Got the lastest patch notes(called Volume II Book 7) a couple of weeks ago for the MMORPG I play on the side, Lord of the Rings Online.
MMORPGs are a different kettle of fish than table top games. Everyone should know this. From pacing to distance from an often hiden ruleset to highly restricted world play. They are persistent in one way only, your character stats and equipment- the world always reverts back to baseline.
And sometimes even the character isn't persistent. Which brings me to the Book 7 update notes I referenced. I run a Captain as my primary, so I always check that section of the notes hoping nothing bad happens. This time they are nerfing what many consider the keystone ability of the class (one that allows them for a handful of seconds absorb damage targeting other members of their group- a "we will carry on no matter what" ability). They've had this for two years, and more. Since early Beta.
Players don't own the rules in a MMORPG, they do own them in table top. They can alter them if they wish. They can refuse new editions if they wish.
And this difference alone is enough reason for me never give up table top.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
9 comments:
I think MMPORGs do the tactical combat system--and the leveling-up business really, really well. It takes a talented group to approach what you get out of the box with an MMPORG (assuming that you're okay with grinding and like group raids--if you don't then most of them are poison, I'd say).
However, I've never gotten my RPG-fix from an MMPORG. Not owning the rules is part of it. Not being *truly* surprised by world content is another big piece for me. I want a GM who will surprise me--maybe even shock me--throw curve-balls and otherwise keep me really engaged. I have a hard time getting that with computer-generated content.
-Marco
I don't even see where the notion that an MMORPG could replace ANY RPG system comes from to begin with.
@marcochacon: I disagree about MMORPGs handling the tactical side well. At leaast I disagree somewhat. Players are too distant from the rules, and typically much of them are hidden from view. Thus tactics typically consists of trial and error, or duplicating the actions of successful groups who got there first. Not too fun IMO.
MMORPGs have other advantages, and I play them for those. But tactical combat isn't one of them for me.
@Wyatt: it's hard to tell where the notion began, but even people like Dancy have brought into it. In many ways, 4th Edition brought into it as a design goal.
If it's true to any extent, it's likely true about people where were playing rpgs for the wrong reasons up front.
"@Wyatt: it's hard to tell where the notion began, but even people like Dancy have brought into it. In many ways, 4th Edition brought into it as a design goal."
In what ways?
@Tom: It was mentioned a number of times by Mearls in developer blogs. I see it most clearly in the roles assigned to the various classes- striker, controller, etc. Concepts very core to the MMORPG.
Even the focus on 'at will', 'per encounter', 'once per day' abilities is a MMORPG concept.
I see, I've never read the developer's blogs.
""Even the focus on 'at will', 'per encounter', 'once per day' abilities is a MMORPG concept.""
I've never seen those terms used in WoW,shaiya, or perfect world (only MMOs ive played) Are you referring to spell/power cool downs? Those are not solely an MMO concept.
The idea of roles and a balanced party is nothing new.
I just think a lot of the comparisons that are made to MMOs could be made to other games as well, be they video or paper.
@Tom: I think you need to check out Mearl's blog going back to 4th edition's development and release and reviews thereof. It's taking inspiration from MMORPGs is widely known. At one point Mearls even talked about a aggro mechanic they tested (and thankfully dropped).
"Thus tactics typically consists of trial and error, or duplicating the actions of successful groups who got there first. Not too fun IMO."
That sides a lot like real life... ;)
Post a Comment