Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard What I was meaning is that for the whole WoW generation, gear has become the focus, and not the adventure itself.
While I don't disagree, I think oldschool gamers tend to overestimate the adventure aspect by quite a bit.
As a pen and paper player since mid 80s I don't agree. Heck, in one of the best campaign I ever played (werewolf) did my character gain exactly zero gear during years of playing. I did gain stats though but it was the adventure in itself that was the cool part.
Problem in MMORPGs is that they don't do the adventure part right. You rarely have to think or make any decisions, your impact on the gameworld is very limited or none existing and "quests" are usually just menial tasks.
It is my belief that MMOs should become closer to pen and paper RPGs to become more fun.
Pretty much this. And don't agree either with the "overestimate the adventure aspect".
Adventure IS the main part of rpg right since Gygax, and not the combat or loot or any other irrelevant stuff Rpg is to gather your fellows, place yourselves in your character, and go on an adventure.
Everything else spawned from this, even those lame action craps which focused purely on dumb hack'n'slash for loot and xp until the final big monsta... which is still an adventure, just a very dull one. Sadly those became mainstream, because that's what sells ("action is fun, more action is more fun" as a dev blog of a -luckily already cancelled- game once stated)
And yep, my best sessions were, similar to Loke, the ones about wandering in the world, making decisions, exploring, or just drinking in the tavern and telling stories to the villagers (in-character ofc ). I admit it's hard to implement on pc, which is kinda sad... but a good community and some ingame tools can help a lot. (like in LotRO for example, or TSW)
I see you refer to the kind of fake roleplay that takes place in themepark game. I say this because that's not really RPG, it's people performing a dramatization, like a theater play. This happens because themepark doesn't support RPG due to its constrained and linear nature: it's just a linear arcade with some gross RPG features (leveling...) to give a sensation of character development, and a bunch of skinner's box minigames at the end of the personal story. Talking about personal story, once it's implemented kills any possibility for RPG, as the one making choices about the character is the game instead of the player himself/herself.
In games like EVE or UO RPG is fully integrated with the game's mechanics, there is no necessity for "theatre play". In these games a player can be a trader and decide to recruit some mercenaries (who are played by actual players) to protect him/her from bandits (who may be actual players or npcs). This RPG is for real as is embedded in the actual game and there are real consequences fro the players' actions as well as value in their tasks.
Now you might understand why sandbox OWPvP is the only viable model for RPG. And why i've become interested in EQN...
Sandbox games don't need pvp to be "viable". I love pvp, but lets not fool ourselves in thinking that EQN is going to be some FFA pvp gang warfare extravaganza. I hope it is lol, but until we see something, assume it's going to follow suite of the EQ franchise by being largely a PVE experience.
Also, by your definition of sandbox, you'd have to call Vanguard's FFA pvp server a sandbox lol. The game played exactly how you described, yet no one would call Vanguard a sandbox. No one I know, anyway.
"Baron Squabby thinks that King Truffus is not sufficiently appreciating his efforts so he and his comrades decide to break up with him and start a civil war. Baron Squabby will align with The Budrisers Gang, a bunch of ale loving hobgoblings from King Truffus' enemy faction, to get some extra muscle"
"Carlsberg the Rogue decides to start up a tavern to supply with beverages to the soldiers fighting in the Squabby-Truffus struggle. Carlsberg sees a business opportunity in supplying an extra bit of fun to the soldiers coming back from the frontline, especially to those that return with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. That is, he will go for a joint-venture with the Kool-Aid Gang, a guild of crafters and explorers who specialize in obtaining rare herbs and distilling them into narcotics."
"Ariel the White Knight is concerned about the rise of bandoleers after the beginning of the Squabby-Truffus confrontation (the opening of that damn tavern supplying nasty stuff didn't help either, nor the rise of druggies stealing to the traders for a quick fix). He decides to found a guild of mercenaries that will protect the highways and the traders (for a fair price)"
Gallus85, what you see above are typical RPG scenarios created by the very players. Now explain to me how are you going to reproduce them in a PVE only sandbox.
...
It is not possible man. RPG, by its very nature, implies sandbox, which in turn implies OWPvP. PVE only sandbox is a ridiculous concept in a game that calls itself mmoRPG. It can only take place in a single player games (ala Skyrim). You cannot make RPG without a sandbox model (with OWPvP and player run economy, of course) as it dramatically limits the capacity of players to do RPG, that is to create their own adventures and progress their characters in an complete way (not just combat).
The scenarios that I've described above can be reproduced in games like EVE, UO or SWG, but you can't in a themepark (unless you resort to the "theater play", which is as pointless as tiresome).
I find it funny how many people usually complain about MMORPG being to shallow, too linear, of having "not enough endgame"... and many of them are the same people that don't want to see sandbox a/o OWPvP, ergo, removing any possibility of longevity for the game. PVE cannot guarantee a game to survive on the long run - for an IT company is impossible from an operational PoV, they cannot produce that much content (and at the end everything would be reduced to gear treadmill and Pavlov and his dog type of "fun").
It's RPG and player/player interaction who does ensure longevity, there is no other way guys. The proof: Look at UO: people still paying subs after 15 years (and 2D graphics). Look at EVE: 10 years in the game and rising in subscribers. I'd still be paying an SWG sub should be available...
