Things from an MMORPG useful for TTRPGs?

[Lago PARANOIA]

'MMORPG-like' is frequently used as a pejorative, especially when discussing tabletop RPGs. While I think that the criticism term is for the most part valid (both from a perspective of game design and from the ongoing problems MMORPGs have), a tiny part of it seems to be sour grapes from grognards.

Like it or not, MMORPGs are popular and there are a lot of lessons to be learned from them. I'm just not sure which ones. But if I had to make a guess...

One cool thing about MMORPGs is the constant focus on action. The game (ideally) shouldn't allow you to become bored, because they are not only constantly giving your character things to do but also because goals can be accomplished in a timely manner. If I have a goal of 'get to level 6 with my archer' on a tabletop game, it could take months to accomplish that goal even if the games go smoothly.[/list]

[CatharzGodfoot]

MMORPGs and RPGs have been having an incestuous relationship since MMOs first appeared. There's a lot of good material in each that can be used in the other, although certain points are very different. CRPGs can deal with much more mathematical complexity, simultaneous action, and much more exact speeds and positioning. MMOs often encouraging 'grinding' (which never has a place in pen & paper games).

Unfortunately, I haven't played a true MMO ever, so my my opinion is pretty much worthless ('like that's a change, har har'). On the other hand, CRPGs have a lot of stealable features. Like the Witcher's toxin bar, which uses too exact of math to implement directly in a P&P game.

[ggroy]

[RandomCasualty2]

Inflation of numerical scores of all types, whether levels, points, magic, etc ... with everything going up a lot faster for the impatient. I suppose MMORPGs are becoming more and more the "drug" of choice for impatient video gamers.

I always found that kind of funny. Because "focus on action" seems to be the exact opposite feel I get from MMORPGs. They're grinding games where you sit around bashing stuff endlessly for no real purpose, with only a vague sense that you're gaining anything.

I mean about all I think table tops could learn is the emphasis on class balance that MMOs seem to have. The idea that they want all the classes to be valid choices is a good concept. After that, there's really not much.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Well, instead of action I should really say progress.

For example, in a tabletop game you will pretty much advance according to a schedule and you really can't speed it up. On an MMORPG, you can gain goodies by playing more often.

[RandomCasualty2]

Well, instead of action I should really say progress.

For example, in a tabletop game you will pretty much advance according to a schedule and you really can't speed it up. On an MMORPG, you can gain goodies by playing more often.

Well that's more just a virtue that it's a solo game instead of a group game. I mean you can gain more in table top by playing more often, it just requires that you get your group to play more often.

[Josh_Kablack]

Most of the "best" parts of an MMOPRG really are not applicable to tabletop.

I love the ability to play on my own schedule and mood, I love being to interact with players from all over the world, and having automated resolution systems that make the the game math so fast that encounters between dozens of participants happen in real time speed even when using complex to hit and damage functions is drool-inducing. But none of those is ever going to happen in a tabletop game.

As a GM, I also envy how a class gets "rebalanced" players do not take it personally - they may be unhappy, but they don't see at as an attack on their place in the group.

As a player, I really enjoy the freedom to explore the unintended consequences of the game rules without being dismissed as "silly" or disruptive to the group. This sort of thing doesn't happen when you start Balor-Mining in 3e or cycling infinite actions in 4e.

[Murtak]

I'll have to second that one. The main thing about MMORPGs is that there is always someone online to play with. They have no other advantage regular CRPGs don't have. Now, CRPGs do have quite a few advantages over tabletop gaming:
- They can support arbitrarily complex mathematical models.
- They can deal with huge numbers effortlessly.
- There is no discussion over how rules work.
- You do not have to find a DM (and the DM does not have to design the world or campaign).
- You can retroactively patch anything in the game. Even tiny changes are not burdensome.

Unfortunately none of that is applicable to pen & paper games. I really cant think of anything specific to computer games which should or even can be adopted to pen & paper. I can think of some good design decisions made by specific games which should be emulated though.

[Draco_Argentum]

As a GM, I also envy how a class gets "rebalanced" players do not take it personally - they may be unhappy, but they don't see at as an attack on their place in the group.

You've never raided. A nerf patch is an attack on your place in the team.

I'd have to say theres no design choice in an MMO that would be good to add to TT that isn't already there. There might be a benefit to a computer program that resolves actions, moving the maths onto a computer would speed up things and let complex mechanics work. Even then complex mechanics just make it hard for players to know whats going on, MMOs generally fall down by having vastly too complex mechanics.

[RandomCasualty2]

I'd have to say theres no design choice in an MMO that would be good to add to TT that isn't already there. There might be a benefit to a computer program that resolves actions, moving the maths onto a computer would speed up things and let complex mechanics work. Even then complex mechanics just make it hard for players to know whats going on, MMOs generally fall down by having vastly too complex mechanics.

Yeah one thing I always hated about MMOs is how you never really knew how the rules worked, so it was always difficult and frustrating to try to create an effective character. More often than not, they did that to cover up bad imbalanced mechanics.

[Murtak]

Yeah one thing I always hated about MMOs is how you never really knew how the rules worked, so it was always difficult and frustrating to try to create an effective character. More often than not, they did that to cover up bad imbalanced mechanics.

Everquest is amazingly bad at that. From what I hear WoW and Guild Wars for example are much more open as to how the game works.

[Ravengm]

Yeah one thing I always hated about MMOs is how you never really knew how the rules worked, so it was always difficult and frustrating to try to create an effective character. More often than not, they did that to cover up bad imbalanced mechanics.

Everquest is amazingly bad at that. From what I hear WoW and Guild Wars for example are much more open as to how the game works.

I can speak for Guild Wars, at least: most of the math is on the Wikipedia site that's maintained by the developer. The exact formulas are approximated, but it's still a pretty darn good way to go about. Attacks per second, what Armor Level means, etc. is pretty exact though. It lets you take advantage of every last attribute point.

[Koumei]

The general role idea could be used in RPGs to some decent effect. I'm not talking about the laughable effort they made with 4E, but consider Generic MMORPG 2: attack of the antagonists.

You have DPS Dude, Tank, Healerificus and Mezzo the Mad (support in general, not specifically the Take Out Of Action kind).

If you only have DPS Dudes, then they deliver a kojillion damage quickly, then get wiped out when they get overwhelmed and just can't manage to one-shot the enemies enough.

If you only have Tanks, then combat takes for frigging ever as no-one deals much damage to anyone.

Healers only? Sort of like Tanks only, except there's a chance for them to get overwhelmed and die early on.

Mezzo-only team? Kind of like Tanks-only as well, really. They put penalties on the enemies, and then the fight is just everyone pinging each other. Alternatively, they buff themselves/penalise enemy defences and they're a DPS-only party. Or whatever.

DPS+Tank is a big move. You have offence and defence, but eventually you need to go home and rest.

DPS+Heal works similarly, but it a little more dangerous. That being said, any time you survive one fight, you can reach the next fight at full power.

DPS+Mezzo means either enemies get smacked around for even more damage, or while stunned or otherwise useless. But damage will add up over time.

Tank+Heal is a very, very long battle indeed.

Tank+Mezzo is also extremely frigging long.

Mezzo+Heal works similar to the above.

And so on. The various combinations get better and better, until you have one guy who gets hit the most (and can afford to), one guy who penalises enemies, buffs allies or outright stuns foes for a bit, one guy who heals his mates and one guy who deals a lot of damage to enemies.

And that is the ideal blend.

This is probably something to aspire to, however you want to divide the roles, as opposed to "One melee-only team" or "One ranged-only team") or "Why not four Clerics?"

[Heath Robinson]

I'm not sure we should have role combos that have the downside of taking a long time to win. Gradual, inevitable victory makes sense in the real world but in a game things need to be over fast, generally in the players' favour. We also shouldn't have roles that are "I make people hit me" because that sucks as a contribution, and it means that other people don't get to taunt the minotaur into trying to hit the nimble Ranger.


I propose we switch to using Mecha terms because D&D characters are more like Mecha than most people are willing to admit. There are 3 kinds of Mecha: Super Robots, Real Robots, and Ships. Supers get hit and absorb or bounce attacks (high HP/DR), Reals try not to get hit but get raped if they do get hit (high AC/Saves). Ships aren't good at taking damage or avoiding attacks but they're generally better attack platforms.

The point is that they all have similar attack power for the same level. Reals tend to do less damage and are more accurate (or rapid-fire for the same basic effect). Supers are inaccurate but hit for massive damage (or have a higher chance of critting, for the same basic effect). Ships are both accurate and hit for massive damage (but reciprocal attacks will tank them pretty quickly, thus they're limited in the number of times they can safely attack). However, Supers and Reals could have access to their mirror style of attacks (or maybe not if you want to encourage more party mixups).

