Role-Player's RPG Roundtable #5: Take that RPG out of my MMO

This is the fifth thread in a series about discussions on roleplaying. The first dealt with characters and roleplaying; the second discussed class and skill-based systems; the third reflected on character creation; and the fourth delved in concepts and appraisals of sentient weapons.

Today I found myself willing to try something slightly different, even with the little time I have, so this is the first in the series which will try, as the title may suggest, to be about the concept of roleplaying in MMORPGs and more especifically about how roleplaying may or may not translate well into online environments.

Two articles about online games and their intrincancies nudged me into this direction. One was an article from The Escapist which cleverly addressed the problems in trying to bring a tabletop experience into CRPGs; the other was a 4 page article I recently stumbled on at the Obsidian board which refered to an incident in EVE Online (the article can be found here, here, here, and here).


I briefly stated what I felt about it:

Role-Player said:

There never really is a way, wheter these situations take place in a real or virtual environment. I think this is one of the main problems with the concept of role-playing, more specifically with keeping in character, when it comes to computer RPGs. It's hard for gamers to convince others they're roleplaying a space pirate or similar archetypes when their actions can be easilly deemed as being against the game or metagaming.

To me this situation in EVE Online is a great example of a group of gamers roleplaying their characters in the virtual gameworld. From their motivations, to their tactics, to the whole Ubiqua Seraph situation - all of it just feels like they are dedicated gamers and can deal with this kind of things. While it was no doubt disastrous for players on the receiving end of the well coordinated attack, would there be as much complaints if this act by the Guiding Hand Social Club was instead played out by NPCs in an add-on developed by EVE's developers? Would it be considered cheating or despicable then? It feels like a contradiction - it's a game genre that perhaps allows for the most organic changes made by players, but most gamers tend to frown on such changes. They want to activelly change the gameworld but are afraid of what those changes may mean to them.

The whole problem is that unofficial means of communication (such as forum messaging, private chats or channels, emails) and unwritten game rules allow for this kind of situation to rise. As an example, when I have the time I play a certain MMORPG. No point in naming it, though it's basically centered around building our own empires, mine resources and train out armies to eventually become king cheese. One of the things several players do is set up personal forums for alliances. In those forums players exchange information about other players' soldiers and spy offense and defense, their gold per turn, miners, wheter these players belong to the alliance or not. This is metagaming, insofar as sharing information about users who are not part of the alliance (and therefore never consented to having their stats displayed) and about users whose offense and defense is too high for certain users to fight against.

So basically I can log in a given alliance forum, be nice, scoop up information then find myself using it for personal gains, or for alliance coordinated attacks. I may even build a spy network to infiltrate and undermine a fellow alliance member's fortification and armies based on information he gives me (though I'd have to be careful not to be exposed). I assume a scenario where I actually sell information about other players' status would also be possible ("sell" in terms of ingame monetary resources, not real life currency). I am not aware if such things are done but I wouldn't be surprised. That would have certainly explained all the spy attacks I received after exposing my statistics to fellow alliance members; someone could be playing double agent.

The thing is, these situations are considered to be morally reprehensible simply because they are being done outside the field of the game. Nothing prevents players from establishing alliances and communicate between themselves and set up attacks or somesuch; but all else can be dubbed metagaming. But just where does it begin and where does it end? How do we let everyone know that player A is a metagamer and player B is roleplaying a double agent? Perhaps more importantly, how do we make every other player understand and play along with the differences, to make them sacrifice themselves for a given idea of roleplaying and of virtual co-existence?

It seems to me that the more one tries to put the RPG back into MMORPG the more hassle one finds.

Click to expand...

Metadigital, one of the more intelligent posters at the Obsidian forums, and always a pleasure to talk to, questioned me:

metadigital said:

1. How is this any different from every single group attempting to establish a secure channel for intelligence? The WW2 Germans and their Enigma code machines: were they meta-gaming? I think it is not so unacceptable to have secure channels; after all, if the characters were of the virtual world, there would be other means to facilitate their communications, such as scraps of paper under the counter of the local greasy spoon, or a want ad in the local newspaper.

2. Isn't this just garden-variety espionage? Nowhere near as clever as Harold Adrian Russell (Kim) Philby (Aside: ...In 1988 Philby consented to a week-long interview with The Sunday Times, in which he justified his treachery to his native country by saying that when he made his commitment to the KGB, he believed that the western democracies were too weak to resist the rise of Fascism in Europe and that only the Soviet Union would be able to defeat it. ...)

3. I don't find it morally reprehensible. And I would go further with your example: how do we really differentiate between the "meta-gamer" and the "role-playing double agent" ...

Click to expand...

To which I answered:

Role-Player said:

1. By unofficial means of communication I mean communication that is based and takes place outside the confines of the virtual gameworld. To me the one, main difference that stands between the Germans' transmission of codes trough secret channels and the situation in EVE Online is that the second was dealt with in two different worlds, the real and virtual ones. In the Germans' case there was no kind of fallback, no secondary world where they could get an advantage, or plan one, nor where they could contemplate and operate reality from afar in some substantially different world. No German could log off reality, ask someone what would be the best strategy against his enemies or read a walktrough on how to beat them, then log in again and use that knowledge to succeed, or outright win the game. I think for both situations to be the same, or comparable, I reckon it would be necessary that there existed a second world, and that one of them allowed for the acquisition and use of information that was not subject to the same rules as the 'main' world.

Secure channels may be acceptable, and perhaps even necessary, but I think they should be used strictly inside the virtual gameworld. This isn't a failproof method to prevent metagaming but it seems like a way to ensure that any communication, public or private, pertaining to the game remains in the game, not outside. PMs, whispering to a given player, or assembly points exclusively made for, and used by, alliance members come to mind. Without wanting to suggest a 1984esque situation, the logs of conversations in those three channels could be monitored for any metagaming activities that would be considered seriously damaging to the game and gamers; system admins could deal with those situations afterwards.


2. It was an intricate job, and I admire the level of commitment and hard work they went trough in regards to the game component; it would have been a long, arduous but brilliant campaign for able roleplayers to participate in. But this was also brought down by the apparent befriending of players in real life. Seems a clear case of meta and standard gaming that I don't particularly support. Interactions outside the game should not influence interactions inside the game. Not to this point at least. Meta garden-variety espionage.


