Note: This essay is not meant to be pejorative. World of Warcraft not being a role playing game does not make it bad any more than Super Mario Brothers not being a sports game does. Instead I want to start a discussion on how to make WoW and RPGs more fun while recognizing the differences that make them enjoyable to begin with.
The term "Role Playing Game" is notoriously difficult to define well. A definition like "taking on the role of a fictional character" is too broad. In Mario Bros. and Halo you take on the roll of a fictional character. But no one controlling Mario or Master Chief plays the game thinking how a fat plumber or bad ass professional act. (Players may like to think *they* are the most bad ass of professionals, but that is a different story.)
On the other hand a definition of role playing games that includes only engrossing story telling and acting in character does not fit with how the word is used. It is difficult to claim that the early Wizardry, Ultima, or Rogue games had either but both are considered computer role playing games by any use of the term.
Even Dungeons and Dragons (the originator of the term RPG) does not fit comfortably in any simple definition of the term. In 1999
Wizards of the Coast did an extensive market research study of pen and paper RPG players. They found that players could be classified in two ways. From Strategic Focused to Tactical Focused on one axis and Combat Focused to Story Focused on the other. Under this scheme a "power gamer" is someone who is focused on combat here and now. A character actor is focused on acting in character, a storyteller is interested in the overall story, and a thinker is interested in the long term combat and problem solving.
Wizard's found that about 22% of the tabletop RPG players had a strong tendency towards each of the 4 categories with the remaining enjoying all evenly. Everyone shared some interest in the other segments however; there was a reason the power gamers didn't just go play Quake. The research also found that these percentages held across age, number of years playing, and which RPG they chose. [1]
If we used these distinctions for computer RPGs action oriented ones (from the Proving Grounds of the Mad Overlord to Icewind Dale) would fall across the the top two categories, console or Japanese RPGs like Final Fantasy would focus on the story telling section, and so called Western RPGs like Fallout would be in the character actor segment.
However, all of them contain elements of multiple categories, or at least do not dissuade from the other categories. Wizardry required short term tactical thinking, careful long term thinking to navigate the dungeon, and people got *very* attached to their characters. The Final Fantasy series is noted for its story and cast of characters but much time is still spent in combat. Fallout and Planescape: Torment are famous for the options they offer other than combat but it is still a part of the game.
Now let us look at World of Warcraft. Combat is certainly there in both strategic and tactical forms. Spreadsheets abound to give some players that extra fraction of a percent of effectiveness while other players are perfectly happy to engage in quick fun encounters without worrying about any of that. While some story telling is there its mainly in the form of background and flavor text. While enjoyable and well written I found myself more interested in the cut-scenes of Halo (or Warcraft III for that matter) than why I was supposed to kill 20 beasties and Fed Ex this package across a continent. Killing Onyxia for the first time produces feeling of elation because of what you and 39 others accomplished together after weeks of work. The fact that you saved the world from the Brood Mother of the Black Dragon flight is only an added bonus that may or may not be noted... and she will be back next week like nothing happened anyway.
Remember I said that an "RPG" is not hostile to one of the categories above. Fallout may encourage you to talk and think, but pulling out a mini-gun and splattering blood and gore is a perfectly acceptable form of conflict resolution. Daggerfall (and Morrowind) have so little dialog that it is hard to see how character's develop, yet grown men spend hours traveling to towns to find the right outfit for their character, dress them up, and write pages of back-story to post on online character galleries. In contrast the game of WoW is hostile to playing a role.
I don't mean the players or culture is necessarily hostile. There are 'role playing' servers and people have fun on them. Instead the game (rules) dissuade one from role playing. You can't "play" a character who is a bumbling comic fool, an unthinking barbarian, a noble knight who refuses rewards, or a rogue who slips in the shadows when fighting starts. In all those cases you are doing a disservice to everyone who are playing with. Doing so would make the game less, not more, fun. Having someone take a vow of poverty doesn't open up interesting new challenges and possibilities. Instead the group has one less person able to meaningfully contribute. No one pretends that while they may know how to kill a raid boss their character does not. Player and character knowledge are one and the same. I don't think there is a single encounter in WoW that has a resolution other than reducing hp to 0. Nor can I recall anything that stays dead for more than a week.
