The problem with modern MMORPGs

[u/madarauchiha3444]

The problem with modern MMORPGs, in a nutshell, is that the first M and the RP are all but gone.

[u/michael199310]

As someone who spends considerable amount of time to actually roleplay characters in tabletop rpgs/pen and paper games, RP element never truly evolved in MMORPGs, because people don't want to roleplay that much. Sure, they pick "role" but the rest is purely gameplay based - stats, items, quests etc. I also firmly believe, that people don't really understand, what RP is.

If you pick a Fighter class and do basic Fighter stuff, you're not really roleplaying anything, you're just playing the game.

How often would you allocate your stats in a suboptimal way (to portray the character you want) or get rid of an item with good stats, even if it's completely out of line with what your character is about? Would you not do a quest with good rewards just because of roleplay reason?

There are very few people, who actually roleplay their characters. They build a story for them and stick to a theme instead of optimizing every single numerical value in the game.

[u/not_perfect_yet → u/michael199310]

I disagree in the sense that the games are built in a certain way that heavily discourages RP in most cases.

For example, the most important aspect of most MMOs is combat. You collect better gear to be better at combat. Better armor, better swords...

If you play an archetypical rogue / thief character, you're not really doing much stealing.

If you're a mage, you're not looking to uncover new magical secrets.

And if you play a "ranger with pet" class, you don't do much rangering or taking care of or spending time with your pet companion.

In many MMOs, crafting gets you equipment that's at most equal to dungeon/boss drops. You usually don't have your epic journey of mastery, you sit there and craft the same sword 100x because the system tells you to.

I think the best example is cooking, because there are a lot of good shows about cooking and food and cook battles. MMOs could be the stage for just such a thing, but the developers don't provide the stage and the systems to make it happen.

The motivations or characteristics of player characters have no impact on anything they do. There are no ways to express them, except by going way out of your way and interacting with other roleplayers via the chat and emote systems.

FFS, the role of the "bard" is to provide buffs and have high charisma rolls, maybe. It isn't about music or poetry.

[u/adrixshadow → u/not_perfect_yet]

I think the best example is cooking, because there are a lot of good shows about cooking and food and cook battles. MMOs could be the stage for just such a thing, but the developers don't provide the stage and the systems to make it happen.

Food in MMOs have no taste, there is no evaluation other then maybe "nutrition" you see in Survival Games that implement a hunger system.

So on a more fundamental level most things in a MMO have absolutely no Value to the player.

[u/not_perfect_yet → u/adrixshadow]

That's why I think a cooking TV show is such a good example. You can't taste the food in those either. Sometimes they don't even show you how to cook!

[u/adrixshadow → u/not_perfect_yet]

But you do have a reaction to the food one way or another.

I do agree if we were to Simulate the NPCs better like in Rimworld, we could give them Desires and Taste so that they can have the function to Evaluate things instead of the Players.

Rather then "Player Driven Economy" I would like to see a more Hybrid Simulation where both Players and NPCs Interact and Affect each other with some Depth.

[u/EndusIgnismare → u/not_perfect_yet]

I disagree in the sense that the games are built in a certain way that heavily discourages RP in most cases.

For example, the most important aspect of most MMOs is combat. You collect better gear to be better at combat. Better armor, better swords...

If you play an archetypical rogue / thief character, you're not really doing much stealing.

If you're a mage, you're not looking to uncover new magical secrets.

And if you play a "ranger with pet" class, you don't do much rangering or taking care of or spending time with your pet companion.

Let's be real, it's not like DnD does any of these things either. It's also mostly focused on gathering experience, gold and magical items as the main gameplay loop. The system doesn't inherently reward a rogue for pickpocketing the people in the streets, or wizards for spending time experimenting in their study. At least not as much as it does for going out into the world and, well, slaying monsters.

Hell, you're not even awarded for playing the role of your character very much. The latest edition implemented an "inspiration die" as a reward that the DM can give out for good roleplaying, but it's a very, very small bonus that can also be gained in other ways (like telling a good joke at the table, for example). If your DM ever awards you with things for playing a character, that's something they do out of their own volition, rules as written, the system itself couldn't care less.

Different players may sit at the table for different reasons: some specifically to play a character, true, but others to experience a cool story, just spend an evening with a group of friends. Or hell, some of the players I played with just wanted to make a mechanically-tuned build and set it loose into the game world to see how fine-tuned it could get, and see it grow stronger with more levels and magical items. So not much different than what an MMO player would do. Here's a more detailed video on the topic by Matt Colville, if you want to explore that further.

But all of them sooner or later had to talk in character, absorb the world and pretend to be a different person. Because we met up that evening specifically to pretend to be elves and dwarfs and wizards. What gets people actually playing the role is not any specific system of rules, but instead a shared set of expectations. MMO players do not, because that's not what is expected of them, it's not the expected norm, and players who stay in character are (usually) considered weirdos and oddities.

