I've figured out what makes an RPG fundamentally different from an MMO. I hope considering this will make DnDN a good RPG.
I've played several RPGs, MMOs and MMORPGs including every edition of DnD, and they all have rules for combat, gear and seem superficially very similar. The fundamental difference is in the freedom given to the player.
In an RPG every character is unique and has unique interactions with the world.
In an MMO there are only a few types of characters and you can find thousands of virtually identical characters doing identical things.
You need rules and mechanics to make it a game, otherwise it's a story. But within those contraints I think it's important to give a player a lot of freedom and options. Not everything needs to be "balanced". But it's vital that you can easily make totally unique characters.
RPG such as BECMI you had fighter, cleric, thief, magic-user, and I think elf as character types. 5 selections in an "RPG".
In an MMO like Ultima Online you had 1427890789 different permutations of skill choices you could make. Hell, you never had to fight in a career if you wanted to be a crafter.
I would say the difference between PnP and C RPGs is that it's easier for a DM to adjudicate off the wall or improvised stuff that a computer cannot. In an MMO vs a Non MMO be it C or PnP RPG you have a LOT more players. Thus the M and you are online thus the O. Any other difference is not a property of the base type of game but of a specific implementation of that type of game.
You just described the difference between a group of players and a computer. The former will alway have much more flexibilty and therefore should be better at roleplaying in general. How can a computer react, except to act on pre-defined logic. However, this does not seperate the RPG and MMO from executing the same concepts or even borrowing from each other. Each is based on a pre-defined rule set. You can roleplay in MMOs, although it is pain to do everything by text or even voice.
The one thing both genres produce is ideas to push forward you imagination and have the opportunity to escape from the real world for a while.
As to balance, or preference on what a RPG rules should do, it is not computer games that drive that need, but more likely each character's ability to contribute to the story.
The big difference is that TT games don't need the grind activities, the Online games probably should seek alternatives, but in a TT game anyoen who hands out a quest for 40 wolf tails, hands you a few gold, and then asks you to do the same thing tomorrow is likely to get a greatsword where the sun don't shine.
In an MMO like Ultima Online you had 1427890789 different permutations of skill choices you could make. Hell, you never had to fight in a career if you wanted to be a crafter.
And there's a hell of alot of choices in most PnP RPGs as well. Not that you'd be led to believe that by a look through their forums.... And you don't HAVE to have any combat in your PnP RPGs either!
I would say the difference between PnP and C RPGs is that it's easier for a DM to adjudicate off the wall or improvised stuff that a computer cannot. In an MMO vs a Non MMO be it C or PnP RPG you have a LOT more players. Thus the M and you are online thus the O. Any other difference is not a property of the base type of game but of a specific implementation of that type of game.
Well, your close.
The main difference is this: It's not that it's easier for a DM to do that. It's that it's POSSIBLE. Go ahead. Forge a unique story in WoW or such. Develop a new skill/feat/power. Play a race other than the choices presented. Have ANY impact upon the "story" of the game. Oh, I'm sorry, you can't. All you can do is whatever has already been programed into the game. And people complain about railroading in D&D games....
What makes an RPG fundamentally different from an MMO is how game state is handled.
In an RPG, there is a small, manageable number of PCs that are fairly closely associated. Typically they will travel everywhere together as a single party in a single team, but even if that isn't held true they will still generally be interconnected. Everything they do can be allowed to have a lasting impact. If they kill a key NPC, that NPC can stay dead forever, and the RPG can handle the consequences of that. Tabletop RPGs can obviously handle this more flexibly than computer RPGs, but you see a few really solid ones like the Elder Scrolls that handle it all pretty well. Also, you can have things that are heavily time-dependant because you can 'pause' the universe when the players need to go back to their day jobs.
MMOs have to handle things differently, because they are catering to huge numbers of players that need to interact enough to qualify as an MMO, but stay out of each others' way enough to not ruin each other's experiences. (Aside from whatever degree of PVP is allowed.) If you let key NPCs perma-die, griefers will kill all the key NPCs. If your quest objective targets can be killed by other players and don't respawn, your quests can be prevented by other players, etc. The game can't be paused (though most things aren't time sensative, or are time sensative in limited chunks). The game state is an ongoing shared thing between all the players (on the server). All of this is why I find it very strange that they're making an Elder Scrolls MMO. It might be a very good MMO, but it won't be an Elder Scrolls game. It will just be an MMO based on the same lore.
By the way, the RPGA is essentially an MMO tabletop D&D game group. You get hit with a lot of the necessary MMO baggage, but you still have a DM so you can adjudicate stuff that isn't pre-programmed.
