So, every once in a while I see someone blame a problem in table top gaming on MMOs, or relate something unrelated to MMOs to them that they don't particularly like in a tabletop setting. Its like MMOs are some anathema to table top gaming, creating this problem with bad players and playstyles.
Why is that?
It is quite a complex question, if you want to get down to it.
MMOs and online gaming have taken gaming in a new direction, something different to the old rp guard and what they are used to. This annoys them, disheartens them, they see it as wrong.
A few things from the MMO scene that shit rpers:
a) mmo players that don't rp, or rp very light. That mmo players play a bunch of stats, not actual characters (I can do five attacks and my dex is this! Yes, but who is your character and what do they believe?) Which connects to...
b) a fixation on numbers and builds over moving the story along, interaction with pc or npcs. Tabletop has always had powergamers, but there is the idea that the pgamers are increasing, and mmos and game systems are blamed.
c) item entitlement (what do you mean I can't fill all my magic item slots through this one shop? Why don't they have all I need?)
d) power entitlement (I should level quickly and be uber buff, just like my level 78 tank in guild wars).
e) powergaming over teamwork (although mmos really push teamwork, it doesn't always mean the stat obsessed mmo player fit with a team).
f) superficial mmo adventures seen as lacking and empty compared to more complex rp adventurers, or the old modules from the days of yore (stop talking about wow, it won't prepare you for tucker's kobolds).
Just a few off the top of my head.
I find myself stuck between the groups (gamer multiclass?), having played dnd since I was a child (yes, I was rolling to kill orcs and lay waste to villages while in primary school), but having spent more time playing various pc and console games.
Because, a lot of the time it is true. The rise of MMOs has impacted our hobby, rather we want to admit it or not. Not all of those influences have been positive.*COUGH* DnD 4th edition *COUGH*
4th edition wasn't totally bad. Was it based off MMOs and therefore the most awful thing in the world?
And of course it impacted the game, but would you be give examples of how? I wouldn't say that its the worst thing in the world though. Coffee affected our world, I don't blame bad things on it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find myself stuck between the groups (gamer multiclass?), having played dnd since I was a child (yes, I was rolling to kill orcs and lay waste to villages while in primary school), but having spent more time playing various pc and console games.
Ahh, well that's a nice and quick list. Beats "Because MMOs are bad". Always worried about opening a can of worms...
Anyways, that's sort of where I am. I've played DnD and all sorts of games for years. I both RP and do some numbers, and sometimes I introduce people from the game from the computer setting and when I do I don't see the problems you brought up. Mechanics vs. Narrative sometimes comes up, and some people have been a bit shy, but I haven't run into personalityless characters who only do awesome deeps and raid for tiers gears.
One of my players is an mmo fan, another is a skyrim/minecrafter, another one plays a lot of flash games. So of late, the com side have been heavily represented. The game we are running atm is fantasy, but based on an anime (which works for all involved, since we have all seen it, everyone is on the same page, weeaboos unite).
Now these gamers aren't robots, and they are really interested in rp, and doing cool stuff, and having strong characters. They are all quite intelligent, but they were a bit hesitant about rping at first. This isn't just a game they play by themselves or anonymously online, there is a table, other players, pressures, but a whole lot of choice (they have agency, I always make it that the players can change the world once they get some power).
So I have faith in the next generation of gamers, but there are also some new negatives that have come along, and some old problems have reared their heads.
These are common objections to MMOs. While they are true they are exaggerated thanks to increased communication provided by internet.
Discerning causation from correlation is part of the problem - certain aspects of MMORPGS attract people that have/would have power gaming tendencies in PnP games. From my personal experience people who came to PnP RPGs through MMORPGs can be as good or better roleplayers than non-MMO gamers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I have faith in the next generation of gamers, but there are also some new negatives that have come along, and some old problems have reared their heads.
Aye, I never had doubts. I just feel like its an unhealthy idea floating around. When ideas like that get stuck in your head, sometimes they come out in the wrong way and the wrong times.
|
Because, a lot of the time it is true. The rise of MMOs has impacted our hobby, rather we want to admit it or not. Not all of those influences have been positive.*COUGH* DnD 4th edition *COUGH*4th edition wasn't totally bad. Was it based off MMOs and therefore the most awful thing in the world?
