A D&D 3.5 MMORPG

[Jim Hague]

Part of the fun of a persistent world is exploring. Part of the fun is grouping. Part of the fun is adventuring. By pulling the arm-twisting for forcing grouping, DDO's going to alienate a part of their audience. That's never good. As BG said - the option should be there, but it should never be forced.

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

Why pay 40 bucks a month for cable modem, $200 bucks for the hardware, 20 bucks a month on the game just to play alone? I can see if you couldn't do anything until 3 people came online, but the game is expected to not have a problem finding groups and partys with its smaller servers. Cool thing is that you'll know a great deal more of the people on the servers and it will be easier to organize play times.

First, the cable modem and hardware expenses would not be paid for this game. I have the cable modem, hardware, etc. for other reasons, so that does not enter the equation.

As far as the game, I do not want to be forced to work with other people when playing (for the most part). The online/multiplayer aspect appeals to me for the following reasons:

1. Dynamic economics - trading/haggling is more fun than with real people rather than computer controled people (although the potential for being cheated is there).

2. Questions/Answers - having other players around to answer questions is sometimes beneficial.

3. Competition - Occasionally, competing against other players is fun.

4. Socializing - Very minor...I'd rather talk in person.

5. Cooperative play - even more minor than socializing...this is not my cup of tea when it comes to computer games.


The opinions expressed are completely my own and any similarity that they may have to yours can only mean that you can read minds...

 

[DonTadow]

Part of the fun of a persistent world is exploring. Part of the fun is grouping. Part of the fun is adventuring. By pulling the arm-twisting for forcing grouping, DDO's going to alienate a part of their audience. That's never good. As BG said - the option should be there, but it should never be forced.

Is the option there on the tabletop version? A big staple of the tabletop version of D and D is grouping. To even offer an option is to destroy a large part of the flavor of the game. As previously stated there are 15 to 20 such mmorpgs you can solo in. it would hurt the integrity and display of teh game to make too many solo missions.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

You don't have to make "solo" missions. You have to have the program adjust the opposition to suit the power of the player(s) entering the zone. If you walk into a cave solo you may find a dire bear, if you go in with your five buddies you may find 4 dire bears and an evil druid that controls them. It's easy to do.

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

Is the option there on the tabletop version? A big staple of the tabletop version of D and D is grouping. To even offer an option is to destroy a large part of the flavor of the game. As previously stated there are 15 to 20 such mmorpgs you can solo in. it would hurt the integrity and display of teh game to make too many solo missions.

That is completely valid and if that is the goal, then more power to them. I will pass on this game, however.

 

[Jim Hague]

Is the option there on the tabletop version? A big staple of the tabletop version of D and D is grouping. To even offer an option is to destroy a large part of the flavor of the game. As previously stated there are 15 to 20 such mmorpgs you can solo in. it would hurt the integrity and display of teh game to make too many solo missions.

The mistake you're making here is in equating TTRPGs and MMOs, which have entirely different goals. Overall, in an MMO, the 'game' is to do things, accumulate XP and reach the top level. Secondarily, it's to make you continue to pump money into it. Only after those goals're met does the concept of 'fun' come into it. Forced grouping has actively killed several games (Asheron's Call being an excellent example). It removes player choice, which is culturally viewed as a Bad Thing.

TTRPGs, contrasting, are fuelled by player choice and driven by player-created 'content'. In many ways, they're the diametric opposite of MMOs, though that difference is shrinking.

The only thing D&D about DDO is the set dressing. Everything else is forced, bog-standard MMO design...and that'll kill it surely as anything.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Setting is absolutely irrelevant to this.

World of Warcraft is not successful because it's set in the Warcraft universe: it's successful because it is a really good game.

Exactly. Star Wars Galaxies wasn't a turkey because of the setting -- I think we can all agree that the Star Wars universe has a certain appeal to a large audience -- it was a turkey because of the game.

