Take a look in www.ragnarokonline.com . Is a FREE online game, but it is lack of quest.

I think the future of RPG may be :
"online missions for easy levels, and multiplayer missions for hard task". For example, a FF7/8 when you are in a quest is a single missions, but when you reach a big-boss, you can choice to go single or "recluit" a multiplayers for kill the boss.



-----------------------------------------------

"Cuando se es peon, la unica salida es la revolución"

The only thing that would fix MMORPGS (and I know you all agree with me deep down inside) is if people acted human.

If I wanted to buy a drink from the bartender, I would walk up to him and talk to him. Nowadays, he would be a stupid NPC that only knows a few commands, But if MMORPG''s were perfect, it wouldn''t be an NPC, it would be a real player.

Now, think in those terms: No NPC''s, all are people. This creates a realistic world, were there are treachorous people who love to take over towns (when they can get online) and good-hearted paladins and clerics who always like to stop them.

PROBLEM! No one would sit and play this game all day. If everyone would play an MMORPG all day, with no NPC''s, you would have a real world, in a sense.

But people don''t want to do this, so games are forced to add stupid NPC''s which ruin the whole thing (sometimes).

The only NPC that I ever liked was that little twirp in Diablo, who would say something along the lines of "Hey, you wanna see what I got?" and you''d pay him and he''d show you a dagger...

Anyway, I had an idea once: Program an entire continent, full of Interacting people, (like three people own a tavern, some blacksmiths can build you a sword) and stick a bunch of people in there, but limit the amount. Have objectives that DONT keep coming back, like have this whole world of ideas that you can stick in there: Wizards want rings, goblins attack towns...

Then I realized that this would be impossible to create. A ''real'' world only exists in reality, and games cannot incorporate RP enough to make it fun (IMO).

The only RP game that I have had a lot of fun with was D&D, but even then waiting for your turn in a large party can be annoying, that''s why I started an online D&D club, where we go into a chat room and play it out. (very fun)

You almost need paid, professional GMs.

And thats what I do with the online games that I host.. Only I don''t get paid, I do it because HCRPGers need to stick together...

And hey, I think that those of us who are replying to this should get together and design a kick-ass rpg... Whether table-top, mud, whatever.. we might as well..

Anyone can contact me via email...

email: icer@dog.com

~dwarf

Yes, the quest system in Anarchy Online was flawed in that it essentially turned the game into a single-player/small-group game and since all of the quests were very similar (I think there were four general quest types: kill this person, retrieve this item, follow this person, repair this radar station). However, I still think a dynamic quest system is the way to go with MMRPGs, and AO''s quest system would have been a lot better if it had taken the state of the world and the players into account when handing out quests.

What AO had was a system that could generate free-standing single-session adventures involving one or a small group of players. What I think would be needed to revolutionize the notion of quest systems is a system that can generate dynamic campaigns of coherent adventures, dynamic in the sense that the actions of the people in the world affect the direction of the campaign and the nature of the individual adventures (unlike EQ''s or DAoC''s epic quests that are totally static).

Now, the ultimate goal would probably be to make the worlds dynamic enough to rid the games of quest systems altogether, but I welcome every small step in that direction. Currently it seems to me like Shadowbane has the best chance of evolving the genre, if it ever gets released.

Henry

quote: compare the role-playingness of Everquest to Final Fantasy 7, or even FF6 or 9.

This is the crap that fascinates me. FF? These games have about as much role-playing about them as watching a movie does. Sure, you control the movement and the actions, but the entire plot is basically written in stone from the beginning of the game until you kill the main boss.

If anything there is MORE true role-playing about EQ than there is about the FF games. Sure, there isn''t role-playing enforcement, but you can actually choose what you do from beginning to end. No predetermined plot. Free form. If you don''t role-play in EQ, don''t blame it on the game, it''s your own fault.

I am, like so many others, a wannabe MMORPG designer/implementor. I have also thought about what may bring some RP into MMORPG/PIGs.

With the current crop of games (DAOC, EQ, AC), the play-experience is dominated by levelling. It is the primary purpose of the game. Questing, RP''ing, tradeskills, etc. take a secondary place to this goal. Why?

My theory is that these games are not entertaining enough in themselves. This shifts the focus to levelling, for a variety of reasons, which I shall not delve into here.

Because the games are primarily about levelling, the designers have made it hard/time-consuming to level. If this was not so, people would ''complete'' the game too easily. If you could reach level 60 in EQ in a week of playing, then what fun would there be? Not much, most would agree. This is because the game is not fun in itself - the levelling part is what matters.

This creates a game based on the famous ''levelling threadmill''. Gaining experience is hard and/or time-consuming. Dedication of large amounts of time is necessary to advance towards the goal of having a high level character.