And of course it impacted the game, but would you be give examples of how? I wouldn't say that its the worst thing in the world though. Coffee affected our world, I don't blame bad things on it.
I'm not saying 4th ed was bad. But IMO WOTC designed it as a MMORPG you can play on a tabletop. So it effected the hobby.
I'm not saying 4th ed was bad. But IMO WOTC designed it as a MMORPG you can play on a tabletop. So it effected the hobby.
Well, I've played plenty of MMOs, and the game didn't look like an MMO to me. It was a bit streamlined, and it had a focus on mechanics, but I didn't see it as some big pre generated open world with a focus on social aspects and grinding. I'm no expert on 4th edition though.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not saying 4th ed was bad. But IMO WOTC designed it as a MMORPG you can play on a tabletop. So it effected the hobby.
I'm not sure that MMORPGs were the video game they were using as a model ...
.FIGHTER is evolving!
Congratulations! Your FIGHTER
evolved into SWORDMASTER!
and
STORM OF BLOWS but SWORDMASTER
already knows 4 moves!
Should a move be forgotten to make
space for STORM OF BLOWS?
1, 2 and ... Poof!
SWORDMASTER forgot STEEL SERPENT STRIKE and...
SWORDMASTER learned STORM OF BLOWS!
I'm not saying 4th ed was bad. But IMO WOTC designed it as a MMORPG you can play on a tabletop.
This is a meaningless claim justified with superficial comparisons. It is no different than the people who didn't like what they saw in 3e and decided to blame it on Diablo. 4e is a traditional, tabletop roleplaying game that incorporates influences from nearly every sphere of gaming - including MMORPGs - but that doesn't make it an "MMORPG on paper" (for that, see the 3.5 World of Warcraft sourcebook).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is worth remembering that MMOs actually have probably taken more from RPGs than RPGs have taken from MMOs. I'd say that MMOs scratch a somewhat different itch to a table-top. They are much more about character progression and grinding than roleplaying, more individually competitive, and as part of that designed to be addictive, but then that's the nature of the medium. And it can be a lot of fun. But unless you play with an established group it can be very impersonal and anonymous, much like the rest of the internet (and with much of the asshattery that goes with that). I gave up playing WoW (the only MMO I really played, though for several years) because in the end I disliked the people there. But WoW is pretty much a D&D clone - somewhat different rules, but races and classes are very similar.
A table-top game, on the other hand, is (or should be) a gathering of friends to shoot the breeze and muck about rolling dice. It's much more a social activity. It also allows more RP and play-style is a factor of what the players want, rather than what the system dictates. Certainly it's my preference. But then again, not everyone can get to a game easily due to life circumstances and an MMO can be a substitute to some extent.
As for 4e, there may be elements where MMOs came in (mostly in presentation, probably) but my experience of playing is more that (1) they wanted to take out binary save-or-die or save-or-suck rules, and generally reducing "swinginess" (big differences in outcome based on small differences in actual dice rolling), (2) wanted to even out power levels between classes (which was a constant moan during the 3e era, and still is to some extent under PF), (3) reduction in different sub-systems (like spells and conditions) for simplification and ease of use, and (4) wanted parties to be less dependent on having certain classes (especially the cleric/healer) present to be viable. Not much of that, frankly, has much to do with MMOs as such and more to do with issues in 3e. My understanding (though I haven't played it) is that 4e maybe owes more to MtG than to MMOs.
|
IMHO, 3.5 World of Warcraft is much more D&D then 4th edition.
As for the OP, i don't think that MMOs themselves are the problem, (except that i have to yell at my players when they use an MMO term during session, man oh man do i hate that). It's the players. They would have been power gamers anyway, but now, after playing MMOs for so long, they can be nothing but.
3.5 WoW also, as far as I was aware, had nothing much to do with how WoW played.
Neither did 4e, but that didn't stop people from pretending it did. And the WoW sourcebook is the only game that can be accurately called an MMORPG on paper.
