What does work well is a mechanical goal and PrCs offer that mechanical goal.
Going to really disagree with you here. While some RPG's on the market are attempted to port the MMO feel into a table top experience, I can firmly state that 3.x/Pathfinder is not one of them.
The base, core game mechanics D&D/Pathfinder have not really changed since inception of the game. BAB is a repackaged THACO and for most classes is unchanged since the AD&D days. While the AC system has been presented differently and the cap removed, the math is still identical to the original THACO system, just presented in a more coherent and easy to understand fashion.
Classes, vancian casting, attributes all still BASICALLY the same since the launch of the original game. While the bonus' behind the stats has been altered it is still, at it's core, the same game system.
The addition of feats and a solid skill system has enhanced it past it's initial foundations but it was something that the system needed and that many home games had already started to implement, and definately grew out of the 'Players Option' books which were so popular.
But many gamers have always seen leveling up, or getting a nice magic item or spell or achieving a level goal as a concrete reward for playing a game, as well as acheiving story, adventure or character goals. PrC's are just another leveling goal, IMO the same as achieving an important core class level.
What you may be seeing is not so much a game SYSTEM change but a game PLAYER change, in both what they expect and want out of a table top game and how they play any RPG. MMO's have had an impact on gaming, I won't deny that. Look how many folks use the terms 'Tank' or 'Buff or 'DPS' for example on these boards alone, they grew directly out of the MMO vocabulary (at least in my experience). But at least to me, Pathfinder has kept the spirit and intent of the original D&D rules alive and made them better too.
It is my experience that the PLAYERS are markedly changed from my early days gaming, not the game itself.
Course I am a cranky old 'grognard' so I am biased.
A thought has been nagging me that the biggest problem with 3X and Pathfinder is the attempt to make it support mass gaming.
For example, some people enjoy PrCs because it gives them something to work for. The reason they don't think that a quest or a destiny or a revenge plot or whatever is sufficient to give a player something to work for is because these kinds of things don't work well in mass gaming. What does work well is a mechanical goal and PrCs offer that mechanical goal.
This turns table top gaming into a table top MMORPG.The big problem is that trying to create a game system which supports both roleplaying and MMORPG style gaming is like trying to mix hot fudge and motor oil. Hot fudge and motor oil both have their uses, but what are you going to get out of them by mixing them together?
I agree with what Gilfalas said in his post. And would add that mechanical goals and story goals are not mutualy exclusive...as people can and do have both.
So I have to also really disagree with the whole hot fudge and motor oil analogue.
Also where do you think MMOROGs got those traits you say they have?
A thought has been nagging me that the biggest problem with 3X and Pathfinder is the attempt to make it support mass gaming.
For example, some people enjoy PrCs because it gives them something to work for. The reason they don't think that a quest or a destiny or a revenge plot or whatever is sufficient to give a player something to work for is because these kinds of things don't work well in mass gaming. What does work well is a mechanical goal and PrCs offer that mechanical goal.
This turns table top gaming into a table top MMORPG.The big problem is that trying to create a game system which supports both roleplaying and MMORPG style gaming is like trying to mix hot fudge and motor oil. Hot fudge and motor oil both have their uses, but what are you going to get out of them by mixing them together?
The only thing that turns a table top game into an MMORPG is actually making an MMORPG based on a table top game, and even then the original table top game is still a table top game.
When someone tries to tell you that "Game X is like an MMORPG," or "Game X is like a board game," they are denigrating a game to try and make a poorly-constructed point. The implication (and a silly implication at that) is that MMORPGs are badwrongfun and that anything that might cause a game to superficially resemble an MMO in any way is, therefore, badwrongfun as well.
Mechanical incentives work fine because people like mechanical incentives. Mechanical incentives worked well before MMOs. Mechanical incentives worked well before D&D existed. Mechanical incentives worked well during the first iteration of D&D. Mechanical incentives have always worked well.
It sounds like you're just griping about the fact that most players seem to respond to incentives in a way that you dislike, which is really nothing more than complaining about how much fun someone else is having.
Also, the huge swaths of people who play MMOs on servers created specifically for roleplaying would find your fudge-and-motor-oil analogy hilarious.
You can not seperate the two, as they are bed partners ever since the first computer game was written. The basic fact of techology, is to make something easier to implement. In the past you could state the benefit of roleplaying was the social interaction, but all that is left is the personal connection, or face to face experience. Some would even debate that with telecommunications advancements.
