Interesting Post by Mearls on rpg.net

[Andor]

Now, I'm not saying WoW is a perfect game or there still isn't room for further innovation and improvement . . . but to somehow view Blizzard as a company that doesn't innovate, it's just ridiculous!

I never said Blizzard isn't creative, they are very creative. But the innovation under discussion is the creation of new genres or mechanics. And this they have never done.

Warcraft was not the first realtime strategy game of it's type. Obviously neither was Starcraft. Diablo was not the first 3rd person isometric RPG. WoW was not the first MMO, nor were any of it's subsystems something that had never been tried before.

None of these games were innovative. What they were, was polished. They were accessible. They were fun. They became the iconic games in their genres to the point that games like Sacred and Titanquest are called Diablo-clones even though Diablo did not invent the genre.

This is not to say the worlds portrayed, the stories told, and the art created were not creative. They were, some of them very much so.

D&D (or possibly runequest) was the first RPG. Pong was the first video game. Magic was the first CCG. These games were innovative. A derivative work, not matter how creative or polished is not innovative in the sense I was using the word.

 

[billd91]

Wargames met their death knell in the 90's.

They aren't dead yet. They're just not quite as common as they used to be, what with SPI being gone and Avalon Hill being barely a shadow of what it used to be. But there are still very nice games being produced, conventions being held, tournaments being played.

 

[Jack99]

I think folks should be a bit more careful saying things like "can't" and "never".

Can a computer (today) be as flexible and engaging as a good DM? Heck, no.

Will a computer (ever) be able to do this? Probably, yes.

'No one will need more than 637Kb of memory for a personal computer'

'There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.'

Everything that can be invented has been invented.

Yeah.

 

[Dire Bare]

D&D (or possibly runequest) was the first RPG. Pong was the first video game. Magic was the first CCG. These games were innovative. A derivative work, not matter how creative or polished is not innovative in the sense I was using the word.

Sooo, to be considered innovative, you have to come up with something completely new?!?! Wow, tall order!

Does the fact that D&D evolved out of miniature wargaming sully that at all? Does Magic's use of fantasy genre tropes lessen that? Where does derivation stop and innovation begin? Because Magic was the first CCG, no other CCG could possibly be innovative? There are no innovative roleplaying games after D&D because it was the first?

You and I have different interpretations of the word "innovative".

 

[delericho]

I think folks should be a bit more careful saying things like "can't" and "never".

Can a computer (today) be as flexible and engaging as a good DM? Heck, no.

Will a computer (ever) be able to do this? Probably, yes.

D&D 4e isn't competing against the hypothetical AI systems of ten years from now. D&D 4e is (maybe) competing against WoW as it exists now.

A coder doesn't have to allow for "everything," or even "nearly everything," that's possible; a coder only has to allow for things that "nearly everyone" will attempt.

Then his facsimile may be 'good enough' for some number of people, but it's still a facsimile. Besides, all they can offer is "nearly everything most people will try most of the time." It's very likely that nearly everyone who plays such a game long-term will find something that they wanted to do that they could not at some point.

And even if the game offers the range of actions most people will choose most of the time, you're still constrained by the range of games available. Sure, there's WoW, which does a reasonable generic fantasy. But what if I want to play Eberron? Dark Sun? My crazy homebrew steakpunk/Spelljammer crossover? Hell, what about my alternate history Star Wars campaign?

With a tabletop RPG, one GM can set up and run such a campaign with maybe a few weeks or months of preparation. For an MMO to handle any of these will require a dedicated team to work on the game for upwards of a year, at a cost of millions of dollars. Any thoughts on how likely Blizzard are to put together such a game for my group?

I'm not saying MMOs aren't worthy entertainment. But I am saying they have inherent weaknesses due to the technology, and if D&D wants to compete that's what it should target.

 

[Umbran]

For example: Imagine we have a tribe of Lizardfolk guarding a MacGuffin. The player of the Bard says, "I'll try to persuade them to just hand it over!" Being as this is a fairly unusual choice (the most common would be to attack), this wasn't envisaged by the adventure writer.

In D&D: The DM makes a ruling, assigns a difficulty, and the player rolls. Unless it's a bad DM, he at least gets to make the attempt.

In an MMO: No joy. It wasn't an option the designer envisaged, so it can't be done.

Um, dude, reaction and susceptibility to character powers is part of the basic architecture of a game these days, not a special case. If the game allows for a bard in the party, with persuasion powers, and those powers don't work, that's going to be a deliberate choice of the designer. He shouldn't be able to forget the option, any more than he could forget to give the monster hit points.

So, if the limitation of the programmer arises, it would be in the character being available at all, not in his powers not being applicable.

 

[delericho]

Um, dude, reaction and susceptibility to character powers is part of the basic architecture of a game these days, not a special case.

Okay, bad example.

The party are hired to deal with a band of marauding goblins. Having tracked the goblins to their lair, they decide that instead of going in and wiping them out, they will block all but one entrance, build a fire, and smoke them out.

If that example doesn't work, then there's the next, and the next and the next...

Seriously, have you never been part of a game where the players have done something offbeat that the DM didn't plan for, and was forced to improvise a solution to?

A human DM can handle such situations. An MMO cannot (yet). And that's one of the relative strengths of the tabletop RPG over the MMO - the same strength that the game should be playing to.

 

[Umbran]

Okay, bad example.

The party are hired to deal with a band of marauding goblins. Having tracked the goblins to their lair, they decide that instead of going in and wiping them out, they will block all but one entrance, build a fire, and smoke them out.

Okay, that is a better example

Seriously, have you never been part of a game where the players have done something offbeat that the DM didn't plan for, and was forced to improvise a solution to?

I've been the improvising DM loads of times.

But let us be honest - a lot of DMs wouldn't improvise in that situation. They'd find some way to force the players into the preferred solution - the railroad is alive and well, even if many people on these boards don't like it. And certainly when playing a computer game, players expect the solutions to be limited. The restriction doesn't seem to cut their popularity all that much.

So, added flexibility in general is a benefit of tabletop play, sure. But it better not be the only one, because empirical evidence suggests that it isn't enough.

 

[delericho]

Oops, double post.

 

[delericho]

But let us be honest - a lot of DMs wouldn't improvise in that situation. They'd find some way to force the players into the preferred solution - the railroad is alive and well, even if many people on these boards don't like it.

True. Another necessary plank in a strategy against the MMO would need to be to improve the quality of DMs.

And certainly when playing a computer game, players expect the solutions to be limited. The restriction doesn't seem to cut their popularity all that much.

Also true. When playing CRPGs I adopt a very different play-style than at the tabletop. At the tabletop, I play to play. For the CRPG, I play to win. So, I don't bother with characterisation, background, or anything of the sort, I minmax the hell out of my character, and I get on with the game with as much efficiency as possible.

(I don't play MMOs. If I did, the same would apply.)

The relative lack of flexibility and the change in play-style together are enough for me to dread the day when the tabletop RPG is an extinct form.

So, added flexibility in general is a benefit of tabletop play, sure. But it better not be the only one, because empirical evidence suggests that it isn't enough.

Sadly, this is also true. I don't believe D&D can win against WoW, any more than Pathfinder can win against D&D. It can survive, or even thrive on its own terms, but it's never going to topple the behemoth. In fact, with MMOs getting better all the time, and especially with it becoming ever harder to schedule a group of people to get together for a tabletop RPG, I'm very doubtful than D&D will even survive, at least in its tabletop form.