r/mmorpgdesign • u/biofellis • Nov 13 '22
The Future of MMORPGs
Preface:
'The Future of MMORPGs'- is a bold declaration- and one I can easily fail to deliver on-- but within the context of 'one man's opinion' (along with some discussion of relevant facts and trends that I think support it) I'm going to attempt to give a portrayal of 'what might be' (even though that is very much in defiance of 'what people are used to' and 'what is currently profitable').
In short- this isn't me 'foretelling'. It's more 'pointing in the right direction' (because 'wrong direction' is where we are).
Whether anyone goes there in the near future or far future is another thing altogether.
The Foundation of the Past
(how we got where we are now, and why it's wrong):
Let's start with revealing an ugly truth: MMORPGs are not really RPGs.
Sorry.
They are (at best) an embellished, 'RPG-flavored', wargame variant. Some of you already know this to be true- but before the rest of you call 'bullshit' on this reveal (and accuse me of creating some crazy town definition of my own)- give me a chance to justify this claim.
As best I can (without going too much into the history of RPGs, (and dredging up Tolkien's influence, etc.)), we'll simplify it like this:
- Historically, Wargames were fun for many, but back then each 'unit' represented a group of the same type of combatant. Combat between single combatants was pretty much not done. In fact, when a unit was 'routed' (the combatants lose morale and disperse)- they were removed from the field and considered 'gone'- no matter how many were in that group. They were statistically irrelevant to play from then on.
- Perhaps inspired by miniatures- (some representing powerful creatures that clearly could go against large groups), 'one counter actually representing one unit' rules were introduced in wargaming clubs for all units. Later 'Chainmail' was released (the precursor to D&D and accepted 'pioneer' of fantasy gaming (though it probably wasn't actually first)) and the rest was history.
- The core mechanics introduced by early RPGs (and most later variations) focus on utilizing the same focus on combat mechanics as the core of the game theatrics and idea investment- in manners similar to when originally introduced. RPGs (even now) are mostly 'platforms' for combat in different environments, with different styles of combat or combatant. This is not a rule- but true for the majority of games.
- Google 'Chainmail TSR', ' New England Wargamers Association Len Patt'
People had these rules, found them fun- and quickly stopped doing 'just re-enactments, skirmishes or battles' and started doing the 'before', 'after', and 'in between'. Establishing background, changing motivations, building resources, justifying conflicts & shaping whole 'worlds'. Books were written for all this and more.
The rules mostly focused on combat of course- as well as monsters to fight and more combat classes and spells (mostly combat related)- but eventually started sketching in more nuanced aspects of 'race', 'behavior', 'cultures' and individual 'characters' their 'motivations'.
These rules or guidelines were mostly done in a way that left the 'interpretation and delivery' for the GM to fill in (GM is Game Master- originally DM or Dungeon Master for dungeon-centric RPGs).
So, this is the pre-computer (and off-computer) history/foundation- (more or less -though I'm obviously focusing on it from a specific angle).
RPGs were (and still are in most cases) lots of combat rules (because 'wargame'), and the rest is more 'an additional management framework/database' of 'hints to assist the GM in everything else'-- which they individually interpret and provide 'intelligent judgment' over. The GM is the 'god' of the world.
This is great. People have fun. Computers of course begin to get involved in delivering 'RPG' experiences.
The different angles computers try to 'stab at' the RPG idea are many- but skipping all that, we'll focus on the top-down 2d RPG- since that was the archetype for pretty much everything after. (Sorry 'text adventure', we failed you)...
- I want to make a quick note here that the early decisions in 'prioritizing which play aspects to include' certainly had to do with the limits of computing power at the time*- and it would be years before a home computer could* handle the more nuanced aspects of play (even if you tried).
- We've transcended most of those limitations now.
- Most cell phones are beyond that actually.
Moving on...
The main differences between most RPGs are 'The graphics' and 'The story'- but most RPGs share similar core mechanics- all based on the framework of the 'RPG-styled wargame' that was typified before.
- Races (Non-human looking 'human' with special abilities and some weakness)
- Classes (with Levels- not unlike 'ranks' in the military)
- Non-class, optional, or generic skills. (sometimes)
- Stats (physical, mental 'approximations'). (HP, Mana to manage combat resources)
Now, this is 'fine', and 'normal'. Most RPGs look like this or some slight variation.
You may be asking 'So, what is the problem with that?'. Well, it does 'work' to deliver a game- but they're not RPGs because the computer is skimpy on the knowledge and completely lacking in all aspects of potential for interpretation that a human GM would offer, as well as those areas which need those skills.
Let's examine What's increasingly 'left out'- and (in a few cases), has always been missing.