There is one advantage in class design that it’s not mentioned very often. The short version is: being a Wizard actually means something. I will try to explain this. A class is formed by several parts: It has the mechanics, which is obvious. But it also has fluff, flavor, description and legacy. Basically there are the stories about characters of that class, the class’s identity and all of such. To better represent my opinion, I shall bring to the discussion another commercial franchise: Final Fantasy. In many FFs there exists the Job system, which is really just a class system. Many times the Final Fantasy’s games uses a system different from that, but usually it’s a system unique to the game, and even so references to the Job system exist, so the Job system wins as most common system used by FF. Thing is, many people recognize FF Jobs, from classical Jobs such as Black Mage, White Mage, Warrior, Ninja, Paladin, Dragoon to less iconic Jobs such as, I don’t know, Jobs that only appeared in one to three games. Thing is, with considered time, these Jobs have all sort of Fluff and Legacy with then. Many characters not only use one Job, but also marked the series. When people talk about the Black Mage, for instance, not only they will remember the concept itself, but they will also remember all the appearances made in Job based games (which, in that specific case, are many) and also many characters like Palom from FFIV or Vivi from FFIX or Lulu from FFX. Things is, these Jobs marked the series and being one of them actually has meaning, because this Jobs have strong identities attached to them. The problem with classless systems is that, they are classless. What is a Wizard in a classless system? This really matter? In a classless system, is there some meaning in being a Wizard? The problem with classless systems is that these identities are kinda of lost, because being a Wizard is not so important, because being a Wizard does not have any mechanical marks and basically in a classless system, there is no Wizard by default, this doesn’t have meaning in a practical way. With class bases D&D, however, that is different. Being a Wizard in D&D has meaning, an when people talk about Wizards in D&D they will not only remember the current version of the Wizard, they will also remember all versions of the Wizard, and all characters and NPCs that are Wizards, and now, they will also remember the mechanical difference and the flavor, identity difference between the Wizard and the other spellcasting classes. This is something really hard to put in words, there is my best shot.
Right now, I would make Vancian the standard magic system for most classes in D&D (including Wizard and Cleric). What people complained is the fact that the Wizard was Vancian-Only. If it was Vancian-Default, that would be different. I've long advocated supporting both the Points of Light setting and settings full of magic items. I had some thought on one spellcasting system. Spoiler:Show
It is basically composed of three parts: 1. The Standard System: The standard system would be classic Vancian. Wizard: classic Vancian, have to learn spells first, and then prepare them. All the 9 spells levels. Cleric: It would be Vancian, but with some differences, The Cleric would carry on the tradition of choosing spells directly from the class’s spell list, but it would have some old school disadvantages to compensate, such as 7 spell-levels for Clerics and Druids (and even less for Paladins and Rangers), and most divine’s spells would be about healing and support (the Druid and the Ranger can have more offensive spells), and, in general, they would have less spells, perhaps even having divine spells (Cleric, Druid, Paladin and Ranger) be worse than arcane spells, as I’ve told that it was like this in pre-3rd Edition. 2. The Flagships The Flagships are classes that represent one alternative magic system in the standard system. They, by default, are not Vancian, they use another system (with the possibility of using Vancian or other systems). Sorcerer: This Sorcerer would be a little different than the other casters. They would have the same spell list as the Wizard (a la 3.X) and they will use, by default, flexible spell-slots spellcasting (the current system. Very like 3.X Sorcerer, but with class benefits that make then different, a la 4th Edition. With regards to other classes, I would make Bards Vancian, but the Warlock is also a good candidate to some different spellcasting mechanics. Possibly the Witch (4e post-Essentials subclass) somewhere? 3. Modular Magic Systems And there would be a module that changes the way that the spellcasting works. This would be a module that has guidelines about altering the default spellcasting mechanics. The guidelines would consist of how the quantity of spells cast can be ported over, and from which spells they prepare, etc... Let’s give a proper example: The Wizard would be classic Vancian. Thing is, for alternative casting systems, the Wizard would have guidelines that would be something on these lines: “They always prepare spells from the list of know spells. In alternative spellcasting modules, he can prepare a number of spells equal to 1+ Wizard’s level, and the number of spells slots or equivalent is equal to the number of spells per level per day.” This is not something that will have problems of text space. All that you need is some short guidelines about which spells they can chose to cast and how much spells they cast. The rest of these mechanics would be stated only once, in the module of alternative magic system. The good points: • Not only every Vancian class would have an option to be non-Vancian, but also the non-Vancian classes would have the options to be Vancian. Why some classes in default would be Vancian while others not? Add some variety for the new players and players of things like RPGA and Encounter. That and many of the editions of D&D had it like that. • It manages to both being classic with classic Vancian and satisfy the non-Vancian fans with flagships and modules. The bad points: • Using alternative magic systems do not raise your raw power but make casters more flexible. The classes that are already flexible (such as Sorcerer) would need some more flexibility to keep up. No idea how to handle martial characters, although.
