC2 does huge business in the U.S. to reignite the franchise and b.net activity here, a SC MMO could be something very specific for the hugely success Korean market in which the first SC1 is still so popular.

[Megrim]

How is it irrelevant? It simulates what someone somewhere along the line interpreted as the 'rational response' and we've been stuck with it ever since. Not only that, but it simulates it badly. Furthermore, you're missing the crux of the argument; it's not about whether the mechanics of a fight in D&D translate (however poorly) into MMOs - it's about the fact that D&D plays completely differently to any MMO, and group mechanics in MMOs being based on what the group mechanics of D&D supposedly were, is complete and utter bullshit. This includes the roles of characters within any given party. The role of a fighter in one is different from another, and yet again the third. A Tank is a Tank in any MMO.

How well it simulates it doesn't have anything to do with whether or not it does. You cannot have an AI that is going to assess the situation like a DM would and so, instead of that, you have "aggro". The function exists in both DnD and in the MMO, even if the execution is different and imperfect.

In the end, you're missing the point entirely.

But first off, lets get some thing straight.

1. The "role of a fighter" is irrelevant. You could have 3 fighters and one could heal, one could dpr, and one could soak damage and you would still have the holy trinity.

2. In DnD, until 3e. Every single fighter was the same as every other fighter. The idea that "the role of a fighter in one is different from another, and yet again in the third" is fundamentally ignorant of the history of every edition of DnD that has ever been created.  Until 3e it was impossible to make a fighter different than another except by how strong they were and how many hit points they had. In 3e, their role across their many options did not really change, they had a lot of hit points and heavy armor, and sometimes they could do DPR, and that was it. Sometimes you called your fighters barbarians and gave them more hit points and some DR instead of AC.

3. A tank is a tank in any MMO and a tank is a tank in any edition of DnD. They all operate, fundamentally the same. They are the guy who it is intended to go in and get hurt instead of the other people in your party. How they operate is irrelevant, but they are always present. DnD has always been a tactical wargame based RPG, which is what the core of our fantasy MMOs are. You kill monsters, get XP and loot, then go to some other monsters, kill them, get their xp and loot. The game part of it is organizing the party to defeat the monsters and take their stuff. Any roleplaying you do is not a core part of the game.

Another possible way to say that is that the roleplaying is just the mechanic by which you get to the next set of monsters to kill in DnD and in an MMO is "/lfg i have a big internet penis".

The gameplay as a function of that holy trinity, has not changed. Now, i suppose you could argue that the holy trinity came from something else. Which is entirely possible. But i don't really know whether or not its true.

And now back to your regularly scheduled: Why you're missing the point

You're missing the point because all of that stuff that you're describing isn't the game. Games are, essentially, a series of choices which have a set payout[known or unknown]. You do better at the game by achieving a higher payout. The stuff that isn't fighting in DnD has no payout. Its neutral, its not a game. That isn't to say its not bad or its not fun, but its not actually part of the experience that we can call a game. "Game" has a very specific meaning here because the instances that fall into its description allow designers to cater and craft the choices and payoffs to produce very specific outcomes. Good or bad. WoW is giving us the same initial choices for the game as we had in DnD. You can play as the tank, the healer or the damage dealer. Its the first rung on the branching decision tree. It was the same first rung on your branching decision tree in DnD as well. And the optimal play choice between a number of different players has at least one of each. It was the same in DnD as well. That is what is relevant to the comment

Ok, i get it. You don't know what roleplaying games are. Gotcha.

[Xerapis]

Naw, dude.

You just didn't realize that he's not using the LAYMAN's definition.

He's totally right because he's using a different definition of the word!!

Because regular definitions are useless and and and...where's that damn green button?

[Goreschach]

This is the problem. We've talked about this before too, right around the 5mil subscriber mark in fact, because even then it was going to be a problem for them I've since said that the only people who might be able to dethrone WoW are Blizzard themselves with SC MMO or Diablo MMO (or both eventually). They themselves may need to create that uncontested marketplace with blue ocean thinking because of their own success. Or they may do what SOE thought EQ2 was going to do to EQ1: Create such a compelling new experience you can have an orderly transition from the first to the second.