Last thing, I see many people are playing down what RPG means and adapting the concept to what they think it is or they expect it to be. No, RPG is RPG, again:
A role-playing game is a game in which the participants assume the roles of characters and collaboratively create stories. Participants determine the actions of their characters based on their characterisation, and the actions succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines. Within the rules, they may improvise freely; their choices shape the direction and outcome of the games.
Some systems support RPG better than others and, in the latter case, a compromise must be made. I can accept that. Pen and Paper RPGs might be best fitted for RPG, as they allow the maximum grade of freedom for the players and the DM. In single player RPGs the DM is substituted by the game's IA. And in MMORPG we had the opportunity to bring back almost all of the freedom of Pen and Paper RPGs as they are social and there are mechanics and design models that permit so (again, sandbox OWPvP): players can play as DM as well.
Sorry about extending myself so much but needed to clarify some things.
EDIT: typos
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Originally posted by Gorwe Yeah I agree about theatre play type of RP. It's totally out of place, boring and simply wrong. Anecdote if I may: once I was RPing the fall of Exodar in WoW(pvt server, but who cares now) and although the scenario was played awesomely and there weren't any hitches, I simply felt not like a nerd(that I like, being different and all), but like an actual dorkster(the dork among dorks lol). It felt so...superficial and out of place. So fake. I never did such a thing again.
I could hold you up as example of everything that is wrong about player attitudes, but I don't actually blame you for this attitude, I blame the game. Roleplaying involves developing a story - a parallel narrative to what the developers themselves put into the game. The reason it comes out feeling "fake" is because the game does not have any tools for establishing canon. The RP event only happened in the minds of those who chose to accept that it happened - nothing in the game's database, in the game's state acknowledges that it ever happened, Without a way of establishing canon visible to the world, without the event playing out within some formal ruleset for determining the outcome, yes it is just using the game as a stage..
I could hold you up as example of everything that is wrong about player attitudes, but I don't actually blame you for this attitude, I blame the game. Roleplaying involves developing a story - a parallel narrative to what the developers themselves put into the game. The reason it comes out feeling "fake" is because the game does not have any tools for establishing canon. The RP event only happened in the minds of those who chose to accept that it happened - nothing in the game's database, in the game's state acknowledges that it ever happened, Without a way of establishing canon visible to the world, without the event playing out within some formal ruleset for determining the outcome, yes it is just using the game as a stage..
That is because most of the audience don't play the game for RP. They play it for combat & loot. If you put in those RP elements in game, it will just be an inhibitor to their fun, and they will QQ and RP will go away.
That is because most of the audience don't play the game for RP. They play it for combat & loot. If you put in those RP elements in game, it will just be an inhibitor to their fun, and they will QQ and RP will go away.
That is because most of the audience don't play the game for RP. They play it for combat & loot. If you put in those RP elements in game, it will just be an inhibitor to their fun, and they will QQ and RP will go away.
Example?
WoW
DDO
... heck any themepark MMO, or online ARPG like the Diablo series.
That is because most of the audience don't play the game for RP. They play it for combat & loot. If you put in those RP elements in game, it will just be an inhibitor to their fun, and they will QQ and RP will go away.
Example?
WoW
DDO
... heck any themepark MMO, or online ARPG like the Diablo series.
You can't quote games without RP mechanics as examples of RP mechanics not working.
( RP mechanics beyond the traditional race/class/wardrobe definition of course )
The problem is, RPG is a total misnomer with regard to video games. There has never been a video game that is an actual RPG, in the same sense that a tabletop PnP game is. In fact, the earliest games to call themselves RPGs did so in an attempt to appeal to people who played tabletop games. Roleplaying means not just taking on the role of a class of character, it means creating an individual personality and history and playing the character with that personality. Roleplaying requires freedom, something that MMOs do not offer and in virtually all instances, cannot offer. The overwhelming majority of people playing MMOs are just playing a video game, they are not roleplaying a character. It's just an avatar in a story. You don't roleplay Master Chief when you play Halo, it's foolish to pretend most people do it in an MMO.
That's not to say there aren't some small number of people who do it, in a very limited way, but the game mechanics really limits how much control you really have over your character because MMOs are all about progression and there is usually a very small number of ways to progress in the game. You cannot choose to follow a path outside of those narrow progression methods and still have any meaningful gameplay.
Sorry, you cannot do real roleplaying in a goal-centered video game. It just can't be done.
"A role-playing game is a game in which the participants assume the roles of characters and collaboratively create stories. Participants determine the actions of their characters based on their characterisation, and the actions succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines. Within the rules, they may improvise freely; their choices shape the direction and outcome of the games."
Ergo, RPG are not linear spoon-fed arcades, neither lobby games, neither Pavlov's dog exercises (say hello to WoW/STO/WAR/SWTOR/Rift/GW2... and the rest of the themeparkish crap published in the last 8 years).
They're not any goal-centric progression-based video game that has ever been created. RPG is a misnomer.
I will almost agree with you, I don't think MUDs were any better for roleplaying than MMOs because there's still a game that has to be played and still a goal in mind. There were a lot of text-based, non-game-based systems out there that were total sandboxes, where the only thing to do was roleplaying because there wasn't anything else. I spent over 16 years on one of them, doing nothing but roleplaying. No levels, no combat, no progression. It was great. You could probably do the same thing on Second Life, if you wanted to step foot there.
Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard What I was meaning is that for the whole WoW generation, gear has become the focus, and not the adventure itself.
While I don't disagree, I think oldschool gamers tend to overestimate the adventure aspect by quite a bit.
As a pen and paper player since mid 80s I don't agree. Heck, in one of the best campaign I ever played (werewolf) did my character gain exactly zero gear during years of playing. I did gain stats though but it was the adventure in itself that was the cool part.
Problem in MMORPGs is that they don't do the adventure part right. You rarely have to think or make any decisions, your impact on the gameworld is very limited or none existing and "quests" are usually just menial tasks.
It is my belief that MMOs should become closer to pen and paper RPGs to become more fun.
Unfortunately, they can't be. That requires direct human intervention, where the GM can make decisions on the fly and change the system to suit the situation. That's just not possible in an AI-driven MMO. Great idea, just not possible in the implementation.
I will almost agree with you, I don't think MUDs were any better for roleplaying than MMOs because there's still a game that has to be played and still a goal in mind.
I agree, MUD's were great for roleplay, though a bit restricted, a bit clunky in updates, etc. even if you were an admin, it wasn't easy to insert your quests or areas into the world.
That's why MUSH'es were much better. I think that was the closest thing a video game ever got to roleplaying. (NWN's Aurora was nice too, but it was mostly for modules, without the openness of a MUSH).
And as Mondo wrote that's pretty much died. Its main strength was that it used the player's fantasy, and with being text-based it was easy to program, anybody could make additions to the world. Nowadays gfx and 3d is everything, even the most easiest user-friendly editor couldn't work "on-the-fly"...
Another strenght, that it was "policed" much better, so no idiots or griefers stayed on the server for long which helped to maintain a great community.
That is because most of the audience don't play the game for RP. They play it for combat & loot. If you put in those RP elements in game, it will just be an inhibitor to their fun, and they will QQ and RP will go away.
Example?
WoW
DDO
... heck any themepark MMO, or online ARPG like the Diablo series.
You can't quote games without RP mechanics as examples of RP mechanics not working.
Of course i can. They are evidence that the market decide that RP mechanics do not have enough demand.
In fact, WOW has RP servers. How did that turn out? You see lots of people doing "thees" and "thous" there, and not talking about real life stuff?
I played WOW for a few years. I have yet to meet ONE person who RP in the context of lore.
Examples of Roleplaying that I have seen and liked.
Everquest - Rallos Zek Server - Raid Contention and character behavior - In this game it was important for guild leaders not only to communicate but coordinate with one another in order to raid. Lack of proper coordination could result in all out guild wars where not only would your guild playerbase get destroyed (through constant harassment) but where your raids would also be interrupted and certain very valuable disputable pieces could get stolen.
It was a nasty time in the world but for all intents and purposes it was about as involving as could be. And one felt a real connection to their character and the role that they played within it all.
Everquest 2 - (I forget what server but this was only a year or so ago) - There was a weekley poetry event where all of the bards on the server would get together and do the beatnik thing. I as able to use the emotes and hotkeys from the game to come up with some pretty impressive (to me at least) interpretive dances. Others performed skits and read cheesy poetry, but it all felt pretty good. There were emotions of stage fright, embarrassment, and reward just like performing in real life. Good stuff.
City of Heroes - Virtue Server - Way back in the beginning we were all very serious about our roleplay. There were often situations where all of the heroes in the city would meet to discuss the proper ways to tackle certain situations. Here is a pic of one of those events. Everyone stayed in character, everyone had fun, again, good times.
Examples of Roleplaying that I have seen that I did not enjoy.
Everquest 2 - A year ago - I was once in a guild where the guy pulled me aside shortly after inviting me and explained that it was a sexually based role-play of some sort. It had initials, I can't recall what, but it was not my cup of tea. He then proceeded to debase me and all I could think about was "What if I was 14 and ran into this situation" and "Where was Chris Hansen when you needed him."
City of Heroes - Virtue Server - Not long after beta - There was this one guy who was totally caught up in his roleplay. He was also the tank, and he was also definitely trying to hit on the only confirmed female in the group. So in the middle of a mission where things that could hurt most of us were popping all around us, this dude would stop and try to roleplay out some story that only he knew the plot to. This usually resulted in us wiping, and it seriously hindered the progression of the group.
Within these examples I show two situations where the mechanics of the game not only played a role but in the case of the first example, defined the kind of roleplaying that was going on. I also provide at least one example where it was almost entirely based on playerbase imagination and desire to participate.
The latter two examples however are both the same and have to do with stepping completely out of the game, mechanic or otherwise, and attempting to impose a reality of one individuals choosing upon another, and this, in my opinion, every time, is distasteful. It is also, unfortunately, the majority of roleplaying that has been going on though, and this, more than any other reason, is why I think that Role Play is frowned upon by so many.
It's easy to pretend when everyone else is pretending, we adults do it every day. But it's not easy to pretend when doing so alienates you from everyone else. That's like wearing a pamper to work. And who in his right mind is going to do that?
Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard What I was meaning is that for the whole WoW generation, gear has become the focus, and not the adventure itself.