But supporting mass gaming is the goal to keep the product selling and keep new players coming to the table. As to your preferences on how that is done, there is a line going around the table and out the door.
Players wanting cool mechanical incentives to buff up their characters as a condition for going on a quest/adventure is as old as tabletop RPGs. This behavior far and away predates MMOs, and is not an issue unique to Pathfinder or D&D 4E.
In fact, it was the "old school" 2E gamers in the 80s that really got that behavior going with the whole "Monty Haul" type of campaign.
I might agree that supporting mass playing as a priority creates problems in the D&D family of games. It drives the game rules toward a more limited style of game -- one focused on mechanical balance to the point of being hung up on it, one with a lot less tolerance for variation among PCs and their development.
But I think it's not really a case of hot fudge and motor oil. It's more of just creating a game out of balance between styles and unnecessarily limiting its own appeal.
|
Quote from the 1e DMG, page 92.
"These god-like characters boast and strut about with retinues of ultra-powerful servants and scores of mighty magic items, artifacts, relics adorning them as if they were Christmas trees decked out with tinsel and ornaments. Not only are such 'Monty Haul' campaigns a crashing bore for most participants, they are a headache for their DMs as well, for the rules of the game do not provide anything for such play--no reasonable opponents, no rewards, nothing!"
Thus spake the great prophet Gygax.
Quote from the 1e DMG, page 92.
"These god-like characters boast and strut about with retinues of ultra-powerful servants and scores of mighty magic items, artifacts, relics adorning them as if they were Christmas trees decked out with tinsel and ornaments. Not only are such 'Monty Haul' campaigns a crashing bore for most participants, they are a headache for their DMs as well, for the rules of the game do not provide anything for such play--no reasonable opponents, no rewards, nothing!"Thus spake the great prophet Gygax.
An excellent lesson in history, but as with all history lessons, they're equally adept at illustrating how things have changed in the intervening years.
Now we have reasonable opponents for such characters, we have ample rewards (it's ironic, of course, that Gary implies there are no rewards possible once you already are decked out in magic loot, as the remaining rewards are story rewards, the very rewards that critics of this style of play deride its participants for not appreciating), and we have systems flexible enough to support both the "traditional" style of play and the "Monty Haul" style in equally enjoyable measure.
Quote from the 1e DMG, page 92.
"These god-like characters boast and strut about with retinues of ultra-powerful servants and scores of mighty magic items, artifacts, relics adorning them as if they were Christmas trees decked out with tinsel and ornaments. Not only are such 'Monty Haul' campaigns a crashing bore for most participants, they are a headache for their DMs as well, for the rules of the game do not provide anything for such play--no reasonable opponents, no rewards, nothing!"Thus spake the great prophet Gygax.An excellent lesson in history, but as with all history lessons, they're equally adept at illustrating how things have changed in the intervening years.
Now we have reasonable opponents for such characters, we have ample rewards (it's ironic, of course, that Gary implies there are no rewards possible once you already are decked out in magic loot, as the remaining rewards are story rewards, the very rewards that critics of this style of play deride its participants for not appreciating), and we have systems flexible enough to support both the "traditional" style of play and the "Monty Haul" style in equally enjoyable measure.
Actually the modern systems have cut back on the amount of magic and treasure you'd get even in a 'Gygax approved' adventure. You notice this significantly if you do conversions of 1E material - you have to cut the treasure being handed out pretty significantly or it blows over the wealth by level limits.
Historically Monty Haul was about the fact that you currently have the Hand and Eye of Vecna but your stingy DM was making finding the Sword of Kaz a real pain in the butt.
|
Quote from the 1e DMG, page 92.
"These god-like characters boast and strut about with retinues of ultra-powerful servants and scores of mighty magic items, artifacts, relics adorning them as if they were Christmas trees decked out with tinsel and ornaments. Not only are such 'Monty Haul' campaigns a crashing bore for most participants, they are a headache for their DMs as well, for the rules of the game do not provide anything for such play--no reasonable opponents, no rewards, nothing!"Thus spake the great prophet Gygax.
Amen *hold up hands* preach it, preach it
When someone tries to tell you that "Game X is like an MMORPG," or "Game X is like a board game," they are denigrating a game to try and make a poorly-constructed point. The implication (and a silly implication at that) is that MMORPGs are badwrongfun and that anything that might cause a game to superficially resemble an MMO in any way is, therefore, badwrongfun as well.