I think the most likely thing to happen is that they just switch to a Station Pass type program, where your $15 monthy gives you access to all of their MMO's.

[Goumindong]

Ok, i get it. You don't know what roleplaying games are. Gotcha.

Two men get into a conversation about basketball, one of them doesn't know much, and so asks for a brief history of how the game evolved. The other man replies "We'll first they wore no uniforms, then they wore singlets, then they wore short shorts and now they were baggy shorts" and the other guy says "What that doesn't tell me anything about how the game has changed!"

You're the guy talking about what kind of shorts people wear as if it makes a difference to the underlying design. I might just as well say that DnD didn't start the holy trinity because it didn't have minotaurs as player characters and you can totally play a Minotaur in WoW. Its irrelevant to the mechanical operation of the game. The operation of the game, is the game.

[UnSub]

I love semantic arguments. Was a tank character who tanked before they were called tanks actually a tank? 

Seriously, fighter / cleric / mage has been the core trinity for a long time, even if we now call them tank / healer / DPS. That MMO players call them something different from p'n'pers doesn't take away from the fact that the roles are functionally the same.

[Just Testing]

The trinity enforced socialisation and community.  It served a purpose other than enabling go to a, kill b, and loot c as part of an achievement grind.

Market demographics has to have had an impact in determining the current crop of fails.  Maybe it's because grumpy old men bitch more, or maybe its because they have less time to spend, and don't like to see it pissed away paying for finished product but receiving theory.

[DraconianOne]

And if its not a game, then using it disprove the similarities between two games is futile, as its irrelevant to the question.

If Chewbacca is a wookie that lives on Endor then it must be a game.

[Venkman]

The trinity enforced socialisation and community.  It served a purpose other than enabling go to a, kill b, and loot c as part of an achievement grind.

It compelled socialization and community because it enabled people to go to a, kill b and loot c, whether because the GM told them to or because some NPC said so.

[Draegan]

This thread is heading in a dangerous direction.   

[SnakeCharmer]

Yeah, straight into a poopsock.

[UnSub]

Yeah, straight into a poopsock.

Should I bring my tank or my healer?

[ghost]

Worse, and the part from which I derive the most disappointment, the #1 subscription-based MMO is making exactly the same evolutionary missteps that EQ1 did. And they're able to do so for the same reason (relative position to #2).

I don't understand what you mean here? Which mistakes is WoW making that are the same as EQ1?

I think he means the expansions are coming out too fast and their quality is obviously falling as well.

How is the quality of WOTLK falling, in your opinion?

[Venkman]

When text is in green, it is meant to be taken as sarcasm.

[SnakeCharmer]

[Megrim]

This thread is heading in a dangerous direction.   

It compelled socialization and community because it enabled people to go to a, kill b and loot c, whether because Hitler them to or because some Jews said so?

[ghost]

When text is in green, it is meant to be taken as sarcasm.

Sorry about the miscommunication.  I was curious because it just seems exactly the same so far and I haven't been able to really form an opinion on it.

[Venkman]

WoW doesn't make sweeping changes as much as a million micro ones that in aggregate feel huge (or huge to those whose class was affected). WotLK does have some notably new features though including phasing and more cutscenes (Wrathgate specifically and the preceding and succeeding quests and narrative). YMMV on whether those are quantum leaps or babysteps. Most WoW feature-level discussions happen in the WoW sub-forum.

[Slyfeind]

I love semantic arguments. Was a tank character who tanked before they were called tanks actually a tank? 

Seriously, fighter / cleric / mage has been the core trinity for a long time, even if we now call them tank / healer / DPS. That MMO players call them something different from p'n'pers doesn't take away from the fact that the roles are functionally the same.

D&D had a "trinity" of sorts, but I think the argument is that fighters were never designed to take damage and taunt and, well, TANK. Just as thieves were never designed to do Melee Dippiyes. Fighters were designed to fight, thieves were designed to steal shit, and now everybody thinks that fighters always had the Taunt ability and there were agro meters that DMs kept track of on a chart, and thieves had Slice-n-Dice, Garrotte, and levelled up their poisoning skills.

