Seriously? You started a thread about our conversation and dont send me a PM so I can come join in?
MY statement was to thank D&D for the holy trinity because it was the grandfather of the idea. It was. NWNO was the FIRST MMORPG with graphics, it had BLEED and Damage over time spells which ticked with each turn. You could "block" monsters from reaching your characters that were placed towards the back of the line and only a fool would not place heavy armor wearers to the front which made them first tanks. This is where the IDEA came from.
All of this was built on by Meridian 59 which removed the "you control a party" to you control a single character. That game had characters that were all damage, it DID have bleed and tick damage also, making them the first DPSers. It had HEALER classes...and it had heavy armor wearing damage tankers...and they based it all on D&D style classes.
Then came EQ...and no, you SHOULD NOT have left out the part of the conversation where you said EQ was NOT a D&D clone because even the MAKERS OF THE GAME said it was.
Dungeons and Dragons, the father of the idea of RPGs, the CREATOR of the very classes used today and why they are the way they are. Yes, D&D was the creator of the idea of the holy trinity...most of the genre is based on D&D ideas.
I agree with you jtcgs. D&D is the grandfather of the trinity. I also totally forgot about Meridian 59. I would believe that Meridian 59 would be the first to have a trinity design in it for a mud/mmo
Technically speaking, the Trinity in EQ was Tank, Healer, Support (normally someone that could slow). The remaining slots were filled with DPS.
The notion of the Holy Trinity being Tank, Healer, DPS is a aspect of the WoW generation and beyond; basically where the average player doesn't have the attention span to track controls, debuffs, and hastes without a mod
I sometimes wonder about people who make posts like these and if they ever actually played EQ or simply don't remember clearly. The trinity was Warrior, Cleric, and Enchanter. There were actually various roles including tank, healer, crowd control, support, dps, puller, and off-tank. The remaining slots were never filled with just dps. The common dungeon group was usually tank, healer, crowd control with the other slots taken up by almost anything.
Seriously? You started a thread about our conversation and dont send me a PM so I can come join in?
MY statement was to thank D&D for the holy trinity because it was the grandfather of the idea. It was. NWNO was the FIRST MMORPG with graphics, it had BLEED and Damage over time spells which ticked with each turn. You could "block" monsters from reaching your characters that were placed towards the back of the line and only a fool would not place heavy armor wearers to the front which made them first tanks. This is where the IDEA came from.
All of this was built on by Meridian 59 which removed the "you control a party" to you control a single character. That game had characters that were all damage, it DID have bleed and tick damage also, making them the first DPSers. It had HEALER classes...and it had heavy armor wearing damage tankers...and they based it all on D&D style classes.
Then came EQ...and no, you SHOULD NOT have left out the part of the conversation where you said EQ was NOT a D&D clone because even the MAKERS OF THE GAME said it was.
Dungeons and Dragons, the father of the idea of RPGs, the CREATOR of the very classes used today and why they are the way they are. Yes, D&D was the creator of the idea of the holy trinity...most of the genre is based on D&D ideas.
That's not the trinity, it's common sense. The trinity is the contrived tank/dps/healer system resultant from taunt/aggro mechanics. Not really following why you're bringing up bleed and DoTs.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Seriously? You started a thread about our conversation and dont send me a PM so I can come join in?
MY statement was to thank D&D for the holy trinity because it was the grandfather of the idea. It was. NWNO was the FIRST MMORPG with graphics, it had BLEED and Damage over time spells which ticked with each turn. You could "block" monsters from reaching your characters that were placed towards the back of the line and only a fool would not place heavy armor wearers to the front which made them first tanks. This is where the IDEA came from.
All of this was built on by Meridian 59 which removed the "you control a party" to you control a single character. That game had characters that were all damage, it DID have bleed and tick damage also, making them the first DPSers. It had HEALER classes...and it had heavy armor wearing damage tankers...and they based it all on D&D style classes.
Then came EQ...and no, you SHOULD NOT have left out the part of the conversation where you said EQ was NOT a D&D clone because even the MAKERS OF THE GAME said it was.
Dungeons and Dragons, the father of the idea of RPGs, the CREATOR of the very classes used today and why they are the way they are. Yes, D&D was the creator of the idea of the holy trinity...most of the genre is based on D&D ideas.
That's not the trinity, it's common sense. The trinity is the contrived tank/dps/healer system resultant from taunt/aggro mechanics. Not really following why you're bringing up bleed and DoTs.
The holy trinity is as old as mankind. Look at any army. Warriors, damage dealers, and healers.