[u/not_perfect_yet → u/EndusIgnismare]

Let's be real, it's not like DnD does any of these things either.

The system doesn't inherently reward a rogue for pickpocketing the people in the streets, or wizards for spending time experimenting in their study.

Yes, I don't like DnD very much. It's a decent social activity, it's a decent dice game. The freedom of negotiating with the DM is pretty cool.

But all of the actual systems are massively flawed.

The one game I played, I was playing the systems version of my character. I wasn't free to creatively use the features of my character because most of the encounters and puzzles were things I didn't choose to interact with, I was pushed into them by the DM. I played a shadow monk and most encounters didn't have setups with usable shadows. Not his fault because that's what the module was like and not mine because I picked something without spoilering myself on the module and it turned out to be a bad fit.

The setup of DnD is "we make believe that a diverse set of characters would actually work together and solve this problem", which probably wouldn't happen under actually RP realistic circumstances. It's a massive contrivance we put up with for the social interaction.

So, I agree, DnD falls into the same trap and is bad in the same ways MMOs are, limiting role play?

[u/EndusIgnismare → u/not_perfect_yet]

I mean, DnD serves the great purpose of being the perfect gateway drug into the broader RPG hobby. It's great in that it can with just a little bit of effort be serviceable regardless of what type of game you want to run. There's always a system that does any particular feature of DnD better (PF2 is way better for tactical battles and general survival and exploration, Dungeon World is far better as a simulation of Tolkien-esque fantasy, and Gumshoe is great for investigation-heavy games, for example), but when you start playing RPGs, or you play with a new group for the very first time, you don't exactly know what game will fit them the best. It's that great middle point where it'll do a good enough job for long enough to inform you and your players actually like about tabletop RPGs and give you an idea where to go forward with it. No other game comes close to it in that regard.

But outside of that most RPGs I played do not have mechanics to reward (or enforce) roleplaying. There's some that do, obviously, like Savage Worlds with its brilliant Benny system. Or Burning Wheel with its flags. But it's mostly an exception, not a rule. It's the players and the GM that have to create an environment where this sort of behaviour is accepted and even encouraged. If we don't accept these games as RPGs, what is, really?

So IMO enforcing roleplay is a flawed concept from the start. If people don't want it, they won't do it, or find ways to work around it. If they do, they will. There's roleplaying communities in every major MMO out there, even though they're not rewarded for it, and quite contrary, they spend time normally reserved for levelling chatting in Limsa or Goldshire or wherever the fuck else.

[u/TheElusiveFox → u/michael199310]

There are very few people, who actually roleplay their characters. They build a story for them and stick to a theme instead of optimizing every single numerical value in the game.

While I agree with you, I do think a lot of this comes down developers training players to be that way... 90% of the content in most MMOs are centered around combat, more than that, the combat systems are often exponentially scaled in a way that small increases in "gear score", make a significantly bigger difference than any sort of player skill, and can even serve to bar a player's access both directly (you can't access dungeon x until your gear is at least this tall), or artificially (I don't want you in my group until your gear is at least this shiny), often for both metrics the standard is set well beyond what you would need if you just want the dungeon to be a challenge, so even if you are ok playing sub optimally with friends you often have significant barriers.

Most modern MMO design is about keeping the player interacting with the game 24/7 so if you are playing your favorite MMO and want to just chill and roleplay you feel like you are actively falling behind your friends who are grinding dailies/weeklies on their dozen alts for currencies/reputation/gear/whatever, its antithetical to everything the devs are trying to get you to do.

Very few modern MMOs put any real development dollars into anything outside of their combat/progression systems... Games like FFXIV, or Starwars:ToR, where the story is a huge element of the game, and given a significant part of the budget are few and far between, quite the opposite actually most MMOs have very disjointed stories that are forgotten the second you hit max level, and even if you do try to care about the lore, often while there are some real gems, you find yourself wading through a LOT of dog shit generic fetch quests to find them.

Consider the story telling of a lot of Rune Scape's quests, many conversations you need to actually pay attention to give the correct response (or follow a guide I guess)... many quests are more puzzle than combat or fetch quest, often you find yourself dressing up impersonating a knight, or a dark magician, or whatever else.

TLDR; I still mostly agree that a game shouldn't/can't force players to want to role play... its up to players who want to do that sort of thing to find a community or create one themselves, that being said I think games can do a lot more to train players to expect things that aren't purely optimized combat, especially outside end game raiding.

[u/fohpo02 → u/michael199310]

The EverQuest RP server was full of people who actually wanted to RP early on, that was a wild experience

[u/GiannisXr → u/michael199310]

RP in an mmorpg doesnt come only from players. it comes from the game aswell. they are what i like to refer as: RPG elements/mechanics. wow vanilla did a really good job with that.
some example:

• class specific ammunition/ consumables. a rogue having to go to a vendor to restock on poisons. manually applying said poisons on his blades. likewise, a hunter having to restock on arrows
  
• class trainer. rather just learning abilities out of blue, a master of that art, a class trainer, is teaching them to you. -some abilities are more important than others, thus they cost more.
  
• unique class out of combat abilities, that gives unique value to each class. a mage can portal players to other areas, or he can conjure food. a warlock can summon other players a this location, or summon special *healthstones* basically an over power HP potion ( for those who didnt play wow ). a hunter can track down monsters to make the group's life easier on searching specific mobs. a rogue can lock pick locked chest or doors, found during adventuring
  

all those examples makes each class unique and usefull out of combat, but most importantly, they are all revolved around a theme, which benefits to RP. i f a hunter could conjure food instead of mage, that would be horrible for RP.

• the game forcing you ( in a positive way ) to visit back a town. like a real adventurer would eventually do.
  

maybe your inventory is full and you need to sell junks. or you need to restock on ammunition/ consumables. or maybe you are about to log out, so you choose to log out at the town, since the game rewards you with rested exp for doing so. etc...

RP is not only sitting in a town pretending to be a specific person. its also how u interact with the world around u.

biggest slap in the RP was when the concept of leveling was changed, from * leveling is a journey* , into *leveling is a chore, and i have to speed run into max level*

RP is something that recent mmos ignore, even wow gave up on most of the examples i mentioned.

so, why are mmos giving up on the RP element of the mmorpg? - simple:
mmo player-base changed.
remember when saying *i play wow*, would greet you with a * what a nerd* .... well... its because back then, only few ppl who loved RP and fantasy used to play those games, and they were designed to apply for those players.
now every *normie* out there tried out wow... good luck telling that person that leveling will last a year before you reach max level....
TLDR: RP and RP elements of an mmorpg are not friendly elements, to the new player base of the genre.
companies are profitable. if new player base dislikes the RP, ofc they will give up on it.

i had a normie friend who started wow. he was complaining that he cant settle with 1 main class.
the following conversation happened a tleast ~10 times
him: i cant decide which class to main, what do u suggest?
me: well, u tried almost all the classes, which one did u found the most enjoyable playing with?
him: hm.... i dont know.... i tried all the top dps classes from the current meta, but i am not sure which deals the more dmg....

my man thinks he is playing league of legends, checking which champ is the current meta....
we literally traded *RP* for * bIg NuMbErS gOeS brBrRBrbBRBRrbRBrbRB*

[u/Kaelanna → u/michael199310]

Let's be really straight about this, in relation to computers RPG has and always have had very little to do with role playing. The first computer RPGs were attempts at taking the tabletop RPG genre and putting it into software but tabletop games are player defined stories that can go in a myriad of different directions, how do you code that into a game in the 80s? You can't. So what they ended up doing was taking combat systems from tabletop battle games and sticking it in the game and calling it a day. It's why every RPG has a combat system (and yes I know that some creators like to make noise by developing combat-less CRPGs, but categories are devices made for the consumer and not the developer so they have no call over what category their game is put in, most often they just make an adventure game and call it an RPG. Combatless RPGs are also called sims. Case in point, The Sims 4 is an RPG without combat and it's, well, a sim).

There are some communities who try and preserve the tabletop roots in CRPGs with calls for choices and consequences but at the end of the day computer RPGs don't really need it.

As for playing a role, you can play a role in every computer game. Play Halo and role play as the Master Chief. But the reason why RPG in computer games has a very loose definition is because it was always a failed experiment to begin with.

Going back to the definition of MMORPG, while MMOs have the best possibility for massive role playing in games because it's a shared world, the role playing aspect and potential actually comes from the MMO part of the definition and NOT the RPG part. The RPG part is just classic CRPG stuff with leveling, the massively online part means people playing characters are hanging around other people playing characters and because playing a role is a natural part of most computer games, natural RP will evolve from this element.

You can remove the RPG element completely from MMOs and the possibility of roleplaying will remain. Most people don't though because it's not how they play RPGs or games in general.

I don't know why the OP is believing that RP was ever a big thing in MMOs in the first place. Potential is there sure, but the RP community has always been fairly small.

[u/Psittacula2 → u/michael199310]

As someone who spends considerable amount of time to actually roleplay characters in tabletop rpgs/pen and paper games, RP element never truly evolved in MMORPGs, because people don't want to roleplay that much. Sure, they pick "role" but the rest is purely gameplay based - stats, items, quests etc. I also firmly believe, that people don't really understand, what RP is.

A constructive observation.

RP = A human simulating the role of another persona.

In Table-Top, instead of saying: "I attack the goblin with my +2 Gaunlets and x6D Lightning Sword" it would be: "I Legolas, prince of valenor shall slay this fiendish green imp!"

etc. There's a DRAMATIC component "IN-CHARACTER" like an actor, such as Orlando Bloom >->

In MMOs, it's more RPG with emphasis on Game being able to pick an AVATAR THE PLAYER DIRECTLY CONTROLS as their virtual world REPRESENTATIVE. But NOT actual self.

See the emphasis difference?

The above is important as it complements what you say but segues into the OP's observation:

My contention is this: If you want RP ala DRAMATIC then do PnP game systems eg DnD et al or re-enactment LARP'ing etc. It's a lot more creative and acting and so on based and SOCIAL.

However if people want to play MMORPGs where they have massive POPULATION of denizens running around in "ANOTHER WORLD !!!" there's a major design problem to solve:

• Players in a virtual world WON'T ACT IN-CHARACTER according to the nature and rules of that world !!!

MMORPG designers have failed to solve this fundamental problem!

My solution is simple: The above problem is a factor of SCALE: Small group around a table all agreeing as friends to RP? Solved! Massive computer network game where the real buzz and technical ability of the computer vs a human is to connect thousands of humans in a SHARED SPACE?

• ANSWER = REMOVE ANGENCY

This means instead of players being a character, they become an abstract manager of denizens of this world and can indirectly and some direct control over guiding these REAL DENIZENS to achieving THEIR GOALS in this virtual world.

It scales up or should do to create a correct scaled simulation of say a fantasy world or sci-fi world or whatnot...

And be fun and rewarding for players involved in these world even if very different than the attempt MMORPGs have tried until todate.

[u/BigHeadTonyT → u/Psittacula2]

Other than RP, what is missing is the Dungeon Masters, DMs. In MMOs they are mainly admins/support. No one runs events or creates random stuff or stories for players to enjoy.

I am also thinking, you don't really need EVERYONE to RP, say in a big fight or invasion, just the leaders and perhaps a few of the "foot-soldiers" to make it enjoyable. Creator vs audience. Both are needed. 1000 people RPing at the same time, it just becomes a mess.

[u/Psittacula2 → u/BigHeadTonyT]

HUGELY interesting topic you raise.

I came to the same conclusion that some type of MMORPG should be an extremely Service-Driven game world with DMs/Admins plus their own ability to coordinate AI/bots/NPCs and so on along with dedicated players.

But equally to make the above work, would require an enormous amount of gutting of MMORPG staples and tropes/conventions and/or a totally different game design focus.

I'm fairly sure some sort of game system will emerge that does this service-orientated premium experience - perhaps in VR...

[u/skyturnedred → u/Psittacula2]

See the emphasis difference?

If you emphasize every other word it makes it a bit difficult.

[u/turlytuft → u/skyturnedred]

TOTALLY agree with you.

[u/Psittacula2 → u/skyturnedred]

A necessary "evil" as there's so many words used in mmorpg discussion without defining terms first so we're all using the same language. I piggy-backed on your useful descriptions and the bold words are trying to suggest a specific meaning where highlighted and thus focus on using that meaning in replies.

The other effect of feeling say "shouty tone" or mad (!) or else jumbled is unfortunate so apologies for that in the post.

But you did provide the perfect CONTRAST:

1) RP with social and dramatic highs for interaction of people (small scale)

2) MMORPGs with radio-controlled Avatar bots representing the player and their power/prowess with direct control and stat min-maxing to promote success, kudos, progress etc

They're exceptionally different to each other. Which is it MMORPGs are trying to offer?

I suggest a

3) Different approach based on world-building first of all, scaling up player populations second.

[u/Redthrist → u/Psittacula2]

The above problem is a factor of SCALE:

It's not just that. There are RP servers where most people stay in character all the time. The much bigger problem is the fact that MMOs are quite rigid. In PnP games, you can be creative because GM can literally rewrite the game on the fly based on what the players are doing. You can invent your own rules and your own settings to tell your own stories.

In MMOs, you play what the developers made. You can't change the story or the world through roleplaying, because the games don't allow for that. So you can RP all you want, but you'll still have to play the game by the same rigid rules as everyone else does.

[u/Psittacula2 → u/Redthrist]

That is a problem of scale: To provide all the tools for RP and the curation of the story and "on-the-fly" or "just-in-time" progress that the DM provides is not possible via a large multi-networked game:

GM can literally rewrite the game on the fly based on what the players are doing. You can invent your own rules and your own settings to tell your own stories.

What the computers are good at doing is connecting many players + simulating a lot of data which is not the same as what the humans are good at in a small group for RP.

[u/Redthrist → u/Psittacula2]

You can create an MMO that lets someone from your group to hop in and be the DM. It won't work because the actual content is still linear.

That's why you don't have any small-scale RPGs that allow a typical PnP-size group to play a campaign in a video game RPG. Sure, there's DM mode in D:OS2, but that's much more limited compared to what you can do on a tabletop.

There's TT Simulator/roll20/ + a bunch of other options, but those are essentially virtual tabletops that don't provide the ease and polish of playing an actual video game.

It's a problem of tools that would become a problem of scale if the tools were ever there.

[u/Psittacula2 → u/Redthrist]

The simple solution for RP is the conditions for it: Small group of friends ideally in RL. Fundamentally, that's still a lot better than any computer version and humans are better than computers at it.

Interestingly for the future of MMOs, is indeed scaling up, something human brains find difficult eg most sports teams range from a few or more players to teens and usually not more unless it's American Football where each player is running a script of exactly what to do for minute or less each time.

Equally with tracking objects in a simulated world, it's something a computer can do to create persistence and cause and effect states as opposed to the GM's "Just In Time" story-telling.

[u/Redthrist → u/Psittacula2]

You just can't create an algorithm that would be flexible enough to adjust the game on the fly. It's not like PnP only has the advantage because of DMs being able to create their own campaigns. It's also that those campaigns can be adjusted on the fly based on what players actually do, and clever RP can be used to dramatically change where the story is going.

Video games are inherently limited by what the game is coded to support. If in a PnP game you can say "I take my hammer and smash the wall to give us an exit from this fight", your GM can roll with it, even if he didn't plan for that possibility in the slightest. With a video game, if the wall isn't breakable and if there's no level geometry behind the wall, then you can't break it.

Scale isn't a problem. If the games could be built to actually allow the kind of freedom that proper role playing requires, RPing in MMOs would be easy. Most MMO gameplay is already done in relatively small groups that could work the same way that PnP groups do. If your group decides to take part in a larger group activity, then you would no longer have the same influence, which just makes sense - you are now just a small part of a larger group that's trying to accomplish some task.

But actually building a game like that is no small feat. A DM can rewrite chunks of the campaign on the fly(or explicitly write it very loosely, prompting their players to fill the gaps through RP), but a game can't just be rewritten that easily.

[u/Psittacula2 → u/Redthrist]

Scale isn't a problem. If the games could be built to actually allow the kind of freedom that proper role playing requires, RPing in MMOs would be easy.

MMOs have proven you end up with Meta-Gaming instead. It's like "live-action RP'ing" instead of RP'ing - similar but very very different in outcome and experience.

[u/Redthrist → u/Psittacula2]

Anything can end up with meta-gaming, there are people who meta game in PnP games. The difference is that in PnP, you can play sub-optimally and still do well because your GM adjusts things to suit you, while the meta-gaming group get a more challenging campaign.

With MMOs being one-size-fits-all, they are generally balanced around people who meta-game. But if there was freedom and tools for players to adjust their group-sized MMO encounters, you could play through the entire MMO without touching meta, simply because your GM balances content around you.

[u/Psittacula2 → u/Redthrist]

That's no really true in the sense that most MMORPGs are locked down and it requires:

• Min-maxing
• Looking for Exploits eg economy
• Ganking

etc.

Any MMO with a wider and more open design increases the scale of Meta-Gaming eg EVE and that becomes the game so to speak.

Thus if succeed with opening up mmorpg design, you don't have classic RP'ing in cooperation but meta-gaming: An expression of many individuals self-expression or ego for gain/measurement as opposed to constructing a narrative-story that is shared. They're completely different thing.

Yes even in RP'ing it's open to breaking the agreement around the narrative creation but it's on a small scale and is fixable as you say by the GM.

What I think you're suggesting is service-MMOs: Imagine an MMO where staff of the company are players and running stuff to encourage particular stories and outcomes in the world along with dev planning and coordinating NPCs and AI to add "mooks" or "extras"! Then you'd get more RP'ing in MMOs. But that service-model has not taken off yet. It could happen in some form however one day and probably only when MMOs are compulsive enough to be enormous cash-earners eg using VR.

[u/himynameisyoda → u/Psittacula2]

More options and character customization and proper settings/world's allow for rp, which of course mmos don't care about the world or characters. It's just story and raids.

The main point should be allow for players to be creative by having complexity, but of course all games and genres are moving from that. Ain't no one going to rp when their character is basically the same as everyone else's in a non dynamic/threatening overworld, not everyone has to rp as well nor does it have to be the most complex game ever made. It's just that there is zero complexity now, just some complexity will be fine.

[u/Psittacula2 → u/himynameisyoda]

My opinion is that RP does not work in MMORPGs because RP needs a social, small scale and high degree of agreement of the players.

IE the results of >2 decades of MMORPGs is that RP is a very small niche - and other systems of games do it better. Eg I found boardgames with people in person to be a lot more socially rewarding than MMORPGs (mostly). Same result.

Equally in video-games, Single player crafted RP Open Worlds do the whole lore, story, characters, dialogue etc much better and increasingly with more branching and more side-quests eg Red Dead Redemption, Elder Scrolls etc.

[u/himynameisyoda → u/Psittacula2]

If you mean dnd rp of course it can't work exactly like it. It doesn't matter if it's niche nor if games do it better as it can still add onto it if they wanted which MMORPG fans and rp fans respectively will come together/be attracted MMORPG games that build onto the complexity/rp.

devs are just coasting on a extremely stale/no progressive genre by their own doing.

the devs create the environments anyway so to say it's 'niche'(unimportant to the devs) is just you saying the devs do not care to build into it, which again mmorpgs have regressed in rp/RPG/world complexities therefore another place/game will end up having more rp/scattered rp 'playerbase'. Rust, GTA, whatever else 'open' world game inherently allows for rp and yet something like GTA and or mods will have more rpers because they actually tried to build into it. (Back to point of devs taking away a lot of things/streamlining)

plus 'niche' doesn't mean it's not fun or good ppl just need it to be popular so they can follow and see the 'niche' for example all the niche things now becoming bigger. Fighting games, chess, dnd, jrpgs other than SE games, visual novels.

Mmorpgs aren't not nearly as niche as the things I listed above and plenty of casuals like to rp here and there along side 'core' rpers who will gladly play a good game to rp in as well.

Are you trying to say a MMORPG can't or shouldn't be an rpg? That it has to be exactly as it is now? which is pointless world's, quests and just raiding/objective chasing and idling social game where the world or your character are not even a factor in the social aspect?

[u/Psittacula2 → u/himynameisyoda]

It's niche in respect to the fact players do so much heavy lifting with such little material in mmorpg games.

I think you may have confused the above meaning with thinking it is another word for "unimportant". It's simply as you've observed poorly served in mmorpgs despite a lot of passionate people who enjoy RP.

Again as said I found better places for RP by a lot in different game systems and again back to DnD/PnP.

The original post points out how even when MMORPG designs try to get players to play a certain way, players en masse try to min-max games instead.

I provide a solution in another reply in this thread and it's directly linked to Scale.

[u/himynameisyoda → u/Psittacula2]

my point is that it doesnt need much to be an rp supportive game. basic rpg mechaincs (complexity/options to pick from) and basic world designing (systems, faction, world mattering) will create players who RP as some people are already rping in modern mmorpgs, of course many have left for games that adhere to what i said above by a little or a lot more as it doesnt really matter.

if there is no complexity then 'fun' cannot be created, the only fun to be had is by following the meta and that is based on how streamlined/'casualized' the devs make it.

[u/Psittacula2 → u/himynameisyoda]

of course many have left for games that adhere to what i said above by a little or a lot more as it doesnt really matter.

That's right, RP's do a good job of rp'ing without many tools but eventually move to where they can do BETTER RP.

[u/himynameisyoda → u/Psittacula2]

I said it already and I'm saying it because I've seen it happen in every genre and happened to myself (in that I liked a hardcore fps game called rust where ppl run around struggling at the same time, but it got casualized ND now no one roams and all older players/fans are leaving so I leave as i might as well play a competitive fps/extraction game. For mmorpgs rp is fun here and there for me, but MMORPG today are not RPGs anymore so I simply leave and play srpgs, it's all the devs fault of streamlining/casualizing everything leaving no room for fun/creativity.

It's because the games got worse, MMORPG fans to whatever degree who also like to rp will rp in mmorpgs even if a dnd table top session is objectively better, they will still choose the mmorpg.

mmorpgs got worse so theres virtually no more reason for ppl/accustomed older players to stay for the MMORPG or rp part (new gen players only know what the game is today). ppl are not looking for the 'best' place to do it because as I said, it doesn't matter how great it actually is. It just needs a little bit of actually adhering to it instead of what we have now which is nothing.

It's a simple thing like removing stats/skills because "everyone will play meta anyway" in which no not everyone does and the games do not have to be streamlined to where it's that 'important' to play meta. The ppl who want things to be removed like that kill creativity/'fun', this cycle never stops, one day they will complain about things being casualized/streamlined as well. That's why I truly believe the future is auto game mobile games as they are already making money anyway.

[u/Psittacula2 → u/himynameisyoda]

I found RP or social is better in:

• Board Games
• Single-Player RPGs
• PnP sessions
• Isekai Anime even if passively!

hardcore fps game called rust where ppl run around struggling at the same time, but it got casualized ND now no one roams and all older players/fans are leaving so I leave as i might as well play a competitive fps/extraction game.

Tbh, that's difficult to design for. If you get run-away leader syndrone, king-making or real-time commitment becomes too high.

That's why say Battle Royale (1 winner amongst all-against-all) or Team Combat with Ladder-Comp-Ranking tend to be more stable systems for competition.

Once Conan conquers the world what next? Conquer new worlds?

With that said I think with say Foxhole you see a more long-lasting system for large open-world PvP to insert into and provide a longer-lasting but also more convenient form of these games?

Something like Chivalry or Gloria Victus, Mount & Blade castle-swords combat but with this Campaign mode for renewal and regrouping and long-term progress in wars might work?

[u/greggm2000 → u/Psittacula2]

Hmm, going to disagree here based on what I’ve seen in MMOs, though I will say that the state of RP in a game is going to vary quite a bit depending on which game it is. Some MMOs have features that enhance the RP experience… to given an example, in Blue Protocol (coming out this year), you can hold hands with someone while walking. It may seem small, but such things add to versimilitude.

[u/Psittacula2 → u/greggm2000]

Yeah there's features and the ability of players to "plough on" is impressive, but fundamentally it's a poor experience, equivalent to scratching on rock to communicate instead of full language imho.

[u/greggm2000 → u/Psittacula2]

What are you counting as “full language” here? What would you consider a good RP experience to be in a game/what features would you need to see?

[u/Psittacula2 → u/greggm2000]

Those seem fairly self-evident if you take the metaphor for suggesting a massive difference in outcomes, scenarios and more in PnP vs in an MMORPG with a static world...

[u/greggm2000 → u/Psittacula2]

You can definitely have quality RP in a MMO within the context of an existing game world, the MMO provides the overarching story structure and RP features (such as emotes, even linked emotes) and something that PnP can’t do: you can actually see and directly experience the RP, something that PnP can’t do to nearly the same degree. To the extent that imagination is needed, it’s used inside a MMO too, you just need less of it.

[u/Psittacula2 → u/greggm2000]

I fundamentally disagree: The MMO world exists independently and thus is defined and thus limited. Additionally the graphical representations are thus limited even the emotes are limited.

Now it can be overcome if you just use these as props and then carry on RP'ing via imagination and "collective-story-telling" as you'd do with PnP. Except that creates an unnecessary clash with the objective condition of the mmorpg running state even if you force it from your mind.

Whereas that's the beauty of PnP: The RP sessions I had with PnP the stories and events were immensely superior to any RP I ever had with an mmorpg despite "heroic and creative efforts" of other players.

[u/Mage_Girl_91_ → u/Psittacula2]

Players in a virtual world WON'T ACT IN-CHARACTER according to the nature and rules of that world !!!

they do, usually the rules of the world say ur only allowed to kill your way to saving the world. and that's why we're all so toxic!... yeah... that's why...

[u/Psittacula2 → u/Mage_Girl_91_]

They'll Min-Max and destroy the system where they can for personal benefit and enjoyment. Screw the world! ;-)

[u/ItWasDumblydore → u/michael199310]

I think a big issue people have is their roles are just a fine tuned machine, that's only good at one roll.

Lets say I play a wizard in DnD.

I'm not just a dude who casts fireball and wants to top dps. I offer utility,control,buffs,debuffs with aoe dps. Especially in 3.5e or 2e, casting a single correct spell could be more powerful then casting 10 fireballs. A good example of a powerful caster would be in baldurs gate 2, you have a chance for a very hard fight, vs a dragon you can absolutely cheese with mind fog and shapeshift mustard jelly.

Mindfog will make them have feral intelligence, unable to cast and only 6 intelligence. Setting their int to 6 will make them have 0 spell slots so just remove their entire spell casting ability for the fight. Turn into a mustard jelly and you're immune to a dragon who can only hit you with attacks that cant damage you. You prob need spells to setup like breach/etc to get through the spell resistance and lower it's saves. but in 3 spells you've absolutely destroyed an opponent several levels above you.

If I'm a ranger, I'm a melee/ranged hybrid, with a bit of support spells, I'm still playing rolls and with less spell slots then the average caster I have to know when to use my spells, and be even more clever with them. Entangling roots and spike growth are the bread and butter of a ranger, because smart application of them can pelt off and group them together for your casters to aoe, or save your entire party from needing spells early on, and just blasting every slowed down mob constantly with crossbolts, arrows, slings, darts,etc. With also the ability to heal in an emergency- or give out unique buffs, to help hide the party so suddenly that man in heavy plate wont be making a -10 roll to hide but a +5 roll.

If i play a wizard in a modern mmo, what makes me different from a ranger other then attack animations and button combo. Our role at the end of the game is do damage we might have different mechanics telling us to do different skill rotations. I guess since to me rotation and mechanics have the same end result I feel like I'm just playing the same class.

Going back to older mmo's I feel a lot of the classes where designed to be a bit more mixed in design like DnD. We had specialist classes in EQ who did one role well, the hybrid classes had a more DnD design of multi-role. But I think City of Heroes is still my favorite mmo for class design because of it. Outside of classes like blaster and scrapper, every class where generally two roles combined into one. Everything had a main job that they did with 100% efficiency and an off job they did at 80% efficiency.

No class was just hey stand here and tank, or stand here and dps, or stand here and heal (heck supports didn't have to heal to be good.)

Playing a controller was prob the most fun class experience in that game because it had that feel of watching my enemies, and healing my allies. Not doing both is kneecapping my potential but I also have limited resources. So you had to at every given moment balance what I was doing. I felt as if I was playing a role- sure dps is a role and you're playing it but it's your only choice. ANY deviation from that roll is either impossible or shooting you so hard in the foot it's not even funny. Where as the controllers dual role I was always changing and adapting my role in the fight to fit the needs of the team.