Someone show me the Taunt ability and agro meters and Slice-n-Dice in the old boxed set of D&D and I will eat crow. I will admit right now that I haven't looked at the old D&D rules in years. Those just might be in there, and my memory may be failing me in my old age. But somehow, I doubt it.

[IainC]

I love semantic arguments. Was a tank character who tanked before they were called tanks actually a tank? 

Seriously, fighter / cleric / mage has been the core trinity for a long time, even if we now call them tank / healer / DPS. That MMO players call them something different from p'n'pers doesn't take away from the fact that the roles are functionally the same.

D&D had a "trinity" of sorts, but I think the argument is that fighters were never designed to take damage and taunt and, well, TANK. Just as thieves were never designed to do Melee Dippiyes. Fighters were designed to fight, thieves were designed to steal shit, and now everybody thinks that fighters always had the Taunt ability and there were agro meters that DMs kept track of on a chart, and thieves had Slice-n-Dice, Garrotte, and levelled up their poisoning skills.

Someone show me the Taunt ability and agro meters and Slice-n-Dice in the old boxed set of D&D and I will eat crow. I will admit right now that I haven't looked at the old D&D rules in years. Those just might be in there, and my memory may be failing me in my old age. But somehow, I doubt it.

Fighters put themselves on the front line and tried to protect squishies because their low AC meant they almost never got hit and their 10 sided hit die meant they could take it on the chin when they did. While the fighter was meleeing and getting in the monster's face, the mage would try and keep some range so that the monster couldn't casually reach out and tear them in half.

No taunt skill, no aggro table just positioning and playing to your strengths. A party that let the bad guys get to the mage routinely was a party that had a standing order with the jewellers for 5k GP of diamonds on a regular basis. I'd still say that fighters were tanks even though they could lay down melee DPS (which was still way less than a wizard was throwing out) and the system didn't have a taunt mechanic.

[sidereal]

Nope.  pre-4th D&D did not subscribe to the notion that everyone had to be equally good in combat.  Fighters (and fighteresques - Paladins, Rangers, and Barbarians) were the best at combat, until Magenuking levels.  That means they were the best at doing damage and the best at taking damage.  Even up in the mage's Power Word: Kill levels, fighters were generally one-shotting everything and getting multiple attacks per round.  Pre-3rd, very few players used graph paper and tactical positioning was mostly handwaving.  Mages did not stay alive because the figher 'tanked'.  They stayed alive because they had Sleep, Mirror Image, and eventually a whole host of 'you die' spells.  It was possible and perfectly normal to run parties of 6 Mages, or 5 Fighters, or 2 Barbarians and a Halfling Illusionist.  There was no Holy Trinity.

Edit:  I should add, it was perfectly normal to run all kinds of party configurations PLUS A CLERIC.  The D&D Holy Trinity was Cure Light Wounds, Cure Critical Wounds, and Heal.

[Montague]

1st edition D&D did have a Taunt ability... of course, that was a level 1 Magic-User spell from Unearthed Arcana 

If you're old school, you know that there wasn't really a holy trinity. You had:

The guy who was as boring in real life as he was in game, so always played a Fighter.
The guy who wanted to be Gandalf, so always played a Magic-User.
The guy who wanted to steal everything with impunity, so always played a Thief.
The guy who always wanted to play something weird, who constantly changed his character to the latest overpowered character class in Dragon Magazine.

So almost always the DM would shower healing potions, resurrection scrolls, and other magic items so the party could heal themselves. Before 3.0 I think I saw 2 instances of where someone willingly played a Cleric.

[Soln]

that's the best thing I've read today and possibly the best synopsis of D&D I've ever read (and I spent years playing).  Well struck. 

[Nebu]

The guy who always wanted to play something weird, who constantly changed his character to the latest overpowered character class in Dragon Magazine.

That one made me laugh out loud.  I remember being like 14 when the first Paladin issue came out in Dragon magazine. 

Great stuff Montague.

[Montague]

The guy who always wanted to play something weird, who constantly changed his character to the latest overpowered character class in Dragon Magazine.

That one made me laugh out loud.  I remember being like 14 when the first Paladin issue came out in Dragon magazine. 