I do like the 'chefs' idea posted above, lol. I think logistics would be a cool aspect to add to an MMO. No free lunch, so to speak. Someone has to gather/grow/cultivate or else characters starve to death.
the problem is that we would have to do a revamp not only on combat, but also the whole game. if not creating a Massive Multiplayer Sim. why? lets look into it:
1. in order to make a real working chef proffesion, we need to implement a hunger and thirst system. food needs to have a meaning, not only for buffs and mana replenishing
2. we need agriculture, we cannot relay only on mob hunting we need to breed and harvest vegetables and fruits, also livestock.
3. another important thing on the battlefield are medics, first aid is just the tip of the iceberg, vaccine production, surgery and other things that actually add realism, for example, adding a minigame for fixing fractures and other heavy damages. not just casting and making the guy replenish health
4. when dealing with structures we cannot rely only in soldiers, we need artillery, be it catapults, cannons, rams, trebuchets, siege towers, tanks, or any other big vehicle capable of it. that means adding vehicle combat, a deeper crafting system, even a modular system for the vehicles (again, EVE Online)
5. a battle doesnt lasts for ever, players have to rest in any moment, so adding sleep mechanics, maybe as a penalty, making players not earn experience from PvP for example.
6. defensive structures, like barricades, trenches, watch towers.
in a nutshell, its more complex, and i can get deeper and deeper into that.
That's not the trinity, it's common sense. The trinity is the contrived tank/dps/healer system resultant from taunt/aggro mechanics. Not really following why you're bringing up bleed and DoTs.
Calling it common sense does not take away that it IS THE BASIS OF THE IDEA. Nor does it take away that the first TWO GAMES that had what you are so focused on had their DEVELOPERS STATING IT ALL CAME FROM D&D!
As for your ending comment...try reading the quotes in the OPs post. He brought up that DPS comes from DAMAGE PER SECOND...and the idea of DAMAGE per SECOND came from spells and attacks that cause damage over time in turn based D&D.
To find the ORGIN of an idea one must follow the STEPS TAKEN TO GET THERE and the very idea that people continue to cling to EverQuest shows they are only willing to go back as far as their personal experience. No amount of EQ CAME UP WITH IT is going to take away the FACT that the makers of that game said themselves they got their ideas from DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS...nor does it take away the fact that Meridian 59 had it BEFORE EQ...and that even THEY said they took their ideas from DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS...and as has been pointed out, even SINGLE player RPGs like Wizardry had the holy trinity...Wizardry, a game based on DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS...
woohoo!
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
That's not the trinity, it's common sense. The trinity is the contrived tank/dps/healer system resultant from taunt/aggro mechanics. Not really following why you're bringing up bleed and DoTs.
Calling it common sense does not take away that it IS THE BASIS OF THE IDEA. Nor does it take away that the first TWO GAMES that had what you are so focused on had their DEVELOPERS STATING IT ALL CAME FROM D&D!
As for your ending comment...try reading the quotes in the OPs post. He brought up that DPS comes from DAMAGE PER SECOND...and the idea of DAMAGE per SECOND came from spells and attacks that cause damage over time in turn based D&D.
To find the ORGIN of an idea one must follow the STEPS TAKEN TO GET THERE and the very idea that people continue to cling to EverQuest shows they are only willing to go back as far as their personal experience. No amount of EQ CAME UP WITH IT is going to take away the FACT that the makers of that game said themselves they got their ideas from DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS...nor does it take away the fact that Meridian 59 had it BEFORE EQ...and that even THEY said they took their ideas from DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS...and as has been pointed out, even SINGLE player RPGs like Wizardry had the holy trinity...Wizardry, a game based on DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS...
woohoo!
It's like a pit bull that's locked on to the leg of chair, instead of the dog that was it's real target. But he won't let go!
Falling back to 'BASSSIS OF THE IDEA' ARGUMENT, after evidence of this not actually being a mechanic in D&D. Like all game mechanics, the holy trinity is an abstraction. It's an abstraction that was developed in the computer gaming world as an easy way to BALANCE game play. It is not an abstraction that existed in early PnP play. Doesn't really exist in the real world, as the Knights and mechanized armor that it is sometimes compared to both have superior defenses, great mobility, and devastating attacks.
The 'TANK' in modern computer game theology, is a character that is very TOUGH, has poor attack DAMAGE, yet commands the ATTENTION of foes, usually through some abstraction of insulting the foe. For some of us, this abstraction doesn't cut it. Your mileage may differ.