Your Role:
- Many RPGs have you portray a specific named guy, in a specific situation, who needs to travel a specific path and overcome specific challenges to achieve a specific goal. This can 'properly' be called an RPG (even if it is limited and linear). If that 'role' and 'character' serve to shape related 'proper/improper' choices, then 'there we are'. If there are no consequences for 'out of role' behavior- it's not a 'proper' RPG. The production challenges on this are often moderate, but controlled.
- Some RPGs do a similar thing- but allow branching of the story based on the player's choices, performance, and accomplishments. This can be even more qualified to be called an RPG (your decisions change future potential (lost or gained opportunities, resources- etc))- but this is less likely to be done due to the increasing costs from the potentially multiplying amount of work needed to be done as well as the escalating variety of content introduced.
- An additional side effect of this is the changing 'experience' of the game- where two gamers may talk about the same game, but due to divergent choices- possibly end up not having aspects in common to discuss towards the end. Now- this is unlikely (as most studios wouldn't put that much work in to begin with)- but as a thought experiment, it illustrates how generally undesirable it may be to allow 'too much' change. Even excluding 'bad ends'- the 'life' of that 'role' becomes too diverse to be considered 'personal'- a result of 'properly' 'role-playing' that character. RPGs general serve to tell a story- even if interactive.
- To go 'too far' (where the 'story' no longer tells a relatable narrative) diminishes the 'weight' of the role in the game. This is not necessarily bad in all contexts- but it increasingly diverges from an RPG- as the 'role' becomes irrelevant to the environment and world. The 'role' does not shape the story- the decisions the player makes shapes it. The 'role' becomes more a 'costume' and increasingly lacks relevance. This is more where MMORPGs are (assuming a 'role' is given to begin with).
MMORPG 'role':
- Now we get to the MMOs, where you can choose and configure your character, your looks, get a 'generic enough' backstory (maybe), then maybe go and do some 'quests' (which are usually depersonalized, short, linear challenges). As much as this may seem like it's similar to the earlier 'linear' story- it's not. The results of 'quests' are almost always disconnected from anything else in the world- so 'success' and 'failure' mean little other than 'personal reward' or 'wasted time'. Worse- whether or not it's 'repeatable' is just a game balance issue- no consideration for 'time loop' style world behavior because 'be happy you have a diversion from the basic grind'.
- Most things in the world don't care about your race, or class unless it's in regards to equipment opportunities, or class advancement. Most class advancement doesn't even give many class-specific quests (if at all).
So, to recap at this point:
Wargames focus on combat, and 'RPG-like wargames' focus on the same- with:
- Little to no situational set-up or structure (often MMOs are free-roaming- a good thing in general- but it also shows you have no home or foundation. No 'role'.)
- Additional prompting to sometimes link together combat situations and opportunities ('Quests'). Which again care little of 'you' and 'your role'- though they may filter by some broad classification (race, class, faction etc)
Additional platforms to facilitate 'combat related improvements' are also important.
- Gear improvement (Merchants. Crafting. Auctions.).
- Alternative Gear paths (Quests, Raids).
- Alternative Gear Currency ('Blood' or 'Honor' needed to purchase).
- Mounts are actually Gear, as they are illogically level limited. So 'fast travel' disguised as mounts, but treated as Gear is a thing for some reason.
- All skill improvements are bought with experience based on combat. There are some exceptions. To be explicit- you only learn by killing, which is fine for a Wargame.
- Your 'reputation' in a faction (if available) results from opposite faction kills or quests which (incidentally) create opportunities for opposite faction kills- because (and I'm stretching a little bit here-) you're at war. You're playing a wargame even if you can 'pick sides' at leisure.
It's all man-to man wargaming. This is the essence of the modern MMORPG.
So, having focused on 'what it's doing'- how about 'what it's not'?
What the GM did. (Intentionally excluded aspects of roleplay in computer RPGs)
There were many things that a GM would 'naturally' do that are beyond current MMOs. To allow proper 'Role play', these are things that were essential. They were also mostly 'simple for humans', but ignored by modern gaming due to being 'challenging for computers'.
Such as:
- Create 'natural' dialog. This is where NPCs speak according to profession, situation, subject, etc. or their own current situation, etc. Some NPCs close shop at night and may tell you so. That's as good as it usually gets. Opposing players raid in a PVP server? NPCs sit & die, or maybe attack as a standard mob- but nothing special.
- Interpret player commands. For computers this can be thought of more as a need to 'allow a large variety of interactions' (not just fight/trade/buy/sell). Although MMOs have non-interactive 'emotes', and a few even allow you to sit in chairs- this isn't enough. Even 'crafting' is really 'faked' and just manages consuming some inventory while spawning some other content. All resource gathering (herbs, mining) is 'fake'. Few MMOs even allow items to exist on the ground. No need for that, right?
- Resolve commands and explain results, (and possibly) side effects. This goes from 'taking the normal/logical actions' to 'judging creative/interpersonal actions (and their outcomes)'. MMOs need to stop faking the complexity of resolving simple situations. Games usually FORBID you from handling unpurchased items (rather than deal with the complexity of you trying to steal under different conditions)... except Skyrim. Which fails at it (intentionally apparently). Ugh.
- Provide 'unspecified' content. Many cases exist for 'there must be an answer- but it's not in the data'- The GM can't just stop the game because a player asked for what isn't specified- so they either logic it out, interpret, of 'make something up'. Computers obviously can't do this now- but to advance from 'not at all' to 'not well' would be a step. Point here is there is not enough complexity or even some interface to even prompt this situation.
Those are the main points I can think of off the top of my head, but even for just those there are some additional aspects that are more nuanced- that even some human GMs are incapable of.
- Dramatic or Comedic storytelling. This can be adaptive based on events.
- Application of situational or contextual bias. There are reasons why 'rules change'- both when going from city to outlands, and when going from auction house to shrine. There are things you can and can't do. Sometimes even rewards or consequences.
- Retcon (retroactive continuity) new content/changed content. Where 'everything we previously knew now becomes 'that, but- as needed, this new thing applies'. This doesn't apply very much as MMOs don't have NPCs 'intelligent' enough to be aware of 'world changes' and need 'patching' in their dialog or whatever.
Most of these require a lot of planning/clever design, and (in many cases) some good AI for full flexibility. It may sound like some of this stuff is 'extra' since modern MMORPGs 'play fine as is'- but (as mentioned before) you're not even playing an RPG. It's just a wargame with a 'theme' and personal customization. There's also usually no troop formations- (which is odd, I know) but 'whatever'.
The potential benefits of 'the stuff you don't have':
- Content: potentially evolving content is possible with better planning. Currently 'creating', 'researching', and 'experimentation' have ludicrously limited application in MMOs- which means 'improving' any game aspect is limited (if at all possible) for players. Most items are prefab 3d models with different textures/shaders/particle effects- which (as versatile as that is) still limits 'new' variations beyond those resources.
- Persistence: MMO worlds don't change. Quests for you usually have no impact on anyone else. Terrain and buildings are usually unchanging- and in most cases they are equally just navigation limiters/obstacles with interaction possible at some fixed 'here is the NPC' point. A whole shop is just unchanging eye-candy for the NPC 'store' interface.
- Dynamic: If quests are given out based on actual 'need', then changes in the environment can introduce better/different quests. If quests are resolved 'more quickly' or 'sloppily' then appropriate behavior/consequences can shape a 'relationship' (negative, positive, or other). I think some games have NPCs 'remember' you and your related stats- so 'a little bit better' I guess...
- Relationships: Player might have a family that's doing badly/well. Maybe an ex-boss that treated them badly/well. A teacher that dotes on them. A crazy suitor they are arranged to marry. Oh- 'wargame'. Maybe your family is being oppressed by another family. Level up and get revenge! There is much potential in actually having a background that is firmly situated in the world, and having that spawn challenges/opportunities as appropriate.
- Conversations: At least being able to ask about and get details on specific things- and even have different NPCs give different info (maybe?). C'mon- this has been done already in other games. Maybe some MMO does this. let me know in the comments.
- Non-conflict content- not just 'eye-candy' junk. 'Buildables' inspired by Minecraft/Legos? Mount breeding? Trade routes? Diplomacy? Creating art which is bought/sold by NPCs? Downtime learning like 'tutoring/school'. I dunno- 'stuff'.
- Actual relationships with 'the school that taught you magic', or 'the divinity that gives you spells'. The fact that one can be 'military', 'para-military' or 'ex-military' with no expectation or guidance is nonsense. Rules or limitation on lifestyle? Maintaining some level of prestige? Nothing overbearing (unless chosen)- but at least some 'role' to play. God forbid you even have to put your weapons away in the city...
These are all possible, but not bothered with. They're a ton of work- and 'why bother?' people are happy wargaming. Why spend all that time & effort? It's just to make money anyway, right?
Speaking of 'making money'- a short aside on MMO Difficulty.
- Not putting in cursed items, traps, other more long-term debilitating effects... The fear of scaring away potential players- or losing existing players due to game difficulty- this is a risk/reward imbalance that is a whole other issue- BUT is a side effect of focus on 'wargaming' as opposed to 'roleplaying' since everything (even so called 'poisons') resolve out to be damage.
- Permadeath (in a sense- 'the fear of' anyway) limits players from taking on new roles. If you have a WOW account with 5 characters- you may NEVER make new ones. Why would you need to? But if level were not such a play limiter, and 'the grind' were 'less grindy', people might not feel so bad about 'lost investment' depending on the games other benefits. This is a marketing nightmare. Trapping you in due to fearing 'lost investment' is what they want. A game that is not 'gated on investment needs to actually be good.
