Did mmo's create the trinity?

filmoret

I guess the first question would be to decide exactly what the trinity is.  If it is just the fact that 1 character is able to heal and 1 character is able to take damage then the trinity has always existed.  DPS is the easiest so we just leave that one alone.  Tank should have the ability to draw damage away from other players or prevent other players from taking damage by taking it himself.  Then the healer should be able to heal the party of at least 4 and keep them alive.  So when exactly did this all start?  And what better definition do you have if mine is incorrect?

d_20

Rhoklaw said:

[...] pen and paper versions of games such as Dungeons and Dragons probably made use of these 3 basic combat roles before computer games [...]

This. 

centkin

It wasn't AD&D because AD&D didn't have taunt.  It wasn't codified until taunts were available to give hate beyond the damage done in MMOs.

H0urg1ass

The Trinity was never part of any of the Pen & Paper RPG's that I grew up playing.  I really only played AD&D, Shadowrun, World of Darkness, RIFTS and GURPS, so I can't speak for all of them.  Most P&P RPG's relied on other game mechanics to keep the monster focused on a couple of characters such as keeping DPS at range, or sneaking up to their backs.

The Trinity was really solidified in MMORPG's, most recognizably in WoW.

Personally, I would rather see a large pool of attributes, skills and abilities and then let the players make the characters that they want to play.  Maybe something really cool like taking a ton of upkeep intensive armor and protection spells and becoming a mage tank.  That would be really awesome for a change.

craftseeker

centkin said:

It wasn't AD&D because AD&D didn't have taunt.  It wasn't codified until taunts were available to give hate beyond the damage done in MMOs.

Depends on how you played the game. Around here, thirty+ years ago, we used a 'shield wall' sort of approach with the warriors providing a physical barrier, while the healers healed and the wiggly fingers nuked the monsters.

That sounds like trinity play to me, but your mileage may vary.

Eldurian

I play D&D 3.5 every Saturday. The trinity is not really a concept there. No character is one dimensional. They all have several purposes. Those purposes may include healing, damage output or tanking but none of them are focused on that to the level they are in most MMOs. The closest you would get is DPS but even damage oriented characters need the ability to survive or avoid hits.

laserit

I believe the term was coined with MMORPG's but the roles just came naturally with the tactics used in D&D and the like.

filmoret

craftseeker said:

centkin said:

It wasn't AD&D because AD&D didn't have taunt.  It wasn't codified until taunts were available to give hate beyond the damage done in MMOs.

Depends on how you played the game. Around here, thirty+ years ago, we used a 'shield wall' sort of approach with the warriors providing a physical barrier, while the healers healed and the wiggly fingers nuked the monsters.

That sounds like trinity play to me, but your mileage may vary.

The shield wall type of gameplay couldn't happen very often.  Maybe enclosed dungeons and if the DM didn't roll to see what character the many goblins would try to attack.  It was very hard to establish the trinity in D&D 1st-2nd editions.  Because the clerics weren't that great at healing and the warriors couldn't hold aggro at all.  It was very situational and very hard to make it happen.

DKmano is right the word Trinity was first used in Everquest and it was because 3 particular classes overpowered everything else when it came to group play.  Then it evolved into what it is today.  WOW probably being the largest contributor because they made the classes evolve around these 3 types.  Sad that Everquest with all the different classes they had there was only 3 that shined.

laserit

filmoret said:

craftseeker said:

centkin said:

It wasn't AD&D because AD&D didn't have taunt.  It wasn't codified until taunts were available to give hate beyond the damage done in MMOs.

Depends on how you played the game. Around here, thirty+ years ago, we used a 'shield wall' sort of approach with the warriors providing a physical barrier, while the healers healed and the wiggly fingers nuked the monsters.

That sounds like trinity play to me, but your mileage may vary.

The shield wall type of gameplay couldn't happen very often.  Maybe enclosed dungeons and if the DM didn't roll to see what character the many goblins would try to attack.  It was very hard to establish the trinity in D&D 1st-2nd editions.  Because the clerics weren't that great at healing and the warriors couldn't hold aggro at all.  It was very situational and very hard to make it happen.