All types have access to attacks in all range bands if they pick the right things, and can hit areas easily. Even "melee" Super Robots can hit things at range and in areas. One of the iconic Supers is GaoGaiGar, and in Super Robot Wars its Goldion Hammer hits a square or two away and attacks 3-4 Squares of enemies all at once.

They all have access to shiny special effects, whether this is because they throw out attack deflecting particulates, shoot off limbs, or hit the enemy so hard that they're concussed is entirely up to theme. Similarly, they all can have passive abilities of the same kind - whether they coast like debris, have a reactor that shunts out radiowave-absorbing particles, or they have a somebody-else's-problem field generator is also up to theme.


In D&D 3.5E you can see these roles in play, but they're not truly there yet. Rogues or Rangers should act like Real Robots. Barbarians should definitely be Super Robots. Mages are Ships. Fighters should ideally be able to be a slightly less extreme version of any of these depending on equipment/ability selection (or mix'n'match the different types).

You do have a secondary axis of "I do more special stuff" and "I do more damage", but that should probably be more equipment or ability selection based than roles.

[ggroy]

[Fuchs]

I'd not define "fight the same monsters with different skins and different names for your spells/specials" as progress. Also I would not even think of citing MMOGs as a good exmaple for the acceptance of rules changes without complaints. Quite the contrary, in fact.

[Thymos]

If we want to grab good things from MMO's then a good place to look is probably at the improvements MMO's have made over the years.

So MMO's have gone from one bad click and you need to make a new character to Guild Wars change everything except a little bit for almost nothing. I mean in GuildWars you can change everything except your main profession for no cost.

Make it easy to sell/buy gear. MMO's have come a long way with the inclusion of auction houses to make it easy to get the gear you want.

Teleportation between cities isn't a problem, but allowing players to have that from anywhere to anywhere at any time is a problem as we've seen from scry and die.

A lot of this is already somewhat included in TTRPG's.

I think, maybe from professions in MMO's, it might be a good idea to encourage players to make their own gear. Good rules that make it economically efficient to make your own gear or have your buddies make the gear would probably be a good thing to include. Typically in DnD making your own gear seems to be a pain in the ass. Fixing this would be a good idea.

[Username17]

If we want to grab good things from MMO's then a good place to look is probably at the improvements MMO's have made over the years.

Well, yes. CRPGs are similar to TTRPGs in may ways, and it is important to note that innovations in CRPGs and disasters in CRPG design do inform TTRPG design. But it's also important to note that MMOs have a really different set of priorities than real RPGs, and that many of the things tht make them succeed or fail will have an orthogonal or opposite effect in other mediums.

An MMO has to be "real time" because you can't wait for ten million other people to take a turn. A table top game has to be turn based because by definition not one more word of the story is written until the next player says the next word. An MMO wants to require minimal attention and input because internet connections lose information both ways and no one wants lag beasts to eat them. A table top game wants to demand a great deal of attention and input because that's the entire point.

But yeah, Warp Points aid MMOs and they can work in table top too. And again, without causing the damage that Scry and Die do.

Make it easy to sell/buy gear. MMO's have come a long way with the inclusion of auction houses to make it easy to get the gear you want.

I hasten to point out that MMOs also have gear that is specifically untradeable. Magic pants you literally cannot give away for love or money. Not that people wouldn't trade them, but that they are literally only available to people who complete certain quests (often repeatedly in the case of "rare drops").

But that underscores the basic answers to the gold economy. Equipment needs to be either "available" or "not available" in exchange for whatever the unit o exchange is (be it credits or stones o jordan). But that really, while there are infinite workable economic answers, there should be an economy that people can understand and interact with. The important part is interacting with it.

-Username17

[Koumei]

Heath: I was being tl;dr but basically just meant "It rewards you for having different roles covered in the group" is a good thing. Not even those roles specifically, your mecha one works a lot better than my Generic MMORPG one.

But the idea is there. Variety in the party where everyone contributes something different (while still contributing the same amount, and still able to do *something* useful if they're caught on their own), is a good thing.

[Draco_Argentum]

From what I hear WoW and Guild Wars for example are much more open as to how the game works.