And all this is a good thing for the people who play WoW. The game is more fun this way. The kind of persistence world attempted by Ultima Online can be disastrously unfun for new players. Working together to solve problems is fun in its own right, trying to keep straight which character knows what about the latest dragon would not. "MMORPGs" are like a new kind of board game that can be as simple as Candy Land or as complicated as chess while being playing alone or with thousands of others. That is a cool new thing, probably as new as DnD was 30 some years ago. Ironically, while RPGs are often praised for their story and emotional depth, (the death of Aeris in Final Fantasy VII is treated as a minor cultural event for the generation that played it) the emotions in WoW are real and thus the more poignant. Even Bambi's mom dieing doesn't compare to a guild you poured months of your life into splintering and friends separating. But that is the exception that proves this rule. Those things are happening to you, not your character.
A RPG on the other hand allows all those unlimited possibilities that WoW couldn't. About to be eaten by a dragon? Talk him out of it (maybe one of your companions is a maiden). Combat need not be the most common resolution. Or a pint of ale and a handy axe might end most things. Want to kill a dragon and let it be known around the (real and imaginary) world? Participate in a Living Campaign. It is harder to list all the things that may or may not be possible in an RPG simple because the possible variety is so great. Fallout can be "won" by a planted bomb, quick wit, or a big gun. In Planescape: Torment belief is literally reality. On the other hand many people never actually "finish" the games in The Elder Scrolls series. The rules are not limitation but scaffolding and structure for creativity to build on. The only real limits are what you and your friends find fun, the integrity of the campaign world, and your imagination.
Right now a 4th edition of Dungeons and Dragons has been announced. Blizzard is also developing a new expansion pack to WoW. If they want to make the best game possible Wizards of the Coast shouldn't be looking at Blizzard's revenue and asking "how can we be more like those MMORPGs". Likewise, Blizzard should not be trying to graft a true persistent world like Living Greyhawk onto the abstract game-world of Azeroth that millions visit every day. Instead the question is simple: how can we take these games that we love and play to their strengths, making them better, more fun, and more popular in the process?
[1] - http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/gaming/BreakdownOfRPGPlayers.html
The term "Role Playing Game" is notoriously difficult to define well. A definition like "taking on the role of a fictional character" is too broad. In Mario Bros. and Halo you take on the roll of a fictional character. But no one controlling Mario or Master Chief plays the game thinking how a fat plumber or bad ass professional act. (Players may like to think *they* are the most bad ass of professionals, but that is a different story.)
On the other hand a definition of role playing games that includes only engrossing story telling and acting in character does not fit with how the word is used. It is difficult to claim that the early Wizardry, Ultima, or Rogue games had either but both are considered computer role playing games by any use of the term.
Even Dungeons and Dragons (the originator of the term RPG) does not fit comfortably in any simple definition of the term. In 1999
Wizards of the Coast did an extensive market research study of pen and paper RPG players. They found that players could be classified in two ways. From Strategic Focused to Tactical Focused on one axis and Combat Focused to Story Focused on the other. Under this scheme a "power gamer" is someone who is focused on combat here and now. A character actor is focused on acting in character, a storyteller is interested in the overall story, and a thinker is interested in the long term combat and problem solving.
Wizard's found that about 22% of the tabletop RPG players had a strong tendency towards each of the 4 categories with the remaining enjoying all evenly. Everyone shared some interest in the other segments however; there was a reason the power gamers didn't just go play Quake. The research also found that these percentages held across age, number of years playing, and which RPG they chose. [1]
If we used these distinctions for computer RPGs action oriented ones (from the Proving Grounds of the Mad Overlord to Icewind Dale) would fall across the the top two categories, console or Japanese RPGs like Final Fantasy would focus on the story telling section, and so called Western RPGs like Fallout would be in the character actor segment.
However, all of them contain elements of multiple categories, or at least do not dissuade from the other categories. Wizardry required short term tactical thinking, careful long term thinking to navigate the dungeon, and people got *very* attached to their characters. The Final Fantasy series is noted for its story and cast of characters but much time is still spent in combat. Fallout and Planescape: Torment are famous for the options they offer other than combat but it is still a part of the game.