While I don't disagree, I think oldschool gamers tend to overestimate the adventure aspect by quite a bit.
As a pen and paper player since mid 80s I don't agree. Heck, in one of the best campaign I ever played (werewolf) did my character gain exactly zero gear during years of playing. I did gain stats though but it was the adventure in itself that was the cool part.
Problem in MMORPGs is that they don't do the adventure part right. You rarely have to think or make any decisions, your impact on the gameworld is very limited or none existing and "quests" are usually just menial tasks.
It is my belief that MMOs should become closer to pen and paper RPGs to become more fun.
Pretty much this. And don't agree either with the "overestimate the adventure aspect".
Adventure IS the main part of rpg right since Gygax, and not the combat or loot or any other irrelevant stuff Rpg is to gather your fellows, place yourselves in your character, and go on an adventure.
Everything else spawned from this, even those lame action craps which focused purely on dumb hack'n'slash for loot and xp until the final big monsta... which is still an adventure, just a very dull one. Sadly those became mainstream, because that's what sells ("action is fun, more action is more fun" as a dev blog of a -luckily already cancelled- game once stated)
And yep, my best sessions were, similar to Loke, the ones about wandering in the world, making decisions, exploring, or just drinking in the tavern and telling stories to the villagers (in-character ofc ). I admit it's hard to implement on pc, which is kinda sad... but a good community and some ingame tools can help a lot. (like in LotRO for example, or TSW)
Adventure IS the main part of an RPG video game, to an extent. The adventure is only emphasized largely comparitively to other games. However, that is not to say that people had the same intensity in the adventure across the board. Some people get heavily into the adventure, some dont. The best example is really any MMORPG where you will find those who are 'lore hounds' versus others who really don't follow the story or the adventure.
Your statement that RPG is to gather your followers, place yourself in the character and go on an adventure is kind of right and kind of wrong.
Firstly, I don't really know about the gather your followers aspect. What does that mean? To by a king and get subjects to obey you?
Placing yourself in a character is a requirement for table top RPG, not video game RPG. It is entirely possible to never put yourself into a character in an RPG or MMORPG (I know, myself and many others almost never put ourselves in our characters). I wouldn't count this for a video game RPG.
Adventure I do agree with to an extent. Adventure is more focused in video game RPGs as compared to other video game genres.
I Think the main point I was making was lost in translation. Yes, video game RPG's are more heavily focused on the adventure, and yes, many people do get lost in the adventure. My point is that it is not impossible to play an entire RPG and never get into the adventure at all, so saying that the adventure was a core aspect that everyone engaged in is a bit disengenous at best.
That is because most of the audience don't play the game for RP. They play it for combat & loot. If you put in those RP elements in game, it will just be an inhibitor to their fun, and they will QQ and RP will go away.
Example?
WoW
DDO
... heck any themepark MMO, or online ARPG like the Diablo series.
You can't quote games without RP mechanics as examples of RP mechanics not working.
Define RP mechanics.
You have a chat box and a character, technically thats really all you need to RP.
Do you mean affecting the game world personally? That takes an incredible amount of computing and planning to do. How are you going to make a world that is personally affected by hundreds of thousands - millions of people that isn't constricting? Sandboxes do this to a tiny extent. At the maximum, you are simply only able to affect the things that the developers allow yout o affect. That is NOT the same as a table top RPG where you can do anything possible to the imagination.
Firstly, I don't really know about the gather your followers aspect. What does that mean? To by a king and get subjects to obey you?
Placing yourself in a character is a requirement for table top RPG, not video game RPG.
(sorry I snipped a bit, it was too long and I just wanted to reflect the two parts above)
I agree with you, and my post was all about the tabletop pen'n'paper rpg era, I even wrote in the end that I admit, real rpg is hard to implement on video games. (and in an another post I wrote that MUSHes were the closest try, and maybe NWN's Aurora toolkit)
The other one, that's clearly a "lost in translation" issue, I wrote fellows, not followers as in buddies, friends, acquaintances (? is it a valid word? ).
Originally posted by Po_gg ... and maybe NWN's Aurora toolkit
It worked and still works. The game is quite unique (along with NWN2 with a better graphic engine) and has a quite large following even for such an old game.
People recreated entire Dungeon and Dragon campains with the editor and "dungeon mastered" them online.
I know, I played it a lot but as I wrote before, it's for modules mostly, and can't always reflect on-the-fly to every action of the party. MUSH servers were better in a way that those gave an online world (so not just your party was there), and you could do pretty much everything in it.
But agree, NWN's modding community is great, and gave many many additional hours of play to the base game.
Examples of Roleplaying that I have seen that I did not enjoy.
Everquest 2 - A year ago - I was once in a guild where the guy pulled me aside shortly after inviting me and explained that it was a sexually based role-play of some sort. It had initials, I can't recall what, but it was not my cup of tea. He then proceeded to debase me and all I could think about was "What if I was 14 and ran into this situation" and "Where was Chris Hansen when you needed him."
City of Heroes - Virtue Server - Not long after beta - There was this one guy who was totally caught up in his roleplay. He was also the tank, and he was also definitely trying to hit on the only confirmed female in the group. So in the middle of a mission where things that could hurt most of us were popping all around us, this dude would stop and try to roleplay out some story that only he knew the plot to. This usually resulted in us wiping, and it seriously hindered the progression of the group.