DKmano is right the word Trinity was first used in Everquest and it was because 3 particular classes overpowered everything else when it came to group play.  Then it evolved into what it is today.  WOW probably being the largest contributor because they made the classes evolve around these 3 types.  Sad that Everquest with all the different classes they had there was only 3 that shined.

That's what sucks about min-maxing and spreadsheets. Takes the imagination out of the equation and makes the game poorer because of it.

I wish we had games to satisfy both preferences. 

Eldurian

laserit said:

I believe the term was coined with MMORPG's but the roles just came naturally with the tactics used in D&D and the like.

Could you show me a D&D build from before 4.0 built with core material from the players handbook that fulfills either the healer or tank role as they exist in MMOs?

The only builds I can think of that would play that way would be severely underpowered.

Warlyx

look at any medieval war.... we had ppl that used armors and keep enemies at bay while others inflicted dmg (archers or ppl with spears ect) , and medicine existed way before that....war medics to keep ppl fighting

Eldurian

Warlyx said:

look at any medieval war.... we had ppl that used armors and keep enemies at bay while others inflicted dmg (archers or ppl with spears ect) , and medicine existed way before that....war medics to keep ppl fighting

Yeah. I think I remember reading somewhere in a history book about how when you took a wound in a medieval battle someone shot magic at you from about 20 feet away and your wound magically disappeared.

I also remember hearing about the magical shouts people in heavy armor would use to get everyone to ignore softer targets and shoot at them. Pretty neat stuff.

Some conspiracy theorists talked about how if you were lucky they could patch you up well enough you might be in the next battle or come back months later. And how if you weren't lucky you'd lose a limb or die of an infection. But that's just the crazies, am I right?

4507

Warlyx said:

...medicine existed way before that....war medics to keep ppl fighting

Medieval medicine was essentially amputation with a little prayer/magic thrown in. Even today, war medics can't heal a wounded soldier enough to continue fighting within the timeframe of the battle. Healing during combat is entirely an invention of games (which genre, I don't know).

laserit

Eldurian said:

laserit said:

I believe the term was coined with MMORPG's but the roles just came naturally with the tactics used in D&D and the like.

Could you show me a D&D build from before 4.0 built with core material from the players handbook that fulfills either the healer or tank role as they exist in MMOs?

The only builds I can think of that would play that way would be severely underpowered.

When I played D&D I was a young teenager in the 1970's.  Mitigation, healing and damage were your core class choices and IMHO that's what a trinity encompasses.

Eldurian

See, when I played D&D it was last week. And I don't recall any classes that are as one dimensional as the glass cannons, glass healers, and meatshields that have become MMO bread and butter.

I also don't see any characters that run around healing people in battle as their regular thing. I snap off some heals myself if circumstances demand it but we're mostly focused on combat. And while my character may be first to rush into battle he can't hold everything's attention, and does pretty respectable damage.

craftseeker

4507 said:

Warlyx said:

...medicine existed way before that....war medics to keep ppl fighting

Medieval medicine was essentially amputation with a little prayer/magic thrown in. Even today, war medics can't heal a wounded soldier enough to continue fighting within the timeframe of the battle. Healing during combat is entirely an invention of games (which genre, I don't know).

Not entirely within games, some fantasy/SciFi (nanites anyone?) fiction does it too. But reality, never.

Konfess

craftseeker said:

centkin said:

It wasn't AD&D because AD&D didn't have taunt.  It wasn't codified until taunts were available to give hate beyond the damage done in MMOs.

Depends on how you played the game. Around here, thirty+ years ago, we used a 'shield wall' sort of approach with the warriors providing a physical barrier, while the healers healed and the wiggly fingers nuked the monsters.

That sounds like trinity play to me, but your mileage may vary.

^^^This.

Pool of Radiance (1988), the first game I bought for the PC.  Before that all I had was DOS and Turbo Pascal, so I made my own games and software.  Back to PoR, it had the Trinity.  Maybe not as we think of the trinity today, where the healer stands there casting nothing but healing spells.

