The D&D Experience (or, All Roads lead to Rome)

[BryonD]

There is no presumption in an MMO that the people playing that game will assume any sort of persona, or role.

I actually quite agree with you that there is a key difference between MMOs and Tabletop RPGs. That is a big part of my fundamental theory on "why 4E isn't as popular", they tried to focus more on getting MMO players than they did on retaining tabletop players. (Stand disclaimer, if you don't know it, just ask)

But, you need to be a bit careful with this particular reasoning.

I've had it explained to me that "beer and pretzels", getting together with friends is more important than system, is a big piece of the marketplace that I don't take sufficiently into account. There are more than one way to "role play" and, as much as I personally like "in character" stuff, I know that there are people who simply like to experience an empowerment by proxy kind of exercise. (No value judgment implied, just noting difference). I'd say that this kind of play is much more focused on the exact same "I"m a cool powerful dude", that is key for the great majority of WOW players then it is on role or persona.

Yes, the distribution is different, I think vastly more table top gamers role play. But the expectation isn't mandatory and rather than being a discrete differences between MMOs and tabletop, you have just identified different positions on the same spectrum.

 

[shadzar]

There is no presumption in an MMO that the people playing that game will assume any sort of persona, or role.

It is probably best you never try to make an MMO or RPG. Your presumptions are so wrong it is laughable.

EverQuest proved to MANY that mistakenly thought like you that there is in fact that very presumption that should be made. Guilds, etc prove you wrong by themselves.

Your definition of "role" is as one-sided, but in the opposite direction, as WotC's.

The "role" is not solely the combat position (Defender, Striker, Leader, Controller, tank, healer, etc), nor the thespianism, but a combination of both to the extent the individual wishes to employ them.

MMOs do in fact assume that some will be playing the "role" as there are often MANY people standing around talking and doing thing "in character" as opposed to camping the next spawn. It also has the function to facilitate such play.

 

[Gryph]

Heh, if you spring for the airfare.



I got a bit sidetracked in my original answer away from the point I originally made. Tabletop RPG's presume that the player will be taking on the persona of the character he creates. Even going WAAYYY back to early D&D, you still had Alignment rules and strong penalties for straying from your alignment. You had fairly broad rules for training and what happened, and how much time and money it was going to smack you with, if you strayed from playing your character.

In other words, the persona of your character was enforced by the mechanics.

Just about every RPG ties the persona of the character to the mechanics in some form. MMO's do not. I can pillage, kill and say whatever I please and it has no mechanical effect whatsoever.

There is no presumption in an MMO that the people playing that game will assume any sort of persona, or role.

So, I'm going to disagree with you on this. MMO's are not role playing games in the sense that tabletop RPG's are. In an MMO, your role solely depends on your combat abilities and not any sort of persona.

Now, you can certainly role play IN an MMO. Of course you can. No problem whatsoever with that. And, to be fair, it's not a huge step from MMO to rpg. But, I still stand by the idea that something like WoW is not a role playing game (in the sense that role=persona).

I disagree, but in a very disinterested way. I agree with the designers of 4e that the health of the hobby is dependant on attracting new players (which will likely come from computer game players). We, as members of the hobby, are going to be able to better strengthen and renew the player base if we are accepting of MMO players as roleplayers rather than dismissing their prior experiences.

So instead let me offer a different concept. The value of "roleplaying" within any game system (CRPG or TTRPG) can most meaningfully be measured in the emotional commitment of the player to the character being played.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

So instead let me offer a different concept. The value of "roleplaying" within any game system (CRPG or TTRPG) can most meaningfully be measured in the emotional commitment of the player to the character being played.

I don't know about that. In my 34 years in the hobby, I've probably seen more players who act as if any of their PCs in any RPG as something akin to an overglorified war-game unit. What they actually feel is unknowable without direct questioning.

 

[pemerton]

What exactly "role playing" is is of course a vexed and contested issue.

I agree with Hussar that RPGs and MMOs are different. It's hard to capture the difference in a simple description, but if I had to I'd try it this way: in an RPG the fiction matters - not just in that it provides an emotional "in" (this is important even to a game like M:TG - who would still be interested if it was just numbers ad categories without the fantasy flavour?), but that in it matters to the play of the game.

This is obviously true of AD&D (think White Plume Mountain). It is true of any purist-for-system simulationist engine, where the fiction provides the touchstone for interpreting and applying the rules (think RQ, RM or even 3E). It is true of good non-simulationist games too. One reason 4e gets hammered is because the rule books don't make it as clear as they could how and why the fiction matters to play - they leave it too much as an exercise for the reader. This leads some to conclude that in 4e the fiction doesn't matter, and hence that it is at heart just a minis game.

 

[BryonD]

This leads some to conclude that in 4e the fiction doesn't matter, and hence that it is at heart just a minis game.

I am certain that your express use of the word "some" makes this completely a true statement.
But if you want to get inside the head of people who don't like 4E, in either an effort to either sway them or just get the best of both worlds in later efforts, you should keep in mind that there are also plenty of us who get the value of story and still see other systems as simple better at getting there.

No absolutes.
3E has elements of story and elements of mini game.
4E has elements of story and elements of mini game.

To many of us, 4E simply spends more time in the mini game district of Rome.
I know people get all worked up hearing that and demand that it isn't that way in their game. But no 4E fan can gain understanding of the situation the game is in without coming to grips with this relatively common position.

 

[LostSoul]

BryonD, you might want to check out this blog post and its sister posts: anyway: A Moment of Judgment

 

[BryonD]

BryonD, you might want to check out this blog post and its sister posts: anyway: A Moment of Judgment

Ok, I don't see anything I particularly disagree with. But, I'm certainly not at all invested in forge game-theory, so perhaps I'm not catching the full context there.

I guess I can see how they may be describing someone playing 4E and not catching the story. (sort of not seeing the forest for the trees)

And I already agreed that this could happen. I agree this is a valid scenario, I don't agree that it represents more than a small fraction of the total dissatisfaction with 4E. If anything it may do a better job of describing people who do enjoy 4E, but don't get the full story portion out of it.

And maybe I've gone completely in the wrong direction because I read a game theory post pretty much "in media res" and at half past midnight.....

 

[Gryph]

I don't know about that. In my 34 years in the hobby, I've probably seen more players who act as if any of their PCs in any RPG as something akin to an overglorified war-game unit. What they actually feel is unknowable without direct questioning.

You caught me.

I was backing into my original point. MMO or Tabletop, roleplaying is only as deep as the player chooses to take it. An overglorified war-game unit at the table sounds awfully like playing an MMO character.

I'm not going to be the one to tell either player they are doing it wrong.

As a total aside, I wonder how many of us 30+ year rpg vets are still around and actively playing?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

You caught me.

I was backing into my original point. MMO or Tabletop, roleplaying is only as deep as the player chooses to take it. An overglorified war-game unit at the table sounds awfully like playing an MMO character.

I'm not going to be the one to tell either player they are doing it wrong.

As a total aside, I wonder how many of us 30+ year rpg vets are still around and actively playing?

The guys in my group who are like that are VERY good at running their PCs in combat situations, so I'm NOT complaining.