Doesn't change the FACT that this design element occured in the realm of computer games. If any of those computer games you mentioned have anydifference from PnP games, due to the change of medium, or designer innovation or intent, then the direct 'BASSSIS OF THE IDEA!' meme does not directly follow.
But regardless, I bet that chair leg gets continually chewed on. While the other dogs look on in wonder.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
That's not the trinity, it's common sense. The trinity is the contrived tank/dps/healer system resultant from taunt/aggro mechanics. Not really following why you're bringing up bleed and DoTs.
Calling it common sense does not take away that it IS THE BASIS OF THE IDEA. Nor does it take away that the first TWO GAMES that had what you are so focused on had their DEVELOPERS STATING IT ALL CAME FROM D&D!
As for your ending comment...try reading the quotes in the OPs post. He brought up that DPS comes from DAMAGE PER SECOND...and the idea of DAMAGE per SECOND came from spells and attacks that cause damage over time in turn based D&D.
To find the ORGIN of an idea one must follow the STEPS TAKEN TO GET THERE and the very idea that people continue to cling to EverQuest shows they are only willing to go back as far as their personal experience. No amount of EQ CAME UP WITH IT is going to take away the FACT that the makers of that game said themselves they got their ideas from DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS...nor does it take away the fact that Meridian 59 had it BEFORE EQ...and that even THEY said they took their ideas from DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS...and as has been pointed out, even SINGLE player RPGs like Wizardry had the holy trinity...Wizardry, a game based on DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS...
woohoo!
It's like a pit bull that's locked on to the leg of chair, instead of the dog that was it's real target. But he won't let go!
Falling back to 'BASSSIS OF THE IDEA' ARGUMENT, after evidence of this not actually being a mechanic in D&D. Like all game mechanics, the holy trinity is an abstraction. It's an abstraction that was developed in the computer gaming world as an easy way to BALANCE game play. It is not an abstraction that existed in early PnP play. Doesn't really exist in the real world, as the Knights and mechanized armor that it is sometimes compared to both have superior defenses, great mobility, and devastating attacks.
The 'TANK' in modern computer game theology, is a character that is very TOUGH, has poor attack DAMAGE, yet commands the ATTENTION of foes, usually through some abstraction of insulting the foe. For some of us, this abstraction doesn't cut it. Your mileage may differ.
Doesn't change the FACT that this design element occured in the relam of computer games. If any of those computer games you mentioned have anydifference from PnP games, due to the change of medium, or designer innovation or intent, then the direct 'BASSSIS OF THE IDEA!' meme does not directly follow.
But regardless, I bet that chair leg gets continually chewed on. While the other dogs look on in wonder.
One of the best explanations so far. ---^
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
That's not the trinity, it's common sense. The trinity is the contrived tank/dps/healer system resultant from taunt/aggro mechanics. Not really following why you're bringing up bleed and DoTs.
Calling it common sense does not take away that it IS THE BASIS OF THE IDEA. Nor does it take away that the first TWO GAMES that had what you are so focused on had their DEVELOPERS STATING IT ALL CAME FROM D&D!
As for your ending comment...try reading the quotes in the OPs post. He brought up that DPS comes from DAMAGE PER SECOND...and the idea of DAMAGE per SECOND came from spells and attacks that cause damage over time in turn based D&D.
To find the ORGIN of an idea one must follow the STEPS TAKEN TO GET THERE and the very idea that people continue to cling to EverQuest shows they are only willing to go back as far as their personal experience. No amount of EQ CAME UP WITH IT is going to take away the FACT that the makers of that game said themselves they got their ideas from DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS...nor does it take away the fact that Meridian 59 had it BEFORE EQ...and that even THEY said they took their ideas from DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS...and as has been pointed out, even SINGLE player RPGs like Wizardry had the holy trinity...Wizardry, a game based on DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS...
woohoo!
It's like a pit bull that's locked on to the leg of chair, instead of the dog that was it's real target. But he won't let go!
Falling back to 'BASSSIS OF THE IDEA' ARGUMENT, after evidence of this not actually being a mechanic in D&D. Like all game mechanics, the holy trinity is an abstraction. It's an abstraction that was developed in the computer gaming world as an easy way to BALANCE game play. It is not an abstraction that existed in early PnP play. Doesn't really exist in the real world, as the Knights and mechanized armor that it is sometimes compared to both have superior defenses, great mobility, and devastating attacks.
The 'TANK' in modern computer game theology, is a character that is very TOUGH, has poor attack DAMAGE, yet commands the ATTENTION of foes, usually through some abstraction of insulting the foe. For some of us, this abstraction doesn't cut it. Your mileage may differ.