My understanding (though I haven't played it) is that 4e maybe owes more to MtG than to MMOs.
This wouldn't surprise me, given that the majority of actual game theory/gameplay innovation work at WotC probably happens in the M:tG department. There isn't a lot of overlap in the design teams, but the exposure is there and I'm sure the developers couldn't help but draw on that.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, they are. spelled backwards they read 'OMM' which is a dead giveaway. And their follo...I mean players have developed their own secret language which they use to cloud their evil and depraved doings from the rest of the world...just like those kids in the eighties that were playing this game...what was it called...
There have always been players that came to RPGs looking for different kinds of entertainment. Many times, if those get together in the same group, conflict starts and groups dissolve one pointing at the other claiming 'their' style (influenced by whatever 'they' don't have in common) was bad for the group.
Some MMO players look for Raids etc in tabletop games and this can be as disrupting to a tabletop group with different expecations as the one hack and slasher in a group that wants political games or the one clown in a group looking for grimdark games.
I doubt there is more 'destructive power' aimed at tabletop RPGs from MMOs.
By the way, for a stark illustration of how not an MMORPG-on-paper 4e is, take a look at the new Neverwinter game and start listing all of the mechanical and gameplay features they had to dramatically alter to produce an entertaining digital product.
Um yeah they're evil. You didn't know that?
They destroy lives. MMOs, not even once.
d) power entitlement (I should level quickly and be uber buff, just like my level 78 tank in guild wars).
This is completely tangential, but Guild Wars only has 20 levels and relies very little on gear. Characters in Guild Wars gain skills from quests and skill trainers, which function like spells or feats and get added to their skill list. Though they may have hundreds of skills, they can only take 8 into a combat area at a time, but use those 8 at-will (barring cool downs or the rare single-use skill). Each class has 4 attributes that its class skills rely on. A character has two classes, but they have 4 attributes from their primary class and only 3 from their secondary class, limiting their power in the secondary class. Primary class also determines what armor/clothing can be worn. (So they're basically 20 level limited-function-gestalt characters.)
I haven't played Guild Wars 2 but it's my understanding that it works differently and has more levels, so I'm only speaking about Guild Wars.
Just wanted to point out that blaming Guild Wars for some of this stuff is probably blaming the wrong game.
Just wanted to point out that blaming Guild Wars for some of this stuff is probably blaming the wrong game.
Pretty sure it was just an example. WoW is the usual suspect.
As to to entitlement and instant gratification, in my experience MMOs usually demand a grind, so there isn't a level really fast and get epics. You usually start at a beginner stage, work your way through many zones and quest to endgame and then you get to grind for your epics! Some games actually do add short cuts, but then other players claim that it makes it too easy on the new guys, which is an entirely different problem.
The big thing is that there is no "Hey! You get to make a level 90 and get all your gear for free with a click of a button!" which is very different from "Gratz! Now grind for a few months, chat with friends, maybe go for a themepark achievement or attraction or two. You know you can get this cool mount if you..." Its a very different experience, and games do vary.
He meant guild wars 2 where levels go to 80
But gw2 doesn't use tanks... Different trinity, and uber gear at 78 would be moot at 80 where you can farm for your endgame set in aran or such.
Is critiquing how faithful a small bit of information is really necessary? I mean, I could go into length about gw1/2 and WoW's leveling style, and over Neverwinter too, but I'm not sure if that would really help the conversation.
Why is that?
Sometimes RPG designers let themselves be inspired by the mechanics of their favourite MMO (not always realizing this) and sometimes this does not translate well across mediums.
Generally, if an RPG features a focus on mechanics with little or no thought as to how this actually relates to the setting as a "real world", it often smells of a "computer game on paper."
It's really a matter of abstraction. You don't expect the same level of abstraction from a video game as you do from a RPG. The world in a video game doesn't have to fit together quite as coherently as a RPG setting does.
Some people don't care. Some people do.
I don't think MMOs are evil. But I do believe that just as RPGs had some influence on the MMOs, they have now placed some influence back on the Table-Top RPGs. To be clear what I believe, some of the MMO influence has not been bad. Some has been just different. Players have added or shifted or removed some expectations.
