Can we please stop calling D&D Insider an MMORPG

[charlesatan]

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.

What we have here is semantics. I'm sure to you, MMORPG isn't a negative term (in comparison to tabletop RPGs). I understand your point--to you, the moment something goes online, has access to several players, has visuals, and is an RPG, it's an MMMORPG! But I think one big difference that most people assume (or at least the people on these boards) is that when we talk about MMORPGs, you don't usually need a GM to run the game. You're just all players and the computer does things for you. I think that's a significant difference between a tabletop RPG (which you can run in a chat program) and a MMORPG (take your pick).

 

[Asmor]

Well what about the early generation of console MMORPG, like Phantasy Star online for Dreamcast? I could play at home not connected to the internet, with just the content on the original disc...or I could play online with added content and people far, far away for an additional subscription. Well, is it sort of like that?

PSO is... an interesting game. I've never played it online, but I played the one for the Gamecube multiplayer with just 4 people sitting around a TV. Was fun.

My understanding of it is that PSO's online functionality was that the cities functioned like "hubs," but when you went out into the actual wilderness/dungeons, you had your own instance with your party. If that's the case, then it's no more an MMORPG than Diablo II (though to be fair some do consider Diablo II an MMO... I am not one of them, personally).

Actually, this made me think of something... Guild Wars is almost exactly like Diablo II and PSO... Actually, sort of a cross between the two. Diablo II's hub was an chatroom, while both GW and PSO had an in-game hub. However, like D2, GW has no subscription fee. Where all three are identical, however, is that the actual gameplay is instanced with a small party.

Now that I think about it, I no longer consider GW an MMO.

In any case, this is irrelevant. There are always corner cases and things which just don't quite fit the mold. It's impossible to make a definition which perfectly describes everything.

That said, here's what I'd give as a definition for a MMORPG:

1: A persistent world. The server and content don't "disappear" when you're not there. Note that instances, which are quite popular now, explicitly violate this rule. Dungeons in WoW, for example. However, as long as the bulk of the game exists in a persistent world, the game overall shall pass this rule.

2: Everyone that plays, plays together, subject to hardware and software limitations and preference (i.e. theoretically, if the hardware was capable, the code robust enough, and people didn't mind the crowding, every WoW player on Earth could play on the same server). In other words, the hard limit on the amount of players who can coexist simultaneously is well in excess of the limits of how many people could sanely and enjoyably play together. Note that I say play together for the last part of that; I can sanely exist in Stormwind with 500 other random people; cooperating with more than a few dozen on the other hand quickly gets insane (yet it's still possible).

3: The above two rules define what an MMO is; in order to be an MMORPG, of course, the game must be an RPG! I won't bother trying to define what an RPG is and is not, however, as that's a much touchier subject and ultimately irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Did I miss anything important? Note that I didn't say anything about subscription fees or graphics. For example, a MUD is, by these definitions, an MMORPG, and I think that is as it should be. On the other hand, Guild Wars, Phantasy Star Online and Diablo II all are not MMORPGs, because the actual gameplay in all of them takes place entirely within instances.

EDIT: I think it's worth mentioning that the first rule I give doesn't directly have anything to do with being massively multiplayer... However, it's clearly a requirement of the second rule. In order for all those people to coexist and play together, it is necessary for the world to be persistent.

 

[charlesatan]

Here is where it will get sticky. How do you prevent people from stealling the code from unpurchaced books. Shrinkwrap? Who owns the code if you sell/trade/loose the book? How many people are ready for that sort of EULA in a players handbook. (I know that there is copying restriction written into many books and that is a sort of a EULA, but are we all prepared for that and a software EULA in all gamebooks?)

First off, there are some deterrents although obviously they are not fool-proof. I think shrink-wrap will solve the "stealing the code" from unpurchased books. Also, whenever you enter the code, there is a nominal fee for the transaction.

As for secondhand transactions, that's the cost of buying/trading it secondhand. Depending on the nature of the downloadable PDF (whether it's DRM, watermarked, etc.), passing on the digital copy might be arranged. If you lose the book, I don't see how keeping the digital file is a liability.

The virtual tabletop pretty much needs the DI to present characters well. There are other Virtual Tabletops already out there. And honestly, they are more attractive.

Yes, that might be true. In fact, the virtual tabletop isn't anything new. Chat programs and mapping programs have been around for quite awhile. But the point of the DI is that it's all in one place and supposedly, more convenient for the user. There's also the network that it's supposed to have. If you're a technogeek, you might not use the virtual tabletop. But if you're regular Joe, you might find it useful. It's like the iPod. Is it the best mp3 player out there? Probably not. But it's certainly the most mainstream and is designed to give you the basic features that you need in one place.