We should get rid of at-will cantrips. Spoiler:Show
Okay, now that you’ve got the first panic reaction, let me explain it. Yes, many people like at-will cantrips and they are popular. They have everything that it takes to be popular. However, I think we should remove them from the game, at least as an assumption to all caster classes. First: At-will cantrips blur up the distinction between casters and martial characters, and makes being a gish useless. Basically in non at-will cantrips systems there is an advantage in martial characters: the fact that they have abilities that they can always use. But if we give every caster at-will cantrips this blurs up the difference between classes, take out a huge advantage of martial classes. There is also the gish issue. Basically in non at-will cantrips systems, there is a huge advantage of being a gish over being a full caster. The advantage of have some reliable action when out of spells. At-will cantrips weakens that advantage. Just for you to have some idea I was talking previously about the possibility of the Wizard being weaker than the Cleric (some time ago), and when I quoted the fact that the Cleric is a gish, people talked that this is not important, that it doesn’t have such impact because it will use its at-will cantrips. Being a gish should matter. Of course when being a gish actually matters, we can rebalance the classes but it should matter.
Second: At-will cantrips go into the opposite direction of trying to balance casters. Really when we are trying to balance classic or neo Vancian casters, why give to all of them at-will cantrips? Why we cannot use the absence of at-will cantrips to provide a drawback to balance casters? Third: At-will cantrips weaken the challenge of resource management. Really when you always have magic a great part of the challenge goes away. The possibility in being out of magic is not a bug, it is a feature It is part of the system, and this challenge don’t have to go away because it is fun. The challenge of running out of magic is part of the system, and fun. Fourth: At-will cantrips do not fit properly under every system. Really is not that I don’t like at-will magic, but I don’t think we should bake in every spellcasting system. In 4e it worked because it was part of AEDU, but now, they don’t feel part of anything. They seem to be an arbitrary addition to the game. The 3.5 Warlock was special because it was a class with at-will magic in a game where it doesn’t exist, otherwise, at-will magic. We can have at-will cantrips but it should be done it right, and not being a default assumption for every caster class. I’m worried if they are going to launch a mana spell-point based magic system for spellcasters. This system should not have at-will, no mana cost magic as default for every caster class, because running out of mana is part of the mana system. In Final Fantasy they even have no MP cost magic, but they do it right, and when they use no MP cost magic, it is special because it is in a game that is otherwise MP based.
You need rules and mechanics to make it a game, otherwise it's a story. But within those constraints I think it's important to give a player a lot of freedom and options. Not everything needs to be "balanced". But it's vital that you can easily make totally unique characters.
I think that's the essence of a good RPG.
There are already dozens of RPGs out there that do this exact thing. I can name at least a half-dozen off the top of my head that actually do it very, very well. I don't see how talking about Computer MMORPGs has any particular relevancy to this.
More importantly, how is Dungeons and Dragons supposed to be better than any of those other options that do exactly what you describe as important?
(I'm pretty sure this post is a shady step around pushing a hot-button in the edition wars, but with the same "complaint".)
Want the tl;dr of my posts? Read the bold text; I put it there to highlight the main points for ease of skimming.
The difference between a mmorpg and a tabletop rpg is that in the case of the tabletop rpg you can corrupt the DM with beers and pizza, or just by flattering his ego.
It's easy to find the cheat mode with a DM.
"They are making it clear that when modern design and common sense come into conflict with tradition, tradition wins." - thecasualoblivion "Vancian isn't broken, you just have to set your game to the wizard's clock!" - Oxybe "In many ways, making a new edition of D&D is alot like trying to sell a car to the Amish." - Dwarfslayer "Encounters are the heart of the AD&D game" - PHB AD&D 2nd edition. "you shouldn't even bother trying to become like me." - Gary Gygax (Elfcrusher confirmed)
"Feel free to claim I said anything you like. How's someone going to call you out on it? Are they going to be all like, 'I know all of the things that Gary said, and that's not one of them?'" - Gary Gygax
Because they are transmitted through two different mediums. 1 is through code, the other through people. Code is inheriently inflexible, people aren't. It's comparing apples and oranges. They are both fruit (games) but taste completely taste, look, and feel completely different.