I think the real level of MMO influence is more at the game table level then at the game rules level. Some folks I know have shifted how they approch a table top quite a bit because of their MMO experience. Some have not.
Didn't someone make an Everquest RPG too?3.5 WoW also, as far as I was aware, had nothing much to do with how WoW played.Neither did 4e, but that didn't stop people from pretending it did. And the WoW sourcebook is the only game that can be accurately called an MMORPG on paper.
White Wolf subdivision Sword & Sorcery published Warcraft D20 (a sourcebook for D&D based on Warcraft III/Frozen Throne), World Of Warcraft RPG (d20 game independent of D&D core rulebooks but still easily recognizable as its sibling, IIRC the core book was released either just before or soon after World Of Warcraft went live), Everquest D20 (which used OGL but had significant changes when comparing to baseline d20) and Everquest II RPG which, while still using d20 core mechanics was even more distinct from d20 than Everquest D20 - definitely more distinct than Pathfinder is but not as much as D&D 4th edition.
I listed the games in the degree of their difference from baseline D20.
4e isn't "WoWish" because it replicates anything from it.
It's the fact that it has things that MMORPG people want in a video game.
You mean things that people want in a game. Ease of use, variety in abilities - these are excellent traits for any game to have, tabletop roleplaying games included.
Easy to use, lots of powers, straight to the point of killing stuff and flashy despite "simulationsim"
Straight to the point of killing stuff? I don't see any evidence of that in 4e's design - certainly not any moreso than in 3rd Edition.
So I have faith in the next generation of gamers, but there are also some new negatives that have come along, and some old problems have reared their heads.Aye, I never had doubts. I just feel like its an unhealthy idea floating around. When ideas like that get stuck in your head, sometimes they come out in the wrong way and the wrong times.
I know. The good news is, after a few years, people sometimes take stock of what they have been doing, get bored of the same old thing and try new options. As in the decline of WoW.
d) power entitlement (I should level quickly and be uber buff, just like my level 78 tank in guild wars).This is completely tangential, but Guild Wars only has 20 levels and relies very little on gear. Characters in Guild Wars gain skills from quests and skill trainers, which function like spells or feats and get added to their skill list. Though they may have hundreds of skills, they can only take 8 into a combat area at a time, but use those 8 at-will (barring cool downs or the rare single-use skill). Each class has 4 attributes that its class skills rely on. A character has two classes, but they have 4 attributes from their primary class and only 3 from their secondary class, limiting their power in the secondary class. Primary class also determines what armor/clothing can be worn. (So they're basically 20 level limited-function-gestalt characters.)
I haven't played Guild Wars 2 but it's my understanding that it works differently and has more levels, so I'm only speaking about Guild Wars.
Just wanted to point out that blaming Guild Wars for some of this stuff is probably blaming the wrong game.
Guild wars 2, level cap 80. One of my players is all over it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
4e isn't "WoWish" because it replicates anything from it.
It's the fact that it has things that MMORPG people want in a video game.
Easy to use, lots of powers, straight to the point of killing stuff and flashy despite "simulationsim"
Easy to use - is that bad? Lots of powers - ever looked at the spells or feats chapters in any of the earlier iterations of D&D (well, not feats, since they didn't exist before 3e, which presumably means that 3e is also appealing to the MMO crowd)? And then some of the supplements, including those in PF? Then tell me lots of powers is just a 4e thing. Straight to the point of killing stuff? Actually, one of the complaints about 4e is that combat can grind - lvl 1 goblins have 25 hit points, for example. Flashy despite simulationism? Not even sure what you mean. Any flash is surely in the mind's eye and down to roleplaying? Personally I like 4e because it feels like a game made for adults - i.e. you don't have to spend the weekend preparing for the game, just a few hours, so I can do other stuff with my family. I'm not a teenage nerd anymore and so can't devote the time. That (partly) is what I want from an RPG.