3. Several players do, and I find myself divided but it's mostly a case by case basis. When one is part of the ranks of an alliance there are some assets one can gain access to. Extra citizens, money and information. These are part of the rules and are also a given between a group of players who willingly participate in an alliance. The information however, is a mixed bag. No doubt nothing would prevent someone from telling me someone else's fortification defense values, or army offense ratings for example, especially if they had encountered them in battle or spied them... But that is acceptable when done in the game. When you have people posting lists of their 'farms' (other players who are recurringly attacked and robbed of their resources multiple times) along with their status in some forum, this questions the use and morality of information. You already can access this info within the game trough your own work; is it really justified to expose enemy strenghts and weaknesses to others outside of the game, and let them be easilly obtainable with close to no effort on behalf of players? Personally I am not in favor of this.


Well, the quick, obvious answer to your question is 'we ask them' but that doesn't always work. A player's motivations are what in turn defines a character's motivations. The problem as we seem to agree comes from guessing these motivations and expect the rest of the gameworld and its virtual inhabitants play along with them. Admitedly I have no ideas that would solve this problem. At first glance the best step forward in achieving this would be to have all the players consciously abide to a code of conduct - not all too dissimilar from the codes of conduct I've abided to in distant P&P sessions - that would have all players agree to roleplay and to do as little metagaming as possible (the cases of enforced roleplaying I've seen in some Neverwinter Nights servers springs to mind), but this is too optimistic and can't account for all possible permutations where gaming and metagaming intertwine. For the most part it seems we're stuck with dealing with these situations and behaviours as it's seemingly impossible to fully police these activities at this moment.

Click to expand...

We then proceeded to mate in the ocean like two horny salmons to the sound of John Tesh's mystical tunes, sponsored by a setting sun. Or not.

In any case, the basic premise for this post is to simply ask what are your opinions on this? Should there be a heavy handed regulation for such times when gaming and metagaming become blurred? Or should it be a free for all fest? What do you feel could be done to bring actual roleplaying into MMORPGs, or how to make it have a more pronounced role? Or are you of the opinion that in computer RPGs this is largely impossible and each game should have its own self-regulation methods?

What is the main example you are using? Getting infomation found outside the game?

Make "real" infomation from inside the game mean something. Secret info would an in-game item that could give bonuses to attack. If you know an attack is coming from a forum your character in game should never be more prepared unless you have an in-game scout find out and let people prepare for the attack.

Also add alot of flux to the game so info on boards is always outdated.

Add perm-death, and perm avatar in game world (played by AI when not logged in). So now if you betray a group you can't vanish and avoid punishment.

In any case, the basic premise for this post is to simply ask what are your opinions on this? Should there be a heavy handed regulation for such times when gaming and metagaming become blurred? Or should it be a free for all fest? What do you feel could be done to bring actual roleplaying into MMORPGs, or how to make it have a more pronounced role? Or are you of the opinion that in computer RPGs this is largely impossible and each game should have its own self-regulation methods?

Click to expand...

I think it should be a free-for-all fest just for the simple fact that it would be difficult to regulate metagaming. There is always going to be a grey area and few outright examples of metagaming.

Instead I think the developer should concentrate instead to facilitate spying on another alliance. HS brings up a good example that spying in-game would yield an in-game item that would boost the attackers power. Here are a couple of examples I can think of:

A spy is inserted into a castle that is going to be attacked in the near future. The spy examines the structure of the castle and finds a weak spot, which he writes down in a parchment. He then delivers this parchment to his true alliance. The leader of the alliance can use this parchment to give his siege engines a +% attack power against that specific castle.

A spy enters an encampment and finds out that there is a hoard of treasure that is randomly moved around in the camp. The spy marks down where the treasure is, or puts a bug on it, and delivers the parchment to his commander. The commander uses up the game item and locates where the treasure chest is, now wasting less time looking for the chest and thus reducing losses on his end.

I'm not sure if I understood the question, all I remembered after reading rp's post was him and metadigital mating in the ocean.

But you meant some people wanting to roleplay their characters while the game doesn't force you right ? I don't think game developers should force it or try to take it way, but to give it optional for those who want it. This way the game remains fun for all kinds of players. For example they have separate roleplaying servers in WoW for those who want to play their character and cyber.

Remember not every people want to actually roleplay their character to the fullest. That's why it shouldn't be forced. Others want to just dungeon crawl or play the game itself as it is. Even ye olde DnD is combat system made for dungeon crawl instead of home theater (~ LARP).

Oh and just out of curiousity, rp when did you start playing MMOs ? I have picture in mind most of them are more or less like action rpgs with co-operative play (excluding games like EVE). Similarly this topic could be about action rpgs and roleplaying character in Diablo2/Sacred/etc co-op via multiplayer. I remember myself (and devs too saying in interviews) doing some metagaming in head in IWD2 when my group lacked real ingame backgrounds and personalities. I hope I answered the right question.

I think MMORPGs and CRPGs could take tips from each other for sure.

MMORPGs need real actual roleplaying in their style, quests, journals, character abilities and classes. Instead its just straight spreadsheet stuff.

CPRGs that are real-time could take tips from MMORPGs on how real-time combat is. Also 3D CRPGs could use worlds with sizes of MMORPGs.

I think a true roleplaying CRPG with the look and size of an MMORPG, while keeping the real RPG stuff, could be very good. Sorta like Gothic 2, except bigger and better.

Gothic with an MMORPG's combat would be pretty nice (namely DAoC's).

If the game lets you do it, it is role playing. The problem is that no reaction is coded into the game, so while being a jerk in Fallout hurt your rep and effected karma, in MMORPGs nothing is tracked and noone cares.

"Roleplaying" servers are just shit, talking the right way means jack if the game doesn't respond to anything.

I would support player-2-player dialog trees for making deals and introductions.

Surlent said:

I don't think game developers should force it or try to take it way, but to give it optional for those who want it. This way the game remains fun for all kinds of players. For example they have separate roleplaying servers in WoW for those who want to play their character and cyber.

Click to expand...

Separate servers seems to be a step in helping roleplaying environments flourish in MMORPGs, even if not an optimal solution.

Remember not every people want to actually roleplay their character to the fullest. That's why it shouldn't be forced. Others want to just dungeon crawl or play the game itself as it is. Even ye olde DnD is combat system made for dungeon crawl instead of home theater (~ LARP).

Click to expand...

I think this is puzzling to me because there is a background question that keeps coming to my mind - who wouldn't want to roleplay in an RPG? I suspect the transition into a more simplified gameworld (when compared to what is possible to create in pen and paper) and the focus on staples of the RPG as a videogame genre (combat, dungeon crawling, statistical management) contributed to most players looking at it in a different way and having different expectations. I don't particularly support that the rules or expectations be suddenly and drastically changed for the MMORPG genre because unfortunately much as the concept lends itself to a richer roleplaying background, proper roleplayers seem to dwindle and are very few when compared to the many *Cl0uD0899 ^_^*, [[KREATOR_RULEz!]], and <<grllllpowahprinces1985>>.

However changes could be made, at least when it comes to roleplaying servers.

Oh and just out of curiousity, rp when did you start playing MMOs ? I have picture in mind most of them are more or less like action rpgs with co-operative play (excluding games like EVE).

Click to expand...

I'm playing Dark Throne which isn't a MMORPG like EVE or WoW but I think shares enough similarities to other more prominent games of the genre to warrant the same classification.

And yes, I am definitely more into singleplayer CRPGs and even can be found playing some action RPG. The reason I'm playing Dark Throne is because it's a fairly simple game, easy to learn (hard to master), it's a nice diversion from my usually long work days, and since my computer isn't very game-friendly at this point it's a game I can play that doesn't require nearly any CPU usage.

Similarly this topic could be about action rpgs and roleplaying character in Diablo2/Sacred/etc co-op via multiplayer. I remember myself (and devs too saying in interviews) doing some metagaming in head in IWD2 when my group lacked real ingame backgrounds and personalities. I hope I answered the right question.

Click to expand...

True, it could go that way. People are free to discuss that as well if they want.

Human Shield said:

If the game lets you do it, it is role playing. The problem is that no reaction is coded into the game, so while being a jerk in Fallout hurt your rep and effected karma, in MMORPGs nothing is tracked and noone cares.

Click to expand...

Part of the problem, I think. When it's mostly or all left to player's discretions the system seems to eat itself and crumble, or create a sort of stasis where they just keep afloat. The absence of functions like tracking actions and some self-regulation are two of the reasons why in some ways MMORPGs feel unattractive to me.

"Roleplaying" servers are just shit, talking the right way means jack if the game doesn't respond to anything.

Click to expand...

From personal experience all the roleplaying servers I ever played in could be sumed up in two words: circle jerk. The idea of roleplaying of most players I encountered in those occasions was to talk in a medieval way, in a flowered dialect (sometimes not all too diferent from what one would find in Arcanum's manual) and 'realistic' rules. It's amazing they will go to great lenghts to create new items (rations instead of potions), and change rules (needing a tent to sleep) but then will go do something like experience farming or dupe items.

I would support player-2-player dialog trees for making deals and introductions.

Click to expand...

Nice.

Re: Role-Player's RPG Roundtable #5: Take that RPG out of my

Role-Player said:

2. It was an intricate job, and I admire the level of commitment and hard work they went trough in regards to the game component; it would have been a long, arduous but brilliant campaign for able roleplayers to participate in. But this was also brought down by the apparent befriending of players in real life. Seems a clear case of meta and standard gaming that I don't particularly support. Interactions outside the game should not influence interactions inside the game. Not to this point at least. Meta garden-variety espionage.

Click to expand...

My suggestion to you would be to read REAL books on espionage (if you can find them). You know what it usually involves? Two people becoming friends on a personal level, even perhaps marrying and then one of them skipping off with the nuclear weapon codes. Sure, that's just an example but "real" espionage has just as much bitterness as anything in a game. In some circumstances, the people involved are relating on a meta-gaming level IE: They're not playing war, they're out for a drink with friends and this hot chick hits on them. They get to know each other, she's really interesting, they go out. A few months later or maybe even a year or two later they marry. At no point does the woman let on she's really a soviet spy who's planted listening devices on him whenever he goes off to an important meeting. They're interactions "outside" are on a personal, relationship level (do you want kids, where should we go for a holiday) yet she is gaining valuable information off of him through these methods about troop movements and so on which are happening on the frontline a continent away (IE: In the game world).

Role-Player said:

In any case, the basic premise for this post is to simply ask what are your opinions on this? Should there be a heavy handed regulation for such times when gaming and metagaming become blurred?

Click to expand...

What are you going to do if I meet up with a friend in a non-regulated IRC channel and swap alliance details? If your in-game channels are known to be stringently monitored, you may even find people avoiding them deliberately to get away from the Orwellian watchdogs. The reality is, you will never come up with any effective way to monitor all communications between players (hell, even reading logs - you really want to pay someone to sift through that shit all day?) so please, don't even try.

In fact you're fighting an impossible battle on some levels. People in computer games are always going to be posting in the games' forums saying "OMG, teh rockets are over-charged I can't escape nerf them plz!" which as you note, is not "role-playing" in anyway, shape or form. As a side note, it's interesting that most games don't let you make new weapons which is something that clearly happens in the "real world". Part of Hitler's downfall was his constantly changing plans for new tank designs. Thicker armour on the front, a bigger canon on this one, a small canon on that one. All the time, the Russians kept pumping out T34's. In computer games, you often don't get a chance to develop a more accurate missile or a more heavily armoured ship or a new type of weapon (think Nuclear bomb). You're often stuck to what the developers feed you through a tube.

Even "Hey, I had a friend who's just left the BigusDickus alliance and he says they've only got proton torpedos on their ships lets attack them LAWL" or even "Fuck this game is boring, I'm deleting my account and removing all the money I had on me from the economy" are both "outside" the game, though I guess that last one is kind of what Hitler did in WWII though (hell, even the former happens in real life).

Role-Player said:

What do you feel could be done to bring actual roleplaying into MMORPGs, or how to make it have a more pronounced role?

Click to expand...

As the escapist article demonstrates and what you seem to have picked up on, players act differently online. Why? Simple. Online != Real life. Think of a real-life example. Say I'm playing a mighty SAS warrior who wants an uber-leet rifle to kill the Terrorist Orcs. How do I get it? Let's say I trawl through the Afghanistan territory and wipe out every Terrorist Orc I encounter. At the end of it, I've got enough money to buy my uber rifle so I do. What happens now? In real-life, I have to move on to Iraq. In an game I can go back through Afghanistan! There are numerous examples I can bring up that are all along the same lines but they all boil down to one simple thing: The Economy.

In the Real Worldâ„¢ you don't have respawning items nor do you get $500 gold for every person you kill. Hell, if you blow up a factory, the factory remains blown up until it is rebuilt. If you wipe a specis out of an area, that species doesn't magically reappear, the world in fact changes. I can change the world. If I do "something bad" such as killing a bunch of good guys, I'm not fined. I'm jailed indefinately or even killed!