Within these examples I show two situations where the mechanics of the game not only played a role but in the case of the first example, defined the kind of roleplaying that was going on. I also provide at least one example where it was almost entirely based on playerbase imagination and desire to participate.
The latter two examples however are both the same and have to do with stepping completely out of the game, mechanic or otherwise, and attempting to impose a reality of one individuals choosing upon another, and this, in my opinion, every time, is distasteful. It is also, unfortunately, the majority of roleplaying that has been going on though, and this, more than any other reason, is why I think that Role Play is frowned upon by so many.
It's easy to pretend when everyone else is pretending, we adults do it every day. But it's not easy to pretend when doing so alienates you from everyone else. That's like wearing a pamper to work. And who in his right mind is going to do that?
That reminds me of an incident during my PnP RP days. One of the players in my role playing group decided that he wanted to run a campaign of his own design and we all joined in. I think the guy was high and the "adventure" went psychadelic really quick. I pretty much had enough when we got to the part where our characters were required to sexually service members of the band Guns'n Roses. I suicided my character, took my dice and went home. Next game session we went back to our regular GM and pretended like the previous session never happened.
Some people have extremely weird ideas of what Role Playing is supposed to be. A few years later another PnP RP group broke up because some members wanted to get into LARPing and the rest considered it as taking things too far.
I draw a fine line between the role I'm playing and the personality I'm roleplaying. There is a difference. When I'm playing a healer in a game, I'm mashing buttons to keep people alive. That's my role. When I'm mashing buttons with some snazzy comment like "By the Light of < insert light god here >, be healed you infidel!", I'm roleplaying (JK, but the idea is the same)
In all seriousness though, I'll roleplay in the traditional sense when I encounter other roleplayers (or if I'm on the RP server). The last time I actually roleplayed was in Shadowbane on the Mourning Server. I played an Elf Huntress that was tasked by her Master to hunt down the Thief that stole his favorite spear (thus, I ended up infiltrating many cities and killing Thief characters...was blacklisted by some cities). I'd act out the part too.
The one thing I do hate is when people feel that roleplaying means crappy Old English.
Roleplayer: "Hark! How dost thou clean thy big glowing shoulder pads?"
Non-roleplayer: With the tears and blood of the last roleplayer that asked me that. Shiny, aren't they? (taps sword)
Raquelis in various games Played: Everything Playing: Nioh 2, Civ6 Wants: The World Anticipating:Everquest NextCrowfall, Pantheon, Elden Ring
It's not pen and paper, but it's pretty damned close. I think the main point was that it was a human telling the story, and not a computer giving "kill 10 rats" quests
Firstly, I don't really know about the gather your followers aspect. What does that mean? To by a king and get subjects to obey you?
Placing yourself in a character is a requirement for table top RPG, not video game RPG.
(sorry I snipped a bit, it was too long and I just wanted to reflect the two parts above)
I agree with you, and my post was all about the tabletop pen'n'paper rpg era, I even wrote in the end that I admit, real rpg is hard to implement on video games. (and in an another post I wrote that MUSHes were the closest try, and maybe NWN's Aurora toolkit)
The other one, that's clearly a "lost in translation" issue, I wrote fellows, not followers as in buddies, friends, acquaintances (? is it a valid word? ).
Ohhh my mistake. Indeed you DID mention that in the post. And no, you were right, I simply misread where you wrote fellows as followers, so most of my points are completely irrelevant as I didn't read all of it and misread something
The problem is, RPG is a total misnomer with regard to video games. There has never been a video game that is an actual RPG, in the same sense that a tabletop PnP game is.
There is one. Neverwinter Nights. You can pretty much emulate pen and paper sessions with the game, with a dungeon master, without the shared beer and body odors though... ;o)
No, you really can't. Oh sure, you can stop playing the game and stand around in a field and play make believe but you cannot roleplay a character that falls outside of the game mechanics and still successfully play the game. That's the major difference between PnP RPG and computer game RPG. In PnP RPG, you can do almost anything and the GM can decide you're going to get XP and still advance. In a computer RPG, you have to fight, you have to kill, you have to do all the things that the programming demands to get your XP or you never go anywhere.
It's not pen and paper, but it's pretty damned close. I think the main point was that it was a human telling the story, and not a computer giving "kill 10 rats" quests
No, it's not even remotely close. You can either play an MMO and do the things that an MMO requires to advance or you can stop playing the MMO and use the system to stand around and play out a story, but while doing that, you're not advancing. Unless you can RP and still get XP for doing it, it's not a true combination of the two.
The problem is, RPG is a total misnomer with regard to video games. There has never been a video game that is an actual RPG, in the same sense that a tabletop PnP game is.
There is one. Neverwinter Nights. You can pretty much emulate pen and paper sessions with the game, with a dungeon master, without the shared beer and body odors though... ;o)
No, you really can't. Oh sure, you can stop playing the game and stand around in a field and play make believe but you cannot roleplay a character that falls outside of the game mechanics and still successfully play the game.
Have you ever played NWN with a Dungeon Master and voice chat?
You, sir, base your fact on your limited (if even existing) experience, and you are just plain wrong. NWN was/is not "just another" RPG. You could play it like that, granted, but you missed 90% of what the game is.
