Can we please stop calling D&D Insider an MMORPG

[Ripzerai]

Also, the virtual tabletop doesn't seem to adjudicate any rules, only facilitate a literal "virtual tabletop." Without implementation of rules, how can it qualify as a CRPG?

I wouldn't call it a CRPG (because the rules adjudication is human-based rather than computer-based), but I would call it an MMORPG (because thousands of people can use the tabletops at once, even if only up to ten interact at one time).

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Is it an RPG? If not, you're just trolling.

No, I'm pointing out the absurdity of equating anything with a subscription fee and electronic play to an MMORPG. Seriously, re-read the thread; it's not all about you.

 

[Ripzerai]

Because playing with six people at a time isn't massive.

Why not? At what point does the number become "massive?" I don't find that distinction persuasive because it's so arbitrary.

 

[jdrakeh]

Also, the virtual tabletop doesn't seem to adjudicate any rules, only facilitate a literal "virtual tabletop." Without implementation of rules, how can it qualify as a CRPG?

I brought up this point early on and several others brought up the matter of numbers, two perfectly valid points that the people screaming about MMORPGs have yet to address (despite many opportunities). This is probably a good indicator that futher discussion with them will lead nowhere.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I wouldn't call it a CRPG (because the rules adjudication is human-based rather than computer-based), but I would call it an MMORPG (because thousands of people can use the tabletops at once, even if only up to ten interact at one time).

Two things:

1) MMORPGs are a subset of CRPGs
2) There's no way that it won't limit the people in a session. No way. Lag would kill it and it would be unplayable. I would guess the upper limit at 20.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Why not? At what point does the number become "massive?" I don't find that distinction persuasive because it's so arbitrary.

mas·sive /ˈmæsɪv/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mas-iv] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. consisting of or forming a large mass; bulky and heavy: massive columns.
2. large and heavy-looking: a massive forehead.
3. large in scale, amount, or degree: a massive breakdown in communications; massive reductions in spending.
4. solid or substantial; great or imposing: massive erudition.
5. Mineralogy. having no outward crystal form, although sometimes crystalline in internal structure.
[Origin: 1375–1425; late ME (see mass, -ive); r. ME massif < MF]

Any number you can count to without taking off your socks or unzipping your pants is not a large number.

 

[Ripzerai]

No, I'm pointing out the absurdity of equating anything with a subscription fee and electronic play to an MMORPG.

Very well; I can agree with that. But your post appeared so late in the thread that, if it wasn't intended to be a response to anything said recently, you should have quoted the post it was intended to be a response to. Otherwise, misunderstandings can and will result.

 

[Ripzerai]

2) There's no way that it won't limit the people in a session. No way. Lag would kill it and it would be unplayable. I would guess the upper limit at 20.

I'm actually arguing from the other direction. I'm not saying the DI won't have an upper limit; I'm saying that MMORPGs don't actually have a lower limit. If only six people played WoW, it would still be an MMORPG. Therefore, the word "massively" is a trivial distinction.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

The only fascinating thing I can see coming out of this thread by now is the question if the DDI will blur the line between tabletop RPGs and computer RPGs even further....simply because I can recall some discussions about that topic no 2 weeks ago that were quite...uhm...fascinating.

A fee questions that probably are at the root of this weird discussion...

Is a tabletop RPG that is played in the "traditional" way of one DM and a few players suddenly a MORPG because it is played over the internet, with voicechat and webcams enabled, and a virtual tabletop instead of the hardware version?

Is there a difference between a tabletop RPG that is played online, and usually has a scope that encompasses the interaction between the DM, his adventure (and the encompassing campaign world), and the players...and a piece of gaming software programmed to simulate a more or less interactive world that goes on continually, running on servers, and is designed to interface with hundreds or thousands of players without much DM-driven direction at all?

Personally, I would indeed draw a line...more by design than by content. Arguably, WoW and D&D contain a lot of similar tropes of the good old fantasy RPG world. But the design goals for each are different where the internet usage is concerned...not to speak of the GUI design. For a while, I thought NWN might bridge that, but apparently, it didn't.

Anyway, I'd suggest calling traditional RPGs that are played on a virtual tabletop interface (with or without ALL bells and whistles of modern electronic interactivity) a Virtual Online RPG, i.e. an online activity that tries to simulate a real-life tabletop RPG session as faithfully as it can. That it can share a lot with MMORPGs in terms of service, payment schemes, etc. is simply because for both, the users basically rent server space, processor time, and some software running on that to enable the game.

You can still call both "RPG", though...although, that discussion wasn't conclusive either.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I'm actually arguing from the other direction. I'm not saying the DI won't have an upper limit; I'm saying that MMORPGs don't actually have a lower limit. If only six people played WoW, it would still be an MMORPG. Therefore, the word "massively" is a trivial distinction.

Surely the intended style of play has some bearing on its label.

After all, if only 6 people play the MMORPG, it has failed and will be shut down. DI will also have a different "server" per group of 4-12, whereas an MMORPG server will have several thousand.

The distinction is not trivial at all.