I have played MMOs and I've played 4e. It's actually quite hard to make these things stand up as being much about a 4e/MMO crossover. And even if it was true, all RPGs take from other media. When D&D was young you had lots of fiction and maybe a few comics and films. Then cross-fertilisation between different systems during the RPG boom. Now we have computer games and films with CGI. This shapes perceptions of what "fantasy" is as much as it shapes RPGs. Personally, I'd say the rot started with Star Wars (the film) but that's possibly a whole new thread.
It's ironic that the people who blame MMORPGs for the decline of tabletop culture are using the same "logic" as those who blamed D&D for the decline of moral culture a few decades back.
It's ironic that the people who blame MMORPGs for the decline of tabletop culture are using the same "logic" as those who blamed D&D for the decline of moral culture a few decades back.I don't recall a s~+*ty Tom Hanks movie about WoW, but I could be wrong. ;-)
Give it a few years.
Second winds:
Oh good.
Give you random
Nope. The use of Second Wind is always voluntary.
1-UPs
Nope. Just gives you a few hit points. It doesn't bring you back to life. Really solid effort on trying to make it seem video game-like, though!
to health that are unexplained
Nope.
Adventurers can dig into their resolve and endurance to find an extra burst of vitality. In game terms, an adventurer focuses momentarily on self-defense and spends a healing surge to regain lost hit points.
and you have to come up on your own with some explanation
Nope. It's right there for you. You're catching your breath. The reason it's called "Second Wind" is because catching your second wind is an actual thing that people do in real life. They just bumped that over to D&D. Do you have a problem with bringing realism into D&D?
because as it is its 100% mechanics.
Nope. The in-world explanation is right there.
The purpose? So you can kill more stuff
Indirectly, but sure. It's more so that you don't get killed. Design-wise, it's to remove some of the burden of healing from the party's healer so that they don't feel compelled to focus all of their energy and attention on keeping the party alive.
and stay in the dungeon
Nope, you don't use Second Wind for that. If you need to regain hit points between fights, you simply rest for five minutes and spend as many healing surges as you'd like.
and in combats longer.
Most combats don't involve PCs using Second Wind. They're a last resort.
and the way adventures are designed: everything I've seen for adventures in 4e are waaay more combat based and straight to the action than APs.
That sounds like a problem with adventure design, not the design of the game itself. There are plenty of 4e adventures that don't flow that way.
4e takes away having different classes with different defined abilities (and these things lends themselves to fluff).
Nope. There are plenty of classes that function wildly differently, both mechanically and fluff-wise.
Wizards harness arcane powers with their unique skills and blah blah while 4e gets right to the point of giving everyone a homogenized (unexplained and completely mechanic) system.
Nope. It's a narrative system (it's actually kind of alarming that you don't recognize this) with included fluff explanations for every single power.
But by all means: continue to rail against a game system you know very little about.
I'm not talking random as in they occur random. I'm saying random as in no sense of reality.
Second wind is a real, actual thing. It has an obvious sense of reality to it.
Ok EXCUSE ME. I should have said red mushrooms, my bad.
So just like Cure Light Wounds, then. Because "My religious faith healed you!" has such a stronger sense of reality to it than, "I took a moment to catch my breath," or "I found myself falling into the rhythm of battle and felt like I could fight forever."
You talk about second winds then healing surges, aren't these two different things?
Second Wind allows you to spend a healing surge.
And then you say it isn't a problem of "game design" when we are talking about 4e...the adventures are made BY 4e.
The adventurers are made by adventure authors. I have run no fewer than four Pathfinder adventure paths in 4e, and have never come across any significant problems. The system does not get in the way. If your adventure isn't to your liking, find a new adventure, but don't blame the system.
To say that 4e doesn't focus on combat when their adventures are geared toward combat clearly shows an intent of what they want with the game....
4e does focus on combat, but not to any greater degree than 3rd Edition did. And it's absolutely fine that it focuses on combat, because it wouldn't be D&D if it didn't. D&D is, and always has been, at its heart, about kicking down doors, killing monsters, and taking their stuff. A lot of people play it as more than that, but almost no one plays D&D without it.
It's ironic that the people who blame MMORPGs for the decline of tabletop culture are using the same "logic" as those who blamed D&D for the decline of moral culture a few decades back.
False.