Did the DM have the ability to grant in-game XP and rewards based on your roleplaying actions that fell outside of simple game mechanics? If not, then you're just wrong.
Comments
Pretty much this. And don't agree either with the "overestimate the adventure aspect".
Adventure IS the main part of rpg right since Gygax, and not the combat or loot or any other irrelevant stuff
Rpg is to gather your fellows, place yourselves in your character, and go on an adventure.
Everything else spawned from this, even those lame action craps which focused purely on dumb hack'n'slash for loot and xp until the final big monsta... which is still an adventure, just a very dull one. Sadly those became mainstream, because that's what sells ("action is fun, more action is more fun" as a dev blog of a -luckily already cancelled- game once stated)
And yep, my best sessions were, similar to Loke, the ones about wandering in the world, making decisions, exploring, or just drinking in the tavern and telling stories to the villagers (in-character ofc
). I admit it's hard to implement on pc, which is kinda sad... but a good community and some ingame tools can help a lot. (like in LotRO for example, or TSW)
"Baron Squabby thinks that King Truffus is not sufficiently appreciating his efforts so he and his comrades decide to break up with him and start a civil war. Baron Squabby will align with The Budrisers Gang, a bunch of ale loving hobgoblings from King Truffus' enemy faction, to get some extra muscle"
"Carlsberg the Rogue decides to start up a tavern to supply with beverages to the soldiers fighting in the Squabby-Truffus struggle. Carlsberg sees a business opportunity in supplying an extra bit of fun to the soldiers coming back from the frontline, especially to those that return with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. That is, he will go for a joint-venture with the Kool-Aid Gang, a guild of crafters and explorers who specialize in obtaining rare herbs and distilling them into narcotics."
"Ariel the White Knight is concerned about the rise of bandoleers after the beginning of the Squabby-Truffus confrontation (the opening of that damn tavern supplying nasty stuff didn't help either, nor the rise of druggies stealing to the traders for a quick fix). He decides to found a guild of mercenaries that will protect the highways and the traders (for a fair price)"
Gallus85, what you see above are typical RPG scenarios created by the very players. Now explain to me how are you going to reproduce them in a PVE only sandbox.
...
It is not possible man. RPG, by its very nature, implies sandbox, which in turn implies OWPvP. PVE only sandbox is a ridiculous concept in a game that calls itself mmoRPG. It can only take place in a single player games (ala Skyrim). You cannot make RPG without a sandbox model (with OWPvP and player run economy, of course) as it dramatically limits the capacity of players to do RPG, that is to create their own adventures and progress their characters in an complete way (not just combat).
The scenarios that I've described above can be reproduced in games like EVE, UO or SWG, but you can't in a themepark (unless you resort to the "theater play", which is as pointless as tiresome).
I find it funny how many people usually complain about MMORPG being to shallow, too linear, of having "not enough endgame"... and many of them are the same people that don't want to see sandbox a/o OWPvP, ergo, removing any possibility of longevity for the game. PVE cannot guarantee a game to survive on the long run - for an IT company is impossible from an operational PoV, they cannot produce that much content (and at the end everything would be reduced to gear treadmill and Pavlov and his dog type of "fun").
It's RPG and player/player interaction who does ensure longevity, there is no other way guys. The proof: Look at UO: people still paying subs after 15 years (and 2D graphics). Look at EVE: 10 years in the game and rising in subscribers. I'd still be paying an SWG sub should be available...
Last thing, I see many people are playing down what RPG means and adapting the concept to what they think it is or they expect it to be. No, RPG is RPG, again:
A role-playing game is a game in which the participants assume the roles of characters and collaboratively create stories. Participants determine the actions of their characters based on their characterisation, and the actions succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines. Within the rules, they may improvise freely; their choices shape the direction and outcome of the games.
Some systems support RPG better than others and, in the latter case, a compromise must be made. I can accept that. Pen and Paper RPGs might be best fitted for RPG, as they allow the maximum grade of freedom for the players and the DM. In single player RPGs the DM is substituted by the game's IA. And in MMORPG we had the opportunity to bring back almost all of the freedom of Pen and Paper RPGs as they are social and there are mechanics and design models that permit so (again, sandbox OWPvP): players can play as DM as well.
Sorry about extending myself so much but needed to clarify some things.
EDIT: typos
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
I could hold you up as example of everything that is wrong about player attitudes, but I don't actually blame you for this attitude, I blame the game. Roleplaying involves developing a story - a parallel narrative to what the developers themselves put into the game. The reason it comes out feeling "fake" is because the game does not have any tools for establishing canon. The RP event only happened in the minds of those who chose to accept that it happened - nothing in the game's database, in the game's state acknowledges that it ever happened, Without a way of establishing canon visible to the world, without the event playing out within some formal ruleset for determining the outcome, yes it is just using the game as a stage..
That is because most of the audience don't play the game for RP. They play it for combat & loot. If you put in those RP elements in game, it will just be an inhibitor to their fun, and they will QQ and RP will go away.
Example?
WoW
DDO
... heck any themepark MMO, or online ARPG like the Diablo series.
You can't quote games without RP mechanics as examples of RP mechanics not working.