Now let us look at World of Warcraft. Combat is certainly there in both strategic and tactical forms. Spreadsheets abound to give some players that extra fraction of a percent of effectiveness while other players are perfectly happy to engage in quick fun encounters without worrying about any of that. While some story telling is there its mainly in the form of background and flavor text. While enjoyable and well written I found myself more interested in the cut-scenes of Halo (or Warcraft III for that matter) than why I was supposed to kill 20 beasties and Fed Ex this package across a continent. Killing Onyxia for the first time produces feeling of elation because of what you and 39 others accomplished together after weeks of work. The fact that you saved the world from the Brood Mother of the Black Dragon flight is only an added bonus that may or may not be noted... and she will be back next week like nothing happened anyway.
Remember I said that an "RPG" is not hostile to one of the categories above. Fallout may encourage you to talk and think, but pulling out a mini-gun and splattering blood and gore is a perfectly acceptable form of conflict resolution. Daggerfall (and Morrowind) have so little dialog that it is hard to see how character's develop, yet grown men spend hours traveling to towns to find the right outfit for their character, dress them up, and write pages of back-story to post on online character galleries. In contrast the game of WoW is hostile to playing a role.
I don't mean the players or culture is necessarily hostile. There are 'role playing' servers and people have fun on them. Instead the game (rules) dissuade one from role playing. You can't "play" a character who is a bumbling comic fool, an unthinking barbarian, a noble knight who refuses rewards, or a rogue who slips in the shadows when fighting starts. In all those cases you are doing a disservice to everyone who are playing with. Doing so would make the game less, not more, fun. Having someone take a vow of poverty doesn't open up interesting new challenges and possibilities. Instead the group has one less person able to meaningfully contribute. No one pretends that while they may know how to kill a raid boss their character does not. Player and character knowledge are one and the same. I don't think there is a single encounter in WoW that has a resolution other than reducing hp to 0. Nor can I recall anything that stays dead for more than a week.
And all this is a good thing for the people who play WoW. The game is more fun this way. The kind of persistence world attempted by Ultima Online can be disastrously unfun for new players. Working together to solve problems is fun in its own right, trying to keep straight which character knows what about the latest dragon would not. "MMORPGs" are like a new kind of board game that can be as simple as Candy Land or as complicated as chess while being playing alone or with thousands of others. That is a cool new thing, probably as new as DnD was 30 some years ago. Ironically, while RPGs are often praised for their story and emotional depth, (the death of Aeris in Final Fantasy VII is treated as a minor cultural event for the generation that played it) the emotions in WoW are real and thus the more poignant. Even Bambi's mom dieing doesn't compare to a guild you poured months of your life into splintering and friends separating. But that is the exception that proves this rule. Those things are happening to you, not your character.
A RPG on the other hand allows all those unlimited possibilities that WoW couldn't. About to be eaten by a dragon? Talk him out of it (maybe one of your companions is a maiden). Combat need not be the most common resolution. Or a pint of ale and a handy axe might end most things. Want to kill a dragon and let it be known around the (real and imaginary) world? Participate in a Living Campaign. It is harder to list all the things that may or may not be possible in an RPG simple because the possible variety is so great. Fallout can be "won" by a planted bomb, quick wit, or a big gun. In Planescape: Torment belief is literally reality. On the other hand many people never actually "finish" the games in The Elder Scrolls series. The rules are not limitation but scaffolding and structure for creativity to build on. The only real limits are what you and your friends find fun, the integrity of the campaign world, and your imagination.
Right now a 4th edition of Dungeons and Dragons has been announced. Blizzard is also developing a new expansion pack to WoW. If they want to make the best game possible Wizards of the Coast shouldn't be looking at Blizzard's revenue and asking "how can we be more like those MMORPGs". Likewise, Blizzard should not be trying to graft a true persistent world like Living Greyhawk onto the abstract game-world of Azeroth that millions visit every day. Instead the question is simple: how can we take these games that we love and play to their strengths, making them better, more fun, and more popular in the process?
[1] - http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/gaming/BreakdownOfRPGPlayers.html
Last edited:
