+5 is Player, Not Character, Skill?
Gamestop has an interview with one of the guys behind the forthcoming D&D MMORPG: "As another example, Troop explained that according to the standard pen-and-paper rules, high-level characters gain "base attack bonuses" that increase their chances to strike true in combat. This ability will be represented by special attacks that can be pulled off with good timing. So a fighter character with a +5 attack bonus might have a five-part sword attack that can be pulled off by clicking the mouse button in a correctly timed fashion."
Gamestop has an interview with one of the guys behind the forthcoming D&D MMORPG:
As another example, Troop explained that according to the standard pen-and-paper rules, high-level characters gain "base attack bonuses" that increase their chances to strike true in combat. This ability will be represented by special attacks that can be pulled off with good timing. So a fighter character with a +5 attack bonus might have a five-part sword attack that can be pulled off by clicking the mouse button in a correctly timed fashion.
I'm, uh, I'm not sure that's right, but I'm not sure why.
By making the +5 applicable only if the player is skillful enough (ie. by clicking in a "correctly timed fashion"), they're removing the growth aspects of the character. Most of us here have been playing RPGs for years - we're all "skilled" in the ways of combat. Should our first level characters get a +5 attack bonus because we already know what we're doing? And if +5 is only applicable after a certain amount of grindable levels, what if I, as a player, suck at rhythm and timing? Does my adventurer, who has earned his +5, suffer because of my lack of skill? Or does the +5 always apply, and the DDR-clicks only make me appear cooler?
- Login to post comments
What the hell is wrogn with turn-based, offline, single player games?
When did I become an old fart that has to gripe about "kids these days and there new fangled 3D Whatzits!"???
I don't know. I can't get into MMORPGs, possibly because I've been threatened with divorce, but also because only one relatively obscure one ever much appealed to me. Heh...so obscure I can't even remember what its name was. All I know is you were a starship captain and you got to cruise around improving your ship and stuff while interacting with other players. My wife caught me looking at the box, and I'd've gotten a less poisonous glare if I'd been checking out some collegiate cutie in a too-small t-shirt. I hastily put it back.
If it was a little gem called "Escape Velocity: Nova" it really is a fun game, its not a MMORPG... it is in fact a single player, offline game. The game's universe is so vast and richly detailed that it puts some campaign's I've played or run to shame.
If someone could make a MMORPG that felt like this, well, then I think I could fall for the genre.
I still have EV:N on my machine. Not what I'd call well-written dialogue, but the game itself is brilliant.
No, this was a true MMORPG. Damned if I can think of the name of it.
I dunno... The dialogue reminds me of Star Wars, ST: Voyager or a half-dozen table top sci-fi RPGs. Oh, yeah, I see what you mean.
My biggest complaint with the writing in EV:N (notice how we've completely hijacked this thread away from poor Morbus' topic) is that, in several places, the writer(s) tell you what your character feels. Don't do that; tell me what the events are. I'll decide how my character reacts.
In an effort to make an on-topic reply:
My reflexes are terrible. I prefer any turn-based computer RPG to any reflex-based one, because I am incompetent with a controller/mouse/joystick/what-have-you. If I were to participate in a game where my reflexes determined how well or poorly my fighter performed vs. other fighters with the same stat block, I'd be disappointed at least and probably too annoyed to continue playing.
Heh! Yeah, MMORPGs never appealed to me either. I played City of Heroes for maybe two months.
There are two big problems in my book: First, I despise the sort of players that make up the bulk of the player base. As a lover of roleplay and character depth, the "OMG Blaster 13 LFG!!1" crowd practically makes me physically ill. Second, I have a limited number of hours in a week to play video games, and I prefer a game that has a definite end. I love working my way through a game's story, so if I'm going to invest 60 hours in a game I want to be engaged by the characters and drawn into the plot, not kill my 5,782nd goblin.
But that's just me.
*coughStar Control 2cough* :>
60 hours? I'm up to 150+ on World of Warcraft, and I'm a mere level 38.
I agree, but it's because I love to plan strategies and tactics. In my book, X-Com was one of the best games ever created! I think Temple of Elemental Evil showed just how well a turn-based system can work in a D&D-based game. (Granted, it's a natural combination, but I mean as opposed to games in the Diablo style.)
