I don't think it would work commercially, but I'd really like to see an idea like this coupled with some sort of external threat to the player civiization. So you have some encroaching evil menace that steadily conquers human cities and all the cities are conquered then the server is finished, everyone loses their character. However if the players can organise themselves and rally around a leader they can develop their economies,raise armies and work together to hold back the tide. Whereas if they spend all their time ganking each other and squabbling then nothing gets done and everyone loses.

Original post by: Griffin_Kemp

Quote:

Simulators, such as Second Life, are not the same thing as an MMORPG remotely.

RPGs are not only about killing monsters and taking their loot. This has established its self as typical in cRPGs, but it is by no means essential for cRPGs (there are cRPGs out there that are not about killing monster and taking their loot - for instance "Sword of the Samurai").

In second life, there is many places where you "Role Play" without monsters, without NPCs, and without predefined quests. What you do is pretend to be a certain type of character and from those characters and the scenario (setting) players themselves make up quests. There are even game rules for when disputes arise (there are some real life LARP games like this too)

These work quite well and disprove your claim that they can't work (as they clearly do).

Second life, as it is, is not really an RPG. But, when players are allowed to add in their own rules, which don't have to be implemented by the program and can be just handled by the text chat functionality of the program, then Role Playing can occur.

So simulators, with communications channels (which is a necessary part of these kinds of programs) can work as an RPG, just not the typical slay-the-monster-rob-the-tomb types games that are taken to be the standard (which it isn't, they are just the popular ones that the gaming community brought up on games of kill-everything-that-moves arcade style games can relate to more).

You are working off a limited data set (ie one that has not had much experience with games that allow proper Role Playing) and therefore have reached an incorrect conclusion.

There are many roleplaying games out there that are far more flexible than game like Neverwinter Nights, or World of Warcraft. These are typically called Role Playing games, but for those of us that like to have a game where one can properly role play, these are a completely different genre to the actual games that allow roleplaying.

Most of these "Games" would be viewed by most "Gamers" as glorified chat programs, but they have all the necessary parts to be called a game (they implement a set of rules and players). Some have provisions for combat, most (but not all) have provisions for NPCs (usually implemented as secondary character's that a player can jump into as needed and this is typically - but not always - reserved for a Game Master player). Some of these games don't even have any Game Master in control of the game (there are pen and paper RPGs that have no Game Maser either - but these are typically indi games and can be quite good fun too).

But all that said, the market is small and there are many open source or free versions of this type of game software (Map Tools is one such example - although it is designed more as an extension to Table top gaming, but is intended for use over the internet when getting a group together in RL is difficult) so this all makes commercial versions unlikely to be successful.

So although I do disagree (based on the fact there there is direct evidence against it) with your premises, I do however agree (for completely different reasons) with your conclusions: That they will be fun to play (for a small niche of players) but that they wont be a commercial success because of that small market and that there are many free versions out there already.

Quote:

RPGs are not only about killing monsters and taking their loot.

I didn't intend to suggest that they must be.
There are plenty of paper RPG's out there that have neither of these concepts.
One such example is, Toon, an RPG where players adopt the roles of cartoon characters.

However, my point was that the difference between a simulator environment and a game environment comes down to the intent of the design.

One is designed to be a game and one is designed to be an experience.

As such, you will find it very difficult to successfully sell a game of role playing to players looking for a role playing game if that game is lacking in non-playing characters and quests or missions.

This has little to do with killing and taking items.
This, instead, has to do with the basic function of obstacles encouraging team play in a game environment with that understanding.

Non-playing characters are easier to forfeit to some level (see star wars galaxies for examples of minimal npc use), but removing quests or missions pretty much kills the entire game part of the system.

All of that said...as I said, that is unless you build from the ground up radically different than MMORPG's are built today.

I personally have never played an MMORPG, so I don't know exactly how they work at all. But yeah, like Griffin_kemp said, I think the game would have to be completely different from other games out there. There would have to be various tools provided to help the players be able to cooperate, and to encourage teamwork and not just random ganking. Like for example, to help encourage people to enlist the help of others, there could be some kind of "town board" or something where people can list tasks they need done and the reward offered for completion of those tasks. And there would probably have to be some kind of system in place to help other players identify people who are just going around killing people for no reason. Just to identify them though - it should be up to other players to decide what to do about it.

I guess I am really talking more about a medieval fantasy life simulator than an MMORPG. Kind of like an online version of Mount and Blade in its open endedness, just with more content and options. Although that game did have elements of what I'm talking about - for example, you didn't even have to fight if you didn't want to. You could just go around trading things and trying to make money instead if you chose to.

i think second life can do this

After randomly googling stuff today, I found 2 (possibly) upcoming MMOs that look like they have elements of what I'm talking about. Darkfall, and Mortal Online. Problem is, there's a strong possibility they will either suck or never come out, from what I've read.

Darkfall is out now. It's not bad, but suffers from lawlessness. Why go out and hunt monsters for loot when it's quicker and easier to grab a few friends and kill the newbies for loot?