How long will it take for information show up in D&D insider. I don't think it likely that a product will ship to the stores and the website will have that book's crunch ready for every application that will be available in D&D Insider. How long that sort of lag is going to be acceptable will be decided by the market. But since it will be online, more people will not want to wait for long.

The answer to that is really a wait-and-see. But considering the book is printed months ahead (or rather sent to the printers months ahead), that's enough time to update the database. Note that the D&D Insider is really a database, not a full-blown video game that needs complex code to "make it work". As long as there's a dedicated staff, there should be enough lead time to input the data into the website. But again, whether that's the case or not remains to be see (I'm not psychic).

 

[Hammer_of_Tyr]

I would completely disregard this subscription service entirely, I prefer to create my character with a pencil and piece of paper. But the idea that they will release a book then expect you to pay a subscription fee to "unlock content" (Which means that the book you just bought is "incomplete") and that they held things out of it so they could get you to pay for a subscription to DDI, to make the DDI subscription more alluring. It rankles that I have to pay for a book then pay a subscription fee to get everything out of it that it was intended for.

Stop saying that paying a subscription is "just like" subscribing to a magazine, it's not. it's not even close. The thing is, the on line game table looks pretty cool, if a little primitive.

 

[Asmor]

the on line game table looks pretty cool, if a little primitive.

I have to disagree entirely. I really, really hope that the virtual table doesn't change much at all from what I've seen. I love the fact that it's just a map with minis and black background. Beautiful, simple, elegant. I hate things that try to look too fancy, and if they clutter things up too much it even hurts the product.

 

[charlesatan]

I would completely disregard this subscription service entirely, I prefer to create my character with a pencil and piece of paper. But the idea that they will release a book then expect you to pay a subscription fee to "unlock content" (Which means that the book you just bought is "incomplete") and that they held things out of it so they could get you to pay for a subscription to DDI, to make the DDI subscription more alluring. It rankles that I have to pay for a book then pay a subscription fee to get everything out of it that it was intended for.

If you're not going to use their character generator, there's really no point in complaining that you need to pay a fee to "unlock content". Unlocking content usually means the full description of the feat appears in the character generator/online character sheet as opposed to just a one-sentence description for example. The other content that might be included are web enhancements but those are enhancements and aren't needed for the "complete product". At the end of the day, it's all about perspective.

If you're talking about the PDFs, you don't need a DI subscription to access the electronic version of the book. You just need the code and pay a nominal fee.

 

[king_ghidorah]

I would completely disregard this subscription service entirely, I prefer to create my character with a pencil and piece of paper. But the idea that they will release a book then expect you to pay a subscription fee to "unlock content" (Which means that the book you just bought is "incomplete") and that they held things out of it so they could get you to pay for a subscription to DDI, to make the DDI subscription more alluring. It rankles that I have to pay for a book then pay a subscription fee to get everything out of it that it was intended for.

Stop saying that paying a subscription is "just like" subscribing to a magazine, it's not. it's not even close. The thing is, the on line game table looks pretty cool, if a little primitive.

Would you feel that way even if the "extra content" turns out to mean "you can use the rules in this book in our online tabletop?"

 

[king_ghidorah]

I have no idea what you're talking about, but if they enable multiple people to play RPGs together in a virtual environment, yes, of course they are. That's the definition of an MMO.

Actually, it isn't.

An MMO features:

* A persistent world (goes on even when you are offline)
* Computer moderation of activity (no DM! Moderators in these games fill a different role.)
* A large (thus the "massive") group of players in the same "campaign".

None of these are features of a virtual tabletop, nor part of the Digital Initiative.

QED, not an MMO.

 

[Khairn]

The DI fails in this in that it is NOT a shared environment, and is instead closer to how Guild Wars or Diablo 1/2 Work, with a small group at a time, not restricted to only playing with that group, in an instanced environment.

.

I believe that many gamers feel that a set of rules is designed for a certain style of play and type of game. Sure you can ignore some rules, change others and add a few, but then you are making a new game.

The DDI will support the Core Game, which as a standard set of rules encourages a certain type of game play.

Just as Guild Wars is considered an MMORPG varient, I think the evolution of D&D through the DDI, will put it in the same category. I think that 4E and the DDI will challenge the conventional definition of what an MMORPG is.

So I guess that although D&D is not an MMORPG now, it will become one in the opinions of many gamers very soon.

And since DDI and 4E are synonomous with each other, why is that a problem? Seems the next logical step in WotC's plans.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Let's see, 4e is not an MMORPG?

http://forums.gleemax.com/leaving.php?destination=http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DAAw490qUAjs

Class roles in WoW: Tank, healer, crowd control, DPS (Primary damage dealer.)

Class roles in D&D 4e: Tank, healer, crowd control, striker (Primary damage dealer.)


On another note, anyone else find it odd that the FIGTHER is not a primary damage dealer? Since his job is to, I dunno, FIGHT?