If WoW was about a totally new universe, it might have taken longer to catch on ("What is this world?"), since millions have played the previous Warcraft games -- but it would have caught on.

Honestly, I think linking a D&D MMORPG to an existing world is a mistake, since it sets up impossible-to-satisfy expectations. ("Why CAN'T I go to Sharn?" "Why CAN'T I kill Elminster and take his stuff?") It also shuts down potential sources of revenue. ("You loved the MMORPG, now buy the campaign setting! Now buy the player's guide! Now buy the Races of ___ book! Now buy the modules! Now buy the screen! Now buy the novels! Now buy the character sheets!") You also divorce yourself from any of the baggage surrounding the other settings (and they ALL have baggage).

 

[spiritkeeper]

I for 1 like the atmosphere in MMO's, but dont agree wit hthe forced grouping thing. I like the option of choosing to enter a dungeon with 5 other ppl or going at it solo. There are times I don't want to be bothered and other times I want other ppl around me. I like reading some of the stupid comments,question,remarks...etc when im in the mood,..but i guess thats the issue is'nt it, what moood are you in when playing these and otehr type of games. Yeah yeah i here ppl say if you don't like grouping then go play a solo games like NWN,BG,IWD...etc. Sometimes that can get a lil boring(sometimes) when you are feeling up to it. Kinda like somedays i want to sit at home and relax and not be bothered with anyone, and others i want to be in a big setting with lots of ppl around socializing, and sure i might be pressed for time so i feel they should have it 50/50 on the group and solo quest, and time spent casue not everyone has all day to play and there are others who (from what i've seen in MMO's) never seem to sign offf...lol. I feel for a mmo to be successful it should have a balance of everything ppl seem to complain about caterto the needs of the many.....just basically a lilk of everythign for everyone but without straying to far from it's foundation.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Actually, for the masses, setting is pretty much completely irrelevant.

World of Warcraft is much worse in this area than EverQuest was, because of the influx of Warcraft 3 players. I was unfortunate enough to join my friends WoW guild made up entirely of WC3 junkies, and they couldnt even concieve of roleplaying or speaking in character. It was a strategy game to them, a way to kill things and take thier stuff, and nothing more. The majority of players out there are like that: they dont give a flying fig for the setting.

Get on WoW and ask the average gamer what the name of the world is... youll get a blank stare. Ask about any historical points of the setting... same thing.

I don't doubt that this was your experience, but I assure you it's neither universal nor common.

Your friend's War3 clan-turned-WoW guild is a bad test bed.

Plenty of people care are about the lore. Even the cesspool of WoW's general board has people arguing hotly over points of lore -- an experience that anyone who follows Greyhawk or Mystara fandom would instantly recognize.

Drop a stone into a pond: Ask on the General Board what would make sense, lore-wise for a new Alliance race in the first WoW expansion. You will get lots of opinions, some of them quite heated, and lore will be invoked as often as anything else, especially when debunking someone else's favorite idea.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Why pay 40 bucks a month for cable modem, $200 bucks for the hardware, 20 bucks a month on the game just to play alone?

Why pay all that and wait to play? Because that's what forced grouping is: Lots of sitting around, hoping someone else comes along, wanting to do what you want to do, praying they're of the "right" classes, so that you can actually PLAY.

Designs that hinge on being bored will do progessively worse and worse as more and more viable alternatives emerge. Compare EverQuest 2's numbers to World of Warcraft's. Both build on successful game franchises, and EQ2 builds on the previously most successful North American MMORPG. But it's also a game full of waiting to have fun, whereas Blizzard lets you head right to the fun parts. (This breaks down a bit at the higher levels, but breaking down at level 60 compared to breaking down at level 5 is orders of magnitude in difference.)

Forced grouping is a great idea, in theory. In practice, paying customers don't want to be forced to wait for what they want. On Demand and similar cable/satellite options are turning into a very nice business model because of that.