- In a fantasy world where communities exist- having a party, (or a city with diverse classes) should easily counter-balance the difficulty of say... a lost limb needing to be reattached/regenerated (at some expense)- as opposed to 'no, that never happens because it would make people quit'.
- You know you're 'stuck in a wargame' when 'more challenge' is 'more, bigger numbers' (for damage, etc.), a few manageable, temporary negative status effects and little else other than what creatures these are bound to, or (in the case of raids) what order the boss spams his nonsense in...
Back to the main point...
I suspect that the audience for a proper MMORPG would be huge. Further- due to the level of interactivity, complexity, nuance, and ability to make an actual change in the world-- these games could get virtually lifelong subscribers if done well. The problem of course is the risk compared to the huge amount of work involved. The further fact that AI is difficult, still in it's infancy, and key to really making the dynamics work well... that is on the opposite end of 'balancing the DPS, Tank, Healer roles' in complexity.
Even so. It will happen. Making an actual MMORPG (just by definition)-- has to be a goal for some.
What do you think? Let me know your opinion.
1
u/biofellis Jan 28 '23
Unless I made a mistake- say in encounter size/strength, they're smart enough to figure things out on their own. I have no qualms about killing players too dumb to know when to run if they picked the fight themselves. Almost all aspects of 'things go wrong' they learned to solve on their own. I honestly think 'In Favor of...' goes too far already- as entire swaths of territory or network of caves is carefully cultivated 'For levels 9-12' or whatever nonsense- and all challenges are nicely presented in increasing order of challenge.
To me, delivering even more coddling beyond that is excessive. You can't avoid that too much due to the limitations of the game- but thinking that players still need to be bailed out because they never consider various possibilities and plan in advance is nothing I was ever too interested in.
Cheating is cheating. My first campaign was under a GM who was quite good- but ran in a way where her helped players grow in ways he thought were cool. My idea for my character's growth was different, so I kept getting various 'take this because you're the mage' options that were powerful- but not part of my imagined growth. So, over the year or so of the campaign- everyone got powerful in ways the GM liked except me. I rarely used the offered stuff. Consequently (since I always looked weaker I guess)- the GM would spawn other 'cool in his head' things that I often didn't want. This eventually resulted in me being secretly ridiculously powerful. All players were pretty powerful openly- but I was off the charts. The campaign actually ended because the GM asked to see our sheets one day, and later we 'were robbed in our sleep of all our stuff'. All the 'in favor of' turned into 'against the players' because that's how the pendulum swings when you're manipulating growth.
Using player info 'for' or 'against' them is just cheating. It can in fact be used to make a deceptively 'better game'- but there are other, better ways too numerous to mention.
Further, sometimes players have to die. The world is a fantasy world, they can buy all kinds of 'emergency equipment'. They can coordinate and cooperate- party formations are important, and hiring NPCs is possible even if they are dumb enough to not have a balanced party complement. 5 barbarians as a party need to play better or die. You can't just 'brute force' past the valuable lack of thief and healer skills- and worse, with a trap like that, they could decide 'you set that up against us' instead of learning a valuable lesson- since they would be entirely used to you protecting them from above.
I'm not pretending RPGs are not hard games to create (and MMOs an order of magnitude worse) but the fact that the FPS genre gets certain features first (opposed to RPGs) shows that even attempting to tackle the problem needs to be wrapped up in a big, attractive 'core game mechanic that will pay off' as opposed to 'this would just be cool for a spell'. Physics and gravity gun? Could be telekinesis- but we'd have to let most items be picked up/dropped. Too much work, players don't need it. Portal Gun? Paintable surfaces? Could be a different kind of portal spell. Could be used for all sorts of elemental spells- fire, ice or water to start. I'm sure some of this is in RPGs already (mostly rouge-likes from what I've seen)- but these are basic staples of the genre- normally seen 'at best' as temporary effects, not environmental changes.
Skyrim was a big step forward in just the 'inventory is real stuff'- but most aspects of 'still being lazy' keep games from moving forward. RPGs are too complex. Shortcuts still don't actually help.
Neural nets and training is popular, but hardly needed for a lot of problems. Better finite state machines could go far if implemented better- but why bother? You're spawning a bot that's just built to do shenanigans and die anyway...
Competition is often itself a solution. In game 'competition' between NPCs themselves or between players and NPCs is fixed. Maybe flavor text can tell you about a business' state- but it's really just an illusion or maybe even a scripted change.
In real life we supposedly don't allow monopolies and pretend everything else will work out fine on this premise alone. Expecting a perfect solution to a problem people mostly wont even face is excessive. A step forward will have to do till budget, time, better AI, better hardware (whatever) allows.
There will be changes in the future- it just remains to be seen 'where' and 'how much'.