( RP mechanics beyond the traditional race/class/wardrobe definition of course )
The problem is, RPG is a total misnomer with regard to video games. There has never been a video game that is an actual RPG, in the same sense that a tabletop PnP game is. In fact, the earliest games to call themselves RPGs did so in an attempt to appeal to people who played tabletop games. Roleplaying means not just taking on the role of a class of character, it means creating an individual personality and history and playing the character with that personality. Roleplaying requires freedom, something that MMOs do not offer and in virtually all instances, cannot offer. The overwhelming majority of people playing MMOs are just playing a video game, they are not roleplaying a character. It's just an avatar in a story. You don't roleplay Master Chief when you play Halo, it's foolish to pretend most people do it in an MMO.
That's not to say there aren't some small number of people who do it, in a very limited way, but the game mechanics really limits how much control you really have over your character because MMOs are all about progression and there is usually a very small number of ways to progress in the game. You cannot choose to follow a path outside of those narrow progression methods and still have any meaningful gameplay.
Sorry, you cannot do real roleplaying in a goal-centered video game. It just can't be done.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
They're not any goal-centric progression-based video game that has ever been created. RPG is a misnomer.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
I will almost agree with you, I don't think MUDs were any better for roleplaying than MMOs because there's still a game that has to be played and still a goal in mind. There were a lot of text-based, non-game-based systems out there that were total sandboxes, where the only thing to do was roleplaying because there wasn't anything else. I spent over 16 years on one of them, doing nothing but roleplaying. No levels, no combat, no progression. It was great. You could probably do the same thing on Second Life, if you wanted to step foot there.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
Unfortunately, they can't be. That requires direct human intervention, where the GM can make decisions on the fly and change the system to suit the situation. That's just not possible in an AI-driven MMO. Great idea, just not possible in the implementation.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
I agree, MUD's were great for roleplay, though a bit restricted, a bit clunky in updates, etc. even if you were an admin, it wasn't easy to insert your quests or areas into the world.
That's why MUSH'es were much better. I think that was the closest thing a video game ever got to roleplaying. (NWN's Aurora was nice too, but it was mostly for modules, without the openness of a MUSH).
And as Mondo wrote that's pretty much died. Its main strength was that it used the player's fantasy, and with being text-based it was easy to program, anybody could make additions to the world. Nowadays gfx and 3d is everything, even the most easiest user-friendly editor couldn't work "on-the-fly"...
Another strenght, that it was "policed" much better, so no idiots or griefers stayed on the server for long
which helped to maintain a great community.
Of course i can. They are evidence that the market decide that RP mechanics do not have enough demand.
In fact, WOW has RP servers. How did that turn out? You see lots of people doing "thees" and "thous" there, and not talking about real life stuff?
I played WOW for a few years. I have yet to meet ONE person who RP in the context of lore.
Examples of Roleplaying that I have seen and liked.
Everquest - Rallos Zek Server - Raid Contention and character behavior - In this game it was important for guild leaders not only to communicate but coordinate with one another in order to raid. Lack of proper coordination could result in all out guild wars where not only would your guild playerbase get destroyed (through constant harassment) but where your raids would also be interrupted and certain very valuable disputable pieces could get stolen.
It was a nasty time in the world but for all intents and purposes it was about as involving as could be. And one felt a real connection to their character and the role that they played within it all.
Everquest 2 - (I forget what server but this was only a year or so ago) - There was a weekley poetry event where all of the bards on the server would get together and do the beatnik thing. I as able to use the emotes and hotkeys from the game to come up with some pretty impressive (to me at least) interpretive dances. Others performed skits and read cheesy poetry, but it all felt pretty good. There were emotions of stage fright, embarrassment, and reward just like performing in real life. Good stuff.
City of Heroes - Virtue Server - Way back in the beginning we were all very serious about our roleplay. There were often situations where all of the heroes in the city would meet to discuss the proper ways to tackle certain situations. Here is a pic of one of those events. Everyone stayed in character, everyone had fun, again, good times.
Examples of Roleplaying that I have seen that I did not enjoy.
Everquest 2 - A year ago - I was once in a guild where the guy pulled me aside shortly after inviting me and explained that it was a sexually based role-play of some sort. It had initials, I can't recall what, but it was not my cup of tea. He then proceeded to debase me and all I could think about was "What if I was 14 and ran into this situation" and "Where was Chris Hansen when you needed him."
City of Heroes - Virtue Server - Not long after beta - There was this one guy who was totally caught up in his roleplay. He was also the tank, and he was also definitely trying to hit on the only confirmed female in the group. So in the middle of a mission where things that could hurt most of us were popping all around us, this dude would stop and try to roleplay out some story that only he knew the plot to. This usually resulted in us wiping, and it seriously hindered the progression of the group.
Within these examples I show two situations where the mechanics of the game not only played a role but in the case of the first example, defined the kind of roleplaying that was going on. I also provide at least one example where it was almost entirely based on playerbase imagination and desire to participate.
The latter two examples however are both the same and have to do with stepping completely out of the game, mechanic or otherwise, and attempting to impose a reality of one individuals choosing upon another, and this, in my opinion, every time, is distasteful. It is also, unfortunately, the majority of roleplaying that has been going on though, and this, more than any other reason, is why I think that Role Play is frowned upon by so many.