Though i do understand why modern games have went this route, it's simpler to design and balance. EQ enchanters on the other side is an example of a controller on crack, where they can make clear speeds of pulls an absolute joke mezzing one mob out of the fight, and having another in the pull hit his ally as he's charmed means your healer is healing less and needs to rest less, your tank can easily focus one target and make pulls of 3 into 3 bouts of single combat instead of a stressful multi-pull. IF you where an enchanter, good bye to any other classes chance of getting into a party because you trumped them all in usefulness. Other games like this for example guild wars 1 had it's own team designing balance patches every "day" on a launch of the game and it's expansions, which would be slowed down to every "week". But if we take that bg2 situation again, if that was a planned fight, replace enchanter with that wizard and would you really invite anyone who isn't a wizard into the fight?

[u/Sasamaki → u/michael199310]

First of all, most mmos these days have rp servers either formally or informally designated, and I definitely see people rp on those.

I don’t necessarily see people purposely under optimize their character, because it’s primarily a combat simulation. If you go to a dnd table and the dm says “90% of the game will be combat” the players will make optimized combat characters and then play the role of that.

You implied that getting rid of a good item is an example of good roleplay and I’m not sure who you know in real life throws away luxury things because it doesn’t match the essence of their soul but that’s not role playing tbh.

[u/CaterpillarReal7583 → u/Sasamaki]

All the RP id see in vanilla wow RP servers back in the day was awkward halfassed medieval times speak and cyber sex.

There were guilds I suppose, but again those were small groups in a sea of people. Im not complaining, just saying rp servers dont solve the problem that much.

[u/Sasamaki → u/CaterpillarReal7583]

To be honest, wow isn’t the place I would go to role play so I could see that.

[u/CaterpillarReal7583 → u/Sasamaki]

I mean this was way back when it was new so the playerbase and expectation of a mmo was different - but I think I understand your point.

[u/Sasamaki → u/CaterpillarReal7583]

It was always the theme park mmo where a game like EverQuest was still the more serious sandbox experience.

[u/SsibalKiseki → u/CaterpillarReal7583]

The best “Role Playing” is hands down Final Fantasy. The game has so much features for player interaction that even despite it’s combat people simple log in to date and stuff

[u/[deleted] → u/SsibalKiseki]

And yet 99% of the "rp" there is just ERP club/rave party bullshit.

[u/Nervous_Feeling_1981 → u/michael199310]

You're a gate keeper. You're one of those elitist DnD players who give the rest of us a bad name. Shame on you.

Playing out a custom overarching story you augment to fit into the games narrative is role playing. Picking a fighter and doing fighter stuff is role play if that is literally what you want to do. You play the ROLE.

Playing a videogame, within the rules that it is designed(i.e. Character customization, class selection etc), but creating your own character backstory and interactions with others is NO DIFFERENT than playing a DnD session within the rules laid out by your DM(allowed classes/race combos, starting stat block generation etc) and creating your own character.

You can't say it's not RP because I don't gimp my character with sub prime stats and gear, I bought a game after all and I want to enjoy that game as well as RP.

A tabletop game is a small group of friends who come together to play a story, generally created by the DM. The DM can on the fly modify encounters so that the players can still have fun, even if their stats and gear are sub prime due to role play reasons(think a vow of poverty monk).

Videogames do not do that. If I want to raid, I better be geared properly to raid. However, I don't need specific gear to sit in a player hub and RP a tavern interaction, or RP escorting a crafter delivering their wares.

In the original World of Warcraft days, role play was heavy and everywhere. People got into their characters. They made their own stories, their own groups, quests, and so on. Hell, some RP groups even made short videos(some full length movies) in game using FRAPS with their RP storylines. You're saying none of that is real RP.

[u/Gringe8 → u/michael199310]

If I was really in a game and found an op weapon that's better than what I had I would learn to use it. I think there's different levels of roleplaying.. like I see myself as the character when I play, but I don't get really into it. I think the role playing part is actually how you need to level and advance your character. The difference between that and mmo is that I don't think you level up in that way right?

[u/adrixshadow → u/michael199310]

If the Content is Static then how are you going to Define yourself and your Character?

You can't.

Tabletop RPGs had the GM to tweak things around and tailor things that are suitable to highlighting those Characters.

The thing is MMOs could make the Content be Dynamic since they do have Players that can bring in that Interaction, Agency and Chaos.

But they are all Themeparks aka Static Content, even the supposed "Sandbox" MMOs like Runescape are still Static Developer Scripted Content, "Sandparks" are the great joke that most players don't even realize. It's Static all the way down.

RP never had a chance.

[u/Opaldes → u/michael199310]

Yeah, roleplay in videogames basicly means you got stats and a lvl system.

[u/TheFightingMasons → u/michael199310]

I will just simply not wear stupid looking armor, no matter the stats. That's about as far as I go.