While permanent death (both for players and possibly even NPCs if you wanted) goes some way to solving this situation, there's something you have to be careful of. Why do people play games? For fun. How come people don't spend more time in Real Lifeâ„¢? Because it's not much fun. If I'm an asshole in real-life, somebody usually deals with me and in a permanent way. If I'm an asshole on your game server, someone may deal with me. Hell, it may even be permanent death! But what happens then? I just start a new account! One asshole can cause untold damage in an online game if he has the opportunity. Online games are asshole magnets. You might argue they're not "role-playing" but in a way, Hitler was pretty much an asshole so you get it in real life just as much, though not as often.

There's an interesting thing this too boils down to. How did Hitler almost destroy the world in World War II? He raised an army. How do you destroy the world in an RPG? Easy, you just farm an area with tough respawning monsters, get all the gold they drop to buy the Fat Uber Leet Sword and then, as a level 52 Hero you cleave your way through newbie town. The difference? You don't need to be a level 52 to kill Hitler. Give me a gun, teach me how to use and I could take him out tomorrow. To kill a level 52 player in an MMORPG though, I need to stay online for 5 months, 24 hours a day just to get to the same level.

To "fix" the problem of role-playing, what you'd need to do is remove the "role-playing elements" from the game completely. Ditch the levels. Ditch the experience points. Ditch the stats you can raise as you level up, take it all back to one thing and kill two birds with one stone: Money. You want a fat sword? The only thing that's stopping you is money. Sure, there might be training on some level but an untrained person with a fat sword should be able to kill a trained person with a fat sword. At the moment, you can't. So what happens? Guy gets a fat sword and decides to become an asshole. Imagine though if a newb could start a new account and even with the Default Rusty Daggerâ„¢ kill the asshole? What happens to your world then? Assholes suddenly become fair game for everyone.

Of course, that also means weapons aren't levelled either. In real-life sure, Hitler had some big 100 tonne guns but there were problems with them such as rate of fire and mobility compared to the smaller tanks that could zip around the battle field and fire off a lot of shots. Going back to the knife, if I stab you in the heart with a Rusty Dagger, you die, you cunt. If I stab you in the heart with a Fat Sword, you also die. Sure, the sword does more "damage" and things like armour and what-not come into play as well (dagger can't get through armour as well as a sword) but the point is, you're not a God just because you have a huge sword or are a level 53 and magically have tougher skin (more HP) than I do just because you've been alive longer. I can still kill you with my dagger even though I was "only born yesterday".

What else happens though? Well, to get ahead through tough areas, you can't simply level up and be a loner. It doesn't work in real-life so why should it online? Instead, people have to form teams (armies?) if they want to clear out the Monster Cave. Suddenly, team work, companionship and the crux of role-playing, communication becomes more important. So rather than just "OMG I'm a level 42 I'm gona kick ur arse and I got a ph4t sword OMG DIE NEWBS!!1!" it's "Hey, let's duel mother-fucker. $10 says I can take you with this rusty dagger". Noob-ville attacks are suddenly squished and people need to make friends (IE: Not be assholes) if they want to achieve something. Assholes would have to gang up into large groups (armies) if they wanted to take on a whole town.

In effect, you're boiling the game down to solely it's true role-playing aspects - the stuff role-playing is all about.

I could go on but I'm interested to see what ideas I sparked in anyone else. Sure okay, so it's just a theory... but think about it.

Role-Player said:

Or are you of the opinion that in computer RPGs this is largely impossible and each game should have its own self-regulation methods?

Click to expand...

To summarise above:

• Remove experience, levels and all that. Rely solely on things like Reputation, Karma and kill counts to record "who's better".
• Bring everyone down to the same level. Someone who's been playing for 5 years shouldn't be any tougher or harder to kill than someone who's been playing for 5 days.
• All equipment should be based on money. A newb who's given $5 million in gold by a friend should be able to buy the best equipment and take on the greatest guy in the land and not have to level up for 6 years before he can do anything.

Question is, is it an RPG anymore if you take out what are widely considered the "RPG elements" and rely solely on real "role-playing" by the participants? The other factor to consider is, do you also take out the Funâ„¢ if you implement this?

Re: Role-Player's RPG Roundtable #5: Take that RPG out of my

This is what I like about DU.

DarkUnderlord said:

In some circumstances, the people involved are relating on a meta-gaming level IE: They're not playing war, they're out for a drink with friends and this hot chick hits on them.

Click to expand...

I think there's a considerable difference, and I've illustrated this when I used metadigital's German example of how Hitler could not possibly swap between two worlds to 'meta-live' his way trough the war. I understand both his and your points of comparison but as before, I think there is a main difference between those two situations. Let's assume the situation of a guy who lies to a girl to get his way with her. For this example to be validated as a form of metagaming, the guy who lies to his girl would have to leave reality, enter a different dimension, then gain information and influence his chances from afar, giving himself an advantage from that world; then he'd log on to reality again to get his way with the girl, now considerably improved by his «otherwordly» influences.

As it stands, the guy is not metagaming (or metaliving, if you will) because there is no secondary world to which he can resort to gain information and exhert influence. At best he's roleplaying a cunt, but not metagaming one. While the complexities of the relationships are pretty much the same, the factors behind them are not.

The reality is, you will never come up with any effective way to monitor all communications between players

Click to expand...

The idea wasn't to monitor all communications, of course; this would be overkill.

Online games are asshole magnets. You might argue they're not "role-playing" but in a way

Click to expand...

Hence my other point. While it's pretty much a given there will be assholes in online games the idea was to include ingame mechanics to lessen their number or their effectiveness. Admitedly it's too much of an idealistic goal; even if successful elements were implemented, unofficial communication and planning outside the game would still occur; and by association, so would metagaming.

To "fix" the problem of role-playing, what you'd need to do is remove the "role-playing elements" from the game completely (...)

Click to expand...

While that seems secondary to the topic it's actually a very interesting concept.

Question is, is it an RPG anymore if you take out what are widely considered the "RPG elements" and rely solely on real "role-playing" by the participants?

Click to expand...

I think you'll find your answer if you compare a roleplaying game session with a freeform roleplaying session, then see which one has the mechanics to allow roleplaying to be used in a game environment.

The other factor to consider is, do you also take out the Funâ„¢ if you implement this?

Click to expand...

Though fun is subjective I suspect most people find the use of the usual roleplaying elements to be "fun".

Role-Player said:

...

Surlent said:

Remember not every people want to actually roleplay their character to the fullest. That's why it shouldn't be forced. Others want to just dungeon crawl or play the game itself as it is. Even ye olde DnD is combat system made for dungeon crawl instead of home theater (~ LARP).

Click to expand...

I think this is puzzling to me because there is a background question that keeps coming to my mind - who wouldn't want to roleplay in an RPG? I suspect the transition into a more simplified gameworld (when compared to what is possible to create in pen and paper) and the focus on staples of the RPG as a videogame genre (combat, dungeon crawling, statistical management) contributed to most players looking at it in a different way and having different expectations. I don't particularly support that the rules or expectations be suddenly and drastically changed for the MMORPG genre because unfortunately much as the concept lends itself to a richer roleplaying background, proper roleplayers seem to dwindle and are very few when compared to the many *Cl0uD0899 ^_^*, [[KREATOR_RULEz!]], and <<grllllpowahprinces1985>>.
...

Click to expand...

My estimation of human nature tends to lead me to suspect that as soon as there is some advantage to be made, people will do anything to win. Meta-gaming is just the way that a not-so-capable person (in the game universe) cheats (themselves, but that is of less concern to them than winning) by augmenting their virtual alter idem with some bonus.

You may even consider the Jungian synchronicity involved in the interaction, if you are one to entertain philosophical dilitantism. Perhaps someone might even like to raise a defence for this behaviour as the guilty party "role-playing" a winner, but I think it is just an ineluctable feature of all human interaction. In fact, I would suggest that it would transcend human civilisation and even be just as much a part of the animal kingdom, and indeed all living organisms.

What I mean is that you don't see the Ímpàlà forming a picket line to protest when the lions pick off the injured and weak members of their herd; or if a cobra and a mongoose fight, neither will give the other any advantage. Nature is not immoral, she is amoral.

All is fair in love and war.

PS Salmon are all anadromous, aren't they? Technically we would have to be mating in a river ...

Well put, meta. And welcome to the Codex, by the way :D

Now we have another intelligent poster

Re: Role-Player's RPG Roundtable #5: Take that RPG out of my

Sure, that's just an example but "real" espionage has just as much bitterness as anything in a game. In some circumstances, the people involved are relating on a meta-gaming level IE: They're not playing war, they're out for a drink with friends and this hot chick hits on them.

Click to expand...

No, an example of "real" espionage in a game world, would be a character trying to trick another character. Using character skill of deception versus character skill of detection.

Your other points are good but skills can still be used as long as the power gap is minimal, 50% hit compared to 80% hit can do a lot but with deadly weapons it won't help you versus two people.

The main problem with MMORPGs is the economy, in single player games it is set for beginning and end and getting tons of cash doesn't help you much; and PnP games have the DM balance how powerful characters get. But MMORPGs turn into grind houses because it is the most efficient way to advance.

MMORPGs have:

Unlimited animals/minerals.
Selling items to a store does not reflect supply and demand, static prices.
Selling goods from the animals produces unlimited currency, no one mints the money. Unlimited inflation.

No real ownership rights on most goods.
Most of the world exists in the wilderness and first extraction rule applies.
It is the tragedy of the commons, thousands of people are trying to over-extract respawning creatures and time becomes a more important resource.

Players kill as many as they personality can, because: there is no need to invest in future population of monsters, any you let go is just benefiting someone else at your loss.

What do the grinders want: In-game money, in-game fame and power, and/or real money. This is the only thing that the game world values, roleplaying a character gets you nothing.

In-game money and character power given in exchange for time and is maximized the more you grind. And their unlimited online money can be sold on eBay.

The player has no in-game needs and the game imposes none.

This the biggest problem in MMORPGs. The player needs no one and everything is commonly owned for extraction, grinding is the best thing to do in pursuing your goals.

1. Scarce resources: No unlimited farming
2. Ownership of scarce resources
3. Contract enforcement

That is how the real world functions, without it you just have boring farming, static trade routes, and very limited player cooperation (because you can't make real deals).

Re: Role-Player's RPG Roundtable #5: Take that RPG out of my

Related topic: Put up or shut up - What is needed in MMOs to fix them

Role-Player said:

I think you'll find your answer if you compare a roleplaying game session with a freeform roleplaying session, then see which one has the mechanics to allow roleplaying to be used in a game environment.

Click to expand...

In a roleplaying game session the focus of the game is expanded to include equipment, spells and a plethora of stats for your character and the mobs you will be facing. Because of the inclusion of stats there is a certain urge to min/max your character and to "log in" to reality to find whatever advantage you could get your hands on so you could win the game. metadigital brings up a good point how people would do anything to gain an advantage. In freeform roleplaying the focus is turned from the equipment, mobs and stats to character interaction. There will always be those that try to twink their character/race/country in freeform roleplaying but you can choose to ignore those people or not deal with them in the first place.

I noticed a very stark contrast between roleplaying in a game session and freeform roleplaying. In a game session you gain experience to level up, which people take advantage of like in that Escapist article with the deer. In freeform roleplaying there is no point in killing 20 or so deer because you don't gain experience. I think this is a very good example of metagaming, players making characters do something that would seem absurd in the real world just to get experience and level up. It would be like Rommel making his soldiers kill everybody in an occupied town as target practice in order to make them more experienced when they face the British. Yet you see this happening in (MMO)RPGs all the time.

I'm pretty sure there are ways to circumnavigate around these problems like removing the level system or not let deer or mobs give experience if you slay them. It would make players play their characters smartly instead of making them kill everything just to gain the all-mighty experience point.

Re: Role-Player's RPG Roundtable #5: Take that RPG out of my

Role-Player said:

This is what I like about DU.

Click to expand...

My ability to type lots?

Role-Player said:

For this example to be validated as a form of metagaming, the guy who lies to his girl would have to leave reality, enter a different dimension, then gain information and influence his chances from afar, giving himself an advantage from that world; then he'd log on to reality again to get his way with the girl, now considerably improved by his «otherwordly» influences.

Click to expand...

What I was trying to do was say that talking to his wife, making love, babies, going shopping and all that - all that "not war" stuff - in real life could be seen as metagaming. You're going outside of the "game" (in this case, the battlefield) and doing "other non-game things".


Walk-Throughs

One complaint you raised was people gaining outside information such as reading walkthroughs and the like to get an advantage. IE: Outside gaming intelligence which they can use in-game. They didn't gain that info "in character". I view that as no different to Hitler reading Rommel's books on Mobile Tank warfare. There were plenty of strategies, books and other "walk-throughs" on how to win a war available at the time. The only difference is, they're not 100% guaranteed effective. You're dealing with troop morale, fatigue, logistics (supplies) and a range of other "human factors" which all influence the outcome. Even the "walkthroughs" themselves differ on what strategy is best (some books back in WWII saying there is a use for horse cavalry for example).

Now compare that to a computer game. The number of "human factors" is substiantially less. If you read a walkthrough, you often find it's 100% guaranteed to work with the latest patch! As everything is run off of calculations and those calculations are known and don't vary, you can plan your result well before you even start. Farming areas are well known. The XP you get from a certain monster is well-known. What works best to kill those monsters is well known. So how many of those monsters you have to kill with "the strategy" is easily calculated out.

Now take a tank. A tank in real-life relies on the ability of its crew to determine how fast it fires. Its wear and tear, damage taken and terrain factors to determine its mobility. A tank in a computer game always fires a maximum of X distance and no more. It reloads at Y speed and travels at speed M. There are no other factors taken into account. Even if the tank becomes "experienced" (think veteran unit in Civ 3) it still gets the same N hit points. Three veteran tanks are in effect, all the same. In real life, one tank can have a breakdown because a shortage of parts meant that that particular run had a faulty piece installed somewhere. There's also the "one hit kill" option. A good hit can take a tank out in real life but in a game, you need to hit it Z times with U weapon before it's destroyed. What's better is that in real life, you can build your own damn tanks anyway you want. In a computer game, you're limited to the tank unit that's available.

Back in real life, you've just read a book by Rommel which talks about how tanks can be used. Except, no-one's done it. So you take a chance and use this "Blitzkrieg" panzer attack strategy thing. Wayhay, it works! Sure, it's a little rough when you take on those Polish fuckers but that helps you develop it for it's use against the stinky French. Next thing you know, you're bumfucking most of Europe. Now in real-life, the other guys need to come up with a way to defeat the "walk-through". They first of all need to understand the strategy so people in the field report and they develop their own copy of the walk-through. They then look at multiple options. Firstly, how can they stop this strategy NOW with what they have available. Secondly, they start to develop new weapons which can help them out. Next thing you know, the British develop a new tank, the Americans develop the Bazooka and the constant bombing and ability of Hitler to replace tanks lost takes its toll. Hiter also stops using the walk-through in some cases.

Now put that in a computer game though. Someone sees this "new tank strategy" in use. It's talked about in the forums. Next thing you know, EVERYONE is using it. But why is it so effective? Well, because the developers forgot to add in an anti-tank weapon! They didn't think tanks would be used in that way, see. So gamers are stuck without the ability to develop new strategies which could STOP the tank strategy. Everyone is screwed and you get a forum full of whinging for the developers to "nerf the tanks or I'm quitting" (see: "Lack of Reachable Conclusion" below). The next patch is released and wallah, tanks are nerfed.


Gaining Information on Players Stats

The other thing you raised was people gaining info on stats outside of the game. IE: Visiting a forum and finding a post made by a disgruntled former member of some alliance who's now revealing all. Sure, it's outside "the game" but on the other hand, it's still part of the game. Communication is part of any MMO game. There's little difference between someone posting the stats in a forum or sending them via the games internal messaging systems.

The only problem is that those stats mean so much and are so easy to discover. In the real world, to grab explicit details on the number of men, tanks and aircraft Hitler had would be a mind-boggling deal of bravado. You'd need to convince many people to give up secrets and infiltrate the organisation to such an extent that you could bring them down easier simply by usiung your numbers to oust Hitler. Even Hitler would've had trouble knowing the *exact* number of men he had.

For a game though, these stats are easily available. They're explicitly recorded. How many tanks do you have of Type-X? Oh, just go to the status screen and click on "tanks". Most senior people on the alliance have access to that screen and all you need is one of those guys to leave and post the info. Done. Doing that in real life is much tougher. To become a senior person is hard. Your history is tracked. You're watched. We know you were born in the United States. We know you had a meeting with a known agent of the US. We're not going to make you a General. We're going to execute you.

In a game, you have no idea who these people are nor where they're coming from. Alliances are formed on the basis of "Wanna start an alliance?" and "Sure why not okay LOL!". All you need is someone with a modicum of intelligence to rock up, prove themselves in game and ask to join the alliance. With the lack of "decent" players (beyond "OMG LAWL") this person can easily join and work their way up in a matter of weeks, not years (game time vs real time). Once they have that info, they can leave the alliance immediately (no difficult days in hiding, no planned rendevouz and skipping the country over-night), post the info on another forum and launch an attack right then and there (no huge time frame needed in building up tank numbers, developing weapons and putting troops into place for the attack).

I'm essentially saying the problem is time. If a top General fled to Britain, it'd be known about quickly (where'd he go?) and the attack plans are changed. In a game, it's just a matter of "Oh, maybe John can't play for the next week" and nobody changes their plans. So they go ahead with the attack and are defeated, then cry foul.

Role-Player said:

As it stands, the guy is not metagaming (or metaliving, if you will) because there is no secondary world to which he can resort to gain information and exhert influence. At best he's roleplaying a cunt, but not metagaming one. While the complexities of the relationships are pretty much the same, the factors behind them are not.

Click to expand...

That's true because in the end, a game is always a world unto itself and has no bearing on the real world. What I'm trying to say is that even in the real world, there are places you can "escape" to, gain information that benefits you in the part of that world you escaped from and then go back. The only problem is what Human Shield said:

Human Shield said:

No, an example of "real" espionage in a game world, would be a character trying to trick another character. Using character skill of deception versus character skill of detection.

Click to expand...

Does the game have deception skills? Does the game allow players to be deceptive and gain information? Perhaps join two alliances at the same time while keeping their membership with one alliance secret? I agree with Human Shield because it's "YOU" who's gaining this information with your "PERSONAL" real-world skills and is not something gained from "work" done by your character. If you're role-playing a dumb Dwarf and he stumbles across some stats of another alliance. In real-life, an idiot would be too stupid to do anything about it or maybe even understand it. In a game because you're only pretending to be stupid, your actions are often different.

There's also the reality that in the real world, disgruntled Generals don't just up and leave various armies and post details on the internet for all and sundry to see with a post "I don't care anymore. This game is stupid.".


Lack of Reachable Conclusion

People quit MMORPGs because they suck or because they're losing. What happens then though? They just leave. Imagine if Hitler won World War II. What would happen? The world would change. We'd be speaking German, ja? Think about an MMORPG. Ever "won"? Oh sure, you kicked Baal's / The Bad Guys arse in Diablo II / EVE online with your friends. Great stuff. Did the world change? Nope. Did everyone submit to your superiority? Nope. Baal just re-spawned and you took him on again. Imagine if Hitler kept re-spawning? His entire armies which you defeated after the Normandy landings suddenly re-spawned and you had to do it all again? Not much fun really, is it? That's what MMO's / MMORPG's are today in most cases (While I used EVE as an example, I think they don't have a "bad guy" to deal with, instead relying solely on player vs player conflict, so it may well be a bad example).

This is why I've set MMORPGs need to have periodic server resets when someone "wins" (presuming it's an MMO someone can win - like a war game). MMORPGs are all about "war" or "the conflict". We haven't had a war for 60 years. MMORPGs rely on their being a war all the time. A war that no-one can win. You've just removed the purpose of playing. By making the war winnable / having an ultimate conclusion that players can reach and then resetting the server (sending everyone back to the start) you do something important. You create a conclusion.

With that conclusion you can have a scoreboard. Prizes. A winner. Someone who CAN say "I am the winner", "We were the best alliance". By resetting the server, you acknowledge that the fun is in the conflict. You've acknowledged the conflict's resolution, rather than trying to nerf everything and create "perpetual balance" (which for MMO's is really another way of dragging something out indefinately). You can also address the issues / bugs that were raised in the first round without suddenly changing the outcome of the war. Hey, someone found a good strategy, let them use it. In the next round, you figure up a way to make that strategy less effective, preferably with something new like a new weapon, rather than nerfing anything.

Role-Player said:

In any case, the basic premise for this post is to simply ask what are your opinions on this?

Click to expand...

As you know, you're not going to stop "outside gaming". People gaining information via means other than through their character in the game. As I tried to say above, this is because the game is limited and works on a well-known, well defined set of rules.

Role-Player said:

Should there be a heavy handed regulation for such times when gaming and metagaming become blurred? Or should it be a free for all fest?

Click to expand...

You're not going to know when someone has gained information outside the game, therefore you can't stop it. People would potentially be making endless accusations as part of a "meta-gaming" strategy themselves (IE: Defeat via means outside of their character and outside of the games rules).

Role-Player said:

What do you feel could be done to bring actual roleplaying into MMORPGs, or how to make it have a more pronounced role?

Click to expand...

See the long winded posts above.

Role-Player said:

Or are you of the opinion that in computer RPGs this [role-playing] is largely impossible and each game should have its own self-regulation methods?

Click to expand...

Role-playing is possible but it's important to realise you'll stuff up plenty before you really come across a system that enables it. To borrow from Sarvis, when your game ships, it's already too late to change it. For an MMO however, you do have the opportunity to patch it and release regular updates to fix things after the event. The downside is that that in itself can actually destroy role-playing. No-one wants to role-play the Ranger who's attack startegies keep getting nerfed with every new update.

I think there's a point in all that somewhere.

I can't see anything to argue with in the above post. Moreover I think that you also have to allow for the game characters learning new techniques, too.

(Spellmar says: voilà)
:wink:

Role-Player said:

I think you'll find your answer if you compare a roleplaying game session with a freeform roleplaying session, then see which one has the mechanics to allow roleplaying to be used in a game environment.

Click to expand...

The easiest method to rectify this is plot-related experience (e.g. think System Shock, and Deus Ex).

You might even go so far as to penalise psychotic behaviour, like rampant killing, with game (read: life) balancing mechanics, like reputation (infamy) or trial and incarceration, or even negative experienceâ„¢, whereby repeatedly doing a contra-indicated behaviour produces recidivism ...

As we talking about MMORPGs I can say that roleplaying servers dont work, World of Warcraft have then and if you join it you will notice the same thing that happens in normal servers happen in there.

The problem is that situations that happen in PnP also happen in MMORPGs, people WILL talk in OoC since roleplaying 24/7 is hard and we need a break, also its very hard to create a player driven storyline in a MMORPG, Guild Wars tried and either given up half way or they did a half assed job (I suspect the former rather that the later).

You can make the best story in the wold and make a RP server for it but you only need a cluess player that will say "Anyone from <insert country name here>?" to spoil it.

Re: Role-Player's RPG Roundtable #5: Take that RPG out of my

DarkUnderlord said:

Role-Player said:

This is what I like about DU.

Click to expand...

My ability to type lots?

Click to expand...

Lots is meaningless if there's no worthwhile content (ie, Exitium), and your previous post lacked neither lenght not content. There's not really anything to disagree in there and it's all good, I think.

Why don't intelligent people post more often? Contaminate me, damn you.

Drakron said:

As we talking about MMORPGs I can say that roleplaying servers dont work, World of Warcraft have then and if you join it you will notice the same thing that happens in normal servers happen in there.

The problem is that situations that happen in PnP also happen in MMORPGs, people WILL talk in OoC since roleplaying 24/7 is hard and we need a break, also its very hard to create a player driven storyline in a MMORPG, Guild Wars tried and either given up half way or they did a half assed job (I suspect the former rather that the later).

You can make the best story in the wold and make a RP server for it but you only need a cluess player that will say "Anyone from <insert country name here>?" to spoil it.

Click to expand...

Not if free talk has no relation to the game. If the chat bar is not used for trading or making deals the world could be much more consistent.

What is a story but conflict and progression.

If a fight between two players is proceeded with reputation, faction standings, measured crime and helpfulness ratings;
and the fight involves dialog trees for meaningful banter (maybe even have effects of intimidation and charm);
and the fight is followed by permanent death, and changes in reputation and world interaction (a raider now can raid more easily, a guard has made his town safer).

THAT IS A STORY.

Problem is imersion , a lot of people just net speak ... one thing is a typo and another is seeing "U" instead of "you".

What you are saying cannot be done in a MMORPG, even in PnP death is prevented by the DM since he is not going to waste 4 months of playing due to bad luck from the players parts, DMs can always come up with a "Deux Ex Machine" to save a party from certain doom and in the case a player gets his character kill chances is the DM will allow to roll a new character that is the same level as the one he lost.

Besides you cannot make players have too high a impact on a MMORPG world on a daily basis since it would benefic the early players and shaft the people that started to play after then.

A way is special events, a zone can be radical changed to mimic a world altering event but, again, it would be something that would last at least month or so to give everyone a shoot at the special event and not only the "god characters" that would complete it in a few days and screw everyone else from trying.

Ok. When I have time Im gonna be all over this thread like white on rice~

unless you are eating yellow rice that came with too much sesame chicken and you fall asleep.

I think the problem arises because there is two approaches to games in general, in both developper and gamer point of view.

The first approach is treating the game as a game. It's all about the gameplay. Those games are basically complex versions of pacman and space invaders, where the player's objective is to win. Diablo is the perfect example.

The second approach is to treat the game as more than a game. The main factor here is immersion. The player's objective no longer is to win, but to experience situations. There's no perfect example, as current games are at most a shaky mix of both approaches. Let's say that Gothic is pretty good at it.

Roleplaying is definetly of the second approach. The problem is, roleplaying games are often designed by developpers using the first approach. That's when we get character builds, levels, exp, "kill an impossible number of ennemies" to advance the plot, a character that goes from nobody to hero and a final boss to eliminate. This "gamey" approach to rpgs explains why we roleplayers are an unsatisfied bunch, and why we have those "roleplaying" elements in games that have nothing to do with roleplaying.

In MMORPGs, the disparity of the approaches to the game by players becomes much more apparent than in single players games, because of the inevitable interaction between the players. Some are out there to play and win, others are there to be immersed and experience things they cannot in real life. Now, roleplaying takes motivation and effort to happen. Most gamers are just taking a break and want instant and constant reward. They all want to win yet, in a pvp environment, someone has to lose for someone else to win. For roleplayers, it's different. Losing in a conflict isn't really losing, because it's good roleplaying that is the objective/reward.

Dying, being stolen are, for a gamey-type, losing. They have to "work" again to get back in the "better winning place" they were before. That's the core of problems like perma-death. For some it's a tool to enhance immersion and roleplaying, for others it's the game being punitive. As games are made to be sold and most MMORPG players are of the gamey-type, it is going to be extremely hard to have a commercially successfull game based around roleplaying. My guess is roleplaying MMORPGs (pleonasm? ) are going to enter the realm of indie developping (while they might loose that first M in MMO).

I think DU's suggestions are going in the right direction. Removing all "roleplaying" elements that are related to winning the game is a good thing. Players are only better than other players if they are better roleplayers. Characters are more powerful based on the social roles they have. The flaw here is that no one wants to be at the bottom, no one wants to be the servant of the shining knight. Every roleplayer wants an interesting role. But this, while taking away from realism, is very doable.

The lack of reachable conclusion is definetly something to adress. This situation is pretty much a consequence of all the players wanting to win and the developpers wanting to please every one. While resetting servers might be a good solution, it puts the accent on the game part of the game. The game becomes some sort of tournament. While not bad in itself, it does favor metagaming because of the "winning" objective.

PvP is IMO the better way to present a conflict in a MMO, as it eliminates the Diablo syndrome, where "wining" the game isn't a definitive conclusion since you do it over and over. Instead of reseting a server to resolve the issue, I'd implement perma-death, and maybe some form of aging. The end of a character would be a conclusion. In a system like this, life becomes more valuable, and we will see much less combat conflict. While perma-death might not be possible for a commercial MMO, it will surely do a great deal for roleplaying. For perma-death to work, levels or other form of significative character improvement need to go, to make death not feel like a loss but an end/new begining. A more solid character creation system coupled with good roleplaying will still permit differenciation of characters.

Ismaul said:

...
roleplaying MMORPGs (pleonasm? ) ...

Click to expand...

RAS syndrome

Ismaul said:

...
The flaw here is that no one wants to be at the bottom, no one wants to be the servant of the shining knight. Every roleplayer wants an interesting role. But this, while taking away from realism, is very doable.

Click to expand...

It might be feasible with the NPCs, though. Sure, not everyone can be monarch, but it shouldn't be too difficult to be a knight. (I believe there are mutterings of discontent in the Star Wars Galaxy universe for all the non-combatant classes, though, after the recent upgrade.) ...

Ismaul said:

...
The lack of reachable conclusion is definetly something to adress. This situation is pretty much a consequence of all the players wanting to win and the developpers wanting to please every one. While resetting servers might be a good solution, it puts the accent on the game part of the game. The game becomes some sort of tournament. While not bad in itself, it does favor metagaming because of the "winning" objective. ...

Click to expand...

The only way to completely eliminate competitive pressures to meta-game is to remove competition. I am not so sure that would work, because it seems to be a given that roleplayers want to roleplay a dragon-killing knight, not a needleworking maid, or even a wiseman on a mountain contemplating MU.

Ismaul said:

...
PvP is IMO the better way to present a conflict in a MMO, as it eliminates the Diablo syndrome, where "wining" the game isn't a definitive conclusion since you do it over and over. Instead of reseting a server to resolve the issue, I'd implement perma-death, and maybe some form of aging. The end of a character would be a conclusion. In a system like this, life becomes more valuable, and we will see much less combat conflict. While perma-death might not be possible for a commercial MMO, it will surely do a great deal for roleplaying. For perma-death to work, levels or other form of significative character improvement need to go, to make death not feel like a loss but an end/new begining. A more solid character creation system coupled with good roleplaying will still permit differenciation of characters.

Click to expand...

As well as aging, there might be scarring, disfigurement and maming, too. Roleplaying a paraplegic; now there's an interesting (if probably unpopular for anything but research) option ...

Drakron said:

Problem is imersion , a lot of people just net speak ... one thing is a typo and another is seeing "U" instead of "you".

Click to expand...

And if it is meaningless you can safetly turn it off. Trades and making deals can be done without it.

What you are saying cannot be done in a MMORPG, even in PnP death is prevented by the DM since he is not going to waste 4 months of playing due to bad luck from the players parts, DMs can always come up with a "Deux Ex Machine" to save a party from certain doom and in the case a player gets his character kill chances is the DM will allow to roll a new character that is the same level as the one he lost.

Click to expand...

I've detailed my idea in the link I posted. Players can use any skills they gained but have a month or so delay of picking the same class.

You could design the game with static numbers and have lots of professions, and just have the numbers go up over time at the same rate for everyone.

If the game relies on grinding for 4 monthes to "get to where you are" then the game sucks to begin with. If your position is based on how you interacted with people, you never have to do the same thing over and over.

Besides you cannot make players have too high a impact on a MMORPG world on a daily basis since it would benefic the early players and shaft the people that started to play after then.

Click to expand...

Why? If one town is destroyed, you can start another. Most PnP game histories have important events before the players started. If new players can still beat vets in combat, it can work out.

A way is special events, a zone can be radical changed to mimic a world altering event but, again, it would be something that would last at least month or so to give everyone a shoot at the special event and not only the "god characters" that would complete it in a few days and screw everyone else from trying.

Click to expand...

What if no "god characters" existed and all special events were dynamically made by the players?

Respawning quests and monsters are shit.