WoW is ass at it, people who don't research their class on the web are crap. This is actually something MMOs and TT games both need to improve. A big part of the problem is that you routinely get to choose how you want to increase DPS, for example. The problem being that the vast majority of choices are crap compared to the best one.

Easy solution, get rid of all the numeric bonuses to stuff. Its boring anyway and just makes a choice between attack power, attack accuracy, attack speed, crit chance, armour piercing and sometimes more stuff a multivariate optimisation problem. Next, if you want to people casting a fireball of the same power level make them cast the same spell. The game doesn't benefit from having 'stealthily worse fireball' available.

[mean_liar]

One houserule I use in my 3.5 games is that characters, being badasses, awaken the spirits within the items they use. Every character has their Wealth By Level guideline amount in magic items. If they level up, they awaken more spirits in the gear and poof. More magic items.

Artifacts and consumable items are the exception, in that they can be bought or sold, but otherwise the magic can't be bought or sold.

[RandomCasualty2]

WoW is ass at it, people who don't research their class on the web are crap. This is actually something MMOs and TT games both need to improve. A big part of the problem is that you routinely get to choose how you want to increase DPS, for example. The problem being that the vast majority of choices are crap compared to the best one.

Easy solution, get rid of all the numeric bonuses to stuff. Its boring anyway and just makes a choice between attack power, attack accuracy, attack speed, crit chance, armour piercing and sometimes more stuff a multivariate optimisation problem. Next, if you want to people casting a fireball of the same power level make them cast the same spell. The game doesn't benefit from having 'stealthily worse fireball' available.

Yeah, the main problem is that I think they want to make you think there's an illusion of choice, when really the game is too simple to even support many choices.

[Mask_De_H]

I'm not sure we should have role combos that have the downside of taking a long time to win. Gradual, inevitable victory makes sense in the real world but in a game things need to be over fast, generally in the players' favour. We also shouldn't have roles that are "I make people hit me" because that sucks as a contribution, and it means that other people don't get to taunt the minotaur into trying to hit the nimble Ranger.


I propose we switch to using Mecha terms because D&D characters are more like Mecha than most people are willing to admit. There are 3 kinds of Mecha: Super Robots, Real Robots, and Ships. Supers get hit and absorb or bounce attacks (high HP/DR), Reals try not to get hit but get raped if they do get hit (high AC/Saves). Ships aren't good at taking damage or avoiding attacks but they're generally better attack platforms.

The point is that they all have similar attack power for the same level. Reals tend to do less damage and are more accurate (or rapid-fire for the same basic effect). Supers are inaccurate but hit for massive damage (or have a higher chance of critting, for the same basic effect). Ships are both accurate and hit for massive damage (but reciprocal attacks will tank them pretty quickly, thus they're limited in the number of times they can safely attack). However, Supers and Reals could have access to their mirror style of attacks (or maybe not if you want to encourage more party mixups).

All types have access to attacks in all range bands if they pick the right things, and can hit areas easily. Even "melee" Super Robots can hit things at range and in areas. One of the iconic Supers is GaoGaiGar, and in Super Robot Wars its Goldion Hammer hits a square or two away and attacks 3-4 Squares of enemies all at once.

They all have access to shiny special effects, whether this is because they throw out attack deflecting particulates, shoot off limbs, or hit the enemy so hard that they're concussed is entirely up to theme. Similarly, they all can have passive abilities of the same kind - whether they coast like debris, have a reactor that shunts out radiowave-absorbing particles, or they have a somebody-else's-problem field generator is also up to theme.


In D&D 3.5E you can see these roles in play, but they're not truly there yet. Rogues or Rangers should act like Real Robots. Barbarians should definitely be Super Robots. Mages are Ships. Fighters should ideally be able to be a slightly less extreme version of any of these depending on equipment/ability selection (or mix'n'match the different types).

You do have a secondary axis of "I do more special stuff" and "I do more damage", but that should probably be more equipment or ability selection based than roles.

As a person who loves the SRW series, this makes perfect sense. Fighters and (workable) gish types would probably fit into the Hybrid category, like the EVA units.

[Thymos]

Oh, I usually rant when I hear people want to move TTRPG's to the computer and vice versa. They have different strengths that need to be taken advantage of.

I mostly meant that if we want to look for things to grab from MMO's, then we should first take a look at what MMO's do well now. Improvements is an easy place to find things that MMO's do well. After we find something that MMO's do well, then it's time to look at whether or not it will port to the table top.