Doesn't change the FACT that this design element occured in the relam of computer games. If any of those computer games you mentioned have anydifference from PnP games, due to the change of medium, or designer innovation or intent, then the direct 'BASSSIS OF THE IDEA!' meme does not directly follow.
But regardless, I bet that chair leg gets continually chewed on. While the other dogs look on in wonder.
I like some of the explanations. But from my view they are a bit inaccurate. In 1983 I worked for SSI(Strategic Simulations Inc), it lasted 8 years. What we did at SSI was convert PnP and Boardgames into video game titles. One of our biggest partners was TSR or as many of you know it as Gary Gygax's Dungeons and Dragons. We also dealt with Avalon Hill. Maker of many of the wargame titles(Panzer General, Panzer Leader, Squad Leader.Civilization ect), as well as famous titles like Starship Troopers(What the movies were based off of). We also worked with FASA(Battletech, Renegade Legion ect).
I watch the arguments concerning what we call the trinity concept and can only shake my head. From the very first D&D title, trinity was developed into the game. The mechanics were solid and offered a system that worked very well in the game/games. All of which were approved directly from TSR. As to how many games incorporated the trinity system. Here is a list of SSI games http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Strategic_Simulations,_Inc._games . Many of the titles I am sure our older members have seen or played. As to conversions, here is a list of Avalon Hill games. Many of the titles you may have seen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Avalon_Hill_games . Like I said above, SSI converted non computer games into very good video games.
One of the things we did before creating a scenario for any of our titles would be to play the board or pnp version of it first. As all of us who worked for SSI were avid gamers and were well respected among the gaming community.
The trinity system was seen alot at CON's(Gencon, Dragoncon, Dungeoncon ect.). For us who were into creating video games. The trinity was a unofficial standard,by which most gaming companies used. To this day it is still a standard among many.
That said, let us continue the debate.
By the way, I do miss those days. I actually prefer the Pnp and board titles to the video game versions.
That seems to back up the contention that the trinity set up was indeed a balancing move for the constraints of computer gaming at the time.
What was the first SSI game you recall that set up that sort of thing?
Any examples of it in the PnP modules or rules of the period?
Well as far as rpg games, I was involved with Wizards Crown, Eye of the Beholder and Pool of Radiance. I tried very hard to get into the Ravenloft group. But it was full as was ours. I love R.A Salvatore's work's. I was mainly wargaming. Renegade/Renegade Legion,NATO86,Reforger.
Most of the rulesets for many of the D&D/AD&D modules were incorporated into the games. Eye of the Beholder is a prime example of a pnp module turned into a well made trinity mechanic driven game. In fact it was such a success that Nintendo bought into it for its system.
Comments
I agree with you jtcgs. D&D is the grandfather of the trinity. I also totally forgot about Meridian 59. I would believe that Meridian 59 would be the first to have a trinity design in it for a mud/mmo
I sometimes wonder about people who make posts like these and if they ever actually played EQ or simply don't remember clearly. The trinity was Warrior, Cleric, and Enchanter. There were actually various roles including tank, healer, crowd control, support, dps, puller, and off-tank. The remaining slots were never filled with just dps. The common dungeon group was usually tank, healer, crowd control with the other slots taken up by almost anything.
That's not the trinity, it's common sense. The trinity is the contrived tank/dps/healer system resultant from taunt/aggro mechanics. Not really following why you're bringing up bleed and DoTs.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Where is "Haplo" when you need him!
the problem is that we would have to do a revamp not only on combat, but also the whole game. if not creating a Massive Multiplayer Sim. why? lets look into it:
1. in order to make a real working chef proffesion, we need to implement a hunger and thirst system. food needs to have a meaning, not only for buffs and mana replenishing
2. we need agriculture, we cannot relay only on mob hunting we need to breed and harvest vegetables and fruits, also livestock.
3. another important thing on the battlefield are medics, first aid is just the tip of the iceberg, vaccine production, surgery and other things that actually add realism, for example, adding a minigame for fixing fractures and other heavy damages. not just casting and making the guy replenish health
4. when dealing with structures we cannot rely only in soldiers, we need artillery, be it catapults, cannons, rams, trebuchets, siege towers, tanks, or any other big vehicle capable of it. that means adding vehicle combat, a deeper crafting system, even a modular system for the vehicles (again, EVE Online)
5. a battle doesnt lasts for ever, players have to rest in any moment, so adding sleep mechanics, maybe as a penalty, making players not earn experience from PvP for example.
6. defensive structures, like barricades, trenches, watch towers.
in a nutshell, its more complex, and i can get deeper and deeper into that.