Without any "in-game" laws, it's pretty much just a huge game of quake deathmatch with swords.

I've no problem living in a lawless world with a risk of death from other players, and them taking all my loot - but when every player I meet trys killing me, it get boring after a while...

Mortal online is supposed to be released this year I think, and seems to have a bit more structure to it. In game laws, guards in towns, and still full loot and open PvP, so should be fun, and less chaotic than darkfall. It's the MMO i'm waiting on anyway.

Quote:

Original post by DaveMS Darkfall is out now. It's not bad, but suffers from lawlessness. Why go out and hunt monsters for loot when it's quicker and easier to grab a few friends and kill the newbies for loot?

I reiterate:

Quote:

Original post by Griffin_Kemp ...Now. After they are done with that, then tell them there's a new game. For every ball they collect, they get 2 dollars. That's it. Now go. You will immediately see teamwork go out the window and you will also see no one trading with each other for anything. This is pretty much what tends to happen in a free for all player only RPG.

Quote:

Original post by Griffin_Kemp Quote: RPGs are not only about killing monsters and taking their loot. I didn't intend to suggest that they must be. There are plenty of paper RPG's out there that have neither of these concepts. One such example is, Toon, an RPG where players adopt the roles of cartoon characters. However, my point was that the difference between a simulator environment and a game environment comes down to the intent of the design. One is designed to be a game and one is designed to be an experience. As such, you will find it very difficult to successfully sell a game of role playing to players looking for a role playing game if that game is lacking in non-playing characters and quests or missions. This has little to do with killing and taking items. This, instead, has to do with the basic function of obstacles encouraging team play in a game environment with that understanding. Non-playing characters are easier to forfeit to some level (see star wars galaxies for examples of minimal npc use), but removing quests or missions pretty much kills the entire game part of the system. All of that said...as I said, that is unless you build from the ground up radically different than MMORPG's are built today.

I was disagreeing with the claim that Second Life is nothing like an RPG. If we are going to get into an argument about the intentions of the game designer vs how a player uses the game, then we will just go around in circles.

As far as I am concerned, the intent of the designer is not important. They will try to impose an intent for play on the player, but it is the intent of the player that is far more important. IF the player does something in the game they consider as playing the game, whether it was the intent of the designer or not, then I consider that as still playing the game.

So, in Second Life, even though the intent of the designers was not to create a role playing game, if the players use it as such, then as far as I am concerned, they are role playing.

In the case of Second life, the players are using the "game" mechanics of designing and dressing an avatar, scripting behaviours of objects and using communication channels to play a role playing game, then these players are using the game to role play (as everything they have done has been within the scope of the game and the tools it provides). There is nothing externally imposed by the players (no meta rules that are not within the game engine and applied only by player consent).

To argue against these, you would also have to argue that Neverwinter Nights is not anything like a role playing game because in NwN, players have the scope to do all of these things. You can designing and dressing an avatar, scripting the behaviours of objects and using communication channels to communicate. I ahve played a NwN game where there was no pre-set quests, no NPC and no monsters. All it was, was a series of vendors with which you could buy and mod equipment and clothing to set the appearance of your avatar, and then a series of locations to set the scenes (throne room, audience chambers, etc). The only thing that was pre-set was that the king had died (in his sleep), and we didn't have to even worry about that because the game was about the interactions of your character following that event. You could be crowned king, but that had no real impact on the roleplaying other than as your social levle in the group. We didn't even use any of the D&D rules.

If you deny that Second Life is capable of being a roleplaying game, then you must also deny that Neverwinter Nights is a role playing game as both were used in exactly the same way and most people I think would consider what was done in Neverwinter Nights role playing.

Quote:

Original post by Somnia I don't think it would work commercially, but I'd really like to see an idea like this coupled with some sort of external threat to the player civiization. So you have some encroaching evil menace that steadily conquers human cities and all the cities are conquered then the server is finished, everyone loses their character. However if the players can organise themselves and rally around a leader they can develop their economies,raise armies and work together to hold back the tide. Whereas if they spend all their time ganking each other and squabbling then nothing gets done and everyone loses.

This actually sounds like an incredibly great idea. it would really promote player coop when there is the potential of a semi-real-world loss such as player destruction (server reset). Mind you, you would probably lose a great deal of your player base AFTER the world reset, which is emminent. But if you tied world resets with new versions of the game, it may be commercially feasable. In addition, a game like this would probably spread quickly via word of mouth, as players would be encouraging their friends to play in order to keep their hard-earned player alive and well.

I suppose you could help make this "fathomable" by adding the old "points" scheme to the game. After a reset you grant the players a number of points based on completed quests, loot gained, experiance, etc, which they can then use to choose special classes or items to have at the start of the next game. And while the reset would likely discourage many long-time players, it would most likely bring in additional new players who dislike the fact that starting an mmorpg sticks them WAY behind other players.