Great stuff Montague.

"A Plethora of Paladins" was one that sticks out. This was the infamous article that had a paladin for every alignment. We had a guy that picked the Illrigger (lawful evil) and he ended up with an ancient blue dragon as a follower  . Needless to say, the campaign became clownshoes shortly thereafter.

[Fraeg]

Long story short is that gamers dissatisfied with WoW want their preferred style of game with Blizzardesque quality. It's not going to happen anytime soon.

This pretty much sums it all up for me.  It is exactly the way I feel about WAR, and if I can use my magic pixie dust to apply it to games that pre-date WoW I would apply it to Shadowbane as well.

[Goumindong]

Someone show me the Taunt ability and agro meters and Slice-n-Dice in the old boxed set of D&D and I will eat crow. I will admit right now that I haven't looked at the old D&D rules in years. Those just might be in there, and my memory may be failing me in my old age. But somehow, I doubt it.

I am not sure why these things need to exist [note: Backstab] for there to be an apt comparison. The system was set up so that the same choices needed to be made for the same reason. That WoW had different mechanics is like saying that their mezzers(is that the right term now?) aren't messers because DnD wizards had web and fireball and WoW mezzers don't have web and fireball.

The trinity isn't about how exactly you got there its the fact that they were set up so that player would, ideally, make those same choices. You wanted the healer, the tank, and the damage dealer in 1e from the start. I can't think of anything else where this came together before hand. That is the trinity. It doesn't matter what the class names are, it doesn't matter the exact mechanics used to get there.

Nope.  pre-4th D&D did not subscribe to the notion that everyone had to be equally good in combat.  Fighters (and fighteresques - Paladins, Rangers, and Barbarians) were the best at combat, until Magenuking levels

1. This is untrue. Pre-4th edition was just less balanced. The PHBs and DMG's of all these editions specifically make reference to balancing your party.

2. The idea that "fighters were the best at combat until Magenuking levels" is just silly. At low levels they were only slightly less prone to the random die roll death and they had much fewer abilities to protect themselves. I am not sure about 1e and 2e anymore, but in 3e around level 3-5 wizards, sorcerers, clerics, and druids take over and never look back. The ability to deal RAW damage in that edition was more or less unneeded when you had access to save or lose abilities. IIRC, this was much different in 3e rather than 2e or 1e where the trinity was more enforced and alpha classes existed less. But we are making the argument that the trinity came from DnD rather than 3e.

Pre-3rd, very few players used graph paper and tactical positioning was mostly handwaving.

This would be a choice not factored into the game, since 1e has always had its roots in wargaming and tokens and tactical positioning was always suggested, even if you did not play your game in that manner.

E.G. Gary Gygax would disagree with your assesment

http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/setpages/chainmail.html

Gygax disagrees.  In Best of Dragon Volume 1, he notes: "...when the whole appeared in Chainmail, Dave (Arneson) began using the fantasy rules for his campaign and he reported a number of these actions to the C&C Society by way of articles.  I thought that this usage was quite interesting and a few months later when Dave came to visit me we played a game of his amended Chainmail fantasy campaign.  A few weeks after his visit, I received 18 or so handwritten pages of rules and notes pertaining to his campaign and I immediately began work on a brand new manuscript.  About three weeks later, I had some 100 typewritten pages, and we began serious play testing... Dungeons & Dragons had been born."  Gygax quickly goes on to say that Arneson was only given co-authorship of D&D for his "valuable idea kernels", and that D&D bears little resemblance to the Blackmoor campaign.

DnD pretty much started out as a fantasy wargame with levels and roleplaying tacked on.

[Valmorian]

I'm not sure why everyone is piling on Goumindong when what he is saying is essentially correct.  The bit "Someone show me the Taunt ability and agro meters and Slice-n-Dice in the old boxed set of D&D and I will eat crow." is especially silly. 

Are we to deny that Fighters in D&D were meant to engage in melee combat and had better armor and hit points in order to absorb the higher amounts of damage?   Or that healing was NOT the property delegated to a limited set of classes?   

Seriously, trying to argue that D&D was more about roleplaying and less about combat?