I agree in practice, but I disagree in theory. You're spot on about mechanical incentives though.
There's no question there's a lot of slurring that goes on. But I think it's important to remember that there's a lot of ... retrospective unity. I'm sure there's a better term, but I can't think of it. To use your terms, I believe that sometimes people write off points as superficial resemblances, when they're simply not.
To wit, there's no question in my mind that 4E is highly inspired by WoW (not MMOs in general, but WoW in specific). But, despite that people generally use it as an insult, that's really not actually a value judgment. It's like saying that 1E is highly inspired by Vance's Dying Earth. It's not inherently bad or good, it's just a thing, and it's a thing that may work better or worse.
The thing is, I'd love - love - to truly run a tabletop MMORPG. I mean, think of EVE as the model. Imagine a tabletop game, or a series of tabletop games, where there isn't these artificial economies, but an actual, player-created, (DM-supervised) economy, in the context of an ongoing game. It'd be mindblowing.
Up front, this is one of the most level-headed posts on the topic I've ever read. You get major props for actually examining the issue with an academic eye.
I agree in practice, but I disagree in theory. You're spot on about mechanical incentives though.
There's no question there's a lot of slurring that goes on. But I think it's important to remember that there's a lot of ... retrospective unity. I'm sure there's a better term, but I can't think of it. To use your terms, I believe that sometimes people write off points as superficial resemblances, when they're simply not.
To wit, there's no question in my mind that 4E is highly inspired by WoW (not MMOs in general, but WoW in specific). But, despite that people generally use it as an insult, that's really not actually a value judgment. It's like saying that 1E is highly inspired by Vance's Dying Earth. It's not inherently bad or good, it's just a thing, and it's a thing that may work better or worse.
I agree, and it would have been foolish for the designers to not attempt to cash in on the huge number of new gamers who were essentially primed for games like D&D by World of Warcraft. The transition is a logical and straightforward one.
One game being inspired by another, however, does not make one the same as - or even similar to! - the other. Just by way of example, a tremendous number of films are inspired by Christian mythology, to a certain degree. That does not mean that they resemble the stories out of the Bible.
Typically, when people use WoW and 4e in the same sentence, it is to imply that 4e is "WoW on paper," a claim that is demonstrably false in a literal sense, and impossible to argue with in a figurative sense as that claim alone gives us no actual points to discuss.
If someone is - as you've done here - discussing the topic academically, free of value judgment, that's great! There's some really great ground that ought to be covered by the tabletop community on how to best leverage the MMO-primed crowd when developing a traditional RPG.
But when the topic is broached in a more casual, clearly judgmental manner, it's important that the underlying rationale be exposed. The speaker is insinuating the 4e (or whatever game) is badwrongfun, yes, but they are insinuating that by first insinuating that MMORPGs are badwrongfun (or contain elements that are badwrongfun) and that these badwrongfun elements are shared between 4e (or whatever) and MMORPGs like WoW.
This is, I believe, a harmful attitude to have. Not only are many MMORPGs brilliant in their design (and have a huge number of mechanics and bits of design philosophies that tabletop RPGs could make use of), but the existence of millions of World of Warcraft players who could easily become D&D players demands that the game of D&D be made as approachable to these new potential players as possible.
There is an unhealthy perception among much of the tabletop gaming community that MMORPGs are somehow inferior games. That perception needs to be corrected. The reality is that people play what they enjoy, and if D&D (or any other tabletop game) were able to produce an experience that was as accessible and consistently enjoyable as World of Warcraft, D&D would have an active player base in the tens of millions, too.
The thing is, I'd love - love - to truly run a tabletop MMORPG. I mean, think of EVE as the model. Imagine a tabletop game, or a series of tabletop games, where there isn't these artificial economies, but an actual, player-created, (DM-supervised) economy, in the context of an ongoing game. It'd be mindblowing.
I think that the angle to take, here, would be to move games like EVE towards a more organic, natural playstyle than trying to bootstrap complex mechanics like a player-driven economy onto a game system where the DM is already taxed. I just received my EVE newsletter in the mail today, and apparently their Incarna update is now slated for a July push - this is a good example of what I'm referring to. EVE is adding support for "face-to-face" character interaction, in one of its first steps beyond the concept of a hard space sim MMO.
It's been quite some time since I've played EVE; it takes a person with more dedication than I can currently muster to make the most of it. But I still consider it one of the finest MMOs ever created, and I am endlessly thrilled with how they choose to innovate and add to the game.