It's easy to pretend when everyone else is pretending, we adults do it every day. But it's not easy to pretend when doing so alienates you from everyone else. That's like wearing a pamper to work. And who in his right mind is going to do that?
Adventure IS the main part of an RPG video game, to an extent. The adventure is only emphasized largely comparitively to other games. However, that is not to say that people had the same intensity in the adventure across the board. Some people get heavily into the adventure, some dont. The best example is really any MMORPG where you will find those who are 'lore hounds' versus others who really don't follow the story or the adventure.
Your statement that RPG is to gather your followers, place yourself in the character and go on an adventure is kind of right and kind of wrong.
Firstly, I don't really know about the gather your followers aspect. What does that mean? To by a king and get subjects to obey you?
Placing yourself in a character is a requirement for table top RPG, not video game RPG. It is entirely possible to never put yourself into a character in an RPG or MMORPG (I know, myself and many others almost never put ourselves in our characters). I wouldn't count this for a video game RPG.
Adventure I do agree with to an extent. Adventure is more focused in video game RPGs as compared to other video game genres.
I Think the main point I was making was lost in translation. Yes, video game RPG's are more heavily focused on the adventure, and yes, many people do get lost in the adventure. My point is that it is not impossible to play an entire RPG and never get into the adventure at all, so saying that the adventure was a core aspect that everyone engaged in is a bit disengenous at best.
Define RP mechanics.
You have a chat box and a character, technically thats really all you need to RP.
Do you mean affecting the game world personally? That takes an incredible amount of computing and planning to do. How are you going to make a world that is personally affected by hundreds of thousands - millions of people that isn't constricting? Sandboxes do this to a tiny extent. At the maximum, you are simply only able to affect the things that the developers allow yout o affect. That is NOT the same as a table top RPG where you can do anything possible to the imagination.
(sorry I snipped a bit, it was too long and I just wanted to reflect the two parts above)
I agree with you, and my post was all about the tabletop pen'n'paper rpg era, I even wrote in the end that I admit, real rpg is hard to implement on video games. (and in an another post I wrote that MUSHes were the closest try, and maybe NWN's Aurora toolkit)
The other one, that's clearly a "lost in translation" issue, I wrote fellows, not followers
as in buddies, friends, acquaintances (? is it a valid word? 
).
I know, I played it a lot
but as I wrote before, it's for modules mostly, and can't always reflect on-the-fly to every action of the party. MUSH servers were better in a way that those gave an online world (so not just your party was there), and you could do pretty much everything in it.
But agree, NWN's modding community is great, and gave many many additional hours of play to the base game.
That reminds me of an incident during my PnP RP days. One of the players in my role playing group decided that he wanted to run a campaign of his own design and we all joined in. I think the guy was high and the "adventure" went psychadelic really quick. I pretty much had enough when we got to the part where our characters were required to sexually service members of the band Guns'n Roses. I suicided my character, took my dice and went home. Next game session we went back to our regular GM and pretended like the previous session never happened.
Some people have extremely weird ideas of what Role Playing is supposed to be. A few years later another PnP RP group broke up because some members wanted to get into LARPing and the rest considered it as taking things too far.
I draw a fine line between the role I'm playing and the personality I'm roleplaying. There is a difference. When I'm playing a healer in a game, I'm mashing buttons to keep people alive. That's my role. When I'm mashing buttons with some snazzy comment like "By the Light of < insert light god here >, be healed you infidel!", I'm roleplaying (JK, but the idea is the same)
In all seriousness though, I'll roleplay in the traditional sense when I encounter other roleplayers (or if I'm on the RP server). The last time I actually roleplayed was in Shadowbane on the Mourning Server. I played an Elf Huntress that was tasked by her Master to hunt down the Thief that stole his favorite spear (thus, I ended up infiltrating many cities and killing Thief characters...was blacklisted by some cities). I'd act out the part too.
The one thing I do hate is when people feel that roleplaying means crappy Old English.
Roleplayer: "Hark! How dost thou clean thy big glowing shoulder pads?"
Non-roleplayer: With the tears and blood of the last roleplayer that asked me that. Shiny, aren't they? (taps sword)
Raquelis in various games
Played: Everything
Playing: Nioh 2, Civ6
Wants: The World
Anticipating: Everquest Next Crowfall, Pantheon, Elden Ring
The "kill 10 rats" quests are made by humans too.
Ohhh my mistake. Indeed you DID mention that in the post. And no, you were right, I simply misread where you wrote fellows as followers, so most of my points are completely irrelevant as I didn't read all of it and misread something
No, you really can't. Oh sure, you can stop playing the game and stand around in a field and play make believe but you cannot roleplay a character that falls outside of the game mechanics and still successfully play the game. That's the major difference between PnP RPG and computer game RPG. In PnP RPG, you can do almost anything and the GM can decide you're going to get XP and still advance. In a computer RPG, you have to fight, you have to kill, you have to do all the things that the programming demands to get your XP or you never go anywhere.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
No, it's not even remotely close. You can either play an MMO and do the things that an MMO requires to advance or you can stop playing the MMO and use the system to stand around and play out a story, but while doing that, you're not advancing. Unless you can RP and still get XP for doing it, it's not a true combination of the two.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
Did the DM have the ability to grant in-game XP and rewards based on your roleplaying actions that fell outside of simple game mechanics? If not, then you're just wrong.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None