And that's even if you're attentive. Most of the time, you say "attack" and your character fights automatically for you. I dunno about you, but I gotta eat, piss, play with my cats, clean up the drink I just spilled, check email, kiss the girlfriend, and pay the delivery driver. If my character is going to die because his +5 attack bonus is based on my complete and devoted attention to mouse clicking, well, crap, I'm gonna be a bard with a wireless mic or sumthin' sumthin'.
The problem with Computer RPGs is that they've been misnamed since the dawn of time. You never actually play a role, there is no acting or adoption of a full persona. They're labeled RPGs because they have the outward trappings, and often settings, of pen-and-paper games. But you never actually role play.
I'm willing to let that slide, actually, as when I fire up my PC I am looking for an escape that is slightly less mindless than TV. Most CRPGs are more like interactive novels, some better written than others. The characters explore, interact, and fight in a world of the author's creation, their personalities and personas were also created by that author. The player just turns the page... [i]Final Fantasy III (aka VI), FF:Tactics, Fallout, Xenogears, Deus Ex,[/i] are all great examples of this interactive novel style.
However, where MMORPGs fail and offline CRPGS normally excel, is in that there is a story. There are goals. Things do change. D&D Online sounds like it will be solving a number of problems I have with MMOs: My freinds and I can play without interuption from outsiders; No line of people in the Abyss awaiting the 8:15 spawning of Tiamat; and it's making allowances for quest driven play from the start. I actually think the real-time combat would be a boon, but that the designer worded it poorly in the interveiw.
If only it wasn't set in Eberron (the first offical campaign I've ever dispised more than the Realms). I might actually have given this one a go, I'll be sticking with Ragnarok Online until something better comes along.
---
Hello!!! I am only joke. Goodbye! Do not forget to *enjoy the sauce*!
"I am looking for an escape that is slightly less mindless than TV."
Heh... that's what the old Doom in god-mode was for. I eased a lot of hours of stress from work by trudging through and blasting everything I came across with the rocket launcher (even at point-blank range).
My problem with MMORPGs are those people who have waaaaaay too much time on their hands. I still have memories of Ultima:Online, where players just hacked your body up for the hell of it. I'm not paying my hard earned dough on a monthly subscription to a game where I will probably have to start a PC from scratch almost everytime I play.
I'm not into MMORPGS for a slew of reasons:
1. Between subscription fees and the out of box price, I need ajob bfore this even sounds like a good idea.
2. From what I hear, a nice dude like me would killed by another player in five minutes.
3. Even with high-speed, I'd still end up taking twenty minutes to open a door on my poor, worn-out notebook.
4. I'd like to at least have some chance of a plot.
5. BBS games are funner anyhow.
As for Morbus' point, this is the definition of a very bad idea. WE ae beginning to turn MMORPGS into twitch games. I'm not a twitch gamer. When I feel like twitchy slugfest, I'll play Twisted Metal or HALO at my friends house. I like strategy and evil plans, which is why I'm an RPG/strategy guy. When I want to twitch, I get out my fighting games.
It used to be true that MMORPGs were for people with too much time on their hands, but this has changed significantly in the last 2 years with the release of City of Heroes and, more specifically, World of Warcraft.
Many people playing both these games, specifically Warcraft, have not played a MMORPG before. Unless you are on a PvP server you can ignore the PvP hijinks totally and just get on with playing the game. The death penalties are also none existent.
I can also assure you, I don't dedicate my life to it. The time thing is a bit of an old argument, it demands no more time to enjoy than any other game.
Your examples consist of 3 console RPGs, a CRPG (C = computer) and Deus Ex, which is sort of a hybrid between the two. What you say is true of console RPGs pretty much all the time, but there are plenty of CRPGs where roleplaying does exist, at least to some extent. Take the Baldur's Gate games, or KotOR, or Planescape: Torment (one of my personal favorite games of all time). There is most certainly roleplaying going on in these games. Not to the extent of what you can have with a group of people around a table, of course, but it is there. And as AI improves, we'll (hopefully) see games with even deeper RP elements.
Don't forget that you can get more RPing done in Final Fantasy I than at some GM's tables.
And what's worng with Eberron? Personally, I feel that the setting rewards less hacking and more thinking and interacting non-violently. And you have to admit, a Hobgoblin state isn't a terribly far fetched idea...
Yeah, MMORPGS are just bad news. If you want to play role-play online, use screen-monkey or webrpg or something like that.
BASH! Basic Action Super Heroes!
http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=4657&