As @craftseeker states, in 1977 when I first started playing D&D, the tanks would move into position and take and hold agro.  Everyone else would hold and wait for this to happen.  When a type of game play arose, where the soft targets wouldn't wait to get into a fight (or evil DM just prevented it).  Then the taunt was added by necessity.

The only problem with the trinity are game designers that force healers to standin there spamming heals.  A healer should be mobile, damage dealing, and perform support when and if necessary.  But that would make their healing Over Powered (OP).  Yeah, sux to be anyone else then.

When did the Trinity come about?  When we stopped soiling our pants.  Don't want the trinity any more?  Come up with an argument why we should stop breathing, then live by it for a month.  Come back and share it with your friends in the gaming community.

Learning to work with the trinity is what adults have to do.  It's like learning to drive.  If you don't want to, then walk or ride a bus.  That's what not using the trinity is like, just ask anyone who still plays any game that tried to eliminate the trinity.  Notice how I didn't name any.

LynxJSA

laserit said:

When I played D&D I was a young teenager in the 1970's.  Mitigation, healing and damage were your core class choices and IMHO that's what a trinity encompasses.

That brings up a good point.

Filmoret, there are different definitions of trinity, depending o n where a person began their gaming. If you want a thread that goes around in circles, leave everything just the way it is. However, if you want to get to an answer of any kind, you'd be best served by defining what mechanic you are asking about. As it stands the question is as useful as "What is ganking?" or "What are the features of a real mmo?"


If you're asking about Taunt mechanics (which gave us the ridiculous "tank" character) then that existed in several MUDs, most notably DikuMUD. 

If you're asking about defense, offense, support (whatever labels you want to use for those roles) then that goes back as far as PnP RPGs. Actually, it has existed for as long has there have been war games. 

LynxJSA

Eldurian said:

laserit said:

I believe the term was coined with MMORPG's but the roles just came naturally with the tactics used in D&D and the like.

Could you show me a D&D build from before 4.0 built with core material from the players handbook that fulfills either the healer or tank role as they exist in MMOs?

The only builds I can think of that would play that way would be severely underpowered.

The tank role in MMOs is so absurd that we should be embarrassed that we accept it as a viable mechanic in our games. THAT is why it wasn't in most previous games - it's ridiculous. Fireballs, teleportation, and rideable dragons make far more sense than a guy that has mastered the Neener-neenering of every race and species of creature - sentient or not - on the planet. 

filmoret

Eldurian said:

See, when I played D&D it was last week. And I don't recall any classes that are as one dimensional as the glass cannons, glass healers, and meatshields that have become MMO bread and butter.

I also don't see any characters that run around healing people in battle as their regular thing. I snap off some heals myself if circumstances demand it but we're mostly focused on combat. And while my character may be first to rush into battle he can't hold everything's attention, and does pretty respectable damage.

I know in 3.5 and later you could make a really good healer and probably even play just the healing role itself.  The ability to augment spells and cast lower level spells with more power is what really helped that.  I would load up the cleric with nothing but heals and he would keep a nice party going strong for a good while.  3.5 launched in 2003 so before that you couldn't really be a strong healer in D&D.

danwest58

laserit said:

filmoret said:

craftseeker said:

centkin said:

It wasn't AD&D because AD&D didn't have taunt.  It wasn't codified until taunts were available to give hate beyond the damage done in MMOs.

Depends on how you played the game. Around here, thirty+ years ago, we used a 'shield wall' sort of approach with the warriors providing a physical barrier, while the healers healed and the wiggly fingers nuked the monsters.

That sounds like trinity play to me, but your mileage may vary.

The shield wall type of gameplay couldn't happen very often.  Maybe enclosed dungeons and if the DM didn't roll to see what character the many goblins would try to attack.  It was very hard to establish the trinity in D&D 1st-2nd editions.  Because the clerics weren't that great at healing and the warriors couldn't hold aggro at all.  It was very situational and very hard to make it happen.