This in turn, is the primary reason that permadeath is not a part of any of the current games. Death is common in these games - which is inevitable in any threadmill-based game. Players will not accept losing the time they have dedicated towards levelling. It is in a fact a ''savegame'' like feature. Imagine single-player RPG''s without a save feature. Would they be playable? Fun?

In order to encourage RP, and bring the fun back to a genre plagued by the ''threadmill'', a number of things are necessary:

1) Players must be able to influence the world. This creates a reason for playing apart from levelling. DAOC touches lightly upon this with its RvR and keeps/relics - but does not go far enough. If players feel they can influence the gameworld, they will play in completely different way than if they are just gaining experience in a static sandbox world.

2) Quests/tasks/etc must be worth doing within the framework of the game. Ie in the current games, many quests are not worth doing because the reward for doing them is too low compared to the investment of time made. A better return on investment of time is gained by just killing random monster spawns. There is no inherent fun in most quests, as they are often poorly designed, generic. Spoiler sites don''t help either. Dynamic quests would definitely help make quests more worthwhile. AO and DAOC have touched upon this lightly (with random mission and tasks, respectively). Linked dynamic quests and player-created quests would also help a great deal.

3) This is the most extreme of my proposals: I believe that a combination of fast levelling (compared to the current games) and permadeath, perhaps coupled with some form of PvP, would give maximum incentive to roleplay. If some of the focus is taken off leveling and instead directed towards staying alive, a more vibrant world is created. Faster levelling removes (or alleviates) the problem of losing invested time.

I think have ranted enough for this time. I may elaborate later, but this should provide some basis for discussion. At the very least, it is one suggestion for bringing more RP into the genre.

Roleplaying and computer games don''t mix...

If you want to live to see a computer game that slightly reaches the depth that face-to-face roleplaying games reach, you should probably start saving to have your body frozen in ice for a few decades at the very least... perhaps even a few centuries.

The fun part of roleplaying is... you can do just about anything you can come up with, and that very fact makes a player think up creative things. (it''s up to the DM and sometimes up to some dice to determine how effective the creative solution is)

The thing about computer games is... well, everything has to be programmed. There is no room for real creativity. Every possible idea you come up with has to have come up in the designer''s head as well. And each of those ideas has to be programmed into the game. Only then will you be able to execute your plan. The more choices a game offers, the more it will achieve roleplay-like qualities.

Sure there are face-to-face roleplaying sessions (depends on type of players) that are mostly hack''n''slash anyway, and yes, computer games are more than capable (maybe even perfectly suited) of simulating a fight. It can easily take over the rolling of the dice, it can graphically display the combat and it can even take over the parts of NPC characters.

In my opinion, computer games are good for only a small aspect of roleplaying - the combat aspect.

In my opinion, computer games shouldn''t try to be more than they can, but instead excel at what they do well - the combat aspect.

I think one of the good things about a computer is that it is always there for a player. You don''t have to call your friends, drive over, etc before you can play a game. The computer is there, all you have to do is log on and you have thousands of people to play with.

So... instead of endlessly debating how to create a perfect roleplaying game, I say, instead, debate how to create a perfect fully combat-oriented, multiplayer, roleplay-flavored game.

I agree with Galroc, there are so many aspects of combat and role playin that havent been touched on yet. And we definatly have to get the focus off of combat. It makes it less fun, and the classes lose there integrity.

I have to disagree with Silvermyst. Although programming combat is easier than programming role playing, that doesnt mean it shouldnt be focus on. Especially if you are going to create what will be called a Massivly Multiplayer Online ROLE PLAYING Game. It wont be easy, i agree. But it can be done. Here are some features that would help ou implement this.

1. GMs who actually play the game as good and bad characters
2. SMART intelligence that can read and calculate any command input (Quest for Glory 1 did this in 1985)
3. A database of NPC responses so interaction with NPCs can sound authentic, and not generic.
4. Game features that pit players against each other in a more creative way (not just RvR)


If I elaborate any more Ill be giving away parts of my own game. To make a long story short, it can be done

Silvermyst -

Actully, there is one possible solution for the problem with designers needing to think of every idea first. Create an AMAZING physics engine. Then let the players have total control of their characters (ex...I want to swing my arm as hard as I can in this direction). So, basically with that, the programmers would make a huge ammount of pre-made things (walking, running, eating, ect..), but if a player wanted to do something unorthodix (maybe, dig a hole in the earth), then they just click a button telling the client they want total control, pick up the shouvel, click on the arm and have it drive into the earth (maybe make a program where you can make your own animations when your not in the game so you don''t need to move so many body parts)

Then when you do that, the physics engine would calculate the shouvels force, density, shape...the grounds density...and blammo, you pick up 3 pounds of dirt.


The only problem I can think of is it would be much like real life were a lot of things are not done just because they require so much man-power/time (ex: dig a hole to the center of the earth). and when they are done...they are slow and boring. (which, is just like real life I guess)