Calling it common sense does not take away that it IS THE BASIS OF THE IDEA. Nor does it take away that the first TWO GAMES that had what you are so focused on had their DEVELOPERS STATING IT ALL CAME FROM D&D!
As for your ending comment...try reading the quotes in the OPs post. He brought up that DPS comes from DAMAGE PER SECOND...and the idea of DAMAGE per SECOND came from spells and attacks that cause damage over time in turn based D&D.
To find the ORGIN of an idea one must follow the STEPS TAKEN TO GET THERE and the very idea that people continue to cling to EverQuest shows they are only willing to go back as far as their personal experience. No amount of EQ CAME UP WITH IT is going to take away the FACT that the makers of that game said themselves they got their ideas from DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS...nor does it take away the fact that Meridian 59 had it BEFORE EQ...and that even THEY said they took their ideas from DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS...and as has been pointed out, even SINGLE player RPGs like Wizardry had the holy trinity...Wizardry, a game based on DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS...
woohoo!
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
It's like a pit bull that's locked on to the leg of chair, instead of the dog that was it's real target. But he won't let go!
Falling back to 'BASSSIS OF THE IDEA' ARGUMENT, after evidence of this not actually being a mechanic in D&D. Like all game mechanics, the holy trinity is an abstraction. It's an abstraction that was developed in the computer gaming world as an easy way to BALANCE game play. It is not an abstraction that existed in early PnP play. Doesn't really exist in the real world, as the Knights and mechanized armor that it is sometimes compared to both have superior defenses, great mobility, and devastating attacks.
The 'TANK' in modern computer game theology, is a character that is very TOUGH, has poor attack DAMAGE, yet commands the ATTENTION of foes, usually through some abstraction of insulting the foe. For some of us, this abstraction doesn't cut it. Your mileage may differ.
Doesn't change the FACT that this design element occured in the realm of computer games. If any of those computer games you mentioned have any difference from PnP games, due to the change of medium, or designer innovation or intent, then the direct 'BASSSIS OF THE IDEA!' meme does not directly follow.
But regardless, I bet that chair leg gets continually chewed on. While the other dogs look on in wonder.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
One of the best explanations so far. ---^
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I like some of the explanations. But from my view they are a bit inaccurate. In 1983 I worked for SSI(Strategic Simulations Inc), it lasted 8 years. What we did at SSI was convert PnP and Boardgames into video game titles. One of our biggest partners was TSR or as many of you know it as Gary Gygax's Dungeons and Dragons. We also dealt with Avalon Hill. Maker of many of the wargame titles(Panzer General, Panzer Leader, Squad Leader.Civilization ect), as well as famous titles like Starship Troopers(What the movies were based off of). We also worked with FASA(Battletech, Renegade Legion ect).
I watch the arguments concerning what we call the trinity concept and can only shake my head. From the very first D&D title, trinity was developed into the game. The mechanics were solid and offered a system that worked very well in the game/games. All of which were approved directly from TSR. As to how many games incorporated the trinity system. Here is a list of SSI games http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Strategic_Simulations,_Inc._games . Many of the titles I am sure our older members have seen or played. As to conversions, here is a list of Avalon Hill games. Many of the titles you may have seen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Avalon_Hill_games . Like I said above, SSI converted non computer games into very good video games.
One of the things we did before creating a scenario for any of our titles would be to play the board or pnp version of it first. As all of us who worked for SSI were avid gamers and were well respected among the gaming community.
The trinity system was seen alot at CON's(Gencon, Dragoncon, Dungeoncon ect.). For us who were into creating video games. The trinity was a unofficial standard,by which most gaming companies used. To this day it is still a standard among many.
That said, let us continue the debate.
By the way, I do miss those days. I actually prefer the Pnp and board titles to the video game versions.
That seems to back up the contention that the trinity set up was indeed a balancing move for the constraints of computer gaming at the time.
What was the first SSI game you recall that set up that sort of thing?
Any examples of it in the PnP modules or rules of the period?
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
Well as far as rpg games, I was involved with Wizards Crown, Eye of the Beholder and Pool of Radiance. I tried very hard to get into the Ravenloft group. But it was full as was ours. I love R.A Salvatore's work's. I was mainly wargaming. Renegade/Renegade Legion,NATO86,Reforger.
Most of the rulesets for many of the D&D/AD&D modules were incorporated into the games. Eye of the Beholder is a prime example of a pnp module turned into a well made trinity mechanic driven game. In fact it was such a success that Nintendo bought into it for its system.