DKmano is right the word Trinity was first used in Everquest and it was because 3 particular classes overpowered everything else when it came to group play.  Then it evolved into what it is today.  WOW probably being the largest contributor because they made the classes evolve around these 3 types.  Sad that Everquest with all the different classes they had there was only 3 that shined.

That's what sucks about min-maxing and spreadsheets. Takes the imagination out of the equation and makes the game poorer because of it.

I wish we had games to satisfy both preferences. 

The Min Maxing was what really killed the Trinity.  The reason I say that is because during Vanilla WOW and TBC you had 1 tank 1 healer, 2 DPS and 1 DPS/Off Tank/Long CC to be able to handle groups.  The problem is that today's kids can do nothing other than pew pew and stand in fire because their attention span is so short.  This is why you have Tank Healer and DPS all Min Maxing shit.  

Eldurian

filmoret said:

Eldurian said:

See, when I played D&D it was last week. And I don't recall any classes that are as one dimensional as the glass cannons, glass healers, and meatshields that have become MMO bread and butter.

I also don't see any characters that run around healing people in battle as their regular thing. I snap off some heals myself if circumstances demand it but we're mostly focused on combat. And while my character may be first to rush into battle he can't hold everything's attention, and does pretty respectable damage.

I know in 3.5 and later you could make a really good healer and probably even play just the healing role itself.  The ability to augment spells and cast lower level spells with more power is what really helped that.  I would load up the cleric with nothing but heals and he would keep a nice party going strong for a good while.  3.5 launched in 2003 so before that you couldn't really be a strong healer in D&D.

I play 3.5. A cleric loaded with nothing but heals sounds seriously underpowered to me. Part of the point to clerics and wizards is that they are incredibly versatile classes. You can change up how they are built at the start of each day.

A cleric that is focused on healing sounds like wasted potential to me. When you have all this to pick from:

3.5 Cleric Spells 

Why restrict yourself to just healing?

Also the best clerics are generally very active in battle, saving their heals for after the fight unless it's an absolute life or death situation.

I generally play a healer in an MMO, and can tell you, if there isn't someone on me I'm doing nothing but watch for conditions to remove and health bars that need a top off. And if there is someone on me I'm CCing them and moving away to do more healing.

If that's how it's going down in 3.5 you're doing it wrong.

filmoret

This is making me want to replay Neverwinter Nights

Tiamat64

Trinity for me existed as early as Final Fantasy I where you put the fighter in the first spot (the spot that gets the most hits) and the soft spongy black mage in the back.  It continued to exist in strategy games such as Fire Emblem and Shining Force and later Final Fantasy Tactics (when you aren't using broken "I kill everything!!!!11111" jobs, at least) where you send the armoured knights in first and then after they take the initial blows, send in the archers, thieves, cavalry, and healers to mop up.

MMOs simply made it so that instead of the typical Fighter WhiteMage BlackMage party, you instead only played JUST the fighter or the White Mage or the Black Mage.

....which sucked, honestly.  No wonder why I only play summoners/minion masters in MMOs if I can help it.

k61977

Single player rpgs created the trinity for me.  Always had a person that could take a beating in front, with dps and healer in the back.  One of the first I can remember was just like Tiamat64 was Final Fantasy.  May have played others but that is the one that stuck out to me.

CrazKanuk

LynxJSA said:

Eldurian said:

laserit said:

I believe the term was coined with MMORPG's but the roles just came naturally with the tactics used in D&D and the like.

Could you show me a D&D build from before 4.0 built with core material from the players handbook that fulfills either the healer or tank role as they exist in MMOs?

The only builds I can think of that would play that way would be severely underpowered.

The tank role in MMOs is so absurd that we should be embarrassed that we accept it as a viable mechanic in our games. THAT is why it wasn't in most previous games - it's ridiculous. Fireballs, teleportation, and rideable dragons make far more sense than a guy that has mastered the Neener-neenering of every race and species of creature - sentient or not - on the planet. 

Just watch any monster movie which involves a group of some sort. Inevitably the group will, at some point, encounter the monster and, inevitably, one of the characters will yell at the monster or throw a stone at it or something, causing it to focus on them. That's the tank, lol.