And I have no idea what strange logic leads you to this faulty conclusion?
1) Uses terms like tank and controller as actual game terms and class definitions. As in "our party needs a tank."
Tanks? I thought it was defender. Also don't forget HP is and has been abstract, its also morale and exhaustion among other factors. I could easily argue 3E is weird in that you start bleeding out only when you hit 0 health and fall unconscious.
Anyways, I thought this thread had MMO in the title. The talk turned to 4E...
Again 4e encompasses more than just the PHB, it enompasses their whole product line...And yes it even includes meta terms like controller etc to be more gamist. The focus is on combat. If thats what you want, fine, but don't call it something it isn't. And obviously all D&D has combat, but its to what degree the focus of combat (and mechanics) is compared to RPing and fluff.
If I remember right 4E has fluff. All MMOs have fluff too. They both also have RPing, though RPing in an MMO is different than a tabletop. I'm actually not keen on the differences between RPing in 4E and 3.x would be, but I'd imagine they both still involve fake accents and occasionally a dice roll mechanic. As I said earlier, sometimes people are a little shy when they get into tabletops, and actually some people I know, computer or no, happen to never RP at the table.
Okay, I haven't looked at a 4th edition book since shortly after it was released, let me see what I recall.
1) Uses terms like tank and controller as actual game terms and class definitions. As in "our party needs a tank."
People were using the word "tank" to describe their character in D&D games years before MMORPGs did. MMORPGs got it from tabletop gaming, not the other way around.
And, regardless, they're called "Defenders" in D&D. It's just a codification of the damage-tank-healer holy trinity that's always existed (with Controller tacked on because they're cool).
2) Every class has an equal amount of button pushing. A 30th level wizard and a 10th level fighter? Very close to the same number of powers.
10th-level fighter: 2 at-will attacks, 4 encounter powers, 3 daily powers, 3 utility powers.
30th-level wizard: 3 at-will attacks (thanks to Magic Missile), 3 encounter powers, 12 utility powers, and 4 daily powers, and not to mention the fact that he receives two of every utility and daily power choice to pick from each day.
Totals:
Fighter - 12 powers
Wizard - 22 powers (30 if you include spellbook powers)
Nearly double is "very close"?
3) Powers have cool down rates. (Encounter, daily, maybe others?)
These are narrative "cooldowns", and don't serve the same function as they do in an MMORPG. This is an example of shallow, superficial comparisons being tossed around with no understanding of the underlying design rationale. For an example of the discontinuity between 4e and MMORPGs, see how encounter and daily powers are implemented in the new Neverwinter MMORPG (encounter powers can be used more than once per fight, daily powers recharge continuously as you fight; they recharge very differently from their 4e counterparts).
4) Limited number of item "slots" available. "Nope, sorry, you already have an item of a level equal to your level, level +1 and level -1, you can't have any more. It doesn't matter that it is a sword, shield and a hat and what you found was a set of boots." (Not entirely 100% sure on this one, but I'm listing it here as a seqway into:
This is 100% false. There is no such rule in 4e. There never has been.
4a) Items have levels.)
It's about damned time.
5) Movement and positioning are extremely important. Not that it isn't important in pathfinder as well, but playing 4th ed without a grid map? Ya. . . not a good idea.
Neither is it a particularly good idea in Pathfinder. Interestingly, however, position is of very little importance in most MMORPGs. It's practically ignored in WoW, except for certain boss fights and if you're a rogue.
6) Take a couple deep breaths and heal that sword wound.
Hit points are not simply a literal reflection of physical injuries. They represent a combination of luck, fatigue, the ability to shrug off pain, the ability to turn solid hits into glancing blows, toughness, and, yes, physical wounds to a certain extent. This is how it has always worked, explicitly. Every edition of D&D has explained that hit points are more than just physical wounds.
So if that's your gripe with 4e, I guess you have a problem with D&D in general.
Really? I can draw up a wizard at 20th level and have somewhere around 40 spells memorized all of which are capable of being useful outside of combat. Can the 20th level 4th ed wizard say the same?
I'm going to hazard a wild guess here: you're not familiar with how rituals work in 4e, are you?