Goblin Squad Member
|
Reading an article on Here's how Dungeons & Dragons is changing for its new edition demonstrates a polar competition going on as to the destiny of the game systems of DnD and perhaps Pathfinder and more generally Themepark vs Sandbox mmorpgs.
I think that perhaps the TT is more condusive to the former and the computer is perhaps more conducive to the latter. But to check if there are any lessons to be learn from the former as applied to MMORPs and PFO?
A quick description from this perspective:-
##Story and MMORPG##
The story is a sequence of events usually narrated to an audience and often concerning a particular cast of characters.
In the mmorpg the cast are obviously the player characters and the sequence of events in the sandbox are the actions of the players that then are recounted post-hoc (as compared to a themepark's ad hoc) to make sense and to "change the world" which changes for all the players. A common pitfall of mmorpgs has been to cast the players as ALL main protagonists. This does not appear to be a very fruitfall solution to scaling up the game world into a virtual world.
##Cast and MMORPG in PFO##
Here's the list of Core Races in PFO:-
- Dwarf
- Elf
- Gnome
- Half Elf
- Half Orc
- Halfling
- Human
I like the list, you have sub-categories:
Material Races: Human, Dwarf, Halfling
Half Material/Fey: Half-Elf
Fey Races: Elf, Gnome
Half-Bestial: Half Orc
This shows variation of characters that derive from a larger "frame of reference" (to which they inherit such intrinsic properties that inform their thoughts and actions) with which we understand how the world of Golarion works. An important point to consider if our characters are going to be enabled to act their parts in the drama appropriately in this world. This to me is the essence of creating a virtual world of actors.
A comparison with EVE:-
From what I know of this game, all characters can be derived primarily as "characters who fly spaceships" which is close to the title of the recent documentary of this game. Hence the acting ability of these characters is very clear/universally shared. I think this might be a exaggerated difference for PFO, necessary as suggested by for example Alignment and Reputation (both from lore/setting and from practical purposes of stage management)?
##The Character's Journey##
In the mmorpg this takes the form of "progression" when compared to the narrative version. Three ways of breaking this down:-
1. Power (skill-training)
2. Social (settlements)
3. Money (resources)
The other measure that is a by-product of these achievements is fun/reward as well as the actual process towards this events
(fun/experience).
I think the above race selections are more than adequate to achieve the fun/reward for these things and the experience also being
interesting with diverse roles via skill-training. I would however like to see some form of intrinsic difference between these races manifest.
One of the notable things about these actors is that they are all part of the equation of the world where Civilization is pushing against
Wilderness. To be successful/growing whether good/evil or lawful/chaotic, this applies as groups of players scale up as per the MMO part to our
RPG adventure story. This is the main cast of our story that scales.
##The Support Cast's Entrance?##
Some of the other races that fall out of this fully from Pathfinder:
Aasimar
Catfolk
Dhampir
Drow
Fetchling
Goblin
Hobgoblin
Ifrit
Kobold
Orc
Oread
Ratfolk
Sylph
Tengu
Tiefling
Undine
Or perhaps some of the templates as per a previous thread. What is the rationale for including more races? Again we return to the above:
>"This shows variation of characters that derive from some a larger "frame of reference" (to which they inherit such intrinsic properties that inform their thoughts and actions) with which we understand how the world of Golarion works. An important point to consider if our characters are going to be enabled to act appropriately in this world."
What I mean is that the thoughts and feelings of these variable denizens and perhaps their mode of interaction they are "fitted" for shapes the player experience and interaction options with the game world (and other players)?
In my opinion I think there are 2 key areas why these are important:-
1) Interaction change allows different relationships and different objectives
2) Frame of Reference in fantasy is often "what if... ?" questions that allude to an alternative destiny according to a different world's different rules.
I think these are powerful tools for the actor to use to construct their character and hence inhabit and breathe life into the construct
world (a mix of graphics, code/rules and immersion/imagination).
Yet the division between the support cast and the main cast suggests that solutions are required to add them to the game in such a way
that such division remains in tact but variously so on a case-by-case basis.
Why are am I gunning for the support cast? I believe as per the recent thread on "Commoners" Commoner Role & it's Disparaging Connotations our characters have a lots of potential at this level of interaction in the story and secondly as per the thread here,
My History With The Empyrean Order, Why I Created It, and Why I Left. drama is ever important to game world full of players.
Yes the game will be systematic and crunchy, but it will need to be a theatre of the mind also it seems equally as important and lessons from the theatre, the actor, the script may apply to how we understand how PFO should develop possible.